Philosophy: books and discussion

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TimMason

I don't see how this overcomes the objection. Indeed, I do not see that your use of the term 'natural' differs in any crucial way from my own. If our ethical determinations spring from our being in the world, then they have no more than local extent.

Take one example of how our brain/body system interacts with its environment: the blood feud. We know that for millennia human beings have acted upon the principle that injury done to one member of a group is injury done to all, and that there is no distinction to be made between the aggressor and other members of his group. If a member of your family is injured by the member of another family, then all members of the other family are legitimate targets of your wrath.

Now, there are excellent biological reasons why this should be so (you may look at Daly and Wilson's book 'Homicide' for a rehearsal of these). But I have to doubt that anyone on this list would accept a moral principle that says you have a right to harm your neighbour's son if your neighbour has harmed you.

This may be the biological basis behind the prohibition in Deuteronomy 23:2 (New Revised Standard version) that "Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD." (Sorry, bub. If your great great great great great great great grandparents weren't married, you can't join our church!)

Ezekiel—who came later and had a slightly more cosmopolitan view of morality, possibly as a result of the Babylonian captivity—didn't believe in punishing the children for their father's sins: "Yet you say, 'Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?' When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live." (Ezek. 18:19, NRS.)

Originally Posted by TimMason

Similarly, female infanticide is a practice which can be shown to contribute to lineage fitness under certain circumstances (for a discussion of this, see Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's 'Mother Nature'). Indeed, it seems likely that any lineage which did *not* pursue this practice in the mountain areas of Northern India and of Pakistan would very quickly have lost its status, its lands, its means of subsistence. Once again, it seems unlikely that anyone here will uphold a principle that makes such behaviours morally desirable.

One could continue with similar examples. It is very easy indeed to demonstrate that our species being cannot be, in and of itself, a guide to present moral practice.

With that I agree. You can't derive an ought from an is. Biology has played a role in how our ethical systems formed, but it shouldn't be the sole consideration in creating a fair and just system. Reason should be made to complement and enhance our natural tendency toward empathy with other living beings in our efforts to create a more perfect world.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

... Q. What'll happen when philosophers find the ultimate solution to all the ethical problems humanity will ever face?
A. Nothing.

Wittgenstein already solved all the problems of philosophy.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by KevinBurke

Arthur Schopenahauer's praxeological observation was that the three prime human motivators are self-gain (egoism), malice, and compassion which exist in varying degrees in each individual with self-gain being, by far, the most prominent of the three. BTW, I read Schopenhauer, Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell on my ebook reader. I'm not really interested in reading any other philosophers. Schopenhauer wrote on self-interest/self-gain :

"The individual is filled with the unqualified desire of preserving his life, and of keeping it free from all pain, under which is included all want and privation. He wishes to have the greatest possible amount of pleasurable existence and every gratification he is capable of appreciating."

"Egoism [self-interest]… will never be argued out of a person, as little as a cat can be talked out of her inclination for mice."

Hello, KevinBurke, and welcome to MobileRead. (This thread seems to have attracted more than it's share of new members! )

I agree with Schopenhauer that self-interest is always present in people. Any system of ethics that doesn't take this into account is doomed to failure.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

I have argued against there being anything that one could point to as a 'natural morality'. That does not mean that I believe that all talk of morality or ethics is useless - simply that without transcendence there is no natural morality.

But isn't your argument against the possibility of "natural morality", defined as you define it - a morality grounded on transcendence - a straw man argument? As far as I can tell, there is no argument for natural morality, so defined, being offered.

[TimMason]

Sorry Tim, but you haven't argued anything. You state and seem to believe that morals only come from religion and unsupportable/unprovable supernatural being.

Not at all. I wrote - twice now, I think - that there could be no 'natural morality' without transcendence. Why not?

Among all the behaviour patterns that the natural world exhibits, there is no particular reason why the behaviour peculiar to one particular species should be more moral than another. Only a transcendent being can give that guarantee, choosing our species rather than, say, the mole-rat or the rotavirus.

Now you may argue against this that we are talking about a morality fit for our species. But this still runs into problems. Members of our species have - seemingly spontaneously - developed many different ways of behaving which to you, me, and (I assume) other people on this list would appear repugnant. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that there is not one single moral principle that you could point to that is not or has not been somewhere transgressed, for reasons that the transgressors themselves see as valid and, indeed, universal.

Sam Harris, and others like him, are quite desperately looking for an underlying moral standard that can be rooted in our species being and that does not need a transcendent god. I believe not that without god there is no morality, but that morality cannot be founded on either god or nature/science.

Ethical argument may take account of religious belief, and it may take account of science: clearly these are part of the environment in which such arguments occur. But neither the one nor the other has any casting vote.

[TimMason]

TGS - I'm saying natural morality can only be founded on transcendence. Full stop. If you don't want transcendence, you can't have natural morality.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by TimMason

TGS - I'm saying natural morality can only be founded on transcendence. Full stop. If you don't want transcendence, you can't have natural morality.

Then it seems that you are using the term "natural" in a way that makes your claim tautological - which gives it the value of truth but divests it of any import.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

Then it seems that you are using the term "natural" in a way that makes your claim tautological - which gives it the value of truth but divests it of any import.

Exactly!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TimMason

Not at all. I wrote - twice now, I think - that there could be no 'natural morality' without transcendence. Why not?
....... Only a transcendent being can give that guarantee, choosing our species ....
.....

Ethical argument may take account of religious belief, and it may take account of science: clearly these are part of the environment in which such arguments occur. But neither the one nor the other has any casting vote.

Ah but if that is your claim you must demonstrate the existance of that supernatural being, which by definition you can't. Thus we are left with humans and human thoughts and beliefs.

You seem to be trying to set science against religion in this context but as far as morals go, it is neither it is life and it's survival and on-going existence that creates what are called morals -- rules of behavior which provide for the means of continuation of the species.

I think to define morals outside that environment is to introduce artificiality.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

... it is life and it's survival and on-going existence that creates what are called morals -- rules of behavior which provide for the means of continuation of the species.

I think to define morals outside that environment is to introduce artificiality.

Why 'continuation of the species' specifically?
Why not continuation of a gene, or a particular culture, or mammals, vertebrates, the planet?

A lot of moral guidance has seemed to set human against human - to the point when we've even been prepared to destroy ourselves to assert our moral superiority.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Why 'continuation of the species' specifically?
Why not continuation of a gene, or a particular culture, or mammals, vertebrates, the planet?

A lot of moral guidance has seemed to set human against human - to the point when we've even been prepared to destroy ourselves to assert our moral superiority.

Yes, you are right....more survival of 'life' or 'genes' etc.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes, you are right....more survival of 'life' or 'genes' etc.

Does that mean that non-human animals are capable of moral - and immoral - action?

[TimMason]

There's no tautology involved. By natural morality I am referring to the idea that has been expressed here that it is possible to found morality on scientific principles, taking account of evolutionary imperatives. No god there, for the moment. But if you then show that there is a great variety of modes of evolutionary success, many of which you would *not* consider moral, then you need something that guarantees your choice of the one, or the ones, that you lean on to create your 'natural morality'. That is move 2 in the argument. Still no tautology, but we see a god appearing. That something cannot but be transcendental: ergo, you need god. If you are going to argue for a morality based on nature.

Ah but if that is your claim you must demonstrate the existance of that supernatural being, which by definition you can't. Thus we are left with humans and human thoughts and beliefs.

I need make no such demonstration. I have, to my own great satisfaction, demonstrated that you cannot have a natural morality without god. If I have - as you argue - only humans with human thoughts and beliefs, then that's what I have. Neither god, nor any concept of natural morality are of any help to us. We need to found our ethical principles elsewhere. If we feel the need for ethical principles. (Clearly not all of us do).

Hobbes saw that in nature there is no such thing as Right and Wrong: men will defend their own interests and are quite right to do so. However, life will not be much fun. So as to bring some order into life, Hobbes looks to something artificial: the state. Morality is a construct, enforced by law and the sword.

I think that that is about right. The story of how state institutions developed, bringing with them the moral forms that we today consider self-evident, is a long and difficult one. In many ways, the ethical principles of pre-state groups seem far more attractive than do those of Leviathan (and some of Leviathan's progeny are extremely vile). But, as I've said before, I doubt very much that many of us would like to live in Zomia.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TimMason

...But if you then show that there is a great variety of modes of evolutionary success, many of which you would *not* consider moral, then you need something that guarantees your choice of the one, or the ones, that you lean on to create your 'natural morality'. That is move 2 in the argument.

I'm not clear why you "need something that guarantees your choice of the one, or the ones, that you lean on to create your 'natural morality'."
Why the need, and what does 'guarantees' mean?

Is it thought that creating this 'natural morality' would be a way of preventing others adopting the 'immoral' methods of evolutionary success?

[TimMason]

Why the need, and what does 'guarantees' mean?

Well ... you could just roll the dice.

You need to be able to justify your choice of one set or principles over another. Acquinas (who is perhaps the most important source of natural ethics) saw this guarantee in god. Thus for him, humans had a natural propensity to marry and found a family. From this, he then argued to the best of sexual arrangements (monogamy, fidelity, and so on). His argument is, at each step, sustained by god. Later forms of natural law argument back away from god, but in doing so, they leave a gaping hole in the middle.

Is it thought that creating this 'natural morality' would be a way of preventing others adopting the 'immoral' methods of evolutionary success?

It is possibly a way of preventing the exercise of rival methods. It may be that it redefines what is meant by 'success'. The Church, for example, could not define success in genetic terms: clergy were, at an early state, forbidden to marry and have legitimate children. Many of the moral rules that they introduced - and in particular the extension of the concept of incest - were at least in part aimed at shoring up the political and economic control of the papacy over the warlords. Institutional reproduction was more important than genetic reproduction.

(Ernest Gellner argued that the modern state has made geldings of us all; the power of lineage had to be broken before more modern institutions could take charge of social life).

So to some extent I agree with you when you say that morality is always reducible to self-interest. However, things get tricky when you try to identify what self it is that is being referenced.