Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
I dont see a difference between discovered and invented.
What moral naturalism 'is' is discovered and empirically true. What morality 'ought' to be is invented as an intellectual construct and, too date, appears to be mere speculation.osgart wrote:where would you be without love. Because of love and compassion there is morals. Like a divine lightning bolt that says wake up we exist and we have hearts inside us.
There is no divine lightning bolt that defines "what we wake up with" relative to morality. Evolution created "what we wake up with" relative to morality as it solved the problems of achieving shared goals in societies without the benefits of achieving those goals being destroyed by free-rider exploiters.
Love and compassion exist because they are elements of universal strategies such as direct and indirect reciprocity that solve the problems of achieving shared goals in societies. The ultimate source of morality is not in our biology, but in the cooperation/exploitation dilemma that is innate to our physical reality and then in the strategies, also innate to our reality, that solve it.
morality is it discovered, invented, or natural?
It's a discovered, natural feature of how human brains work, influenced by, though not determined by or identical to, environmental (especially cultural/sociological) factors.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest