Sunstone said:
Is human nature, properly understood, an adequate basis for morality? Why or why not?
I don't think that human nature exists as a unchanging underlying part of us. The very fact of evolution means that we can't be "inherantly" greedy, violent, compassionate, social or anything else. We can tend to be more genetically or culturally tending to certain aspects at certain times, but as we get to the stage where we recognise this and as such are able to change it culturally, and probably genetically before long, we should justify what we make of human nature from a different moral basis, rather than using the existing human nature as a guide.
Human nature has evolved to maximise our survival with an element of chance thrown in. Obviously we shouldn't jeapodise the survival aspect, but we should look to changing human nature so that it allows us to survive while making us more moral, however we define that.
Sunstone said:
Is the nature of the world and/or the universe, properly understood, and adequate basis for morality? Why or why not?
Quite possibly. The difference between the nature of the Universe and human nature is that there may well be an unchanging nature to the Universe. The "properly understood" in that question is the clincher though. Even if it were possible to obtain a final unifying theory, having the equations and understanding what they mean are very different things. But in theory, if we were to manage to understand the nature of the Universe, it should indeed influence our morality, properly dictated by logical progressions upon that understanding.
For example, we might discover whether the Universe is deterministic, random, whether we have free will, or any combination of the three. The answer to that would definitely need to influence our morality. How would a justice system stand up if it was discovered that the Universe was purely deterministic and without free will for example?
Sunstone said:
Can an adequate morality be grounded in reason alone? Why or why not?
Yes, I believe it can. That would seem to be the default position for someone who rejects an absolute source of morality outside humanity.
The way I see it is that we have a system of morality in our instincts, as dictated by our genes, upbringing and experiences. The vast majority of people will instinctively shy away from actions they have an unpleasant emotional reaction to, such as killing someone. However, I don't believe that this system of morality should be the one of last resort. For example, we have less of an instinctive reaction against killing someone by pressing a button than by killing them with our own hands.
I believe that ultimately, a logical argument for taking or not taking an action should be the final judge as to what we do. By that I do not mean that we need to take a careful logical analysis every time we take a decision. The moral system that comes instinctively is not a very bad one, particularly if over time we refine our instincts in line with logic. In addition, our instincts act as a safety guard. As we are not perfect, we can come to an incorrect conclusion when attempting to use logic, either by starting from false premesis or not using a valid argument. Also, we might often be influenced by other emotions than our instincts. If someone believes they have constructed a logical argument of why it is moral for them to kill someone, they are going to need to be very sure to override their instincts. But in the end, a decision carefully thought out though logic will be better than one made on instinct.
Sunstone said:
Is it even necessary to find a grounds for morality? If so, why? If not, why not?
I'm sure everyone has grounds for their morality. Starting from the premis that you have no moral obligation to do anything other than maximise your own happiness is a moral position. The key point is whether the grounds for our morality are capable of being assessed and improved. That's why I dislike absolute morality.
To give you an example, I tend to be fairly utilitarianist. I used to use that simply to describe my philosophy with regards morality, however I realised that if I thought about it, absolute utilitarianism came up with answers that went against my instincts quite heavily, such as allowing for a few to be persecuted if it meant greater good for the majority. As I said above, I don't believe that instinct can be a final judge of morality, but the safety catch proved itself here, as I eventually decided on rational grounds that absolute utilitarianism was not a good thing, and that an element of judging an action by the degree to which it hurt those it hurt the most was also needed.
Another issue that I have yet to resolve is over the question of babies and animals. I don't consider that animals generally have an inherent right to life in the same way as humans, because I believe that the right to life comes mainly from self-awareness, which most animals fail to show signs of. However, the problem is that neither do babies. I have not yet concluded whether the rational resolution I will come to is that I need to change my definitions of what gives a right to life, or whether newborn babies do not have the same inherent right to life as adults (although there are obviously still reasons to keep it illegal to kill them).
Great thread btw Sunstone.
