Tsk. Tsk. A Common and Appalling Definition of "Objective" Morals, Values, and Duties. Tsk. Tsk.

[joe1776]

Juries should be sitting in legal judgement. Not moral judgement.

1) Judges and lawyers sit in legal judgment;

2. Criminal laws could not be written if legislators could not rely on their conscience to discern right from wrong in specific situations. Moreover, laws are often edited after the judgment in a specific case offends the public's conscience.

 

[joe1776]

Those are interesting ideas, but so far as I can see, Joe, you have provided no reasons or evidence for supposing they are true. If you have a reasoned, well evidenced argument for your beliefs, now might be a good time to advance it.

Over the last 30 years, there has been scientific evidence that our moral judgments are intuitive and not products of reason. David Hume suggested this back in the 18th Century. This implies that most moral philosophers, for centuries, have been making their arguments based on the false premise that moral judgments are the product of reason.

Social scientists engaged in this research don't agree with me or with each other on much of anything except that our morals are the product of intuition.

This is in conflict with theologians as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason. If the RCC is wrong on this they have no basis for the claim that the Church can "inform the conscience" by advising their faithful on moral matters.

Here's a website that might interest you.

The New Science of Morality | Edge.org

 

[joe1776]

What about the countless wrongful convictions that have happened?

I gave you a case in which the facts aren't in question. The jury rules on the facts as given by the defendant. That's unlike most criminal cases.

And that conscience has told many historical jurors that the [factually innocent] black guy is guilty, and they have a moral responsibility to see him hang.

You are mistakenly blaming conscience for biases that cause people to ignore their conscience.

 

[icehorse]

Over the last 30 years, there has been scientific evidence that our moral judgments are intuitive and not products of reason. David Hume suggested this back in the 18th Century. This implies that most moral philosophers, for centuries, have been making their arguments based on the false premise that moral judgments are the product of reason.

Social scientists engaged in this research don't agree with me or with each other on much of anything except that our morals are the product of intuition.

You've opened an interesting can of worms here. It might be that this ought to spin off to a different thread but...

Cognitive scientists are rethinking the whole idea of intuition. It's more common for them to say "expert intuition" these days. And expert intuition drives MOST of what humans are good at. E.g. the chess master cannot really explain how he chose his last move, Dr. House cannot really explain how he made his last diagnosis, the master plumber cannot really explain how he knew which wall to open first, and so on.

Cognitive scientists largely think that expert intuition IS a product of reason, but that much of what we can be expert in, we cannot explain. This is called "tacit knowledge" or "implicit knowledge".

 

[icehorse]

I'm not sure how to best label my views in this case, assuming I want to communicate their gist. I concede that values are ultimately subjective (but so is everything else -- at least from an epistemic standpoint), but I am unhappy with the notion they are wholly or entirely subjective. So I guess that makes me a "*******" relativist, as opposed to a "purebred" relativist.

This seems to put us squarely in the middle of asking "what's the meaning of life?". And I know that EVERYTHING I'm about to say can be undermined by the pure relativist:

It seems to me that most of the healthy people we know blend a dash of hedonism in with a big dollop of utilitarianism. We seek at least good health, which I'll claim is mild hedonism, and we try to operate from the golden rule, which I'll claim is ultimately utilitarian. It's "human nature"

 

[joe1776]

You've opened an interesting can of worms here. It might be that this ought to spin off to a different thread but...

Cognitive scientists are rethinking the whole idea of intuition. It's more common for them to say "expert intuition" these days. And expert intuition drives MOST of what humans are good at. E.g. the chess master cannot really explain how he chose his last move, Dr. House cannot really explain how he made his last diagnosis, the master plumber cannot really explain how he knew which wall to open first, and so on.

Cognitive scientists largely think that expert intuition IS a product of reason, but that much of what we can be expert in, we cannot explain. This is called "tacit knowledge" or "implicit knowledge".

Moral intuition would be the opposite of expert intuition. We know that because all knowledge begins in the senses. And since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between moral right and wrong, we must FEEL it intuitively. Thus everything our reasoning minds know, or think we know, about morality we learned intuitively from conscience.

In a reply to Sunstone in this thread, I offered a link. Here's a quote from that site that applies to our discussion:
According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger.

 

[icehorse]

Moral intuition would be the opposite of expert intuition. We know that because all knowledge begins in the senses. And since we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between moral right and wrong, we must FEEL it intuitively. Thus everything our reasoning minds know, or think we know, about morality we learned intuitively from conscience.

Would you categorize mathematics the same way?

 

[Valjean]

1) Judges and lawyers sit in legal judgment;

2. Criminal laws could not be written if legislators could not rely on their conscience to discern right from wrong in specific situations. Moreover, laws are often edited after the judgment in a specific case offends the public's conscience.

Unfortunately, laws are too often crafted to maintain the power of the elite, the profits of the owners and to keep the masses in their place. Abstract moral principles often figure little in legislation, except as window dressing.

 

[joe1776]

Would you categorize mathematics the same way?

If you mean does math begin in the senses? Yes, it begins with effects we see and then wonder about their measurements. And science begins when we wonder about their cause.

 

[joe1776]

Unfortunately, laws are too often crafted to maintain the power of the elite, the profits of the owners and to keep the masses in their place. Abstract moral principles often figure little in legislation, except as window dressing.

Yes, that's true.

 

[joe1776]

You've opened an interesting can of worms here. It might be that this ought to spin off to a different thread but...

I'm pointing out that the thread topic is based on the very same false premise that moral philosophers have been relying on for centuries: That moral judgments are the product of reason.

So, I'm on-topic here.

 

[icehorse]

If you mean does math begin in the senses? Yes, it begins with effects we see and then wonder about their measurements. And science begins when we wonder about their cause.

I think we can put math and morals into the same "reasoning" bucket. I suspect you disagree.

 

[icehorse]

I'm pointing out that the thread topic is based on the very same false premise that moral philosophers have been relying on for centuries: That moral judgments are the product of reason.

So, I'm on-topic here.

I wasn't saying that you were off-topic. I was suggesting that when I brought "expert intuition" into the discussion, I might be going off topic.

 

[joe1776]

I think we can put math and morals into the same "reasoning" bucket. I suspect you disagree.

Yes, I disagree and point out that the only science on our topic supports me.

Your rationalist position has been popular for centuries but it never had any research supporting it. College psych courses are still teaching it. I adopted it based on logic but my intuitionist position has the support of research over the last 30 years or so.

The link I provided on my post to Sunstone is a good starting point to find research because some of the key players doing the research summarize their positions on that site. They don't agree on much or with me except on the key question: moral judgments are intuitive.

 

[joe1776]

I wasn't saying that you were off-topic. I was suggesting that when I brought "expert intuition" into the discussion, I might be going off topic.

OK, I misunderstood.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, I disagree and point out that the only science on our topic supports me.

Your rationalist position has been popular for centuries but it never had any research supporting it. College psych courses are still teaching it. I adopted it based on logic but my intuitionist position has the support of research over the last 30 years or so.

The link I provided on my post to Sunstone is a good starting point to find research because some of the key players doing the research summarize their positions on that site. They don't agree on much or with me except on the key question: moral judgments are intuitive.

So have you studied implicit learning, tacit knowledge, and/or expert intuition? All of those scientific disciplines have broadened the definition of intuition to include reason. So perhaps we're just having semantic difficulties here? But I think that as the science progresses, we're seeing that more and more of what's traditionally been called "intuition" is more aptly named "expert intuition". Again "expert intuition" assumes reasoning.

 

[joe1776]

So have you studied implicit learning, tacit knowledge, and/or expert intuition? All of those scientific disciplines have broadened the definition of intuition to include reason. So perhaps we're just having semantic difficulties here? But I think that as the science progresses, we're seeing that more and more of what's traditionally been called "intuition" is more aptly named "expert intuition". Again "expert intuition" assumes reasoning.

You label implicit learning, tacit knowledge and expert intuition as "scientific disciplines" which tells me that you are far more impressed with these ideas than I am. However, I'd like to focus on the remarkable phenomenon of moral intuition (conscience).

Imagine a soldier willing to kill the aggressor-enemy in a just cause who is given an order to kill civilians. His conscience immediately feels the wrongness. If he obeys the order his conscience will nag him with guilt for the rest of his life when he remembers his immoral act.

Now consider that:

1) Human acts happen in an almost infinite variety and yet the soldier's conscience was able to immediately judge this specific act immoral.

2) There is no conceivable way that one could become an expert in this kind of decision.

3. The IQ of the soldier is not a factor. In human experience, we have never even suspected a correlation between intelligence and moral character but there is certainly a correlation between IQ and the ability to reason.

4. As Jon Haidt's (2000) research found, any reason the soldier might give for judging the act immoral would be after the judgment was made and would quite likely make no sense.

5. Learning and experience would be involved in "expert intuition." The Moral Sense Test, online now since 2003, tracks responses to a series of hypothetical moral dilemmas. These responses have proven to be remarkably consistent, regardless of age, gender, religion, or cultural background. Isn't it obvious that their moral intuition didn't develop from reasoning?

 

[WalterTrull]

Intuition = revelation ?? Might that be considered objective? I dunno. I think we play with words.

 

[icehorse]

You label implicit learning, tacit knowledge and expert intuition as "scientific disciplines" which tells me that you are far more impressed with these ideas than I am

My guess is you've never studied these ideas. (And yes, on second reading I don't think these would be considered disciplines. Perhaps you'd be okay with "well regarded theories"?)

As to your points, 1-5:

1 - this seems no different than the master making a good chess move.
2 - this also seems like chess
3 - agreed, this has little to do with IQ
4 - this is also quite consistent with the master. His verbal reasoning will be grossly incomplete at best. And studies have shown that if he attempts to explain his moves before he makes them, his performance will go down.
5 - expertise can work in real situations and in the hypothetical.

Every one of your arguments (so far), is easily explained as expert intuition. In other words expertise that cannot accurately be verbalized.

Let's think about the chess master for a minute. We can rightly call him an expert. Scientists who study expertise define expertise as "reliably good performance in the domain". The chess master has proven over thousands of games that he makes good moves reliably. I can play chess. And sometimes I make the same move that a master would make. The reason I'm not a master is because my moves are not reliably good.

So, the chess master is truly a master. But he cannot explain - not really - how he goes about deciding which move to make. So far, you've said nothing to distinguish expert intuition in the domain of morals from expert intuition in the domain of chess. I think that's because they are both products of reason.

 

[joe1776]

My guess is you've never studied these disciplines.

Studied? No. I read enough about the ideas to decide they weren't developed enough to be worth my time.

1 - this seems no different than the master making a good chess move.

Please explain, if you can, how we humans learn, by reasoning, to become masters of moral judgments.

Every one of your arguments (so far), is easily explained as expert intuition. In other words expertise that cannot accurately be verbalized.

You've claimed expert intuition but to support your claim you'll need to explain how its possible that the average human can become an expert in moral reasoning.

So, the chess master is truly a master. But he cannot explain - not really - how he goes about deciding which move to make.

I'll grant that expert intuition and moral intuition are alike in that judgments can't be explained. Now, if you can persuasively explain how we all become experts in moral reasoning, I'll concede I'm wrong.