How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

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

Post Reply
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
No, He's a self-existent Person. He has His own epistemology, and His own ontology. No part of Him depends on man, or on what man knows or thinks. God pre-existed man, by definition, since He created man. And there was an infinite amount of time (if we can even use that word of eternity) when no men or women existed. That much we can be sure of, since you and I, and all mankind, are contingent beings of some eighty years or so duration, at best.

Pantheism does have he problem you cite, though. Since it imagines God is Monistic, it has to posit that creation is necessary and eternal (two things we can easily observe it's actually not), and that its god needs there to be a physical world in order for the god itself to exist. The Pantheistic god is not self-existent but dependent...hence its unavoidable appeal to Material-Spiritual Dualism, with both being eternal.

But that's only another reason why Pantheism is wrong. It's not even plausible scientifically, since the material world is obviously contingent and temporal, not eternal.
Xians often say God is a Person. This is not so much a rational proposition as a ritually devotional utterance.

God does not "pre-exist" anything, because 'pre' refers to temporal dimension. The eternal aspect of God rules out limitation to time and any other relative dimension.
God is temporal only in His temporal aspect but He is not temporal in His eternal aspect. For all we can know, besides the temporal and the eternal there could be infinitely other aspects of God we can't even guess at.

I did not say creation is eternal I said it is a fact (it is indubitable that something is happening). Eternity, the eternal now, is uncreated as far as time and other dimensions are concerned. Time and all the other dimensions are man made concepts.

By "pre-exist" I think you may have intended ontic precursor. If so, I agree but as faith not as reason. Reason does not extend into that region.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by RCSaunders »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:07 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 2:01 pm If a slash, "disappears," and is replaced by another slash it would be motion in the cinematic sense. But only if a slash is replaced by a slash, not a backslash or ampersand. My point is, a slash is only a slash if it is really a slash, that is always exactly the same thing, else each replacement, "slash," is actually something different (almost a slash, or nearly a slash, but not actually a slash) and there would be no motion. That's the way it seems to me.
Why wouldn't there still be things moving if they were different?

....\............*
...!..........&
..^........%


There's still relative motion of objects to the left and towards each other there. That's the case merely due to the fact that the spatial relations between (different) objects are changing.
Apparently to you there would still be motion. I just can't see it that way, because to me, motion means that something changes it's position relative to something else. If the thing does not remain the same thing, there is no motion, just a new thing someplace. I don't think we're going to agree, but at least I understand your view, and it's a pleasure to discuss differences with someone who can reason and actually knows what ontology means.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 3:04 pm Xians often say God is a Person. This is not so much a rational proposition as a ritually devotional utterance.
Actually, it's perfectly rational. God's personal nature is evident in his Creation, in the rational and moral orders of the universe, and pre-eminently, in the fact that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

Now, you might say, "I don't believe in any of that." But that's your assumption. It has zippo to do with whether or not those ideas are rational...or whether or not they're true, as well.

In fact, a non-personal "god" is so problematic, logically speaking, that there's really no reason anybody should believe in one.
God does not "pre-exist" anything, because 'pre' refers to temporal dimension.

Well, no. So long as a temporal dimension exists, it's quite coherent to speak of something being "pre" it.
The eternal aspect of God rules out limitation to time and any other relative dimension.
It does for Him. Not for us.
I did not say creation is eternal
I know. But if you really understand Pantheism, and what it logically requires, then you would know that Pantheism requires "the god" to be divided into two eternal forms: material and spiritual. That is why, for example, there are only individuals who can get off the "wheel of samsara": it's impossible that the whole creation would ever get off. If it did, then that "god" would not exist, because everything would be absorbed into the blank "oneness" of the spiritual realm. That's why also Nirvana is soul-extinction, not a Heaven.

The co-eternality of the material and spiritual is rationally necessary because a singlar, monolithic, undifferented "god" couldn't even "exist." There would be no meaning in that predication, and no possibility of it being true. "Existence" is predicated on differentiation.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:04 pm Morality long pre-dates human intellectual awareness. I think of it in terms of Saussure's structural relations of kinship tribes, cross referenced with Jane Goodall's observations of chimps; because troops of chimpanzees have hierarchies, and food sharing, and grooming - according to social status. They remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future. Generally, morality is an evolutionary pre-disposition that only gains explicit articulation with the occurrence of human intelligence, but it's based in the behavioural intelligence of pre-conscious organisms. Individually, morality is a sense - a sensitivity to moral implication bred into us by evolution, insofar as it proved an advantage within, and to, the hunter gatherer tribal group.
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:54 pmWhile I agree that morality would predate humans, I don't agree that morality could obtain sans consciousness. For one, morality has to be about behavioral choices, which can't obtain without contemplating options.
Have you ever thought how weird it is that bird's build nests before they lay eggs? How do you suppose they know? Surely you don't imagine they anticipate the event, and consciously plan ahead?

Assuming not, then you have to admit that a bird acts in anticipation of an event it cannot know, consciously, is about to occur. This extraordinarily complex behaviour is instinctive, yet you insist that "morality has to be about "behavioral choices, which can't obtain without contemplating options."

I disagree. Evolution 'contemplated' moral choices, and those conducive to survival prevailed.
RogerSH
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:30 am
Contact:

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by RogerSH »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:04 pm
RogerSH wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:41 pm I am puzzled that so many writers assume – usually with no attempt at justification – that moral responsibility has something to do with determinism, or more specifically with being an “ultimate cause”. What makes this puzzling is that it seems to be almost universally accepted in common usage that the possibility of being morally responsible is confined to conscious beings. An earthquake, for example, may be “responsible” (in another sense) for much suffering, but (aside from animism) the earth is never held responsible in a moral sense. So a sound theory of moral responsibility has to be founded on the role of consciousness.

Morality long pre-dates human intellectual awareness. I think of it in terms of Saussure's structural relations of kinship tribes, cross referenced with Jane Goodall's observations of chimps; because troops of chimpanzees have hierarchies, and food sharing, and grooming - according to social status. They remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future. Generally, morality is an evolutionary pre-disposition that only gains explicit articulation with the occurrence of human intelligence, but it's based in the behavioural intelligence of pre-conscious organisms. Individually, morality is a sense - a sensitivity to moral implication bred into us by evolution, insofar as it proved an advantage within, and to, the hunter gatherer tribal group.

Confusion occurs because hunter gatherer tribal groups joined together to form multi-tribal societies and civilisations, and did this by referencing an explicit moral narrative to the authority of God. It thus upon discovering science refutes religion, Nietzsche despairs that morality is rendered groundless, but he was wrong. The well spring of morality is within us. Religion, law, politics, economics, etc, are expressions of that innate moral sense - and consequently, religion should have recognised and incorporated science. (Instead religion branded science heresy, putting it outside the social contract, and so science has been used irresponsibly, brining us to the brink of extinction.) The 'inversion of values' Nietzsche misidentified was actually the difference between hunter gather tribal morality, and multi tribal social morality - but the nihilistic ubermensch is a myth. The weak did not fool the strong. The strong agreed terms to prevent social inter-tribal conflict, and weld society into a single group under belief in the same God.

One might ask why chimps have morality, and it is a question of survival within the reality of the environment. As the moral individual prospers within the tribe, the tribe of moral individuals prospers in relation to other tribes. We can then trace this back further to the relation between the organism and reality, and then we encounter the anthropic principle - in this context, the idea that the universe itself must necessarily have a moral dimension to allow for the evolution of moral beings. I'm agnostic because I don't know what that implies, but it's fun to think about!
A lot of valuable lines of thought in that, which I certainly wouldn't want to throw overboard. I carefully referred to "conscious beings" rather than "human awareness" as the necessary condition for morality, especially moral blame or praise. However, it is worth pointing out that there are a few different meanings being conflated here. There are various different elements of morality - obedience, empathy, love, judgement, taboos, honour, guilt, etc. - which can all be present in the human understanding of it, while in other species there may be clear evidence of some or other elements but not all. So when one says that chimps "have morality" one is using a sense different from the human construct. As far as non-conscious organisms are concerned, there may be structures of behaviour that are precursors of particular elements or morality, but not of their integration. To say "the universe itself must necessarily have a moral dimension" is a rather misleading way of saying that it must have a set of characteristics which jointly make morality possible in the right circumstances.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Wed Sep 01, 2021 10:04 pm
RogerSH wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:41 pm I am puzzled that so many writers assume – usually with no attempt at justification – that moral responsibility has something to do with determinism, or more specifically with being an “ultimate cause”. What makes this puzzling is that it seems to be almost universally accepted in common usage that the possibility of being morally responsible is confined to conscious beings. An earthquake, for example, may be “responsible” (in another sense) for much suffering, but (aside from animism) the earth is never held responsible in a moral sense. So a sound theory of moral responsibility has to be founded on the role of consciousness.

Morality long pre-dates human intellectual awareness. I think of it in terms of Saussure's structural relations of kinship tribes, cross referenced with Jane Goodall's observations of chimps; because troops of chimpanzees have hierarchies, and food sharing, and grooming - according to social status. They remember who reciprocates and withhold such favours accordingly in future. Generally, morality is an evolutionary pre-disposition that only gains explicit articulation with the occurrence of human intelligence, but it's based in the behavioural intelligence of pre-conscious organisms. Individually, morality is a sense - a sensitivity to moral implication bred into us by evolution, insofar as it proved an advantage within, and to, the hunter gatherer tribal group.

Confusion occurs because hunter gatherer tribal groups joined together to form multi-tribal societies and civilisations, and did this by referencing an explicit moral narrative to the authority of God. It thus upon discovering science refutes religion, Nietzsche despairs that morality is rendered groundless, but he was wrong. The well spring of morality is within us. Religion, law, politics, economics, etc, are expressions of that innate moral sense - and consequently, religion should have recognised and incorporated science. (Instead religion branded science heresy, putting it outside the social contract, and so science has been used irresponsibly, brining us to the brink of extinction.) The 'inversion of values' Nietzsche misidentified was actually the difference between hunter gather tribal morality, and multi tribal social morality - but the nihilistic ubermensch is a myth. The weak did not fool the strong. The strong agreed terms to prevent social inter-tribal conflict, and weld society into a single group under belief in the same God.

One might ask why chimps have morality, and it is a question of survival within the reality of the environment. As the moral individual prospers within the tribe, the tribe of moral individuals prospers in relation to other tribes. We can then trace this back further to the relation between the organism and reality, and then we encounter the anthropic principle - in this context, the idea that the universe itself must necessarily have a moral dimension to allow for the evolution of moral beings. I'm agnostic because I don't know what that implies, but it's fun to think about!
RogerSH wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:47 pmA lot of valuable lines of thought in that, which I certainly wouldn't want to throw overboard. I carefully referred to "conscious beings" rather than "human awareness" as the necessary condition for morality, especially moral blame or praise. However, it is worth pointing out that there are a few different meanings being conflated here. There are various different elements of morality - obedience, empathy, love, judgement, taboos, honour, guilt, etc. - which can all be present in the human understanding of it, while in other species there may be clear evidence of some or other elements but not all. So when one says that chimps "have morality" one is using a sense different from the human construct. As far as non-conscious organisms are concerned, there may be structures of behaviour that are precursors of particular elements or morality, but not of their integration. To say "the universe itself must necessarily have a moral dimension" is a rather misleading way of saying that it must have a set of characteristics which jointly make morality possible in the right circumstances.
RogerSH wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:47 pm So when one says that chimps "have morality" one is using a sense different from the human construct.
No, not exactly. The question employs an anachronistic perspective. Evolution occurs from past to future, so rather - humans inherited and improved upon behaviourally intelligent moral conduct in earlier forms. It's like, a bird builds a nest before it lays eggs, not because it knows and plans ahead, but because millions of years of evolution killed off those birds that didn't. Moral conduct was not considered. It was learned at the biological level, and the teacher was the function or die algorithm of evolution.

Morality is fundamentally a sense, ingrained into our psychologies by the advantage it gave the individual and the tribe, in the struggle to survive and breed. It's a sense like aesthetics is a sense, or like humour - which is what makes morality so very difficult to define. One can note regularities like the golden ratio, or the reversal of expectation, as one can note moral regularities like the golden mean - but defining morality is as difficult as defining what's beautiful or funny! We know what beautiful and/or funny is when we see it, without needing to understand consciously why it's beautiful or funny. And similarly, we are pre-disposed by evolution to have a sensitivity to moral implication.

This all achieves another dimension when hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form multi tribal societies and civilisations, for at that point, morality was made explicit in the form of common laws justified with reference to God. Think Moses - coming down the mountain with his tablets of very basic moral laws - to unite the tribes of Israel. Whether literally true or allegorical, that is the essence of civilisation right there - the explicit definition of what is, quite comically - impossible to define! And hilarity ensued!
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by RCSaunders »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:08 pm ... humans inherited and improved upon behaviourally intelligent moral conduct in earlier forms. It's like, a bird builds a nest before it lays eggs, not because it knows and plans ahead, but because millions of years of evolution killed off those birds that didn't.
--Rudyard Kipling.

Tomorrow's story will be, "How The Elephant Got His Skin."

...because everyone knows about those millions of baby birds that have been found which their stupid parents built nests on top of. Duh!
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:08 pm ... humans inherited and improved upon behaviourally intelligent moral conduct in earlier forms. It's like, a bird builds a nest before it lays eggs, not because it knows and plans ahead, but because millions of years of evolution killed off those birds that didn't.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:17 pm--Rudyard Kipling.

Tomorrow's story will be, "How The Elephant Got His Skin."

...because everyone knows about those millions of baby birds that have been found which their stupid parents built nests on top of. Duh!
I am happy to report that I didn't understand a word of that; and in that we have something in common.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:23 pm
Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:08 pm ... humans inherited and improved upon behaviourally intelligent moral conduct in earlier forms. It's like, a bird builds a nest before it lays eggs, not because it knows and plans ahead, but because millions of years of evolution killed off those birds that didn't.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:17 pm--Rudyard Kipling.

Tomorrow's story will be, "How The Elephant Got His Skin."

...because everyone knows about those millions of baby birds that have been found which their stupid parents built nests on top of. Duh!
I am happy to report that I didn't understand a word of that; and in that we have something in common.
That is the difference between just so stories and scientific narratives.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:49 am
That is the difference between just so stories and scientific narratives.
So you want a scientific narrative, about how morality arises from consciousness, and evolution ain't it?

I remain at a loss with regard to your obvious insanity! Or shitty attitude, whichever!
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:30 pm Have you ever thought how weird it is that bird's build nests before they lay eggs? How do you suppose they know? Surely you don't imagine they anticipate the event, and consciously plan ahead?

Assuming not, then you have to admit that a bird acts in anticipation of an event it cannot know, consciously, is about to occur. This extraordinarily complex behaviour is instinctive, yet you insist that "morality has to be about "behavioral choices, which can't obtain without contemplating options."

I disagree. Evolution 'contemplated' moral choices, and those conducive to survival prevailed.
So first, we don't know to what extent other animals have something in the vein of mental phenomena, including an ability to think. Birds probably have something like mental phenomena, but maybe they can't think or contemplate very extensively. We just don't know.

But assuming that birds can't think or contemplate (because there's going to be some example we could use like this where the animal in question can't think or contemplate because its brain/nervous system is too rudimentary, if it even exists at all), instinctual behavior such as building nests prior to laying eggs wouldn't be an example of moral behavior, because it's not a decision that the bird is making. It's complex instinctual behavior that arose over hundreds of millions of years purely due to evolutionary development. A bird wouldn't be due moral praise for building a nest or moral criticism for not building a nest, because it's not moral behavior. It's amoral; the bird simply isn't functioning as a moral agent.

Evolution isn't some sort of entity that itself has a mind, and it doesn't assign purposes to anything. And it's not factual that it's morally preferable to survive than not. As far as we can tell, mental phenomena only arise in brains functioning in particular ways.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Belinda »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:09 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:49 am
That is the difference between just so stories and scientific narratives.
So you want a scientific narrative, about how morality arises from consciousness, and evolution ain't it?

I remain at a loss with regard to your obvious insanity! Or shitty attitude, whichever!
I think I did not make my point clear enough. Kipling wrote "Just So Stories" . These stories were for entertaining a child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories

I do actually believe everything, not only morality, arises from consciousness.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:30 pm Have you ever thought how weird it is that bird's build nests before they lay eggs? How do you suppose they know? Surely you don't imagine they anticipate the event, and consciously plan ahead?

Assuming not, then you have to admit that a bird acts in anticipation of an event it cannot know, consciously, is about to occur. This extraordinarily complex behaviour is instinctive, yet you insist that "morality has to be about "behavioral choices, which can't obtain without contemplating options."

I disagree. Evolution 'contemplated' moral choices, and those conducive to survival prevailed.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:11 pmSo first, we don't know to what extent other animals have something in the vein of mental phenomena, including an ability to think. Birds probably have something like mental phenomena, but maybe they can't think or contemplate very extensively. We just don't know.
Actually, we kind of do, if only from a behaviourist perspective, we can imply the level of intelligence from psychological tests where animals solve problems for food rewards. But that doesn't change my argument, which apparently no-one understood.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:11 pmBut assuming that birds can't think or contemplate (because there's going to be some example we could use like this where the animal in question can't think or contemplate because its brain/nervous system is too rudimentary, if it even exists at all), instinctual behavior such as building nests prior to laying eggs wouldn't be an example of moral behavior, because it's not a decision that the bird is making.

I do not suggest that nest building is moral behaviour, but that it is complex behaviour ingrained into the individual by evolution. So it is with the moral sense - it's learned at the biological level. We are moral creatures, predisposed by evolution to have a sensitivity to moral implication, just as a bird is predisposed to build nests. Hence, with regard to the OP, we do not have to centralise the role of consciousness to understand the origins of morality.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:11 pmIt's complex instinctual behavior that arose over hundreds of millions of years purely due to evolutionary development.
My point exactly.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:11 pmA bird wouldn't be due moral praise for building a nest or moral criticism for not building a nest, because it's not moral behavior. It's amoral; the bird simply isn't functioning as a moral agent.
No-one suggested this.
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:11 pmEvolution isn't some sort of entity that itself has a mind, and it doesn't assign purposes to anything. And it's not factual that it's morally preferable to survive than not. As far as we can tell, mental phenomena only arise in brains functioning in particular ways.
No-one suggested evolution is intentional.

Other than to demonstrate that you didn't understand a word I said, did your post have a point to make?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Terrapin Station »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:52 pm Actually, we kind of do, if only from a behaviourist perspective, we can imply the level of intelligence from psychological tests where animals solve problems for food rewards. But that doesn't change my argument, which apparently no-one understood.
I don't agree that that tells us what other animals' mentalities, thinking/contemplation abilities, etc. are like. We can get into that as an epistemological debate if you like.
So it is with the moral sense - it's learned at the biological level.
I don't know what that would even mean. What does "learned at the biological level" amount to?
We are moral creatures, predisposed by evolution to have a sensitivity to moral implication,
Of course . . . it's just that this does nothing to make morality objective or to provide the upshots of objectivity (whether we call it that or use another term) that people want, so that moral stances can be correct or incorrect, etc.

Re the general tenor of your post, so what were you disagreeing with me about? It looks like it's turning out that you weren't disagreeing with me at all.
Vitruvius
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon May 10, 2021 9:46 am

Re: How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

Post by Vitruvius »

Vitruvius wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:09 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 10:49 am
That is the difference between just so stories and scientific narratives.
So you want a scientific narrative, about how morality arises from consciousness, and evolution ain't it?

I remain at a loss with regard to your obvious insanity! Or shitty attitude, whichever!
Belinda wrote: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:51 pmI think I did not make my point clear enough. Kipling wrote "Just So Stories" . These stories were for entertaining a child.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories

I do actually believe everything, not only morality, arises from consciousness.
If you want to make your insult clear - you could relate it to something I said.
I understood your attempt at wit - sophisticated as it is, it's just not connected to anything.
At present, you and RC Saunders are like two tramps - screaming abuse at passing traffic.
Post Reply