An objective definition of MORALITY

[sickles]

Hello all. Im sure this group has its own fair share of moral nihilists. How goes it? Anyhow, I have a definition of morality that I have come up with. The idea is to avoid almost if not all of the pitfalls one comes across when claiming an objective moral imperative. This includes, but is not limited to; Hume's Is-ought problem, J.L. Mackie's claim there cannot be an objective morality, Is this not utilitarianism?, and a priori problems, and so on. I am to sidestep these. Most of these objections either are mostly against Divine Command Theory, or a problem of subjectivity and value. Here is my definition (this is the spirit of the new field thats called "Experimental Philosophy")

Morality is defined as sets of evolutionarily stable behaviors or strategies that ease the difficulty of socially complex animals living together in groups.

I say I avoid Hume's guillotine by not proscribing an "ought". The definition does not say whether one should or should not be moral. Nor does it claim that all humans are moral. Nor does it say what one should do with immoral people. The only ought that *might* be implied is that you "ought not go extinct". But that is really stretching it, from my estimation. I say I counter Mackie's claim by asserting that this definition is true , whether there is an observer or not. It has truth value before someone discovers the definition or not. Mackie is mainly postured against Divine Command Theory. I hope you see where I would go with this. I say I counter the accusation that this is utilitarianism, because it is not we who judge what is actually necessarily easier and what is not. It either meets the definition , or it doesn't. See my objection to Mackie, above. I hope why I would object to the assertion of an a priori problem would be obvious by this point. What do you think , ladies and gents? Have I struck gold, or is there a huge problem that I am not realizing? Please, anyone who responds and myself must assume the principle of mutual fallibility. I look forward to your responses.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 219 by instantc]

Morality is not empirical for one it is entirely subjective. I would like to personally accept that these cultures existence for so long compared to the of civilized societies give the clear non ambiguous indication of a set of moral behaviors. I am not sure what exactly you are asking but I think I do. Look for collective good, since morality is a social paradigm, moral behaviors are those that benefit group.

This seems like complete gibberish to me.

"Look for collective good"

If I am not mistaken, we were talking about defining morality on basis of observations. How can I look for collective good, if I haven't defined good yet?

"moral behaviors are those that benefit the group"

So you already have a definition of morality to begin with. I don't see the point of the exercise.

Lets say I take your advice and look for something that benefits the group. I see a tribesman hunting a deer and sharing it with everyone. I conclude that that must be moral behavior since it fits the definition. What was the point of this exercise?

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 221 by instantc]

The point was to ascertain why civilizations fall yet hunter gather cultures lasted far longer with very little immoral social behaviors before contact with civilization. Therefore finding the base of behavioral interactions or morality that allowed them to sustain their culture before contact. Also an attempt to redefine civilized based on social morality, not technology, religion, or social structure.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 221 by instantc]

The point was to ascertain why civilizations fall yet hunter gather cultures lasted far longer with very little immoral social behaviors before contact with civilization.

Previously we were talking about morality. Now we are suddenly asking why some societies survive longer than others?

Therefore finding the base of behavioral interactions or morality that allowed them to sustain their culture before contact.

What does a base of morality mean?

Also an attempt to redefine civilized based on social morality, not technology, religion, or social structure.

Why would you cause unnecessary confusion by redefining words?

[Excubis]

Previously we were talking about morality. Now we are suddenly asking why some societies survive longer than others?

Is it not logical that the 2 are intertwined to a degree. Yes some civilized societies fell due to lack of resources but the evidence suggest as this occur morality decays.

What does a base of morality mean?

Base as in foundation. Morality is a social behavior so base of morality is the social paradigm.

Also an attempt to redefine civilized based on social morality, not technology, religion, or social structure.

Why would you cause unnecessary confusion by redefining words?

Sorry I did not articulate properly my concept. I am not redefining the word but proper use. Civilized: polite, well mannered, stage of advancement of a society based on social, cultural, and moral development. Although there are different definitions they all mean the same. Through this exercise the use of this word as applied is incorrect. Sorry for my misnomer on my hypo.

[instantc]

Is it not logical that the 2 are intertwined to a degree. Yes some civilized societies fell due to lack of resources but the evidence suggest as this occur morality decays.

We were talking about defining morality, not about how morality does or doesn't make civilizations last.

Sorry I did not articulate properly my concept. I am not redefining the word but proper use.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 225 by instantc]

So you would not be able to extrapolate a definition based on longevity of a social structure? Social structure is the actually allowed moral behavior of a society, so therefor if morality is upheld(collective good) the culture will maintain without outside influence.

Morality is collective good, standard of ethics of a society that define acceptable behavior. Now if a society falls under it's code of ethics(morality) therefor was is moral. We often take our sense of morality based of precept of what is civilized yet we have intertwined civilized and civilization and have a code of ethics based on such. Morality as I said is comparative yet without an non egotistical base for comparison a social divide of morality occurs. When based on lasting moral traits of tribal societies specifically hunter gathers not technology but social interactions we can extrapolate a base to compare to our current state of morality which gives definition to the ethical code followed, in turn defines morality.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 225 by instantc]

So you would not be able to extrapolate a definition based on longevity of a social structure?

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Now if a society falls under it's code of ethics(morality) therefor was is moral

This is a nonsensical combination of misspelled words.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 227 by instantc]


Excubis wrote:

Is it not logical that the 2 are intertwined to a degree. Yes some civilized societies fell due to lack of resources but the evidence suggest as this occur morality decays.

We were talking about defining morality, not about how morality does or doesn't make civilizations last.

Excubis:
So you would not be able to extrapolate a definition based on longevity of a social structure?

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Well how we arrive at a definition does matter to me.



Excubis wrote:

Now if a society falls under it's code of ethics(morality) therefor was is moral

This is a nonsensical combination of misspelled words.

Only misspelled word is therefor typo should be therefore. Yes structure is incorrect. If society falls under it's own code of ethics therefore was it truly moral. Sorry. Also how words are spelled change from american to canadian or do they not?

[sickles]

[Replying to post 228 by Excubis]

A question, if i may? I see that your concept is related to society tracking some kind of moral facts with moral systems that more or less go about achieving this. What about animal behaviors and cognition that also seem to be attempting this? Do monkey's congregate and decide on what they all prefer? Or is it that all monkeys of certain kinds have biologically limited preferences for compatibilities sake?

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 228 by Excubis]

A question, if i may? I see that your concept is related to society tracking some kind of moral facts with moral systems that more or less go about achieving this. What about animal behaviors and cognition that also seem to be attempting this? Do monkey's congregate and decide on what they all prefer? Or is it that all monkeys of certain kinds have biologically limited preferences for compatibilities sake?

I would say that this is innate or instinctual in all social beings to a degree, with out a code of conduct there would be no social beings. Yet we now and have for quite sometime have the ability to know we are all one social group no longer divided by survival. Actually I should state there could be no reason for humans to fight for survival. Unlike other social animals such as primates, they fight for resources for survival not over ideologies. This is as I said where tribal hunter gathers mimic to an extent other social animals. Yes I would say they are biologically limited based on the instinct of propagation of their own groups genes over another. Whether that is the exact mechanism on why primates generally stay group divided is of contention. I would consider this the fundamental difference between humans and primates when talking about morality of the two.