!	GENERAL MODNOTE This thread is for discussing the implications that physicalism has on morality - Mr.Samsa

SpeedOfSound wrote:I am saying that mistakes about squirrels and crows in trees is invariant under any metaphysical model.

That's true, but also unimportant within the context of having a metaphysical model. There is a reason for metaphysical enquiry which you don't appear to grasp. Distinct metaphysical models do have profound implications for morality; desire; will; purpose; attitude; etc.. There's no getting away from that.

We all must admit that we make mistakes about what we see. If both the real and the mistaken are objects in the mind it maeks zero difference in our practical everyday life which one is more 'real' or what the things are made of. We all understand what it is to mistake one thing for another.

Mistaking the identity of observed things is not really relevant to metaphysics.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I am saying that mistakes about squirrels and crows in trees is invariant under any metaphysical model.

That's true, but also unimportant within the context of having a metaphysical model. There is a reason for metaphysical enquiry which you don't appear to grasp. Distinct metaphysical models do have profound implications for morality; desire; will; purpose; attitude; etc.. There's no getting away from that.

We all must admit that we make mistakes about what we see. If both the real and the mistaken are objects in the mind it makes zero difference in our practical everyday life which one is more 'real' or what the things are made of. We all understand what it is to mistake one thing for another.

Mistaking the identity of observed things is not really relevant to metaphysics.

Metaphysics is not relevant to me. Anything that becomes relevant to me is part of my physical model or fairy tale.

I really like this:
http://www.paul-almond.com/
The first article. On Reality. I don't see it as metaphysics though under some definitions it may be.

jamest wrote: Distinct metaphysical models do have profound implications for morality; desire; will; purpose; attitude; etc.. There's no getting away from that.

Obviously false. I have got away from it. These issues come freely for me from the heart, so to speak. My morality is integral to myself and I do not need some formula or argument or fantasy to make moral decisions. My purpose is something I decide on in each moment. No problem there either. My will is just what I do. I can't see an issue here.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote: Distinct metaphysical models do have profound implications for morality; desire; will; purpose; attitude; etc.. There's no getting away from that.

Obviously false. I have got away from it. These issues come freely for me from the heart, so to speak. My morality is integral to myself and I do not need some formula or argument or fantasy to make moral decisions. My purpose is something I decide on in each moment. No problem there either. My will is just what I do. I can't see an issue here.

People's mindsets (if genuine) and moral outlook usually go more-or-less hand-in-hand. If they don't, people usually suffer from guilt and shame, etc..

Clearly, how one should behave - if indeed there should be any 'shoulds' controlling our behaviour - is all contingent upon one's overall perspective of life et al. At least, this is the case for those intelligent enough to have such a perspective, such as your good self.

If you suffer from guilt, etc., then it is because you have done something which you actually believe you should not have done. Belief is controlled by reason and the heart echoes its call. If you don't suffer from guilt, etc., then your heart is light, yet is in-tune with your reasoning. Either way, the heart and mind are intertwined and are co-producers of one's moral outlook, behaviour and one's emotional response to that behaviour.

Most of this happens at the conscious level, but sinks to and accumulates at the subconscious level, rising again to consciousness at a moments notice, so that we think our emotional responses to individual events are instinctive and beyond us. This is not the case at all.

Well you forced me to it james. I don't think instinct is a useful term anymore but we can say that morality starts in the genes and changes continuously until you die. It has little to do with your world-view or the things you think. It's a complex of tens of thousands of factors all of which as we say make us human.

But some like to reduce it to some set of principles and then the principles become demons of their own and that is where pure evil takes it's hold. Ask the muslim women in the middle east. Ask the Jews.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well you forced me to it james. I don't think instinct is a useful term anymore but we can say that morality starts in the genes and changes continuously until you die. It has little to do with your world-view or the things you think. It's a complex of tens of thousands of factors all of which as we say make us human.

I think that you're confusing us with chimps. It is obvious beyond doubt that particular mindsets [in humans] produces behaviour commensurate with those mindsets. When this doesn't happen, we suffer from guilt and shame, etc..

But some like to reduce it to some set of principles and then the principles become demons of their own and that is where pure evil takes it's hold. Ask the muslim women in the middle east. Ask the Jews.

I'm not condoning any particular reasoning process. All I'm saying is that the heart follows the head. Further, if the heart pings, the head knows that it's done wrong according to its own prior judgements. That's the way it all works. Anyone who has changed their opinions over the years, will know from experience that the heart follows suit. Otherwise, emotional output would be a constant throughout one's life... which it aint.

1) Values change.
2) Values are a product of intelligent thought (reasoning).
3) The heart's state, so to speak, reflects whether we have honoured or dishonoured these values.
4) Therefore, the heart & mind are co-producers of moral behaviour.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well you forced me to it james. I don't think instinct is a useful term anymore but we can say that morality starts in the genes and changes continuously until you die. It has little to do with your world-view or the things you think. It's a complex of tens of thousands of factors all of which as we say make us human.

I think that you're confusing us with chimps. It is obvious beyond doubt that particular mindsets [in humans] produces behaviour commensurate with those mindsets. When this doesn't happen, we suffer from guilt and shame, etc..

But some like to reduce it to some set of principles and then the principles become demons of their own and that is where pure evil takes it's hold. Ask the muslim women in the middle east. Ask the Jews.

I'm not condoning any particular reasoning process. All I'm saying is that the heart follows the head. Further, if the heart pings, the head knows that it's done wrong according to its own prior judgements. That's the way it all works. Anyone who has changed their opinions over the years, will know from experience that the heart follows suit. Otherwise, emotional output would be a constant throughout one's life... which it aint.

1) Values change.
2) Values are a product of intelligent thought (reasoning).
3) The heart's state, so to speak, reflects whether we have honoured or dishonoured these values.
4) Therefore, the heart & mind are co-producers of moral behaviour.

How many times have you changed your mind about how right it is to kill children?

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well you forced me to it james. I don't think instinct is a useful term anymore but we can say that morality starts in the genes and changes continuously until you die. It has little to do with your world-view or the things you think. It's a complex of tens of thousands of factors all of which as we say make us human.

I think that you're confusing us with chimps. It is obvious beyond doubt that particular mindsets [in humans] produces behaviour commensurate with those mindsets. When this doesn't happen, we suffer from guilt and shame, etc..

But some like to reduce it to some set of principles and then the principles become demons of their own and that is where pure evil takes it's hold. Ask the muslim women in the middle east. Ask the Jews.

I'm not condoning any particular reasoning process. All I'm saying is that the heart follows the head. Further, if the heart pings, the head knows that it's done wrong according to its own prior judgements. That's the way it all works. Anyone who has changed their opinions over the years, will know from experience that the heart follows suit. Otherwise, emotional output would be a constant throughout one's life... which it aint.

1) Values change.
2) Values are a product of intelligent thought (reasoning).
3) The heart's state, so to speak, reflects whether we have honoured or dishonoured these values.
4) Therefore, the heart & mind are co-producers of moral behaviour.

How many times have you changed your mind about how right it is to kill children?

None, but asking me a question about a single issue is hardly exhaustive, is it? People's attitudes to all manner of things changes as they develop and become older. These changes are reflected in their emotional responses. I no longer cry, for instance, if I can't have the red bowl for breakfast. I realised this last week.

You must be able to recognise changes in your own attitudes to certain things, from when you were a kid. Certain things that upset you then, don't now... and vice versa. Your feelings never betray what you actually think. Of course, some of us are adept at hiding our feelings, but we cannot kid ourselves. We know how we feel and we know why we feel like that.

James, I have requested a thread split. Let's wait for that.

jamest wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well you forced me to it james. I don't think instinct is a useful term anymore but we can say that morality starts in the genes and changes continuously until you die. It has little to do with your world-view or the things you think. It's a complex of tens of thousands of factors all of which as we say make us human.

I think that you're confusing us with chimps. It is obvious beyond doubt that particular mindsets [in humans] produces behaviour commensurate with those mindsets. When this doesn't happen, we suffer from guilt and shame, etc..

I'm sure that chimps suffer guilt and shame too. It's the mechanism that enacts morality.

But some like to reduce it to some set of principles and then the principles become demons of their own and that is where pure evil takes it's hold. Ask the muslim women in the middle east. Ask the Jews.

I'm not condoning any particular reasoning process. All I'm saying is that the heart follows the head. Further, if the heart pings, the head knows that it's done wrong according to its own prior judgements. That's the way it all works. Anyone who has changed their opinions over the years, will know from experience that the heart follows suit. Otherwise, emotional output would be a constant throughout one's life... which it aint.

Yes. The head is actually where this heart stuff is located.

1) Values change.
2) Values are a product of intelligent thought (reasoning).
3) The heart's state, so to speak, reflects whether we have honoured or dishonoured these values.
4) Therefore, the heart & mind are co-producers of moral behaviour.

Values change and that is the point. The additional point is that every moral choice is different and the entire history of organism/species/environment is called into action for each one.

Physicalism predicts that world-views are a result of reality not the other way around. Analogous is that moral rules are a result of morality not the other way around.

Given your proposal one could not make a moral choice until you arrived at the 'right' worldview and you also have claimed that you are one of the few people on the planet that have one.

What are we saying here, anyway? That we should "choose" a metaphysical model based upon its moral implications? So... if the act of publicly affirming the invisible pink unicorn and living by the code of the unicorn can be shown to have the nicest moral implications, then we should "choose" that particular worldview? I'm afraid that my unicornshit-detector would inhibit me, even if astoundingly nice consequences would follow from the unicorn creed.

Something else is being implied here. James (so he asserts) has the "right" metaphysical model. Perhaps only James has the "right" metaphysical model, so far. And James is telling us that it's important to have the "right" metaphysical model because of its moral implications. It seems that something is implied about James's morality and the morality of the rest of us unenlightened heathens...

I think the message is that we must do metaphysics and get the right answer to get our morals right. James will have to straighten me out if that's not it.

Matthew Shute wrote:What are we saying here, anyway? That we should "choose" a metaphysical model based upon its moral implications? So... if the act of publicly affirming the invisible pink unicorn and living by the code of the unicorn can be shown to have the nicest moral implications, then we should "choose" that particular worldview? I'm afraid that my unicornshit-detector would inhibit me, even if astoundingly nice consequences would follow from the unicorn creed.

Whoa camel. Please remember that this conversation wasn't started [by me] as a thread with a specific agenda; nor was it a conversation instigated by me. I initially involved myself with the intention of countering the claim that metaphysics was irrelevant regards one's everyday interactions with 'things'. My point was that how we interact with things is influenced by our worldview - with what we perceive 'reality' to be. Clearly, how one views reality must impact upon how one behaves.

Anyway, I haven't said (and wouldn't say) that we should choose a metaphysical model based upon its moral implications. I'm a rationalist, which means that 'the truth' should dictate what is right & wrong... and what one would ideally envisage to be right & wrong should not dictate the truth.

Something else is being implied here. James (so he asserts) has the "right" metaphysical model.

As a rationalist, I assert nothing - neither to you or [especially] to myself. If I were in the business of 'asserting', then I'd probably be a Xian, or suchlike.
Further, everybody thinks that their opinions are justified - even the agnostics - so please don't have a go at me merely for thinking that my own particular opinion is justified.

Perhaps only James has the "right" metaphysical model, so far.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps you do.

And James is telling us that it's important to have the "right" metaphysical model because of its moral implications.

I haven't said that. My point was that ANY metaphysical model has moral implications... and therefore impacts upon the ways in which we interact with 'things'.

It seems that something is implied about James's morality and the morality of the rest of us unenlightened heathens...

My moral codes are no better than yours, unless they reflect 'the truth'. As lofty as the desire for world unity might sound, it's bollocks unless it relates to a reality whereby world unity is justified. If there's nothing which intrinsically bonds everyone together, then the lion has no reason to give a fuck about the gazelle. Indeed, if such were the case, then the lion's moral code would be better than mine, because at least his behaviour would be justified in relation to the 'reality' in which he finds himself.*

*This is a metaphor, of course. Therefore, everyone, please spare me having to have a discussion whereby I must distinguish between needs & wants.

jamest wrote:

Matthew Shute wrote:Perhaps only James has the "right" metaphysical model, so far.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps you do.

I don't have a metaphysical model which I hold up as the correct one. I'm sceptical about the claim, implied or asserted, that humans can access metaphysics. Even if you begin with uncontroversial premises and then apply logical reasoning to arrive at conclusions, somebody else can do the same with another set of uncontroversial premises and arrive at different conclusions. We're setting up models which are untestable in principle. I can note that model A and model B are both internally logically coherent and consistent, but I have no way to validate or falsify either one because they're "beyond science". They cannot both be the one. But they can both be wrong.

Meanwhile, our steadily increasing knowledge of the empirical world has allowed us to overcome diseases, predict the future, and send probes to Mars. Why does science yield such fantastic and tangible rewards while metaphysics leaves us gazing at our navels? Well, there's a huge difference between a repeatable scientific experiment and a word game.

But I'm repeating myself again. But I'm repeating myself again.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote: Distinct metaphysical models do have profound implications for morality; desire; will; purpose; attitude; etc.. There's no getting away from that.

Obviously false. I have got away from it. These issues come freely for me from the heart, so to speak. My morality is integral to myself and I do not need some formula or argument or fantasy to make moral decisions. My purpose is something I decide on in each moment. No problem there either. My will is just what I do. I can't see an issue here.

Surely morality is social, and concerns cooperation? It seems to me that it’s indeed (fairly) easy to think of oneself as a material object as long as other people are left out of the picture. If my morality is integral to myself, and I can decide on my purpose in each moment, then I can watch myself and my decisions as they happen, and see how they correlate with what’s known about brains from neuroscience and biology.

I think this is the way to go when thinking about oneself as a material object, but I think SoS is downplaying the difficulties that arise when operating as part of a group, which is an essential aspect of human behaviour. When I am operating as part of a group, my morality is integral to the group as well as to myself, and there is almost certainly a tension between the two. My purposes may be decided in each moment, but if I keep changing my mind I cease to be a reliable and useful member of the group.

As a physicalist, I assume I’m a bunch of cells that evolved, like every other living thing, to maximise inclusive fitness – in so far as living creatures have a purpose, that is it. As part of a semi-integrated superorganism I need to monitor my behaviour from the point of view of other people, and I find that it then becomes more difficult to think of myself as an organism designed to maximise inclusive fitness.

zoon wrote:As a physicalist, I assume I’m a bunch of cells that evolved, like every other living thing, to maximise inclusive fitness

Anybody maintaining metaphysical agnosticism can say as much about humans when talking about science. Cells, atoms, photons - all can be regarded as empirical constructs without ever needing to comment on the "substance", in the metaphysical sense, or ontology. The science works just as well without paying lip-service to physicalism or any of its rivals.

Compare these:

1: Humans are made up of cells, and cells behave like this. The cells are made up of atoms, and atoms behave like this.

2: Humans are made up of cells (which "exist" and which are "physical"), and cells behave like this. The cells are made up of atoms (which "exist" and which are "physical"), and atoms behave like this.

1 is a scientific description. 2 is the same description with some metaphysical physicalism thrown on top.

zoon wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote: Distinct metaphysical models do have profound implications for morality; desire; will; purpose; attitude; etc.. There's no getting away from that.

Obviously false. I have got away from it. These issues come freely for me from the heart, so to speak. My morality is integral to myself and I do not need some formula or argument or fantasy to make moral decisions. My purpose is something I decide on in each moment. No problem there either. My will is just what I do. I can't see an issue here.

Surely morality is social, and concerns cooperation? It seems to me that it’s indeed (fairly) easy to think of oneself as a material object as long as other people are left out of the picture. If my morality is integral to myself, and I can decide on my purpose in each moment, then I can watch myself and my decisions as they happen, and see how they correlate with what’s known about brains from neuroscience and biology.

I think this is the way to go when thinking about oneself as a material object, but I think SoS is downplaying the difficulties that arise when operating as part of a group, which is an essential aspect of human behaviour.

Not downplaying at all. Just up-playing the role of a developed social animal's brain in making moral decisions in the moment and from a complex base of knowledge and intuition. You will remember the meat eating threads as vegan's asking us to morally justify eating meat. That implies that morality is from some particular rational belief based rule. James implies the same except from a world-view. These things of course are the putative reasons we do a moral act but I think it leaves out too much.

Morality is like a living creature and it is interwoven with our histories, both species and individual, our social environment and local environment, and with the particular choice being made.

I find formulaic morality or rationally justified morality to be evil. Pure Evil.

Matthew Shute wrote:

zoon wrote:As a physicalist, I assume I’m a bunch of cells that evolved, like every other living thing, to maximise inclusive fitness

Anybody maintaining metaphysical agnosticism can say as much about humans when talking about science. Cells, atoms, photons - all can be regarded as empirical constructs without ever needing to comment on the "substance", in the metaphysical sense, or ontology. The science works just as well without paying lip-service to physicalism or any of its rivals.

Compare these:

1: Humans are made up of cells, and cells behave like this. The cells are made up of atoms, and atoms behave like this.

2: Humans are made up of cells (which "exist" and which are "physical"), and cells behave like this. The cells are made up of atoms (which "exist" and which are "physical"), and atoms behave like this.

1 is a scientific description. 2 is the same description with some metaphysical physicalism thrown on top.

Science maintains and develops a model of how things work. It's a knowledge base that subsumes most common sense knowledge. I call it a model or a fairy tale and am agnostic about any deeper underlying reality. At least until we get there. This takes metaphysics completely outside of science. I call that model and my use of it physicalism and deny that physicalism is a metaphysical position. Perhaps I need a new word for it but the new word would leave out the fact that we all prescribe to this 'physical' model every time we move.

Matthew Shute wrote:

zoon wrote:As a physicalist, I assume I’m a bunch of cells that evolved, like every other living thing, to maximise inclusive fitness

Anybody maintaining metaphysical agnosticism can say as much about humans when talking about science. Cells, atoms, photons - all can be regarded as empirical constructs without ever needing to comment on the "substance", in the metaphysical sense, or ontology. The science works just as well without paying lip-service to physicalism or any of its rivals.

zoon:
I was using “physicalism” loosely, not intending to imply a metaphysical position (which seems to have been why the term was originally invented as distinct from “materialism”); I’m happy to be classed as a metaphysical agnostic (or just someone in a muddle where metaphysics is concerned). You summed up my starting assumptions in your post:

Matthew Shute wrote:Humans are made up of cells, and cells behave like this. The cells are made up of atoms, and atoms behave like this.