A Moral Universe

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Angel Trismegistus
Posts: 568
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: New York City

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Angel Trismegistus »

Papus79 wrote: September 9th, 2020, 1:56 pm
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 9th, 2020, 1:09 pm So it's not "inevitable." It requires certain actions in order to be realized.
We 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.
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.
Image
User avatar
Angel Trismegistus
Posts: 568
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: New York City

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Angel Trismegistus »

Papus79 wrote: September 8th, 2020, 10:50 pm
Angel Trismegistus wrote: September 8th, 2020, 6:28 am5. All action in discordance with the nature of things is wrong.
What living organisms would we have painting outside the lines of nature and into what are they painting?...
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.
Image
User avatar
Angel Trismegistus
Posts: 568
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: New York City

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Angel Trismegistus »

Papus79 wrote: September 8th, 2020, 10:50 pm
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.
Freedom from what?
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.
Image
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
That's the point of one particular conception of morality, isn't it. Others are available.
Jklint
Posts: 1719
Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Jklint »

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.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Wossname »

Steve3007 wrote: September 10th, 2020, 3:41 am Steve3007 » Today, 8:41 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
Most things don't "tend to their own good"...
They do if Angel decides to define "good" as "that towards which things tend" (as he does).

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.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Wossname »

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
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Belindi »

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 ?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
User avatar
Angel Trismegistus
Posts: 568
Joined: July 25th, 2020, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Location: New York City

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Angel Trismegistus »

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.
One: The error involved in the widespread belief in the subjectivity of morality has been shown here:
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.
Image
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Wossname »

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.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Wossname »

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?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Steve3007 »

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.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Wossname »

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.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: A Moral Universe

Post by Belindi »

Wossname wrote: September 10th, 2020, 6:47 am
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.
Actually I think it may be an existentialist's view of God, but am not sure.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021