The the scope of Morality and Ethics here;Alexander_Reiswich wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 1:38 pmI did research it reasonably extensively, but from an entirely different vantage point -- my research leads me to believe that a logic of Morality can be ascertained with no reference to how our brains work, at all, and yet it leads to very similar (though more abstract) conclusions regarding the nature of Morality. There is nothing "esoteric" about this approach -- it's simply an abstraction with the capability of describing and predicting hypothetical states of affairs which we would ascribe a moral character to. But we don't have to get into that in this thread.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:53 am If you were to research more extensive on the theory of morality, you will note there is trend at present where morality is trending towards moral elements as moral facts is in the brain and self.
https://philpapers.org/browse/ethics
You covered and is familiar with the scope fully?
A listing from the above link:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39255
"logic of Morality" you mean something like the 'rationalist' approach?
Do you have references for your type of morality?Moral rationalism, also called ethical rationalism, is a view in meta-ethics (specifically the epistemology of ethics) according to which moral principles are knowable a priori, by reason alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rationalism
Can you describe its FSK.
Btw, when you are relying on 'abstraction' you are moving away from reality which is represented by unique particulars.
The more you grind these abstractions with logic, the more you are veering off from reality; note also the limitation of logic, i.e. Garbage in Garbage Out.
On the other hand I am grounding my morality and ethics on Scientific verifications and justification which is more realistic on an empirical basis.
Since scientific knowledge based on the scientific FSK [also mathematical] is the most credible at present, thus if you rely on any other FSK, it will be inferior to science.
Point is all human activities, including morality and ethics are reducible to the mental, brain, body, neurons, algorithms, genes, DNA, atom and quarks - the 'black box'.I don't mind discussing other approaches -- and no, I don't generally favor a "silo" approach. It's just that each of us has limits in the resources available to them, and I don't plan to become an expert in "biochemistry, genetics, molecular biology, genetic engineering, genomics, and rational medicines any time soon...
In the past, philosophers of morality and ethics had to work outside the black-box due to the limited knowledge of what is inside the black-box.
But now that humanity is gaining more and more knowledge within the black box, it would only be effective to go into the black-box to understand how things [in this case morality] work.
If you work outside the black-box, then your knowledge is relative shallow and narrow thus inefficiency? Agree/disagree?
My ideas about morality and ethics is very novel and on the fringe thus naturally it will face resistance [resistance to change].But my recommendation for you is to try and clarify the moral aspects of your terminology a bit more, because it comes with a lot of baggage, and as a result anyone reading your propositions infuses them with their own assumptions about morality, which don't align very well with yours. Thus, it appears like you are making fairly outrageous claims, even though now, after understanding your position more properly, I no longer think so. It's just that the language of morality acts as a bit of "trigger".
However, whatever I claim re Morality and Ethics, I ensure they must be reducible to whatever can be verified and justified by Science which will maintain a reasonable degree of credibility and reality.
I agree it is very common that 'rightness' and 'wrongness' is used in relation to morality and ethics. It has relevance but the emphasis of their use is too subjective most related to feelings, opinions, beliefs, judgments [not on matter of fact] and thus not effective.For example, we often use terms like good and bad, right and wrong, good and evil in our conversations about morality. It would be a good start to clarify how you would utilize these terms, if at all. Possibly also terms such as rights and duties. In my opinion, these in particular are philosophically underdeveloped (the internal logic is sound, but it's unclear how general rights, i.e. human rights are derived, precisely). This is something that my approach to objective Morality attempts to explain (well, I wouldn't mind a more descriptive name for my approach, but nothing else came to mind yet).
But maybe this can also be somehow tackled by using your approach. I'm not sure.
My preference is good and evil.
My definition of Morality is 'avoiding evil to promote good'.
What is 'good' specific to morality in this case is not-evil.
What is evil is any act that is net negative to the well being of the individuals and therefrom to humanity.
We will have an exhaustive list of evil acts with a continuum of degree of evilness.
I rank extermination of the human species at 99/100, genocide at 95/100 evilness, and so on with these as the standards.
Whatever is 'rights' is related to political and not morality.
My analogy of how morality and ethics work is like that of a thermostat, say in an air conditioner.
The first thing is to set the standard or expected temperature.
Now if the temperature room is not according to the standard, it is not appropriate to say the temperature is wrong but rather there is a variance from standard.
Where there is a variance the air conditioner is spontaneously triggered to work to close the gap or variance.
In my case, the self, body, brain and mind would be a moral thermostat which will work spontaneously to strive to close the moral gap/variance between good and evil [as defined].
As such there is no need to raise the question of the confusing 'rightness' or 'wrongness' in the old fashion of morality.
However we need to establish what is 'good' and 'evil' objectively grounded on scientific facts in alignment with human nature such that we have an effective "moral thermostat".