ScholasticSpastic wrote:
Weird. Who decided that the "rudimentary self" of a social animal would necessarily be amoral?

Being materialistically in inclined, I find this a strange position.

If the very complex chemistry and physics that goes on in our brains and relevant attachments [and that of other critters' brains] is thought, then who decided that this complex chemistry and physics can somehow be considered as moral?

When we talk of morality and the like we give ourselves god-like properties. I don't buy this outcome.

We live in a mental world where we continuously believe we can do otherwise.

romansh wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
Weird. Who decided that the "rudimentary self" of a social animal would necessarily be amoral?

Being materialistically in inclined, I find this a strange position.

If the very complex chemistry and physics that goes on in our brains and relevant attachments [and that of other critters' brains] is thought, then who decided that this complex chemistry and physics can somehow be considered as moral?

When we talk of morality and the like we give ourselves god-like properties. I don't buy this outcome.

We live in a mental world where we continuously believe we can do otherwise.

I do believe that there are some underpinning assumptions in what you have written which would benefit from further examination. Why should the chemical nature of mind be insufficient to explain morality? What does morality have to do with gods? I have yet to encounter any mythologies in which the gods were any more moral than humans, and I have encountered a fair few in which the gods appear to be quite morally stunted.

Please feel free to share a non-tautological example of a god being more morally capable than a human. Please feel free to provide support for the assumption that a chemical mind cannot be considered a moral mind. Please feel free to provide an example of any other sort of mind, anywhere, moral or otherwise.

If there is morality in the world, and the only minds in the world are chemical, then morality must necessarily arise from chemical minds. If there is no morality in the world, what are we discussing?

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
I do believe that there are some underpinning assumptions in what you have written which would benefit from further examination. Why should the chemical nature of mind be insufficient to explain morality? What does morality have to do with gods? I have yet to encounter any mythologies in which the gods were any more moral than humans, and I have encountered a fair few in which the gods appear to be quite morally stunted.

So when we add sodium carbonate to a copper sulphate solution and it results in a basic copper carbonate precipitate. I am not sure how I can ascribe morality to that reaction. We can make the reaction sequences as complex as we want, somebody will have to explain to me how it makes the sequence somehow moral or immoral.

Regarding what do gods have to do with it? Do we not have to have free will to be moral animals? In the Christian tradition free will is god given (though the Bible itself is far from clear on this matter).

Ultimately the tack you are taking will result in a semantic world view of morality. An individual or perhaps communal contract where breaking that contract is viewed as immoral.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:Please feel free to share a non-tautological example of a god being more morally capable than a human. Please feel free to provide support for the assumption that a chemical mind cannot be considered a moral mind. Please feel free to provide an example of any other sort of mind, anywhere, moral or otherwise.

I am not claiming god is moral or immoral. I am not even claiming god.
You can consider brain chemistry moral, by all means.
I am arguing for amorality not morality.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:If there is morality in the world, and the only minds in the world are chemical, then morality must necessarily arise from chemical minds. If there is no morality in the world, what are we discussing?

I think we generally conflate a sense or morality or perhaps a capacity to have a sense of morality with morality itself.

Much in the same way we conflate the experience of redness of a London double-decker bus with the bus being red.

Another observation from the Humanities side:

For a lot of people, probably most of them, "morality" itself as a subject area, is assumed to be an entirely THOUGHT-AND CONCEPT driven thing. This isn't surprising, especially in relation to the immediate focus of this thread, since anyone can eat meat and derive sustenance from it, and therefore deciding whether to eat it or not, is a purely THOUGHT DRIVEN exercise.

The people who assume that non-humans are amoral, tend to correlate closely to those who assume that animals are entirely "instinct-driven," and do everything they do by mechanical means alone.

This is what I was pointing to before, in reference to those who would declare that ALL morality is nothing more than mind INTERFERING with matter.

I myself am wary of morality-based arguments, not because I prefer mechanisms to thought, but because too often, morality is used to disguise a push for one set of humans being declared as magical rulers over the rest of us.

Zeroing in on our brains being electro-chemical machines, can also hobble the discussion. Lots of people, especially in these forums, are either fearful, or dedicated to opposition to magical/religious understandings of the universe. But this fear can lead to us giving too much power to the people who DO want to declare morality to be a meaningless distraction, and that only wealth or physical strength or whatever advantage they happen to have, should decide how we behave.

So be careful how forcefully you declare yourself in support of such concepts. No matter what you do in order to deal with the concern to the front of you, there will always be someone else behind you, trying to figure out how to take advantage of what YOU'RE doing, to take advantage of you.

romansh wrote:
So when we add sodium carbonate to a copper sulphate solution and it results in a basic copper carbonate precipitate. I am not sure how I can ascribe morality to that reaction. We can make the reaction sequences as complex as we want, somebody will have to explain to me how it makes the sequence somehow moral or immoral.

I do believe that this is the very first strawman I've ever seen presented in terms of a chemical reaction!

The precipitation of copper carbonate is so far removed from the chemistry of the mind that I see no reason to compare the two.

Regarding what do gods have to do with it? Do we not have to have free will to be moral animals? In the Christian tradition free will is god given (though the Bible itself is far from clear on this matter).

Is this a discussion which takes place within the confines of the Christian tradition? I should think we have a little more breadth than that. Regarding free will, as I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that free will by any useful definition exists, I have no reason to require that it be a prerequisite for moral behavior.

Ultimately the tack you are taking will result in a semantic world view of morality. An individual or perhaps communal contract where breaking that contract is viewed as immoral.

Show me an example of a moral action which takes place when one is alone in the world. I agree that morality is an emergent behavior of social animals. Without society, what need does one have for morality?

I am not claiming god is moral or immoral. I am not even claiming god.

Then why bring gods up in the first place?

You can consider brain chemistry moral, by all means.

How would that even work?

I am arguing for amorality not morality.

After this "clarification" of your position, I am at a loss as to what you are arguing or whether you are arguing at all.

I think we generally conflate a sense or morality or perhaps a capacity to have a sense of morality with morality itself.

Much in the same way we conflate the experience of redness of a London double-decker bus with the bus being red.

This bit is so self-referential that I'm surprised it managed to avoid tautology. And yet it did. Even so, I do not know what you are attempting to express here.

igorfrankensteen wrote:
Zeroing in on our brains being electro-chemical machines, can also hobble the discussion.

But if our brains are "machines", then ultimately understanding this "fact" and taking it to heart in our discussions could lead to a better understanding of the human condition?

I don't know how to sweep this particular aspect of our condition under the carpet.

romansh wrote:
But if our brains are "machines", then ultimately understanding this "fact" and taking it to heart in our discussions could lead to a better understanding of the human condition?

Not if one harbors an overly narrow conceptualization of what it means for something to be a machine. A machine is anything that you put energy into and get work out of. By that definition, the brain is a machine. But what does that tell us about what the brain is capable of? What does that tell us about what the brain is not capable of? Nothing and nothing.

ScholasticSpastic wrote: But what does that tell us about what the brain is capable of? What does that tell us about what the brain is not capable of? Nothing and nothing.

Not exactly true ... it does tell us that are brains a capable of responding to cause "energy inputs" and it is not capable responding without cause.

romansh wrote:

igorfrankensteen wrote:
Zeroing in on our brains being electro-chemical machines, can also hobble the discussion.

But if our brains are "machines", then ultimately understanding this "fact" and taking it to heart in our discussions could lead to a better understanding of the human condition?

I don't know how to sweep this particular aspect of our condition under the carpet.

I'm not remotely suggesting we "sweep it under the carpet." The opposite, really. I'm suggesting that we include the potential ways that this aspect of understanding can affect and therefore distort other aspects of the subject.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
After this "clarification" of your position, I am at a loss as to what you are arguing or whether you are arguing at all.

I am arguing for us not to think in terms of morality.

romansh wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
After this "clarification" of your position, I am at a loss as to what you are arguing or whether you are arguing at all.

I am arguing for us not to think in terms of morality.

Did you read the thread title?

igorfrankensteen wrote: I'm not remotely suggesting we "sweep it under the carpet." The opposite, really. I'm suggesting that we include the potential ways that this aspect of understanding can affect and therefore distort other aspects of the subject.

And I am suggesting thinking in terms of morality is a completely unnecessary aspect of our live. Anecdotally speaking it has been true for me, though I do catch myself as thinking terms of good and evil at times.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

romansh wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
After this "clarification" of your position, I am at a loss as to what you are arguing or whether you are arguing at all.

I am arguing for us not to think in terms of morality.

Did you read the thread title?

Yes and I read all the posts.

Do you think non human animals are somehow different? Do you think humans have some special place in the pecking order?

And how is what I wrote irrelevant to the title?

I suspect that, rather than having actual issues with "morality" you probably have issues with the baggage commonly attributed to "morality." Especially the religious baggage. If we conceive of morality as

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

(from my very first Google result) rather than as a set of moral commandments as set forth within most faith traditions, then do you still object to "morality?"

Does a society require a system of values and principles of conduct in order to function? Do you see such a system within the society you experience? If so, can you argue against thinking in terms of morality?

romansh wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

romansh wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
After this "clarification" of your position, I am at a loss as to what you are arguing or whether you are arguing at all.

I am arguing for us not to think in terms of morality.

Did you read the thread title?

Yes and I read all the posts.

Do you think non human animals are somehow different? Do you think humans have some special place in the pecking order?

No, and no. However, I do think that humans have a special place in human morality (as opposed to the moralities of other social animals) in that human morality is for keeping human societies functioning smoothly. If an organism cannot actively participate in human society, I do question whether human morality can be about that organism. I am comfortable claiming that human moral constraints about cruelty to other animals arise not from those animals' inclusion in our social systems, but rather from what being cruel says about the humans perpetrating the cruelty and how they are likely to treat other humans.

And how is what I wrote irrelevant to the title?

How do we not think in terms of morality in a thread that's specifically about moral subjects?

ScholasticSpastic wrote: I suspect that, rather than having actual issues with "morality" you probably have issues with the baggage commonly attributed to "morality." Especially the religious baggage. If we conceive of morality as

a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

No not at all, not at least that I am aware of.
Never had the religious baggage, but plenty of the societal stuff.
Yes I can feel ashamed. Not quite a sociopath yet.

ScholasticSpastic wrote: Does a society require a system of values and principles of conduct in order to function? Do you see such a system within the society you experience? If so, can you argue against thinking in terms of morality?

I have no problems with societal contracts. I understand some will be imposed and some I accept whole heartedly. Breaking a contract will have it consequences ... cause and effect.

I am willing to bet some animals have "shame" responses too. Does that make them moral? We can infer to some degree that they have a capacity to sense shame in some sense. But to call them moral in some way to me makes no sense.

romansh wrote:
I am willing to bet some animals have "shame" responses too. Does that make them moral? We can infer to some degree that they have a capacity to sense shame in some sense. But to call them moral in some way to me makes no sense.

I think I can see where you're getting things from, sort of, and why we're disagreeing. You say humans are not special animals, and so to the extent that animals cannot be moral humans cannot be moral. I say humans are not special animals, and so to the extent that humans can be moral, animals can be moral.

Same premise, different outcomes.

ETA: As to whether one of us is correct and the other incorrect, I say that now hinges entirely on how one defines "moral."

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
How do we not think in terms of morality in a thread that's specifically about moral subjects?

I am questioning why think in terms of morality at all.

I do think that humans have a special place in human morality (as opposed to the moralities of other social animals) in that human morality is for keeping human societies functioning smoothly. If an organism cannot actively participate in human society, I do question whether human morality can be about that organism. I am comfortable claiming that human moral constraints about cruelty to other animals arise not from those animals' inclusion in our social systems, but rather from what being cruel says about the humans perpetrating the cruelty and how they are likely to treat other humans.

So can we have a functioning society without morality? It is more than just social contracts. People (and groups) regularly break social contracts. Think of the civil rights movement, Vietnam war protests, and more recently the one percent protests.
Is it fair that the one percent own some ridiculous proportion of this world's wealth?

I would argue fairness be damned, it is not what I want. Some of the reasons I might put forward would include: it leads to an unstable society and an unstable society would impact me and my family. There is nothing inherently wrong with being ridiculously rich, but I suspect it will have a negative impact on society. Having said that I would not argue for a soak the rich policy either.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
ETA: As to whether one of us is correct and the other incorrect, I say that now hinges entirely on how one defines "moral."

I agree there is a semantic issue at the bottom of this.

Morality in some ways points to thinking in terms of good and evil (bad). But if everything is neutral, evolution, memes we have adopted, etc, it becomes difficult (at least for me) to think in terms of morality.

romansh wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
ETA: As to whether one of us is correct and the other incorrect, I say that now hinges entirely on how one defines "moral."

I agree there is a semantic issue at the bottom of this.

Morality in some ways points to thinking in terms of good and evil (bad). But if everything is neutral, evolution, memes we have adopted, etc, it becomes difficult (at least for me) to think in terms of morality.

Since not everyone thinks about morality in terms of good versus bad, I think it's not terribly rational to limit our discussion of morality to that special case. If you were to state that good and bad don't actually exist in a meaningful sense I would agree with you. But when you state that morality doesn't exist, I do not agree. It is possible to define morality in ways which sidestep the good/bad interpretation, which isn't terribly useful anyway unless one believes in an objective moral arbiter. Once we leave good/bad morality behind, however, it is possible to come up with models of how morality can work without such an arbiter.