Two Senses of 'Sense'

[Iwannaplato]

1) The word 'sense' can refer a faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus; one of the faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch.
2) It can also refer to the meaning of something or the understanding of what something is.

If you have a sense of humor you understand the funny stufff.

The sense of sense can mean either the meaning of what you are smelling, for example, or the smell of understanding, which certain service dogs can make out.

Hence, the sense of the hypothesis that there are objective morals might exist or not depending.

[Belinda]

1) The word 'sense' can refer a faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus; one of the faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch.
2) It can also refer to the meaning of something or the understanding of what something is.

If you have a sense of humor you understand the funny stufff.

The sense of sense can mean either the meaning of what you are smelling, for example, or the smell of understanding, which certain service dogs can make out.

Hence, the sense of the hypothesis that there are objective morals might exist or not depending.

Is there a qualitative difference between sapient meaning and the level of understanding that sniffer dogs have?

The difference is qualitative and is due to language that enables sapiens to abstract ideas from perceptions. Sniffer dogs react but don't abstract ideas.

The ethic that my theory yields is that the natural man is the more moral the more he reflects on and reasons about ideas.

[Iwannaplato]

Is there a qualitative difference between sapient meaning and the level of understanding that sniffer dogs have?

Good question.

The difference is qualitative and is due to language that enables sapiens to abstract ideas from perceptions. Sniffer dogs react but don't abstract ideas.

Good answer.

The ethic that my theory yields is that the natural man is the more moral the more he reflects on and reasons about ideas.

Though 'moral' in this case would necessarily be a morally neutral evaluation. I'll use an example that should work for many people with a diverse set of moralities. Hitler would be likely more moral than some people who took risks and protected Jews in Nazi Germany. Some people, finding Jews on the run, acted impulsively to hide them. Some were even surprised at their own actions. IOW they did not spend time coming to an ethical attitude about how to deal with endangered Jews. They had a moral reflex - not unlike how dogs will protect their owners cats from another dog or coyote, say. Or even protect a stranger child attacked by a stranger adult. While Hitler spend at lot of time mulling over his thoughts and feelings about Jews.

[Belinda]

Is there a qualitative difference between sapient meaning and the level of understanding that sniffer dogs have?

Good question.

The difference is qualitative and is due to language that enables sapiens to abstract ideas from perceptions. Sniffer dogs react but don't abstract ideas.

Good answer.

The ethic that my theory yields is that the natural man is the more moral the more he reflects on and reasons about ideas.

Though 'moral' in this case would necessarily be a morally neutral evaluation. I'll use an example that should work for many people with a diverse set of moralities. Hitler would be likely more moral than some people who took risks and protected Jews in Nazi Germany. Some people, finding Jews on the run, acted impulsively to hide them. Some were even surprised at their own actions. IOW they did not spend time coming to an ethical attitude about how to deal with endangered Jews. They had a moral reflex - not unlike how dogs will protect their owners cats from another dog or coyote, say. Or even protect a stranger child attacked by a stranger adult. While Hitler spend at lot of time mulling over his thoughts and feelings about Jews.

I did actually think about Hitler before I typed my reply. It's not very intelligent to be a racist because racists ignore that human nature is that of intelligent mammal that can use symbolic systems. The mammal cares for its young, and by extension of the principle of compassion, the mammal cares for other vulnerable creatures especially when it recognises the others are the same as us. True, the male lion will kill cubs that are sired by another lion. However his instincts involuntarily overall care for the species. (NB I said "involuntarily" so I what I said was not teleological). What Hitler was unaware of is that Jews, Roma, and Slavs are the same as 'Aryans'.

The people who protected others from the Gestapo were in touch with their biological humanity which unlike that of Hitler was not blocked by an ideology.

By "ideology" I mean a coherent set of ideas that together persuade people to act accordingly. Universalism is not an ideology whereas all the tribalisms are ideologies. Hitler was therefore not an example of "the natural man" I referred to when I wrote "the natural man is the more moral the more he reflects on and reasons about ideas ".

[Iwannaplato]

The ethic that my theory yields is that the natural man is the more moral the more he reflects on and reasons about ideas.

I did actually think about Hitler before I typed my reply. It's not very intelligent to be a racist because racists ignore that human nature is that of intelligent mammal that can use symbolic systems.

My point was not that any of his conclusions were correct or that he was intelligent or not (especially on Jews). My point was they he likely reflected much more on ethical issues related to Jews than some people who were kind to Jews and helped them. My point was that reflecting is no guarantee of being moral - according to any particular moral system - and in fact my take place in the worst of people (worst according to whichever moral system one is using to judge moral goodness). A person who performs good acts, in any system, may well have acted from impulse, emotion and gut reactions. (others may well have reflected a lot). Reflection is a process that may or may not be carried out well. It also may or may not be necessary in relation to certain acts or tendencies to act.

The people who protected others from the Gestapo were in touch with their biological humanity which unlike that of Hitler was not blocked by an ideology.

Yes, reflection can lead anywhere. (this is not an argument against reflection. I think it is an extremely useful tool and I use in it education ((in both directions, as learner and as a teacher)))

By "ideology" I mean a coherent set of ideas that together persuade people to act accordingly. Universalism is not an ideology whereas all the tribalisms are ideologies. Hitler was therefore not an example of "the natural man" I referred to when I wrote "the natural man is the more moral the more he reflects on and reasons about ideas ".

What is a natural man, then?

[Belinda]

The ethic that my theory yields is that the natural man is the more moral the more he reflects on and reasons about ideas.

I did actually think about Hitler before I typed my reply. It's not very intelligent to be a racist because racists ignore that human nature is that of intelligent mammal that can use symbolic systems.

My point was not that any of his conclusions were correct or that he was intelligent or not (especially on Jews). My point was they he likely reflected much more on ethical issues related to Jews than some people who were kind to Jews and helped them. My point was that reflecting is no guarantee of being moral - according to any particular moral system - and in fact my take place in the worst of people (worst according to whichever moral system one is using to judge moral goodness). A person who performs good acts, in any system, may well have acted from impulse, emotion and gut reactions. (others may well have reflected a lot). Reflection is a process that may or may not be carried out well. It also may or may not be necessary in relation to certain acts or tendencies to act.

The people who protected others from the Gestapo were in touch with their biological humanity which unlike that of Hitler was not blocked by an ideology.

Yes, reflection can lead anywhere. (this is not an argument against reflection. I think it is an extremely useful tool and I use in it education ((in both directions, as learner and as a teacher)))

By "ideology" I mean a coherent set of ideas that together persuade people to act accordingly. Universalism is not an ideology whereas all the tribalisms are ideologies. Hitler was therefore not an example of "the natural man" I referred to when I wrote "the natural man is the more moral the more he reflects on and reasons about ideas ".

What is a natural man, then?

Yes, I agree reflection is no guarantee of being moral. I understand that there is statistical evidence that human behaviour correlates with self- expressed rationales of moral decisions, and broadly approximates to ages of subjects. So there are stages of reflection roughly corresponding to age and indicating progressive development in ability. Most people get stuck before the final most mature stage.
Hitler rationalised his hatred(fear) of Jews and others he perceived as outsiders and so his moral development was stopped by fear. Part of really adequate, quality, reflection is informed and objective introspection such as is psychoanalysis.

"What is a natural man then?" My preferred heuristic depends on a paradigm of maximum health. A natural man has the courage to enter his future as well as he knows how, and he is also in touch with all his biological feelings and always has been. A natural man has not been barred from biological needs by culturally -imposed conditions or conditioning. Culturally -imposed conditioning that works by treating men as means to ends is immoral.