Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

markus7 wrote:
The topic here is a morality from science that is "instrumentally" useful for achieving common shared goals in a culture.

The naturalistic fallacy has nothing to do with what is instrumentally useful. It is irrelevant to this conversation.
Duh!!

You commit the naturalistic fallacy point by point in your first post.
markus7
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:35 am
Contact:

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by markus7 »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The topic here is a morality from science that is "instrumentally" useful for achieving common shared goals in a culture.

The naturalistic fallacy has nothing to do with what is instrumentally useful. It is irrelevant to this conversation.

You commit the naturalistic fallacy point by point in your first post.
The topic here is the existence of an instrumental ought from science useful for achieving common, shared social goals. Can you explain why you think an instrumental ought from science has anything to do with the naturalistic fallacy?

And if you think it is anything like "because you used the word "moral" (as in moral sense and cultural moral codes), can you explain why you think that makes a difference?

I don't believe you can answer either using rational argument.

In case you are not familiar with the naturalistic fallacy, it says it is a fallacy to believe something's naturalness gives it an innate bindingness regarding what ought to be. That is correct. Since the universal moral code I am talking about is only instrumentally useful and does not depend on any such false claims of innate bindingness due to it being "natural", that lack of innate bindingness is irrelevant.
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by creativesoul »

Terrapin Station wrote:
Also, there is no universal (subjective) morality.
Sure there is. However, Markus has been peddling this idea of his for years, and it's not even close to being an meaningful account of what could be rightfully and sensibly called universal morality.
markus7
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:35 am
Contact:

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by markus7 »

creativesoul wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
Also, there is no universal (subjective) morality.
Sure there is. However, Markus has been peddling this idea of his for years, and it's not even close to being an meaningful account of what could be rightfully and sensibly called universal morality.
Do you care to explain yourself using rational argument or do you not?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by Belinda »

I totally agree with Markus7 (#1). I'm interested in history as interpretation of the human past. I ask Markus7 if he thinks that a good case can be made that the sort of reciprocity as characterised by The Golden Rule depends from increased technological progress especially with the advent of coinage which caused human societies to become more morally intelligent, thus tribal reciprocity becomes enormously more crystallised and centralised.

I also suggest that thinkers such as Socrates, OT prophets, Confucius, and the Buddha subsequently adapted the reciprocity codes to include all humanity so that we now have universal reciprocity enshrined, in for instance Jesus of the New Testament.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Belinda wrote:I totally agree with Markus7 (#1). I'm interested in history as interpretation of the human past. I ask Markus7 if he thinks that a good case can be made that the sort of reciprocity as characterised by The Golden Rule depends from increased technological progress especially with the advent of coinage which caused human societies to become more morally intelligent, thus tribal reciprocity becomes enormously more crystallised and centralised.

I also suggest that thinkers such as Socrates, OT prophets, Confucius, and the Buddha subsequently adapted the reciprocity codes to include all humanity so that we now have universal reciprocity enshrined, in for instance Jesus of the New Testament.
Wow, you agree by completely missing his point.
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by creativesoul »

markus7 wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
Also, there is no universal (subjective) morality.
Sure there is. However, Markus has been peddling this idea of his for years, and it's not even close to being an meaningful account of what could be rightfully and sensibly called universal morality.
Do you care to explain yourself using rational argument or do you not?
My apologies for the tone Markus, but you and I in addition to you and many many others have already had conversations which included others who attempted to point out flaws in your argument, which either weren't accepted or understood, but they were valid objections nonetheless. More to this point/post in particular, instrumental oughts are underwritten by the ends justifying the means, and you're working from an emaciated criterion/notion of what exactly counts as being appropriately called "universal". I could be wrong. You could set that criterion out. I'm more than happy to be shown that and how I'm holding false belief.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by Belinda »

Hobbes'Choice wrote:

quote]Wow, you agree by completely missing his point.
[/quote]

Really sorry if I did, especially as it's nice to read someone who write so clearly. Which part of his point would you say I missed?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Belinda wrote:Hobbes'Choice wrote:

quote]Wow, you agree by completely missing his point.
Really sorry if I did, especially as it's nice to read someone who write so clearly. Which part of his point would you say I missed?[/quote]

Obviously Markus wants to talk about the use of science and you are looking at the problem with a historical and cultural idea of the 'golden rule'.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by Terrapin Station »

creativesoul wrote:
Terrapin Station wrote:
Also, there is no universal (subjective) morality.
Sure there is.
Which you believe because . . . ?
markus7
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:35 am
Contact:

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by markus7 »

creativesoul wrote:
My apologies for the tone Markus, but you and I in addition to you and many many others have already had conversations which included others who attempted to point out flaws in your argument, which either weren't accepted or understood, but they were valid objections nonetheless. More to this point/post in particular, instrumental oughts are underwritten by the ends justifying the means, and you're working from an emaciated criterion/notion of what exactly counts as being appropriately called "universal". I could be wrong. You could set that criterion out. I'm more than happy to be shown that and how I'm holding false belief.
My experience of the conversations you refer to was that the flaws pointed out were consistently about straw man versions of the proposed morality, not what was actually proposed. Those straw man versions seemed to be the unfortunate product of people trying to force fit morality as cooperation into an existing intellectual cubby hole they were familiar with.

Why is it universal?

Such a moral system necessarily exists for all cooperative species of independent agents because otherwise they could not exist (since they could not sustain cooperation). That cross-species universal moral system is based on cooperation strategies, such as indirect reciprocity, that overcome the universal cooperation/exploitation dilemma that is defined by natural facts about our physical reality.

So who does this objective moral system apply to? It applies to all species made up of independent agents (such as people) with the intelligence to implement them in cultural norms and thereby gain the benefits of cooperation. Therefore, this objective morality is necessarily the universal core of morality for all intelligent species with cultures.
markus7
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:35 am
Contact:

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by markus7 »

Belinda wrote:I totally agree with Markus7 (#1). I'm interested in history as interpretation of the human past. I ask Markus7 if he thinks that a good case can be made that the sort of reciprocity as characterised by The Golden Rule depends from increased technological progress especially with the advent of coinage which caused human societies to become more morally intelligent, thus tribal reciprocity becomes enormously more crystallised and centralised.
....
The invention of money economies did have a powerful effect on morality, but it was not necessarily a good one.

Prior to the invention of money economies, the most efficient way to sustainably get material goods by cooperation was by acting morally – for instance in accordance with the Golden Rule (which initiates indirect reciprocity).

Thus it was common knowledge that the function of morality (both our moral sense and cultural moral codes) was to increase the benefits of cooperation. (Though there was a lot of variation in means and goals, and sometimes the goals of this cooperation was wiping out neighboring groups.)

Again prior to the invention of money economies, perhaps the second most efficient means to sustainably get material goods by cooperation was barter. I give you something and you give me something. But it is so rare that I have something you want and you have something I want at the same time that barter is inefficient.

But since everyone always valued money, ‘barter’ using money (a money economy) became incredibly efficient, much more so than being known as a moral person, for obtaining material goods.

Thus money economies made acting morally almost obsolete as a means of obtaining material goods and thus muddied the water about the function of morality for the last 2500 years or so.

Acting morally can still be an important means of obtaining material goods. But at least in advanced societies, acting morally is often more about obtaining the psychological benefits of cooperation rather than the material goods benefits of cooperation.

The moral progress you mention has virtually always been due to an expansion of the circle of moral concern from family to friends, to band, tribe, nation, and all people (or even all animals).This circle of moral concern defines who is worthy of being treated as part of your in-group and not being exploited. I think it is Peter Singer's phrase, but similar ideas are found in Buddhism.

What is going on is that people are expanding the circle of people who are treated consistently with behaviors that are universally moral - the core of all morality.

Money economies are key to helping us cooperate with people we do not know. By doing that, it appears that money economies do foster moral progress by making expanding the circle of moral concern (the circle of people we use in-group cooperation strategies with) easier. I had not thought of that before.
creativesoul
Posts: 771
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 4:16 am

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by creativesoul »

markus7 wrote:
creativesoul wrote:
My apologies for the tone Markus, but you and I in addition to you and many many others have already had conversations which included others who attempted to point out flaws in your argument, which either weren't accepted or understood, but they were valid objections nonetheless. More to this point/post in particular, instrumental oughts are underwritten by the ends justifying the means, and you're working from an emaciated criterion/notion of what exactly counts as being appropriately called "universal". I could be wrong. You could set that criterion out. I'm more than happy to be shown that and how I'm holding false belief.
My experience of the conversations you refer to was that the flaws pointed out were consistently about straw man versions of the proposed morality, not what was actually proposed. Those straw man versions seemed to be the unfortunate product of people trying to force fit morality as cooperation into an existing intellectual cubby hole they were familiar with.
Well, there are a few things that I see as relevant here. The first being the most obvious. 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 next issue is less obvious but plainly understood none-the-less. Cooperation in and of itself is not necessarily good. As mentioned before, but well worth repeating: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.

Lastly, to reinforce what Hobbe's has been skirting around, there is no fact from which we can derive that we ought to cooperate.

Those considerations when properly understood leave your notions of morality bereft of anything substantive and/or novel.

Why is it universal?

Such a moral system necessarily exists for all cooperative species of independent agents because otherwise they could not exist (since they could not sustain cooperation). That cross-species universal moral system is based on cooperation strategies, such as indirect reciprocity, that overcome the universal cooperation/exploitation dilemma that is defined by natural facts about our physical reality.

So who does this objective moral system apply to? It applies to all species made up of independent agents (such as people) with the intelligence to implement them in cultural norms and thereby gain the benefits of cooperation. Therefore, this objective morality is necessarily the universal core of morality for all intelligent species with cultures.
There's a whole lot of very strong claims packed up in there. Luckily, there's no need to deconstruct them. Here's the death knell Markus...

Folk can and often do fully cooperate with the full intent of causing unnecessary harm to others. The point here is that cooperation itself is not necessarily moral. That real life situation satisfies your criterion for being objective, moral, and universal... but it's clearly not a good thing to do. The ends never justifies the means when it comes to rightfully determining what's good/moral.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by Belinda »

Creative Soul wrote:
The ends never justifies the means when it comes to rightfully determining what's good/moral.
Does "good/moral" mean to you that moral is another word for good? If so you possibly don't understand that when scientists as scientists talk about morality they aren't talking normative propositions and claims; they are talking positive propositions and claims.

I understand that Markus's claim is that reciprocity is the default behaviour for humans.This is a positive, not a normative proposition. If it were a normative proposition it would have been something like " Reciprocity is good behaviour for humans".
markus7
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 12:35 am
Contact:

Re: Naturalization of Morality by Facts from Science

Post by markus7 »

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.
Post Reply