Philosophy Now Forum

I have just read the Morality page on Wikepedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

It really is muddled nonsense. Which is disappointing as most stuff on wikepedia is quite good.

It seems to be saying that there is an inherent 'morality detector' in the brain and that this brain function can somehow get turned into objectively true statements about how people should live. In other words instincts dictate ethics.

In my way of thinking, rational considerations of outcomes of actions is what determines what people do.

Which bit of that page are you complaining about? I see a very brief overview of the philosophical concepts of morality followed by sections for other subjects such as psychology and neuroscience, but I don't see what's got your back up. Have you taken the neuroscience bit out of context?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 7:06 pm Which bit of that page are you complaining about? I see a very brief overview of the philosophical concepts of morality followed by sections for other subjects such as psychology and neuroscience, but I don't see what's got your back up. Have you taken the neuroscience bit out of context?

Well maybe the neuroscience bit was taken out of context.

Burt nevertheless the whole article is full of smoke and mirrors and red herrings and claims of absolute moral right and wrong to hide the fact that it has no idea what morality is or how it is to be determined what is moral and what is not. Without that all its arguments are circular , revolving around 'moral' and 'right' and back again.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:13 am In my way of thinking, rational considerations of outcomes of actions is what determines what people do.

That is the case, but the definition is vague and absent of an utility function.

If you gain pleasure from harming others, then you would consider the outcomes and act in such a manner so as to maximise utility. Hence - perfectly rational to harm people.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:13 am it has no idea what morality is or how it is to be determined what is moral and what is not.

How it is to be determined and by whom?

The article is claiming that moral decisions overlap with the 'intent' module. If your brain prevents you from wanting to harm another person - then "what is moral" has already been determined for you by your naturally-selected programming.

The article claims nothing that hasn't already been said. It talks about what exists, and psychology has an inherent bias toward idealistic social justice, and thus Wikipedia, a tertiary source resembles that bias. Whether it is stupid is irrelevant as Wikipedia is designed to give a surface view of what is, which in psychology is mostly a priori judgment from groups with certain interests.