|
On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
|
On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations?
Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
|
morality is obviously subjective by definition
ethics however can be constructed to have an arbitrary set of laws, in which case it can become objective
|
On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
Natural selection wants nothing.
|
On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment."
I'll just take this as an illustration of my former post, where I criticised Harris for being a demagogue. Only in demagogy, one could actually be perceived as the losing side of an argument when arguing for well-being... in a real argument, systemic doubt would be below the belt, and only factual doubt counts.
As for your Nietzsche reference, please look that up again. Nietzsche's amor fati implies to accept suffering as a part of life, but nowhere does Nietzsche argue against well-being... quite the opposite actually.
|
On May 12 2011 17:41 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. Natural selection wants nothing.
Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No?
|
On May 12 2011 06:04 HuHEN wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 05:50 D10 wrote:
Theres 2 things in the bible and other religions that stand out to me as moral constants in the universe.
Love the others as you love yourself, which means, do not to the other what you wouldnt want done in yourself (basically, dont get other people in shit, give em shit, hurt em, blind fanatics trying to opress people with religious views wouldnt exacly qualify in my view, as being correct as much as they disagree)
Thats a powerfull message right there, bigger and broader than any religion, but people fail to see it for what it is
I think "do onto others as you would have done to yourself" is a good mantra, but it cant be applied inflexibly to everything, I mean, is it good to hurt a masochist? Probably yes, but I wouldn't want to be spanked. lol.
Yes of course, context is of the essence
|
On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well.
There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things.
Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it.
So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing.
|
On May 12 2011 17:48 imagine7xy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:41 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. Natural selection wants nothing. Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No?
I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything.
|
On May 12 2011 17:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:48 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:41 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. Natural selection wants nothing. Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No? I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything.
No, you misunderstood me. I was simply referring to the fact that natural selection tries to maximize survival. Whether you want to use the term purpose or agency is a matter of semantics.
|
On May 12 2011 17:55 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things. Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it. So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing.
Again, semantics around the word bound.
|
On May 12 2011 18:06 imagine7xy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 12 2011 17:48 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:41 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. Natural selection wants nothing. Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No? I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything. No, you misunderstood me. I was simply referring to the fact that natural selection tries to maximize survival. Whether you want to use the term purpose or agency is a matter of semantics.
I may have misunderstood you, but there exists the possibility that you misunderstood me or that we misunderstood one another. At any rate, I don't know how helpful the "you're just talking semantics" tack is at this point.
|
On May 12 2011 18:10 imagine7xy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:55 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things. Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it. So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing. Again, semantics around the word bound.
Yeah, Lixler, quit bringing your semantics into a philosophical discussion.
|
On May 12 2011 18:10 imagine7xy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:55 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things. Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it. So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing. Again, semantics around the word bound.
I apologize, but I feel like those semantics are crucial in saying that natural selection establishes any kind of system of morality. What word would you say best fits the relationship between natural selection and morality?
|
On May 12 2011 07:16 Blyadischa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 07:12 THE_DOMINATOR wrote:
Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind. No, morality is, by definition, a concept of right and wrong. Whether it is a societal construct or something much greater than that is the subject of debate.
whoop de doo doesn't change anything in my argument
|
I think morals are inherently objective, but later on in one's life, they become influenced by the people around them and they start to have more of a subjective view on morals.
|
On May 12 2011 07:18 Fyodor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 07:12 THE_DOMINATOR wrote:
Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beings and since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind. Morality is by definition an abstract societal construct.Not so sure about that. Since morality is only(at the present) created by and used by human beingsIrrelevant? human beings are subjective in natureSince when? I think your computer would have great difficulty processing information if that were true. since human beings are subjective in nature morality is therefore subjective and only constructed by a subjective mind.I guess the inference is valid somewhat but your premises are beyond ridiculous. Untenable conclusion.
Build me a physical manifestation of morality and we'll talk
|
On May 12 2011 18:06 imagine7xy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 17:57 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 12 2011 17:48 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:41 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. Natural selection wants nothing. Yes, technically, but natural selection is running simulations that maximize the survival of genes... No? I dunno. I think you're still talking as if there is some entity called "natural selection" and it has agency. "Natural selection" is just a phrase. It's just a model for explaining certain aspects of biology. The phenomena to which "natural selection" refers has no purpose. It has no goal. It's not wanting or giving or running anything. No, you misunderstood me. I was simply referring to the fact that natural selection tries to maximize survival. Whether you want to use the term purpose or agency is a matter of semantics.
Natural selection in and of itself wants nothing. Just like breathing wants nothing. it is just the description of a process.
During natural selection however the most succesfull genes are passed on. If theses involve cooperation, then something like morality is passed on and would be universal.
However, the fact that Xenophobia is also part of Human nature and violence is a big part of human history, i would not go so far and state that morality is universal. As we can see in the difference between cultures(Taliban vs. the "Western" culture), where totally different forms of moral exist. This indicates that the form of Moral you follow is subjective, morality in and of itself, if we define it as the ability to create a way that you are supposed to act in, is however universal.
Concluding i would reason that the ability to have Moral is universal, but what is acceptable within your form of moral is subjective however.
If something about my train of thoughts is unclear, please tell me cause i am not a native speaker so my thoughts might not be understandable 
|
On May 12 2011 18:15 Lixler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 18:10 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:55 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things. Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it. So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing. Again, semantics around the word bound. I apologize, but I feel like those semantics are crucial in saying that natural selection establishes any kind of system of morality. What word would you say best fits the relationship between natural selection and morality?
The relationship is that following certain morals directly affects our behavior, and that behavior directly affects our survival. Ideas concerning morality propagate mainly through indoctrination, but those ideas origins are from human minds. The net effect of those ideas have severe consequences on survival.
If you had to guess if there was a civilization of people who believed its OK to kill children, and a civilization that decided its NOT OK, which one will continue to EXIST? Thus, a simulation is occurring, and TODAY after tens of thousands of years MORALITY is getting FINE-TUNED through natural selection. That is a very extreme example, but we have limited time, but do not underestimate time duration and net effects of morality.
The tricky thing is, do we have to LET NATURAL SELECTION run a simulation to find good morality, or can we do so scientifically. Well first, lets look at what took place in the example above... What is natural selection doing? It is maximizing survival, ie a big part of well-being.
So when I say we are "We are bound to maximizing well-being" perhaps you are closer to understanding the context, aside from the semantics. Keep in mind, there is a reason he uses "maximize well-being" and not "maximize survival". Well-being is more appropriate because it hints at ideas about what helps human flourish in sophisticated contexts, and conditions, or having nervous systems and feelings, and all that jazz built into us on the long journey here... I don't have enough time to go into all of it right now but realize in the end its subjective morality. It is by no means completely objective, you can't explain to an extra terrestrial why its wrong to physically torture if they are in a body that doesn't feel physical pain for some reason (as an extreme example.)
and at the same time its not appropriate to say evolution has nothing to do with morality.
|
On May 12 2011 18:42 imagine7xy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2011 18:15 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 18:10 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:55 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:35 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 17:29 Lixler wrote:On May 12 2011 17:26 imagine7xy wrote:On May 12 2011 16:59 Fyodor wrote:On May 12 2011 15:53 XeliN wrote:
Instead of saying that perhaps provide a coherent argument for why you disagree with him and/or think he is a bad philosopher. Harris keeps stumbling on the point Craig keeps hammering. The concept that maximizing well-being is something which we are all bound to is ridiculous. He refutes himself when he says "who are you to say that we are obligated to maximize well-being?" but then he shrugs it off without giving the question the seriousness it deserves. He just gives you a dumbfounded look that just says "duh, well-being man, it's soooo obvious duuude". Craig is right on that. Harris has not succeeded in grounding his well-being concept as a binding moral obligation. His entire philosophy is a failure. It seems good enough at first sight yes. But consider for example the Nietzschean thought that suffering, intoxication and destruction can be desirable for the life-affirming type of man. Harris does not cover that angle very well and he knows it. He tries to cover it up so hard with that mocking look on his face. I do believe Nietzsche has a much more satisfying account of human morality than Harris. On so many levels. It's so arrogant on Harris' part to claim that his work is objective and no one else's is. But I will say that evolutionary accounts of morality are interesting. However I think they have a limit. I think they are more useful as a descriptive, historical, explanatory tool than a prescriptive tool for me or future generations. (BTW, I used Nietzsche here but feel free to insert any other philosopher. It's just who I had in mind at that precise moment." We are bound to maximizing well-being, that is what natural selection does. That is where it enters the realm of the physical. That isn't really a coherent idea. What does "bound" mean? "Bound" in the same sense that we are bound to eat food? But certainly this is false - we aren't physically incapable of performing immoral acts. Do you mean natural selection has somehow placed moral obligations on us that transcend our inclinations? Bound in the Homeward Bound sense, as Headed or intending to head in a specified direction. Yes, that is what natural selection wants, to survive. It gives you a nervous system so you can sense pain and avoid danger for instance. Harris's morality is subjective in the sense that it is up to us to determine individual or collectively what maximizes well being. It's a scientific approach to morality that takes into account our evolutionary origins as well. There's a bit of a gap in your logic here. I'll give you the idea that natural selection binds us to moral actions (let's say, for the sake of argument, entirely and universally), but it's an error to assume that we can expand this class of actions with scientific research. The things natural selection binds us to may fit into a certain class (maximizing well-being), but that does not mean we are bound to all actions in that class. Scientific investigation might help us find out more things that maximize well-being, but we are not actually bound (by natural selection, at least) to do these things. Take a couple examples of moral cases. One example of a moral good from natural selection is feeding starving people. Clearly it's advantageous for a species to give some food to people who are about to die. Now, for a scientifically discovered moral good, let's take the example of stem cell therapies (assume that they work 100%, if you don't mind). It generally increases well-being to take unused stem cells from aborted fetuses or what-have-you (we don't need to do that any more, but this is a half-hypothetical example) and to give those stem cells to Alzheimer's patients/quadraplegics/I don't have any more examples. But we run into a problem after we acknowledge this - a lot of people don't actually approve of stem cell research. Many people don't feel an obligation to support stem cell research, even though it increases well-being, and a few people even actively try to hinder it. So we can see that even if we might say that natural selection is trying to point us in the direction of a certain class of actions, all it can actually bind us to are things which could be discovered during the evolutionary process (forgive my bad terminology). Natural selection has no way to bind us to things we found out after it's been completed, e.g. any scientific discoveries. There is, of course, another class of argument which could say our inherited inclinations have nothing to do with morality (you can argue this from an objective or a subjective viewpoint), but that's an entirely differently thing. Again, semantics around the word bound. I apologize, but I feel like those semantics are crucial in saying that natural selection establishes any kind of system of morality. What word would you say best fits the relationship between natural selection and morality? The relationship is that following certain morals directly affects our behavior, and that behavior directly affects our survival. Ideas concerning morality propagate mainly through indoctrination, but those ideas origins are from human minds. The net effect of those ideas have severe consequences on survival. If you had to guess if there was a civilization of people who believed its OK to kill children, and a civilization that decided its NOT OK, which one will continue to EXIST? Thus, a simulation is occurring, and TODAY after tens of thousands of years MORALITY is getting FINE-TUNED through natural selection. That is a very extreme example, but we have limited time, but do not underestimate time duration and net effects of morality. The tricky thing is, do we have to LET NATURAL SELECTION run a simulation to find good morality, or can we do so scientifically. Well first, lets look at what took place in the example above... What is natural selection doing? It is maximizing survival, ie well being. So when I say we are "We are bound to maximizing well-being" perhaps you are closer to understanding the context, aside from the semantics.
I'm terribly sorry, but I asked you what the relationship was between natural selection and morality. It might look like "morality" and "well-being/survival" mean the same thing, but that assumption is what the argument is about. Why is morality defined by "promoting survival?"
I understand the basic point here - an appeal to morality as a sort of shared concept throughout humanity which was developed through environmental pressures - but I think the question that is being asked is what about that concept of morality makes it "objective?" Subjectivists are trying to ask something like "Why should I do moral actions?" and I don't think the answer "Natural selection has prodded you in that direction" is what they are looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
