I don’t need this to be proved. But taking it as obvious isn’t doing ethics.
Added:
Thanks for that. And for sharing it with everyone. Important context. I always appreciate when you come down to my level, even if only for short time. Good luck clarifying the ethical without me, or ought I just say “luck”.
yet
Your claim is unclear to me. Yes, there is more to be done than just recognising that kicking puppies for fun is not good. But it might be a beginning.
Frankly, the direction of your questioning is unclear. What do you expect, by way on an answer?
I was hoping you would say more about ethics than it “concerns dealings with others”.
Right. How do you get from “Banno thinks it is wrong to kick puppies for fun” to “It is wrong for anyone to kick puppies for fun”?
At least, can you get to the universal ethical rule without recognizing objective good in the world? If yes, how?
That’s not something I want to do. Nor do I need to.
Did you read the beginnings of this thread?
Kind of odd to keep saying that everyone is misrepresenting you while at the same time refusing to give your view when asked, isn’t it?
For example, I pointed you to my questions here a number of times, and you literally evaded them for more than a dozen posts. Eventually you gave something vaguely related to an answer, and immediately failed to answer the follow-up which was yet another repeated question.
Someone who engages in evasion after evasion really has no right to claim that they are somehow being misrepresented. Indeed, the initial questions still stand. You continue to evade them:
Not everyone; just you.
I answered your questions. Others may check. The answers just were not what you wanted.
Point to the post where you answered those four questions. I dare you.
Leon, how old are you?
@Leontiskos @Banno Just stop
Cheers. I’ll put him back on “Ignore”.
Is the implication here that if @Michael thinks it is true that folk ought not kick puppies, then “we have shown that there are moral truths”?
It’s tough. My positions make Truth fairly illusiory in the way we want here. I can get on with certain categories of truth, such as “When i look at the Sun, i see (experience) yellow” or whatever. I find it much, much harder to say things like “It’s true that the african american population is more susceptible to sickle cell anemia” for instance. There’s too many stop-gaps between my brain and the claim.
Morality, to me, is not even truth-apt in this way. Banno’s truths work for me, now I understand them, but i take them to not be statements about hte act itself, but about what we do. In this way, it’s likely that my moral positions are rested on my emotional reaction to various suggestions on how best to balance my emotional state with the projected success of some action. This allows for things like sacrifice without blowing smoke up my own arse, but also self-interest where it might be irrational to not be self-interested. It just also leaves open many, many opportunities for “mistake”.
This one. I can’t make sense of any other suggestions I’ve heard, beyond a blunt evolutionary instrument, which seems inccorrect to me.
I’m relatively obsessive about the law. I work in law. Its that negotiative aspect of human interaction that I love, and has lead me to my conclusions. PLenty of legal principles seems morally objectionable to me, and many I love. That doesn’t mean that those laws aren’t the best balance we have so far (again.. so far..) I also think the Law is apt to move with the times, albeit at a snails pace and that is probably inadequate.
Hedonic thinking is attractive, until it fails to adequately take account of future emotional states. Otherwise I don’t think moral systems are particularly helpful thinking.
Thanks for that thoughtful response.
I think in practice this is what we do. Whether there’s the potential for some kind of understanding of goodness itself, which emanates from The One and can guide our moral development, who can say?
I’m also very interested in the law. I personally can’t think we’d ever get to a moral standard on earth that doesn’t exploit people without some significant enforceable protections.
Got ya.
Comparing a solid brick wall, with a notion of atoms being comparable to our solar systems full of empty space.
That ignores both scale and the reality that atoms are bundled within a tremendous force field (that is anything but empty) of its own creation, so the “empty space concept” is another gratuitous human construct that ignores the reality of both scale and the actual structure of atoms. Oh but we human do love it.
Think about Earth’s complexity?
How could that have ever evolved, if not out of billions of years of change over time?
It’s been the most complex physical, then physical & organic, construct imaginable. Set up and demanding an absolutely consistent set of fundamental parameters, laws of physics and rules of engagement - or nothing organized could have been invented, let alone evolve and change in a constructive manner - to constantly changing condition.
To dismiss the reality of Earth’s fixed history, is to disengage with Reality and enter a Mindscape of our own making.
Me, I love my mind, but without the constant touchstone of physical reality and life, it would be worthless.
It’s complex subject to human perspectives. Hardly surprising. We were using stone tools not that long ago.
Depends what you are talking about. What counts as Earth’s fixed history? In what sense is it fixed? Take our “Big Bang” cosmology, will it still be the accepted scientific account in 500 years? I doubt it, just as we no longer accept the geocentric model, in which the Sun was thought to revolve around the Earth. Yet it was useful enough to shape human understanding for centuries and provided astronomical models with genuine predictive value, despite being fundamentally mistaken. Our perspectives evolve, and our understanding of history changes too, often depending on culture and language.
I certainly agree with,
I wasn’t discussing human understanding. I was talking about the physical reality of this planet, that is, its geological, biological reality. The “physicalism” that many seem to want to doubt.
While the future is full of potential, the past is what it was.
Of course, human history is a different story, that is written by people with agendas. But nature is not a trickster the way humans are.
Appreciating the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide is what I’m trying to find someone to discuss.
Well respectable schools of philosophy do doubt this, and there are others who don’t merely doubt it but reorient our understanding, such as the 4E school as described by people like Evan Thompson. There is no view from nowhere and no unmediated access to reality as it really is.
But what is the relationship of this kind of metaphysics to morality?
Please explain this.
(I’m a semi-recluse from rural southwest Colorado in a 600sq ft cabin, so don’t follow what’s happening at respectable schools. Nor other academic nuances.)
For what it’s worth, I don’t do metaphysics. I do science and evolution and living and experiencing and allowing the facts to build my story upon.
Addendum — A Philosopher Schools Citizenschallenge.
A counterpoint to Cc’s “Chalmers’ Hard Problem and the Living Moment of Now — A story and a challenge for the philosophically minded.”
signed,
an Earth Centrist
(Meaning Earth is my foundational touchstone with reality)
Well, science and evolutionary theory rest on metaphysical assumptions that are open to question, such as the idea that reality is, at least in principle, intelligible to human beings.
You won’t be the first materialist or physicalist to appear here. Although some are harder and some softer. Some even eschew those labels and talk about being “naturalists”, given that for many, materialism may be seen to fail to explain lots of things like consciousness itself, qualia, intentionality, mathematical truth, normativity, etc.
Sure, so you can remain a physical recluse and also be a recluse from philosophical ideas too if you want. Doesn’t change what is actually out there to contend with.
I’m not going to give a potted history of metaphysics since I am no philosopher. But I think you’ll find that idealists and many post-structuralists will have no truck with your metaphysical claims. Naive realism, which looks to be your view, takes the world more or less as it appears to us in ordinary experience: that there is a mind-independent reality, and that our perceptual faculties generally put us in direct contact with it. It is an intuitively attractive position, but it is also precisely what has been challenged by a wide range of philosophical traditions, which argue that perception is always mediated, by concepts, language, or cognitive structures, such that what we take to be “just seeing reality” is already shaped by the conditions of human understanding.
Fair enough and glad to meet you, because I am willing to take on those matters, with a clear headed understanding based on science more than my own convictions, which are open to revision depending upon new evidence and reasoning.
For a thorough introduction to my perspective please take a look at the following. I’d be happy to listen to reasoned objections and discuss.
Chalmers’ Hard Problem and the Living Moment of Now.
A story and a challenge for the philosophically minded.
Addendum — A Philosopher Schools Citizenschallenge.**
A counterpoint to Cc’s “Chalmers’ Hard Problem and the Living Moment of Now — A story and a challenge for the philosophically minded.”
Please explain where you think I’ve made a “meta-physical” claim?
Please don’t be making assumptions about me, until you actually engage with my perspective.
Do you believe in Earth’s Evolution?
“always is mediated” is a sort of absolute statement, when consciousness is mediated by a myriad of factors, so this needs a more nuance discussion.
Ask me who I am, and I will respond - I am an evolved biological organism of Earth’s making, my heritage goes back a half a billion years worth of generations unfolding one generation at a time (100% successful!), with lives that unfold one day at a time, each life passing on its lessons and practical experience into the next generation.
AS for consciousness, it started with single-celled creatures, consciousness has been one of life’s primal priorities. It’s woven into the fabric of life since the git-go.
Dr Nick Solms sums it up most distinctly.
Consciousness is best understood as the inside reflection of our body communicating with itself.
I’m happy to discuss.
Have a good evening, Cc