Philosophy: books and discussion

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Without God, a natural morality has no foundation. This is because in nature we find all kinds of behaviours that we would be unwilling to regard as morally good: we find animals that lay their eggs in the living bodies of other animals, we find animals that eat their young, we find animals that do a variety of unpleasant and disgusting things in order to survive and proliferate. How can we assume that the sub-set of behaviours that human beings engage in is morally superior to the behaviour of a prying mantis or a pig? Only if we assume, like Thomas Aquinus, the existence of a transcendent being who, for whatever reason, favours our species, can we explain our moral superiority to others and regard morality as being 'in nature'.

Of course you are right - in the sense that without some transcendental foundation for human morality there is no transcendental foundation for human morality! But that there is no transcendental foundation for human morality does not show that there is no foundation whatever for human morality.

There is another sense of "natural", and that sense is concerned with what this brain/body system we refer to as human is like and how it interacts with its environment. I'm not claiming to know what a naturalised ethical system would look like, simply that there are grounds for the possibility of such a system.

It may be possible to think about ethical sense in a way analogous to aesthetic sense. Our aesthetic sense seems to be grounded in certain features of our cognitive architecture - what we ascribe aesthetic value to turns out to be grounded in that which our cognitive equipment finds meaningful in various ways. There is no claim that aesthetic sense needs some transcendental underpinning in order to be valid. In that sense it is human bound - but we are humans and it is human aesthetics that we are concerned with, not kangaroo aesthetics or Martian aesthetics. In just the same way it is human morality that we are concerned with; that human morality has application only to humans is not a weakness or a problem, but a design feature.

The search for transcendental underpinnings for anything will only lead, and lead only, to skepticism if one of our premises is that there is no possibility of experience of, knowledge of, or engagement with the transcendent.

[FlorenceArt]

Oops, yes, hello and welcome Jar. I put your question aside last night because I didn't have the time to answer it, and I almost forgot to do it

Originally Posted by Jar

First I´d like to stress do not be afraid of the same end of Socrates. Do you know he had been offered chance of escaping before he drank the poison? He refused to do so, ´cause he knew he had break the law.

What gave you the impression that I was afraid of anything? I am happy and proud (well, most of the time anyway) to live in a country where people don't get killed for their ideas.

I don't know how accurate is Wikipedia's description of the trial of Socrates, but based on that I rather got the impression that he got himself killed out of utter pig-headedness. Not only did he refuse to compromise with his fellow citizens, he deliberately provoked them. That's a rather stupid way to die for a philosopher, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Jar

1. Why do you think Plato´s Sokrates hated body and life?

I have to admit that I was influenced in this by Michel Onfray's interpretation. However, what I did see and didn't like in Plato's rendering of the dialogs was the insistence on a higher truth, and on an eternal life where we are supposed to get our rewards for living according to higher principles. This attitude comes together with a mistrust and contempt for reality, for life as we live it from day to day. I think it's a very destructive attitude. I personally like my day-to-day life. I don't need the promise of an afterlife to have a moral conduct. I'd much rather work on enjoying my life now, in the world I see and feel and know exists (even though I don't always fully understand it) than on submitting myself to imaginary higher principles based on an imaginary world. And, as I mentioned, I strongly believe that this kind of idealism, this mistrust and contempt for reality, has gotten quite enough people killed already. Including Socrates.

Originally Posted by Jar

2. And what do you think is the essence of Christianity, for calling Sokrates a christian?

I didn't call Socrates a christian, I said that some chistians "tried to make him an honorary christian" because they recognized similarities between their beliefs and his. Namely the belief in an afterlife where we are rewarded for our good deeds, and the contempt for this life that we do have.

Originally Posted by Jar

3. question goes toward the language: What if those two words "art" and "theory" had back then a bit different meaning they have today?

I used the word theory in its modern sense, I don't think Plato did it, it's my interpretation. Art is a word from Plato, and yes it has a different meaning from the one we generally understand, but I believe that when we say "the art of medicine" or "the art of cooking", we are still reasonably close to the meaning Plato had in mind. I may be wrong of course. I still believe I understood Plato's meaning about the difference between medicine and cooking, whether or not I got all the nuances of the word correctly. Do you disagree?

Originally Posted by Jar

There is a dialogue called Parmenides you could enjoy. Sokrates is there very young and he is the one who listens and who is taught. His oponents are definitelly "able to rub two ideas together". I would say it can be see as a part of how he obtained his "metodology" even though the characters in this dialogue could never meet in real life. But does it matter?

Thanks, I'll look it up

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TGS

Of course you are right - in the sense that without some transcendental foundation for human morality there is no transcendental foundation for human morality! But that there is no transcendental foundation for human morality does not show that there is no foundation whatever for human morality.

Thank you, that's what I was fumbling to say

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TGS

There is no claim that aesthetic sense needs some transcendental underpinning in order to be valid. In that sense it is human bound - but we are humans and it is human aesthetics that we are concerned with, not kangaroo aesthetics or Martian aesthetics. In just the same way it is human morality that we are concerned with; that human morality has application only to humans is not a weakness or a problem, but a design feature.

"that human morality has application only to humans" . My ethical sense (for what it's worth) strongly inclines me to apply consideration to other species.
First and foremost I regard myself as an animal, that is how I primarily understand my identity - being human is a lesser aspect of what I consider myself to be.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

"that human morality has application only to humans" . My ethical sense (for what it's worth) strongly inclines me to apply consideration to other species.
First and foremost I regard myself as an animal, that is how I primarily understand my identity - being human is a lesser aspect of what I consider myself to be.

What I'm understanding you to mean is that how humans treat non-human animals is subject to ethical consideration and constraint. If that's right then that's an aspect of human morality - which is consistent with what I said. It is, so far as we now, only humans who have any moral sense in relation to putting shampoo into the eyes of lab rabbits or keeping pigs in spaces so confined that they cannot turn round. The rabbits and pigs might have a response to being in these situations but it's probably not a moral response. Similarly we might, in an anthropomorphic way, not like to see a chimpanzee steal a baby from another chimpanzee and eat it - but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to ascribe to the cannibalizing chimpanzee or its act, some moral value.

It's in those two senses that I meant that human morality has application only to humans.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by TGS

What I'm understanding you to mean is that how humans treat non-human animals is subject to ethical consideration and constraint. If that's right then that's an aspect of human morality - which is consistent with what I said. It is, so far as we now, only humans who have any moral sense in relation to putting shampoo into the eyes of lab rabbits or keeping pigs in spaces so confined that they cannot turn round. The rabbits and pigs might have a response to being in these situations but it's probably not a moral response. Similarly we might, in an anthropomorphic way, not like to see a chimpanzee steal a baby from another chimpanzee and eat it - but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to ascribe to the cannibalizing chimpanzee or its act, some moral value.

It's in those two senses that I meant that human morality has application only to humans.

And yet, chimpanzees have some sense of morality, or at least fairness. If you make a chimpanzee perform a task for a reward - say, a slice of apple - it will be happy to do it. But if he sees that another chimpanzee is getting a better reward for the same task - say, a raisin - he will get annoyed and refuse to perform. This information I got from a scientist I heard on a radio show, is what makes me think that there is a biological foundation to our sense of morality.

[Jar]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Jar Welcome to mobileread - and, also, to this thread ....

Thank you, GeoffC, it is very nice of you. And it is interresting reading in here.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

And yet, chimpanzees have some sense of morality, or at least fairness. If you make a chimpanzee perform a task for a reward - say, a slice of apple - it will be happy to do it. But if he sees that another chimpanzee is getting a better reward for the same task - say, a raisin - he will get annoyed and refuse to perform. This information I got from a scientist I heard on a radio show, is what makes me think that there is a biological foundation to our sense of morality.

I wonder what else would explain the first chimpanzee's behaviour? The chimpanzee might just have noticed that when it did something it didn't yield the same result as when another chimpanzee did it and so the cognitive effort required to do whatever it was being asked to do just wasn't worth it. This of course doesn't need to be a conscious, reflective process - all living creatures seem to be able to make this kind of assessment of their environment - and the assessment doesn't necessarily need to be based of fairness.

It is interesting though that the neural mechanism which is thought to underpin the understanding of the actions of others, and hence underpin empathy, - mirror neurons - were discovered in monkeys. Unfortunately, in order to discover mirror neurons the monkeys had to have probes inserted into their brains and than had to be killed so that their brains could be examined. Sometimes I think the cost of knowing some things is too high and it might be better if we didn't know them!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

I wonder what else would explain the first chimpanzee's behaviour? The chimpanzee might just have noticed that when it did something it didn't yield the same result as when another chimpanzee did it and so the cognitive effort required to do whatever it was being asked to do just wasn't worth it. This of course doesn't need to be a conscious, reflective process - all living creatures seem to be able to make this kind of assessment of their environment - and the assessment doesn't necessarily need to be based of fairness.

It is interesting though that the neural mechanism which is thought to underpin the understanding of the actions of others, and hence underpin empathy, - mirror neurons - were discovered in monkeys. Unfortunately, in order to discover mirror neurons the monkeys had to have probes inserted into their brains and than had to be killed so that their brains could be examined. Sometimes I think the cost of knowing some things is too high and it might be better if we didn't know them!

Which is an interesting twist on morality right there.....and certainly nothing to do with invisible supreme beings...

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

and certainly nothing to do with invisible supreme beings...

Indeed - in my short (who am I trying to kid) life I've found that, when it's possible to do without them, such entities are best dispensed with.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TGS

I wonder what else would explain the first chimpanzee's behaviour?

I think that's also a good question to direct to the apparently ethical behaviour of humans - that there could be other agendas at work than an ethical one.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TGS

It is, so far as we now, only humans who have any moral sense in relation to putting shampoo into the eyes of lab rabbits or keeping pigs in spaces so confined that they cannot turn round.

What is the human moral sense in relation to those examples?
Some humans think them wrong, others don't.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Without God, a natural morality has no foundation. This is because in nature we find all kinds of behaviours that we would be unwilling to regard as morally good: we find animals that lay their eggs in the living bodies of other animals, we find animals that eat their young, we find animals that do a variety of unpleasant and disgusting things in order to survive and proliferate. How can we assume that the sub-set of behaviours that human beings engage in is morally superior to the behaviour of a prying mantis or a pig? Only if we assume, like Thomas Aquinus, the existence of a transcendent being who, for whatever reason, favours our species, can we explain our moral superiority to others and regard morality as being 'in nature'.

Otherwise, as TGS argues, any biological impulsion will need to be scrutinized in the light of ethical principles that are not themselves given biologically. Acquinus held that humans use reason in order to understand the natural commands of God; even if we assume that morality is natural, we cannot simply taken it as given. Without Acquinus's God to invest nature with morality, we cannot even make the assumption.

Morality is, and probably always will be, ultimately undecidable. The hope that there might be a natural set of rules or principles is only viable in a world in which transcendence is possible. In a world completely governed by scientific principles there is no bed-rock upon which to build the one true moral system.

I am assuming that by "God" you are referring to an omnipotent Person with free will. If such a God is the basis for morality, and if it's true that without this God there is no natural foundation for morality, then what is the basis for God's morality? Is something good simple because God decides it should be so, or is there a yardstick for determining what is good that exists outside of God? If God should decide that murder and rape is good, would that make these acts moral? It would seem that if God is the sole decider of what is good and bad with no reference to an external model of some kind of ethics, then the idea of a "good God" is a tautology. On the other hand; if there is a model of morality to which even God must conform in order for the phrase "good God" to have any meaning, then it would seem as if God is not necessary for morality.

Sam Harris would disagree with your statement that "In a world completely governed by scientific principles there is no bed-rock upon which to build the one true moral system." He has an interesting TED Talk on the subject entitled "Science can answer moral questions" that you can hear here. (I believe someone has already posted this link to MR, but I can't recall whether it was in this thread or another.)

I think that there will always be shades of gray, but IMO science can go a lot further toward answering ethical questions than is generally assumed. Much depends on asking the right questions. Rather than ask whether a certain action is right or wrong, we should be asking whether a certain action would be beneficial or harmful to all parties. Does it increase human flourishing? Does it increase or mitigate the suffering of all interested parties? Will it produce joy or despair?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I think that's also a good question to direct to the apparently ethical behaviour of humans - that there could be other agendas at work than an ethical one.

I'm interested in your implied distinction between "apparently ethical" and what that might be contrasted with - "really ethical", "genuinely ethical"? If there is such a distinction what does it rest upon? This is a guess and by all means shoot me down, but is there a hidden assumption in your distinction that "really ethical" behaviour cannot be motivated by self-interest, whereas "apparently ethical" behaviour looks as though it is not motivated by self-interest but when you break it down it actually is?

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Oops, yes, hello and welcome Jar. I put your question aside last night because I didn't have the time to answer it, and I almost forgot to do it

Yes! Welcome to MobileRead, Jar!

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I didn't call Socrates a christian, I said that some chistians "tried to make him an honorary christian" because they recognized similarities between their beliefs and his. Namely the belief in an afterlife where we are rewarded for our good deeds, and the contempt for this life that we do have.

Because he felt they lived virtuous lives, but without Christ (through no fault of their own), Dante placed Socrates, along with Aristotle and Plato, in Limbo (the First Circle of Hell).