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.
An objective definition of MORALITY
Moderator: Moderators
Post #241
[Replying to post 240 by Excubis]
"Agreed yet still many experiment designs in some of the social sciences lack the long term statistics to establish small enough margin of error for empirical data to be derived since control has not been fully established."
But this is a temporal problem, not a problem with the nature of morality. Over time, this problem would go away. Plug and chug.
"I am not claiming superiority but complexity, the two are not the same although often taken as such."
All the same, in this context there is no difference. A human being born in cold environments has an extra bone in their inner ear. This makes them more complex than someone who hasnt. Complex = superior? Complex = a chasm of difference? I don't see it. One might claim they are more complex than a mouse, and yet a mouse and a man are 99% similar in almost every regard.
While humans are more socially complex than other great apes, that is all it is. More complex version of the same basal traits or strategies. Like it might be said that a pidgeon has Basal feathers when compared to the peacocks complex display, it could NOT be said that you could learn nothing of the peacock by studying the pidgeon. One certainly can. And this is the same case between humans and other great apes and even other socially complex animals. 99% alikeness. I also think you are underestimating the complexity of other great ape species by a large margin by using goalposts only humans are capable of reaching. Shall I judge human strength against that of the gorilla and call all of humanity panty waists? Not exactly fair. Why not by weight or bone to flesh ratio or something?
"We now due to complexity humans have the ability to trigger a change in behavior by reasoning"
This change is not usually a conscious effort to change. So im not sure one could claim credit for it. Also, entire societies dont usually change their behaviors except under some kind of FORCE. Hurricanes or wars or abductors. This is not changing behavior by reasoning.
" yet since complexity has risen in our social interactions and therefore behaviors and morality are due to complexity became it's own specific construct which was trigger by natural selection. "
You are assuming that our human societies are more complex , morally ethically or something like that, than our first ancestors living in caves who were also homo sapiens? Do you see the problem with this claim?
"When an organism choices for survival as a reactionary behavior are limited we indicate these limited behaviors as instinct. Lack of something does not indicate a inferiority. Each subsequent behavior derived from becomes it's own established mechanism now beyond the initial trigger over time and rise of complexity"
I dont agree with this definition of instinct. Instinct is something other than conscious thought that indicate desirable or undesirable behavior. Intuition has a definition that is also very close to this. I prefer to use the oxford english dictionary version.
"Okay the initial mechanism(trigger) for survival natural selection is relevant for subsequent social morality to occur but at one point moral behaviors became driven by social reasoning . One then must define indicators of social reasoning. "
Natural selection is always occuring to every living thing we have ever observed including ourselves. Natural selection isnt about "selecting winners" its about who didnt die and then who bred. So, for humans we are preventing those who are selected to die from dying. Natural selection is still occuring, WE have just changed a variable of the game abit. However, when we changed this variable, we also changed the other of "who bred". This means, that since we have changed the ratio, we have changed the input from natural feedback loop (which will yield the result of "evolutionarily stable strategy") to human feedback. This behavior does not decouple us from our great ape ancestry and the urges and instincts that come with it. Only if such instincts increase the chances of death, will they go away. And that will only happen if we keep changing who dies and who doesnt without regard.
"I am not applying group divided interactions since this meme of competition itself has changed but not the morals within community(group). Since we now live in a cross culture habitation the genus of morality has changed yet base social morality with in community are still valid. "
but the natural moral memes are not designed for such use. As such, the end result will be different than predicted.
"The fight of oppression occurs due to civilized society using hierarchical structure for authority, and it is this social divide of the hierarchical structure since the authority in a hierarchy tends to lead to a consolation of mechanism of authority(religion, literacy, wealth) to maintain authority. "
yes, but this is a policy choice, not a survival strategy. Natural selection still applies. What you describe here only occurs when people try to obtain permanent human settlement. Those that do not have permanent human settlement or do not try to obtain it do not have this problem. Therefore, if these people are still extant today, they are still the most moral people on earth?
"I do not agree depends on philosopher points of logic and whether a reasonable deductive value can be expressed. If one takes it as a victory of logic to criticize it is not the deduction after the initial criticism and subsequent reasoning provides evidence of value, then the criticism is merely a test to establish logic as valid or invalid."
Whatever you objections to the philosopher would be, I have a feeling they would also do great damage to your hypothesis if applied evenly. If you make a point against any inductive value the philosopher might bring up against you, the same point can be made against your inductions in your philosophy. That is not a tenable position to be in, if this is the case.
"Agreed yet still many experiment designs in some of the social sciences lack the long term statistics to establish small enough margin of error for empirical data to be derived since control has not been fully established."
But this is a temporal problem, not a problem with the nature of morality. Over time, this problem would go away. Plug and chug.
"I am not claiming superiority but complexity, the two are not the same although often taken as such."
All the same, in this context there is no difference. A human being born in cold environments has an extra bone in their inner ear. This makes them more complex than someone who hasnt. Complex = superior? Complex = a chasm of difference? I don't see it. One might claim they are more complex than a mouse, and yet a mouse and a man are 99% similar in almost every regard.
While humans are more socially complex than other great apes, that is all it is. More complex version of the same basal traits or strategies. Like it might be said that a pidgeon has Basal feathers when compared to the peacocks complex display, it could NOT be said that you could learn nothing of the peacock by studying the pidgeon. One certainly can. And this is the same case between humans and other great apes and even other socially complex animals. 99% alikeness. I also think you are underestimating the complexity of other great ape species by a large margin by using goalposts only humans are capable of reaching. Shall I judge human strength against that of the gorilla and call all of humanity panty waists? Not exactly fair. Why not by weight or bone to flesh ratio or something?
"We now due to complexity humans have the ability to trigger a change in behavior by reasoning"
This change is not usually a conscious effort to change. So im not sure one could claim credit for it. Also, entire societies dont usually change their behaviors except under some kind of FORCE. Hurricanes or wars or abductors. This is not changing behavior by reasoning.
" yet since complexity has risen in our social interactions and therefore behaviors and morality are due to complexity became it's own specific construct which was trigger by natural selection. "
You are assuming that our human societies are more complex , morally ethically or something like that, than our first ancestors living in caves who were also homo sapiens? Do you see the problem with this claim?
"When an organism choices for survival as a reactionary behavior are limited we indicate these limited behaviors as instinct. Lack of something does not indicate a inferiority. Each subsequent behavior derived from becomes it's own established mechanism now beyond the initial trigger over time and rise of complexity"
I dont agree with this definition of instinct. Instinct is something other than conscious thought that indicate desirable or undesirable behavior. Intuition has a definition that is also very close to this. I prefer to use the oxford english dictionary version.
"Okay the initial mechanism(trigger) for survival natural selection is relevant for subsequent social morality to occur but at one point moral behaviors became driven by social reasoning . One then must define indicators of social reasoning. "
Natural selection is always occuring to every living thing we have ever observed including ourselves. Natural selection isnt about "selecting winners" its about who didnt die and then who bred. So, for humans we are preventing those who are selected to die from dying. Natural selection is still occuring, WE have just changed a variable of the game abit. However, when we changed this variable, we also changed the other of "who bred". This means, that since we have changed the ratio, we have changed the input from natural feedback loop (which will yield the result of "evolutionarily stable strategy") to human feedback. This behavior does not decouple us from our great ape ancestry and the urges and instincts that come with it. Only if such instincts increase the chances of death, will they go away. And that will only happen if we keep changing who dies and who doesnt without regard.
"I am not applying group divided interactions since this meme of competition itself has changed but not the morals within community(group). Since we now live in a cross culture habitation the genus of morality has changed yet base social morality with in community are still valid. "
but the natural moral memes are not designed for such use. As such, the end result will be different than predicted.
"The fight of oppression occurs due to civilized society using hierarchical structure for authority, and it is this social divide of the hierarchical structure since the authority in a hierarchy tends to lead to a consolation of mechanism of authority(religion, literacy, wealth) to maintain authority. "
yes, but this is a policy choice, not a survival strategy. Natural selection still applies. What you describe here only occurs when people try to obtain permanent human settlement. Those that do not have permanent human settlement or do not try to obtain it do not have this problem. Therefore, if these people are still extant today, they are still the most moral people on earth?
"I do not agree depends on philosopher points of logic and whether a reasonable deductive value can be expressed. If one takes it as a victory of logic to criticize it is not the deduction after the initial criticism and subsequent reasoning provides evidence of value, then the criticism is merely a test to establish logic as valid or invalid."
Whatever you objections to the philosopher would be, I have a feeling they would also do great damage to your hypothesis if applied evenly. If you make a point against any inductive value the philosopher might bring up against you, the same point can be made against your inductions in your philosophy. That is not a tenable position to be in, if this is the case.
"Behold! A Man!" ~ Diogenes, my Hero.
-
Excubis
- Sage
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
- Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada
Post #242
[Replying to post 241 by sickles]
"I am not claiming superiority but complexity, the two are not the same although often taken as such."
"All the same, in this context there is no difference. A human being born in cold environments has an extra bone in their inner ear. This makes them more complex than someone who hasnt. Complex = superior? Complex = a chasm of difference? I don't see it. One might claim they are more complex than a mouse, and yet a mouse and a man are 99% similar in almost every regard.'
Yes there is a difference complexity as applied by natural selection is not superior but generally indicates specialization. That is why in all mass extinction events it is often the more complex or specialized organism that die off and those who are adaptive or less complex that survive. Now this 99% is a a biases that amount of similarities out way the difference. By pure common sense yes, but by a empirical and logical means no, it is the differences no matter how minute that imply genus, speciation, and applies to cross all scientific fields. A mouse and a mans genes maybe very similar yet active gene sequences are quite different. If I bake a cake and leave out 1 eggs that constituents roughly 5% of overall recipe, my subsequent cake will be dramatically different than that of one made using that 5%. So although the recipe losing 5% does not seem as much to common sense the deduction or comparison of the two would lead to more than 5% difference physically than the original 5% difference in the ingredients. As far as superiority that would be subjective according to taste but not the complexity of its ingredients.
"We now due to complexity humans have the ability to trigger a change in behavior by reasoning"
'This change is not usually a conscious effort to change. So im not sure one could claim credit for it. Also, entire societies dont usually change their behaviors except under some kind of FORCE. Hurricanes or wars or abductors. This is not changing behavior by reasoning. "
Well so what natural force stopped slavery? This was social reasoning that was the "force" required to change behaviors. Now this is not to say this behavior has been eliminated but show the ethics(reasoning) that have arisen from the morality. There are many such examples of behavioral change in humans outside some natural outside force of the society.
"You are assuming that our human societies are more complex , morally ethically or something like that, than our first ancestors living in caves who were also homo sapiens? Do you see the problem with this claim? "
They are this is no assumption at all, this is a logical evidentiary claim. Behaviors are interactions with in a community since more culture exists, more religions exists, more languages exists and subsequent group divide habitation is no longer the commonality of societies, behavioral interactions are therefore more complex. Sorry you are making the assumption that complexity = superior it does not by any logical objective stand point only a subjective reasoning.
Yet I see the over complication of morality today when it is the ethics that are of complexity since interaction between groups has grown, but not the moral base of a community.
"I dont agree with this definition of instinct. Instinct is something other than conscious thought that indicate desirable or undesirable behavior. Intuition has a definition that is also very close to this. I prefer to use the oxford english dictionary version."
It is not a definition but a hypothesis on causality of instinct. The definition is a defined set of behaviors that follow a categorized pattern in organism as result of stimuli. Wording maybe different but meaning is the same for majority.
Now I feel there is a contextual disagreement and not one of logic. To indicate I see superiority is incorrect, my wording is not indicative as such but when viewed by filter of this assumption you would indeed find this since comprehension by large is subjective when speaking about such topics. I have submitted studies last week for publication and review on genus of morality, I went from insect to human in an attempt to categorize morality based on reality of survival of social habitation in all species. I do agree we can learn about our own morality by the study and application of natural selection but we then should attempt to apply all that this theory contains to categorize, so controls over time(historical record) can be established.
So I am all for using evolutionary theory to empirically define morality and the mechanism(natural selection) but as per evolution diversity(complexity) is observed categorization occurs or genus specification to insure precise experiments can be preformed and/or designed per category. All fields work this way and we are entering a new realm of the social sciences of factual cross field data validation.
I do not accept your assumptions on my logic as logical. Assumptions or defining my logic based on ego is not logical reasoning. Once you make an assumption in philosophy or discussing a philosophy there is no logic to be deduced. Just because one is a philosopher does not mean ego or personal biases are left at the door. This I have found far to often with those who claim to be a philosopher but lack at time to review their reasoning. It is much easier to criticize others logic that our own since ego and experience often clouds our filters for logical thought. I have not made the statement of "better than" when comparing morality. This is a flawed bias argument not one based on reasoning.
One can always find a thousand ways to disagree yet it is the ability to agree that is hardest for most.
"I am not claiming superiority but complexity, the two are not the same although often taken as such."
"All the same, in this context there is no difference. A human being born in cold environments has an extra bone in their inner ear. This makes them more complex than someone who hasnt. Complex = superior? Complex = a chasm of difference? I don't see it. One might claim they are more complex than a mouse, and yet a mouse and a man are 99% similar in almost every regard.'
Yes there is a difference complexity as applied by natural selection is not superior but generally indicates specialization. That is why in all mass extinction events it is often the more complex or specialized organism that die off and those who are adaptive or less complex that survive. Now this 99% is a a biases that amount of similarities out way the difference. By pure common sense yes, but by a empirical and logical means no, it is the differences no matter how minute that imply genus, speciation, and applies to cross all scientific fields. A mouse and a mans genes maybe very similar yet active gene sequences are quite different. If I bake a cake and leave out 1 eggs that constituents roughly 5% of overall recipe, my subsequent cake will be dramatically different than that of one made using that 5%. So although the recipe losing 5% does not seem as much to common sense the deduction or comparison of the two would lead to more than 5% difference physically than the original 5% difference in the ingredients. As far as superiority that would be subjective according to taste but not the complexity of its ingredients.
"We now due to complexity humans have the ability to trigger a change in behavior by reasoning"
'This change is not usually a conscious effort to change. So im not sure one could claim credit for it. Also, entire societies dont usually change their behaviors except under some kind of FORCE. Hurricanes or wars or abductors. This is not changing behavior by reasoning. "
Well so what natural force stopped slavery? This was social reasoning that was the "force" required to change behaviors. Now this is not to say this behavior has been eliminated but show the ethics(reasoning) that have arisen from the morality. There are many such examples of behavioral change in humans outside some natural outside force of the society.
"You are assuming that our human societies are more complex , morally ethically or something like that, than our first ancestors living in caves who were also homo sapiens? Do you see the problem with this claim? "
They are this is no assumption at all, this is a logical evidentiary claim. Behaviors are interactions with in a community since more culture exists, more religions exists, more languages exists and subsequent group divide habitation is no longer the commonality of societies, behavioral interactions are therefore more complex. Sorry you are making the assumption that complexity = superior it does not by any logical objective stand point only a subjective reasoning.
Yet I see the over complication of morality today when it is the ethics that are of complexity since interaction between groups has grown, but not the moral base of a community.
"I dont agree with this definition of instinct. Instinct is something other than conscious thought that indicate desirable or undesirable behavior. Intuition has a definition that is also very close to this. I prefer to use the oxford english dictionary version."
It is not a definition but a hypothesis on causality of instinct. The definition is a defined set of behaviors that follow a categorized pattern in organism as result of stimuli. Wording maybe different but meaning is the same for majority.
Now I feel there is a contextual disagreement and not one of logic. To indicate I see superiority is incorrect, my wording is not indicative as such but when viewed by filter of this assumption you would indeed find this since comprehension by large is subjective when speaking about such topics. I have submitted studies last week for publication and review on genus of morality, I went from insect to human in an attempt to categorize morality based on reality of survival of social habitation in all species. I do agree we can learn about our own morality by the study and application of natural selection but we then should attempt to apply all that this theory contains to categorize, so controls over time(historical record) can be established.
So I am all for using evolutionary theory to empirically define morality and the mechanism(natural selection) but as per evolution diversity(complexity) is observed categorization occurs or genus specification to insure precise experiments can be preformed and/or designed per category. All fields work this way and we are entering a new realm of the social sciences of factual cross field data validation.
I do not accept your assumptions on my logic as logical. Assumptions or defining my logic based on ego is not logical reasoning. Once you make an assumption in philosophy or discussing a philosophy there is no logic to be deduced. Just because one is a philosopher does not mean ego or personal biases are left at the door. This I have found far to often with those who claim to be a philosopher but lack at time to review their reasoning. It is much easier to criticize others logic that our own since ego and experience often clouds our filters for logical thought. I have not made the statement of "better than" when comparing morality. This is a flawed bias argument not one based on reasoning.
One can always find a thousand ways to disagree yet it is the ability to agree that is hardest for most.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein
Post #243
[Replying to post 242 by Excubis]
"generally indicates specialization"
so specialization is superior then?
"As far as superiority that would be subjective according to taste but not the complexity of its ingredients. "
if you leave an egg of out cake, you end up with something more breadlike. However, this does not logically follow that cake is therefore superior to bread. And, if given to a third party for testing, he would likely agree that the bread and the cake are 99% alike, even with 5% of the ingredients missing.
"Well so what natural force stopped slavery?"
A majority of influential people found slavery repugnant for a variety of reasons. Moral, logical, religious. And I am not sure that you could say that it was social reasoning that was responsible. Surely so, social reasoning was the MECHANISM that catalyzed and enabled the change. But the source of the repugnance was also repugnance based out of moral impulses that arent easily explained by reasoning. FOr this reason, I am not sure humans could claim that kind of credit.
"Behaviors are interactions with in a community since more culture exists, more religions exists, more languages exists and subsequent group divide habitation is no longer the commonality of societies, behavioral interactions are therefore more complex"
It is only more complex because of the number of individuals present in the system, not because humans possess special social qualities so alien from other great apes as to naturally form into extra complexity. Your claim is not based on evidence. If you take 20 chimps and plob them down into the middle of nowhere, they will organize into a complex band. If you take 20 humans, they will also organize into a band of about the same complexity. YOu claim that 6 billion people is some special kind of complexity, and i counter assert that 6 billion chimps would likely be as close to as complex and even if a little less complex, only just so. And besides, complex =/= superiority. Specialization =/= superiority as I have said above.
"To indicate I see superiority is incorrect, my wording is not indicative as such"
this is dancing around the word. You think that the "difference" between other great apes and humans due to human specialization is so great, that there is little to learn from great apes. Yet, the only "difference" you can come up with is "specialization". Which makes no sense. We cant learn about human jumping by studying FROGS because frogs are too specialized. What sorcery is this?
" intrinsic value"
intrinsic value cannot be produced. This counters the definition of intrinsic which is "In and of itself". If a value is "produced" it necessarily must be instrumental value.
" this meme of competition itself has changed"
Did you ignore my chimp example on purpose? The meme has not changed for chimps in quite along time.
Just a heads up, but I have the feeling that David Hume's "Is-ought" problem is going to be a huge hurdle for you.
"generally indicates specialization"
so specialization is superior then?
"As far as superiority that would be subjective according to taste but not the complexity of its ingredients. "
if you leave an egg of out cake, you end up with something more breadlike. However, this does not logically follow that cake is therefore superior to bread. And, if given to a third party for testing, he would likely agree that the bread and the cake are 99% alike, even with 5% of the ingredients missing.
"Well so what natural force stopped slavery?"
A majority of influential people found slavery repugnant for a variety of reasons. Moral, logical, religious. And I am not sure that you could say that it was social reasoning that was responsible. Surely so, social reasoning was the MECHANISM that catalyzed and enabled the change. But the source of the repugnance was also repugnance based out of moral impulses that arent easily explained by reasoning. FOr this reason, I am not sure humans could claim that kind of credit.
"Behaviors are interactions with in a community since more culture exists, more religions exists, more languages exists and subsequent group divide habitation is no longer the commonality of societies, behavioral interactions are therefore more complex"
It is only more complex because of the number of individuals present in the system, not because humans possess special social qualities so alien from other great apes as to naturally form into extra complexity. Your claim is not based on evidence. If you take 20 chimps and plob them down into the middle of nowhere, they will organize into a complex band. If you take 20 humans, they will also organize into a band of about the same complexity. YOu claim that 6 billion people is some special kind of complexity, and i counter assert that 6 billion chimps would likely be as close to as complex and even if a little less complex, only just so. And besides, complex =/= superiority. Specialization =/= superiority as I have said above.
"To indicate I see superiority is incorrect, my wording is not indicative as such"
this is dancing around the word. You think that the "difference" between other great apes and humans due to human specialization is so great, that there is little to learn from great apes. Yet, the only "difference" you can come up with is "specialization". Which makes no sense. We cant learn about human jumping by studying FROGS because frogs are too specialized. What sorcery is this?
" intrinsic value"
intrinsic value cannot be produced. This counters the definition of intrinsic which is "In and of itself". If a value is "produced" it necessarily must be instrumental value.
" this meme of competition itself has changed"
Did you ignore my chimp example on purpose? The meme has not changed for chimps in quite along time.
Just a heads up, but I have the feeling that David Hume's "Is-ought" problem is going to be a huge hurdle for you.
"Behold! A Man!" ~ Diogenes, my Hero.
-
Excubis
- Sage
- Posts: 616
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
- Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada
Post #244
[Replying to sickles]
Morality is a social reasoning, since morality is a social paradigm.
"It is only more complex because of the number of individuals present in the system, not because humans possess special social qualities so alien from other great apes as to naturally form into extra complexity. Your claim is not based on evidence. If you take 20 chimps and plob them down into the middle of nowhere, they will organize into a complex band. If you take 20 humans, they will also organize into a band of about the same complexity. YOu claim that 6 billion people is some special kind of complexity, and i counter assert that 6 billion chimps would likely be as close to as complex and even if a little less complex, only just so. And besides, complex =/= superiority. Specialization =/= superiority as I have said above."
Well no not from a Anthropological account for, complex behavior is observed in animals agree entirely but these behaviors are limited. This does not mean superior as in better, or any such assumption you are indicating I am making. The different amount of behaviors between the two are vastly different. Ape habitate by group division so therefore behaviors are different.
You want to imply I see superior I do not so what logic are you following to reference such a ideal in my postings? So who has problem with Is ought? You see complex & specialized as superior not me.
My definition of values applies to economics sorry, but in anthropology Value Theory states a difference but both can contain and produce the other.
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-con ... nsic-value
Yes meme has changed due to natural selection and therefore becomes a genus or own species. Since morality changes that is entirely self evident throughout recorded human history.
I also never said anywhere better than great ape I said their morality does not entirely apply since human morality is more complex. There is no logic in assuming meaning not implied, entire objection refutes self by philosophical means since being a bias of personal meaning not logic.
Morality is a social reasoning, since morality is a social paradigm.
"It is only more complex because of the number of individuals present in the system, not because humans possess special social qualities so alien from other great apes as to naturally form into extra complexity. Your claim is not based on evidence. If you take 20 chimps and plob them down into the middle of nowhere, they will organize into a complex band. If you take 20 humans, they will also organize into a band of about the same complexity. YOu claim that 6 billion people is some special kind of complexity, and i counter assert that 6 billion chimps would likely be as close to as complex and even if a little less complex, only just so. And besides, complex =/= superiority. Specialization =/= superiority as I have said above."
Well no not from a Anthropological account for, complex behavior is observed in animals agree entirely but these behaviors are limited. This does not mean superior as in better, or any such assumption you are indicating I am making. The different amount of behaviors between the two are vastly different. Ape habitate by group division so therefore behaviors are different.
You want to imply I see superior I do not so what logic are you following to reference such a ideal in my postings? So who has problem with Is ought? You see complex & specialized as superior not me.
My definition of values applies to economics sorry, but in anthropology Value Theory states a difference but both can contain and produce the other.
https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-con ... nsic-value
Yes meme has changed due to natural selection and therefore becomes a genus or own species. Since morality changes that is entirely self evident throughout recorded human history.
I also never said anywhere better than great ape I said their morality does not entirely apply since human morality is more complex. There is no logic in assuming meaning not implied, entire objection refutes self by philosophical means since being a bias of personal meaning not logic.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein
Re: An objective definition of MORALITY
Post #245[Replying to post 2 by FarWanderer]
I have to ask why we need morality to be about oughts? Maybe the time for oughts and shoulds is past. I think I can manage to go through my day never thinking about what I ought to do as a moral imperative. This is a tricky bit of language. But I get some mileage out of it.FarWanderer wrote:Well, it's a definition of something, to be sure, but I think your mileage will vary from person to person on whether you are "really" talking about "morality".
For me, "morality" needs to be about imperatives ("oughts") or it isn't really morality that we are talking about.
My working definition of morality is "logic associated with value axioms". Presuppose something as valuable, be it "human life" or "the fulfillment of God's will", and imperatives naturally arise.
