No, I think we agree on the meaning of "inevitable," but only one of us is applying it rigorously. Recall that we're talking about your correction of my statement #4, "All action in accordance with the nature of things is right." You assert the counterclaim that all action in accordance with the nature of things is "inevitable." But then you go on to cite actions taken to counteract natural extinction.Papus79 wrote: ↑September 9th, 2020, 1:56 pmWe might have different things in mind with the word 'inevitable'. To me it's something that's going to happen no matter what, sometimes that's the pruning of a species and sometimes that the extinction of a species.Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 9th, 2020, 1:09 pm So it's not "inevitable." It requires certain actions in order to be realized.
A Moral Universe
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: A Moral Universe
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: A Moral Universe
Please translate this oracle into clear and simple English for me. I don't understand what you're saying, or rather trying to say, here. Thank you.Papus79 wrote: ↑September 8th, 2020, 10:50 pmWhat living organisms would we have painting outside the lines of nature and into what are they painting?...Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 8th, 2020, 6:28 am5. All action in discordance with the nature of things is wrong.
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: A Moral Universe
From physical determinism. And it's less a matter of freedom from and more a matter of freedom to -- namely, freedom to choose to act morally or immorally.Papus79 wrote: ↑September 8th, 2020, 10:50 pmFreedom from what?Angel Trismegistus wrote: ↑September 8th, 2020, 6:28 am13. The nature of man is by reason and by freedom set off from the nature of things.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A Moral Universe
That's the point of one particular conception of morality, isn't it. Others are available.Marvin_Edwards wrote:5. The point of morality is to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone (within one's own species). That is the nature of morality.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: A Moral Universe
-
- Posts: 429
- Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am
Re: A Moral Universe
Yes I have had this discussion with AT elsewhere. It is a curious definition and one I deem counter-intuitive.
2. The good is that to which all things by nature tend.
Covid 19 tends to make many people ill and kill people in their thousands. I don’t see that as good.
4. All action in accordance with the nature of things is right.
Nearly all life is parasitical and exploits other life to survive. Life forms, in the struggle for survival, are essentially self-serving. What is so “right” about a description of self-serving, exploitative behaviour? And if humans are this way, choose to be this way, why is this not also right?
15. The action of man in discordance with the nature of things is wrong.
If Man chooses to go against the nature of things, not be self-serving and exploitative, seeks to conserve or protect other life forms for their own sake, is this then, wrong?
It is an odd thesis that all animals act in accordance with their nature apart from Man. If you want to know what humanity is like, then look at what humans do. I would suggest that what humans do is part of human nature. This does not seem to me to make whatever they do good and right, any more than what a virus does. What we deem good and right must surely depend on human needs and values, and these develop in the face of a largely uncaring universe, - indeed our values seem to set their face against such a universe and strive to make us something more than indifferent.
AT you seem to believe that you understand “the nature of things”. The difficulty for me is that this understanding seems to bear no resemblance to reality. (I will not use the f word out of respect for your feelings AT but that is how I view it). No moral universe for me. But humans striving (and often failing) to work out and do the “right” thing? That sounds more like it.
-
- Posts: 429
- Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am
Re: A Moral Universe
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑September 9th, 2020, 3:09 pm Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 8:09 pm
5. The point of morality is to achieve the best good and the least harm for everyone (within one's own species). That is the nature of morality.
I think this is the way you have defined things Marvin, but, like Steve, I am not sure that is not somewhat arbitrary. Others would define things differently. Singer, for one, would accuse you of speciesism
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: A Moral Universe
Do you happen to know if theologians have a name for that sort of God? Or is that sort of God a poetic way to express what Humanists aim for ?No moral universe for me. But humans striving (and often failing) to work out and do the “right” thing? That sounds more like it.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A Moral Universe
Yes, but it is a common thesis isn't it - that Man is fundamentally distinct from other living things in various ways. It leads to the view that only the actions of Man can be judged right or wrong and that to do so about the actions of any other animal would make as little sense as to do so about a natural event like an earthquake.Wossname wrote:It is an odd thesis that all animals act in accordance with their nature apart from Man.
I think it's an understandable division/classification to make, as long as we keep in mind that it is just that: a classification and therefore an abstraction created by us for our own convenience in reductively attempting to understand the world. Different divisions are appropriate to different purposes.
If we make the mistake of seeing that hard division as existing objectively, rather than being a purpose-driven imposition, then we hit various absurdities. One of those absurdities occurs if we consider the evolution of Man from our common ancestor with other great apes. If we regard chimpanzees (for example) as objectively distinct from homo sapiens in this way then we have to conclude that at some point in the past a non-human mother, who could only act according to her nature and whose actions it would be incorrect to judge right or wrong, suddenly gave birth to a human offspring, who's actions (at least when mature) could be judged right or wrong.
We love to impose hard, discontinuous boundaries on the continua of Nature. Nothing wrong with that (in my view) as long as we're fully aware of what we're doing.
- Angel Trismegistus
- Posts: 568
- Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: New York City
Re: A Moral Universe
One: The error involved in the widespread belief in the subjectivity of morality has been shown here:Jklint wrote: ↑September 10th, 2020, 5:58 am As a going concern, the universe is not encumbered by anything we denote or rationalize as morality of which there are many versions among humans countering each other. The universe, devoid of all such subjectivities, operates as a single solitary process as impersonal as a hydrogen bomb.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16836
Two: The universe may well be impersonal and indifferent to the fate of man -- this makes for a great literary theme at any rate -- but even so the argument for a moral universe stands.
Three: A hydrogen bomb is in fact a very personal thing indeed. Think about it.
That's one, two, three.
-
- Posts: 429
- Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am
Re: A Moral Universe
Belindi wrote: ↑September 10th, 2020, 6:25 am Belindi » 17 minutes ago
Wossname wrote:
No moral universe for me. But humans striving (and often failing) to work out and do the “right” thing? That sounds more like it.
Do you happen to know if theologians have a name for that sort of God? Or is that sort of God a poetic way to express what Humanists aim for ?
I cannot speak for theologians Belindi. And there seem to be almost as many different views on God as there are people to hold them. Humanists do not, I think, have much use for the concept.
-
- Posts: 429
- Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am
Re: A Moral Universe
Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 10th, 2020, 6:31 am Steve3007 » 22 minutes ago
Wossname wrote:
It is an odd thesis that all animals act in accordance with their nature apart from Man.
Yes, but it is a common thesis isn't it - that Man is fundamentally distinct from other living things in various ways. It leads to the view that only the actions of Man can be judged right or wrong and that to do so about the actions of any other animal would make as little sense as to do so about a natural event like an earthquake.
I think it's an understandable division/classification to make, as long as we keep in mind that it is just that: a classification and therefore an abstraction created by us for our own convenience in reductively attempting to understand the world. Different divisions are appropriate to different purposes.
If we make the mistake of seeing that hard division as existing objectively, rather than being a purpose-driven imposition, then we hit various absurdities. One of those absurdities occurs if we consider the evolution of Man from our common ancestor with other great apes. If we regard chimpanzees (for example) as objectively distinct from homo sapiens in this way then we have to conclude that at some point in the past a non-human mother, who could only act according to her nature and whose actions it would be incorrect to judge right or wrong, suddenly gave birth to a human offspring, who's actions (at least when mature) could be judged right or wrong.
We love to impose hard, discontinuous boundaries on the continua of Nature. Nothing wrong with that (in my view) as long as we're fully aware of what we're doing.
You raise an interesting point and it may link to questions about how consciousness evolves. I link morality to the ability to make choices. We ask whether a choice was morally right or wrong. I am not sure how moral judgements apply when no choice was possible. How and when and to what degree choosing became possible is an interesting question. I do not have the answer to it. I would not accuse a virus of acting immorally. I would a human (perhaps). Do you see any animal other than humans as morally accountable for behaviour?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A Moral Universe
No, I don't personally tend to think that of any other extant species, because I tend to find it useful to use the distinction between humans and other animals that we've been discussing. But I recognize that distinction as purpose-driven and I'm open to being persuaded that it's useful to think otherwise by people who are more familiar with the behaviours of, for example, other extant species of great apes.Wossname wrote:...Do you see any animal other than humans as morally accountable for behaviour?
I also note that until very recently (on evolutionary timescales) there appear to have been several other species of hominids who were much more closely related to us than our currently existing closest relatives (chimpanzees) are. If those species were still alive then the hard division would be more difficult to maintain. Would we regard, for example, Homo Erectus individuals as morally accountable for their behaviour?
As we know from hearing the news just today, those extant relatives will soon be extinct too and our closest relatives will probably be those that we find it useful to keep alive, like pigs and cows.
-
- Posts: 429
- Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am
Re: A Moral Universe
Steve3007 wrote: ↑September 10th, 2020, 7:12 am y Steve3007 » 5 minutes ago
Wossname wrote:
...Do you see any animal other than humans as morally accountable for behaviour?
No, I don't personally tend to think that of any other extant species, because I tend to find it useful to use the distinction between humans and other animals that we've been discussing. But I recognize that distinction as purpose-driven and I'm open to being persuaded that it's useful to think otherwise by people who are more familiar with the behaviours of, for example, other extant species of great apes.
I also note that until very recently (on evolutionary timescales) there appear to have been several other species of hominids who were much more closely related to us than our currently existing closest relatives (chimpanzees) are. If those species were still alive then the hard division would be more difficult to maintain. Would we regard, for example, Homo Erectus individuals as morally accountable for their behaviour?
As we know from hearing the news just today, those extant relatives will soon be extinct too and our closest relatives will probably be those that we find it useful to keep alive, like pigs and cows.
Yes this seems right to me, both your conjecture about the morality of other species and the gloomy outlook concerning the future of many species. Our future looks somewhat gloomy too I fear.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: A Moral Universe
Actually I think it may be an existentialist's view of God, but am not sure.Wossname wrote: ↑September 10th, 2020, 6:47 amBelindi wrote: ↑September 10th, 2020, 6:25 am Belindi » 17 minutes ago
Wossname wrote:
No moral universe for me. But humans striving (and often failing) to work out and do the “right” thing? That sounds more like it.
Do you happen to know if theologians have a name for that sort of God? Or is that sort of God a poetic way to express what Humanists aim for ?
I cannot speak for theologians Belindi. And there seem to be almost as many different views on God as there are people to hold them. Humanists do not, I think, have much use for the concept.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023