creativesoul wrote:With regard to your belief that others are trying to force your ideas into a preconceived notion of what counts as morality. As I see it, you're the one who wants to change what the concept is all about. Morality is a conventional notion with a common conventional definition which allows shared understanding when we're talking about it - and it's most certainly not cooperation. Morality is taken to be the rules setting out acceptable/unacceptable behaviour - the behavioural code of any given group/society/culture/nation/etc.
The ‘others’ here are moral philosophy majors who, though bright people, doggedly persistent in misunderstand what morality as cooperation proposes. In sharp contrast, in my experience non-philosophers have little difficulty in grasping the concept and seeing its utility. The most likely source of such doggedly persistent misunderstanding among philosophy majors appears to be unconsciously assuming it fits in one or another cubbyhole category in present day moral philosophy, their mental framework for thinking about morality.
And of course morality is commonly thought to be a culture’s rules setting out acceptable/unacceptable behavior. The power of science is to show that virtually all these diverse, contradictory, and bizarre norms are elements of cooperation strategies.
As I specifically explained in the OP, “Do not kill, steal, or lie”, “Do to others as you would have them do to you”, “Women must be submissive to men”, “Homosexuality is evil!”, “Cutting your hair disrespects God” and “Eating pigs is an abomination!” all advocate elements of cooperation strategies.
You should be aware that what I am proposing is actually not a new concept in moral philosophy. It is a really old understanding of what morality ‘is’. With the addition of some important insights from science, what I am proposing is what the pre-Socratic philosopher Protagoras (in Plato’s dialog of the same name) patiently explained to Socrates. He told Socrates that morality’s function (the function of our moral sense and moral codes) was to enable cooperation in groups. Socrates rejected his view for no clear reason in the Dialog. Perhaps he rejected it because it was too commonplace (what the common people thought), perhaps because Protagoras had a ‘school’ that competed for students, or perhaps Socrates wanted to change this old concept of morality to a new more intellectually challenging one.
The new insights from science are that there is a core of moral behavior that exploits no one and is universally moral, both empirically for humans and theoretically for all intelligent species.
Your entire construct, as is the case with all instrumental oughts and their framework of consequences, presuppose(s) that the ends justifies the means. Hopefully, I need not explain the issues involved in that.
Can you explain the issues you have with groups of people achieving their goals by means that exploit no one? Saying “ends justifies the means” is a sensible criticism when the ‘means’ are cooperation strategies that exploit no one makes no sense.
Lastly, to reinforce what Hobbe's has been skirting around, there is no fact from which we can derive that we ought to cooperate.
This is a straw man argument. I claim no such imperative oughts. We can instrumentally choose to advocate for and enforce moral norms (that exploit no one) in a culture when those norms are expected to better achieve common shared goals. Where is the illogic or moral horror in doing so?
The ends never justifies the means when it comes to rightfully determining what's good/moral.
First, I expect there are Utilitarians who would argue the truth of your assertion.
But about my concept of morality, this is another straw man argument. As I have said over and over, the core universal cooperation strategies exploit no one. And, again, what is the logical or ‘moral horror’ problem you see with groups achieving their common, shared goals by means that exploit no one?
As the OP clearly explained (I thought), there are natural facts in our physical reality that produce the cross species universal cooperation/exploitation dilemma. Cooperation strategies that solve this dilemma, such as indirect reciprocity (think Golden Rule), exploit no one. It is only when people use these cooperation strategies to exploit others that they become non-universal.
Some groups will choose to do just that, to cooperate to exploit others. Well, the universe will not reach out and crush them – it is not made that way. But they are acting immorally according to what is universally moral in our physical reality.
I should clarify that I see two major categories of “strawman” arguments.
First, intentional strawman arguments as produced by morally reprehensible people. I do not think you are in this category.
Second, unintentional strawman arguments produced by genuine misunderstanding. I think your misunderstanding is genuine. I would greatly appreciate any help you can provide as to how this happens (it is a mystery to me) and how I can prevent it in the future.