Foundation for objective moral standards

Wild Fox said:

What we consider as morality is biologic and can be seen in the evolutionary process. It can be seen in behaviors of social organisms. The more complex the social interactions of an organism the more complex the behavioral control. There is now ever increasing evidence of the complex behavioral pattern in organism that show how widespread in the animal kingdom this extends. Behaviors that support the social bonds are clearly selected for and supported by the studies of the nervous system. Altruistic behavior in a social organism is selected for increasing the survival of the genetic patterns. The hormonal and neurologic pathways show just how intrinsic what we call moral behavior is already programmed as we see how organisms like rats will select helping another rat that is at risk rather than selecting a food reward. In these simple experiments we can see how the neurologic reward of helping another is greater that the reward for a preferred food. We do not need any other explanation than the evolutionary one to explain morals.

Click to expand...

The 'moral' just does not fit in with Nature.
Your mention of the neurologic reward of helping others is unsound. An example can be seen in wolfpacks which support individuals simply because this assists the whole group's overall power, and not any individual. When an individual becomes weak it will be ripped to pieces by the pack. Pretending that natural survival has some kind of morality is surely wrong?

Unless you could provide an example, and example of a condition or action which is 'Moral' above all other descriptives.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Reality determines.

Here's a simply thought exercise for you.

Not knowing in advance what your ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, etc is going to be...
Which country would you like to be born in?

A secular western democracy or Nazi Germany?

Click to expand...

Ah, well, now you are showing what a total impost the word 'Moral' is.

Our spies, bringing 'winning' knowledge back home, they are heroes..... most moral!
Their spies, seeking out our knowledge, they are despicable.... most immoral!

oldbadger said:

I still think that mankind's ideas about what is right or wrong, good or bad depend upon cultures, policies, fashions etc of time and place.

Click to expand...

It certainly can be influenced by it. And at times for good reasons. But it seems to me that this is more in the details and related to tradition and "cultural social contracts".

In the bigger scheme of things, for the "big questions", morality clearly transcends culture, fashion, policies and even time. For example, I know of no culture that thought murder and stealing among their own was ok.

And mankind's 'improved knowledge of the world' has done nothing to improve it's humanity or it's greed and corruption.

Click to expand...

I beg the differ. You even gave an example of exactly that yourself: the social acceptance of homosexuals and the end of prosecuting them. This has come about purely through learning more about humans and animals.

But you forgot that I mentioned 'fashion or policies'.

Click to expand...

Didn't forget that at all.

Recent Western Legislation to protect people's rights has all been about Policies in the presence of Legislation.

Click to expand...

And before such policies were set in place or even proposed, people had to come to the realisation that these policies were necessary. The moral awareness preceeds the implementation of the policies, or even the proposal thereof. Same for rights.

We don't value human rights, because of the declaration of human rights. Instead, we set up the declaration of human rights because we value these rights. The awareness of the importance of such rights preceeds the declaration.

And I don't think that mankind has become any more humane, decent, caring or selfless......

Click to expand...

Well, they have.

Take humankind in the west 300 years ago. They were engaged in slavery and homosexuals were prosecuted.
Today, we no longer prosecute gays and no longer keep slaves.

So even ignoring everything else, those 2 things alone already account for a huge improvement in ethics and morality. Or are you of the opinion that a society that does prosecute people based on sexual orientation or engages in slavery and slaver trade is "more human, decent, caring,..." then a society that doesn't do such things?

Corruption is as commonplace today as ever.

Click to expand...

I disagree, but it doesn't matter. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that.

As said: take western society 300 years ago and compare it to today.
Even if we assume that EVERYTHING remained the same and that the only thing that changes was abolishment of slavery and an end to prosecution of homosexuals - then those 2 alone already account for a HUGE improvement in ethical standards.

oldbadger said:

The 'moral' just does not fit in with Nature.

Click to expand...

Except that it does when it comes to social species.
Especially if the "groups" of that social species are heavily dependend on cooperation.

If such a group is going to be succesfull and thriving, it's going to require at least certain basic rules of conduct to keep everybody focused on the same goal. They are a team. Those who don't walk with the team, slow the team down or even destroy it. The larger the team, the more complex that the rules will be, especially if we also value a healthy balance between the needs of the "individual" and the needs of "the group".

So off course morality fits in with (human) nature. It's an indespensible part of it, even. No morals = no functional group / tribe / settlement / nation / empire

Your mention of the neurologic reward of helping others is unsound. An example can be seen in wolfpacks which support individuals simply because this assists the whole group's overall power, and not any individual.

Click to expand...

Yes. All social species have some form of "morality". ie: rules of conduct withing the social group.
Off course wolves aren't humans and the dynamics of their social groups are quite different from ours. So obviously, their rules / morals and social implications thereof, will be quite different from ours.

When an individual becomes weak it will be ripped to pieces by the pack. Pretending that natural survival has some kind of morality is surely wrong?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't.
The "morals" of a wolf pack, are geared towards survival of the pack primarily.
Just like the "morals" of humans, are geared towards survival of the group / tribe / settlement / nation / ...

Unless you could provide an example, and example of a condition or action which is 'Moral' above all other descriptives.

Click to expand...

Not sure I'm understanding your question here.

oldbadger said:

Ah, well, now you are showing what a total impost the word 'Moral' is.

Click to expand...

No. I'm showing rather that when someone, like a nazi, says "this is moral", that they can be demonstrated wrong.

That is, if we can agree on a basic definition of what morality is and/or what its purpose is.
In a discussion with nazi's about the morality of their behaviour and ideology, there will come a time where they will be basing their arguments on false information or deliberate misinformation. And once you hit that mark, their entire case comes crumbling down.

Let's have an example....
An argument one could make, could be something like "it's immoral to keep humans as slaves. It's not immoral to keep black africans as slaves, because they aren't fully evolved humans. They are subhumans".
Certainly you are aware that this argument has been made in the past.

That argument, and by extension the case it argues for, comes crumbling down once it is pointed out that there is no such thing as "not fully evolved humans" or "subhumans" and that there is no difference in species or "humanness" between black africans or white caucasians other then skin tone.

So sure, you can have your "opinion" about what is and isn't moral. But that "opinion" can be wrong due to being based on false or incomplete information.

I posit that if you have two opposing viewpoints concerning morality, at least one of those viewpoints is going to be incorrect - unless it concerns an actual moral dilemma where they really is no "right" or "wrong" answer.

Our spies, bringing 'winning' knowledge back home, they are heroes..... most moral!
Their spies, seeking out our knowledge, they are despicable.... most immoral!

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about spies and I'm guessing you weren't either when you brought up nazi germany.
So this smells like a rather pathetic attempt at moving the goalposts.

oldbadger said:

The 'moral' just does not fit in with Nature.
Your mention of the neurologic reward of helping others is unsound. An example can be seen in wolfpacks which support individuals simply because this assists the whole group's overall power, and not any individual. When an individual becomes weak it will be ripped to pieces by the pack. Pretending that natural survival has some kind of morality is surely wrong?

Unless you could provide an example, and example of a condition or action which is 'Moral' above all other descriptives.

Click to expand...

What is a moral but a behavior supportive of social cohesiveness. Pick a moral you want but it always describe a behavior that is supportive of the group. As for neurologic reward there is accumulating evidence for the neural and hormonal explanations. Oxytocin is highly influential on altruistic behavior. What else would drive behavior. As for a wolfpacks you seem to be not familiar their group behavior. It is largely supportive of each other not based only on strength. Their cooperative behavior and protective behaviors far outweigh aggressive behaviors. Same for chimpanzees, crows, and other social organisms. Natural survival is exactly what created behaviors that we consider moral. Unless you can describe a moral that is not rooted in social behavior.
Examples -
1, care for the welfare of others - already gave the example in rat behavior
2. Respect elders - Deer social groups and chimpanzee groups show this behavior.

TagliatelliMonster said:

No. I'm showing rather that when someone, like a nazi, says "this is moral", that they can be demonstrated wrong.

That is, if we can agree on a basic definition of what morality is and/or what its purpose is.
In a discussion with nazi's about the morality of their behaviour and ideology, there will come a time where they will be basing their arguments on false information or deliberate misinformation. And once you hit that mark, their entire case comes crumbling down.

Let's have an example....
An argument one could make, could be something like "it's immoral to keep humans as slaves. It's not immoral to keep black africans as slaves, because they aren't fully evolved humans. They are subhumans".
Certainly you are aware that this argument has been made in the past.

That argument, and by extension the case it argues for, comes crumbling down once it is pointed out that there is no such thing as "not fully evolved humans" or "subhumans" and that there is no difference in species or "humanness" between black africans or white caucasians other then skin tone.

So sure, you can have your "opinion" about what is and isn't moral. But that "opinion" can be wrong due to being based on false or incomplete information.

I posit that if you have two opposing viewpoints concerning morality, at least one of those viewpoints is going to be incorrect - unless it concerns an actual moral dilemma where they really is no "right" or "wrong" answer.



I wasn't talking about spies and I'm guessing you weren't either when you brought up nazi germany.
So this smells like a rather pathetic attempt at moving the goalposts.

Click to expand...

And you think that my thoughts are pathetic?

You have not come up with one example of 'moral' or 'immoral' conditions imo.

Look at your example:-

An argument one could make, could be something like "it's immoral to keep humans as slaves. It's not immoral to keep black africans as slaves, because they aren't fully evolved humans. They are subhumans".

Click to expand...

The above is not an immoral condition so much as an 'inhumane' and/or 'ignorant' even 'psychotic' one.

And the word 'moral' is just an impost.

Wild Fox said:

What is a moral but a behavior supportive of social cohesiveness.

Click to expand...

That would be 'social' behaviour, I think.

Pick a moral you want but it always describe a behavior that is supportive of the group.

Click to expand...

Please pick one for scrutiny.

As for neurologic reward there is accumulating evidence for the neural and hormonal explanations. Oxytocin is highly influential on altruistic behavior.

Click to expand...

Interesting...... so that's altruism, then.

What else would drive behavior. As for a wolfpacks you seem to be not familiar their group behavior. It is largely supportive of each other not based only on strength. Their cooperative behavior and protective behaviors far outweigh aggressive behaviors. Same for chimpanzees, crows, and other social organisms. Natural survival is exactly what created behaviors that we consider moral. Unless you can describe a moral that is not rooted in social behavior.

Click to expand...

Animals are driven by Nature, and not 'morals'.

Examples -
1, care for the welfare of others - already gave the example in rat behavior
2. Respect elders - Deer social groups and chimpanzee groups show this behavior.

Click to expand...

You've just described 'Caring' and 'Respectful'.

And Animals are motivated by 'Nature' and the word 'moral' is an unnecessary pretension in describing any, and that includes humans

TagliatelliMonster said:

Let's have an example....
An argument one could make, could be something like "it's immoral to keep humans as slaves. It's not immoral to keep black africans as slaves, because they aren't fully evolved humans. They are subhumans".
Certainly you are aware that this argument has been made in the past.

Click to expand...

Interesting.
I think that slavery is a serious criminal offence..
But the slave traders and keepers of the 19th century, say, in the southern States of America, those people were nearly all Christians who believed in their interpretations of the bible. They believed that they would go to Heaven because they were 'MORAL' people!

So what you think is moral is just different from what they thought was moral. I would simply describe their actions as 'criminal'.

Moral is a useful word for any kind of person to pin on their coat and hat, regardless of their character, I'm sad to say.

oldbadger said:

And you think that my thoughts are pathetic?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I called the attempt at moving the goalpost pathetic.

You have not come up with one example of 'moral' or 'immoral' conditions imo.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by that.

Look at your example:-

The above is not an immoral condition so much as an 'inhumane' and/or 'ignorant' even 'psychotic' one.

And the word 'moral' is just an impost.

Click to expand...

You are making no sense at all here.
That example IS an argument that WAS made in the past to morally justify enslaving black africans.
The point of the example was to show how moral evaluations can be demonstrated wrong, by pointing out how they are based on false and/or incomplete information.

It means that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.
Because we achieve such answers by reasoning towards them, and we use our knowledge of the world to do so.

If your input is incorrect or incomplete, then your output will suffer the consequences.

You're the one that brought up nazi germany in context of "they think they were right, while the allies thought they were right".

I'm explaining to you how you can resolve this to see which of them was actually right (or wrong).

oldbadger said:

Interesting.
I think that slavery is a serious criminal offence..

Click to expand...

Regardless of it being a criminal offence or not, the actual question here is you think it is moral or immoral. Because those aren't necessarily the same thing.

Take for example Edward Snowden and his leaking of NSA massive surveillance programs. This was an extreme criminal offence akin to treason as far as the law is concerned. Law-wise, this can make him land in prison for decades. So much so that he ran away. I'ld say that what he did was extremely moral, yet extremely criminal in legal terms. So one doesn't exclude or imply the other, at all.

But the slave traders and keepers of the 19th century, say, in the southern States of America, those people were nearly all Christians who believed in their interpretations of the bible. They believed that they would go to Heaven because they were 'MORAL' people!

Click to expand...

And you agree with me that they were wrong about that?

So what you think is moral is just different from what they thought was moral

Click to expand...

And I can demonstrate how they were wrong about it. That's the entire point.
So, do you think that keeping slaves is moral? Why or why not?

I would simply describe their actions as 'criminal'.

Click to expand...

Which would be incorrect, because slavery was legal back then.
Keeping slaves wasn't a crime at all.

The point. You keep missing it.

Moral is a useful word for any kind of person to pin on their coat and hat, regardless of their character, I'm sad to say.

Click to expand...

So slavery, in your judgement: moral or immoral?

oldbadger said:

That would be 'social' behaviour, I think.

Click to expand...

Morals are social behavior that are considered important to a society.

oldbadger said:

Interesting...... so that's altruism, then.

Click to expand...

No altruism is a behavior but it is influenced by hormones and within the neurologic pathways.

oldbadger said:

Animals are driven by Nature, and not 'morals'.

Click to expand...

Humans are animals thus driven by nature so I agree with this. Morals are just the descriptions of the behaviors considered important.

oldbadger said:

You've just described 'Caring' and 'Respectful'.

And Animals are motivated by 'Nature' and the word 'moral' is an unnecessary pretension in describing any, and that includes humans

Click to expand...

Animals including humans are not motivated by 'nature'; evolution has resulted in the neurologic system that motivates animal including the human kind. Morals are just descriptions of the behaviors. Caring is considered a moral behavior and is present in many written morals. Respect is a moral behavior also present in many written morals.

I have already give two examples with observed behaviors in animals. Any examples you can provide can also be considered but you find that all are rooted in behaviors that are social promoting and supportive of survival of offspring. Your are welcome to give an example.

TagliatelliMonster said:

I didn't say that. I called the attempt at moving the goalpost pathetic.



I don't know what you mean by that.



You are making no sense at all here.
That example IS an argument that WAS made in the past to morally justify enslaving black africans.
The point of the example was to show how moral evaluations can be demonstrated wrong, by pointing out how they are based on false and/or incomplete information.

It means that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.
Because we achieve such answers by reasoning towards them, and we use our knowledge of the world to do so.

If your input is incorrect or incomplete, then your output will suffer the consequences.

You're the one that brought up nazi germany in context of "they think they were right, while the allies thought they were right".

I'm explaining to you how you can resolve this to see which of them was actually right (or wrong).

Click to expand...

The word moral has no real meaning, simply because you cannot describe one single condition which is and means 'moral' for all people.

You've got this wrong.

Wild Fox said:

Morals are social behavior that are considered important to a society.

Click to expand...

I don't think so.
Pillaging, looting and raping were considered to be important social behaviour for many powerful nations, before these times.

The very word 'moral' is a descriptive that anybody can distort to suit their own self-righteousness, imo. The word 'moral' is an impostor.

No altruism is a behavior but it is influenced by hormones and within the neurologic pathways.

Click to expand...

It can be driven by wisdom, or kindness.
My hound protected a cat which it played with.

Humans are animals thus driven by nature so I agree with this. Morals are just the descriptions of the behaviors considered important.

Click to expand...

Yes..... but I don't use the word 'moral' to describe behaviours.

Animals including humans are not motivated by 'nature'; evolution has resulted in the neurologic system that motivates animal including the human kind. Morals are just descriptions of the behaviors. Caring is considered a moral behavior and is present in many written morals. Respect is a moral behavior also present in many written morals.

Click to expand...

I am firmly of the opinion that all life is motivated by nature, which is need. No morality in it, I think.

I have already give two examples with observed behaviors in animals. Any examples you can provide can also be considered but you find that all are rooted in behaviors that are social promoting and supportive of survival of offspring. Your are welcome to give an example.

Click to expand...

The desire for life and to reproduce is nothing more than nature. Submitting to natural forces is just that..... no morality there, methinks.

And so I am unable to think of a single condition, mindset or action which I would describe as being 'moral' .

oldbadger said:

The word moral has no real meaning, simply because you cannot describe one single condition which is and means 'moral' for all people.

You've got this wrong.

Click to expand...

Ok. So you think morality doesn't exist and isn't a thing.

Sounds pretty psychopathic / sociopathic or something.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Ok. So you think morality doesn't exist and isn't a thing.

Click to expand...

You think that the word 'moral' means goodness.
Most sadly, it is used by so many corrupted folks that it is a meaningless word!

Dale Carnegie told about a murdering cop-killing criminal who eventually got caught, convicted and executed. In his final moments he was asked if he had anything to say, and he replied . 'This is what you get for trying to help people'.
Now he thought he had lived a 'moral' life.

Sounds pretty psychopathic / sociopathic or something.

Click to expand...

Ah.... yes. You might well think that.
Well, you're moralising now, at any rate.

But everybody thinks that they are moral people. Pol Pot thought his policies were moral, and Stalin, and Hitler....... et al. But as soon as you treat that word for what it is, you might see the world more clearly? Possibly?

oldbadger said:

You think that the word 'moral' means goodness

Click to expand...

I think morality is related to goodness / badness and well-being.
The word seems completely devoid of meaning otherwise.

Ah.... yes. You might well think that.
Well, you're moralising now, at any rate.

Click to expand...

Not sure how you think I could draw any other conclusion, based on what you're saying....

But everybody thinks that they are moral people

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think a good deal of people know very well when they are being immoral... But for some reason or another, they don't care or the thing they'll "win" by acting that way is more important to them then acting morally.

For example...
When some guy violently robs a store, I don't think this guy thinks he's being moral when he's doing that. I think they guy knows very well he's engaging in an immoral act. It's just that the reward of the loot is more important to him.

Pol Pot thought his policies were moral, and Stalin, and Hitler....... et al.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. I don't know that. We can't ask them and even if we could, we're not mind readers.
However, I think it is quite easy to demonstrate through reasonable argumentation how their policies weren't moral.

But as soon as you treat that word for what it is, you might see the world more clearly? Possibly?

Click to expand...

Just because many people are wrong about what the word means and / or rape the word into something it isn't and/or use the word in inappropriate ways, doesn't mean that the word itself is void of meaning.

TagliatelliMonster said:

Just because many people are wrong about what the word means and / or rape the word into something it isn't and/or use the word in inappropriate ways, doesn't mean that the word itself is void of meaning.

Click to expand...

Who would get to decide who is using such a word correctly?

You?
An executioner may believe that their work is moral, whereas everybody demonstrating outside the prison thinks that they are.

oldbadger said:

Who would get to decide who is using such a word correctly?

You?

An executioner may believe that their work is moral, whereas everybody demonstrating outside the prison thinks that they are.

Click to expand...

This is just going around in circles.

So what's your point, really?
What are you arguing for exactly?

That morals, ethics, good and bad, are irrelevant? Void of meaning? We shouldn't bother? There's no point? Well-being or suffering, it's all the same?

TagliatelliMonster said:

This is just going around in circles.

Click to expand...

Your circles..... not mine.

So what's your point, really?
What are you arguing for exactly?

Click to expand...

That the very word 'moral' is an impostor, not to be trusted.

That morals, ethics, good and bad, are irrelevant? Void of meaning? We shouldn't bother? There's no point? Well-being or suffering, it's all the same?

Click to expand...

Anybody could see why you are failing in this discussion, because now, in your desperation, you want to chuck ETHICS and GOOD AND BAD in with morals, as if I have been rubbishing those as well?

That just isn't an ethical line to take.

It's true that some folks want to describe morality as 'ethical' etc, but I shove the word 'moral' in to a box with words like 'spiritual' or 'holy' ,, not because they mean the same as each other, but because they are rhetorical words, 'it' words, pretentious words, without a foundation of meaning which is true, reliable or trustworthy.

The word 'moral' and its siblings (morality erc) and opposites (immoral etc) are simply INSTRUMENTS OF DECEPTION because they have NO FIXED FOUNDATION. ..................
Unless........ you can show a sentence where moral is exactly the right word to employ to deliver a trustworthy communication....?