Vera Politica wrote:But why doubt your moral intuitions but latch on to other metaphysical intuitions? I will respect your position on morality so long as you are also an idealistic solipsist (that you and only yourself exist), if not then you are being inconsistent. I see no more reason to doubt our moral intuitions that to doubt the objective existence of the external world, or the objective existence of the past, or the objective existence of other minds. You either have to doubt all your intuitions, to be consistent, or show me that there is more reason to doubt one and not the other. That being said, 'rationality' and 'irrational' is not a property that applies to truth-values, so one cannot say that "the truth may be irrational". If what you mean to say is that we may need to be epistemically irrational in order to conclude true statements, then there is little sense in conversing with others and you are no longer doing philosophy.
You are looking at this like a math teacher VP - you have this set of rules that you follow so stringently that it leaves no room for personal growth - no room for exploration. It's like you are resolved and comfortable with your intellectual fate. You think maybe you are just too comfortable?
I'm not going to even reply to this paragraph - to me it is just too generalized and meaningless. All the meat of what I've written has been ignored.
I
will take the time to put into order my main points about morals, maybe you will - catch a drift?
Tainari88 wrote:I always am curious on how many concepts that are socially constructed are considered universal and how many are really cultural mores and vary according to cultural values---is morality universal in some ways? Or is morality subject to only the society specifically requiring it?
CC wrote:In my opinion, morals are a product of the evolutionary process. We are born with certain traits.
CC wrote:Of course morally good - is in the eyes of the beholder - the sentient beholder.
CC wrote:There is no doubt that our cognitive defenses are more advanced - that's all it really is though - defenses. No different than the fleetness of a horse or the camouflage of a chameleon.
CC wrote:Social manipulation as I said before, is just that - it creates a set of moral values, a guide to follow. The sentient being can follow these - espouse them - die for them - kill for them. In my opinion they are secondary to basic inherited character traits and something we as social creatures pass on to our youth - as a form of defense.
VP wrote:Now, take the following statement: "The mass extermination of 6 million Jews, on the sole grounds that they are Jewish, is wrong". True, False, or no truth-value? On your view, this statement does not have a truth-value, it is neither true nor false. This, I submit, is irrational.
CC wrote:We make our own moral truth - we design our own moral lies. We do this knowingly and unknowingly - all to better prepare ourselves, for when we become rats in a box. A socially defensive, survival mechanism. Empathy - prevents you from seeing this VP, just as much as it leads humanity dynamically towards social structures.
Tainari88 wrote:We are an irrational and an illogical species many times.
CC wrote:A truth in my eyes - we need the dynamics of the irrational to adjust our social structure. A defensive survival mechanism.
VP wrote:Now, take the following statement: "The mass extermination of 6 million Jews, on the sole grounds that they are Jewish, is wrong". True, False, or no truth-value? On your view, this statement does not have a truth-value, it is neither true nor false. This, I submit, is irrational.
CC wrote:The only truth to be found - is in the irrational.
CC wrote:Irrationality controls it all. There is no direction - there is only dynamics.
Suska wrote:Overall and in particular, immorality is that which diminishes, morality is that which enhances.
CC wrote:I disagree - it is for the beholder to decide.
CC wrote:In a nutshell - just as much as it (empathy), leads humanity dynamically towards social structures. ---- dynamics is irrational, so true - false is based on irrational dynamics.
Your empathy (all who possess it) makes you susceptible to influence and firm in your established beliefs.
Suska wrote:CC, I find it difficult to understand you but it seems that you're suggesting that morals are natural and then that they are social.
Summary: I began by pointing out the following:
'In 1258, the Mongols attacked the city of Baghdad, and then killed children, women, detained and disabled people (Mongols made no distinction between those who stood against them and those who surrendered themselves to them, both were murdered). 80,000 residents in a period of 40 days. (or so history writes)'
By today's moral standards - this was a massacre, a horrible event - one to be punished, demonized and fixated upon our minds in every history book we read - for our entire life. Forty days after the slaughter began - the Mongols were laughing, cheering and celebrating themselves around their campfires. Do you think they thought twice before they slaughtered all those people?
Did the Mongols lack empathy? No. A Mongol warrior would try and save his drowning son or tribal friend like any other. These are Natural Morals - a product of our evolutionary being.
What about Social Aquired Morals? Where do those come from - what role do they play? The Mongols just conquered an entire city - to them it was a good thing - something celebrated by drink and song.
I've heard the word "intuition" thrown around. Like it is some kind of a Natural Moral. Sorry, but no. Intuition is nothing more than a reflection of an individuals current morals. You can have a natural intuition based on your evolutionary traits - call it instinct if you will. You can also have a social intuition - based on your socially acquired morals.
Natural Morals - allow for blood-lust. Socially acquired morals can be adjusted to not.
Socially Acquired Morals are "dynamic" (constantly changing), Natural Morals are "fixed" ( a human smile is a universal moral language).
Individual empathy allows for familiarity and unified reasoning, yet also allows for flexibility and dynamics. Just like the human species - Social Morality is constantly evolving - through social contact- through struggles and challenges. If Modern Industrial Society came crumbling down - we would maintain our social morals as long as we could - if the struggles became great - we would turn out of necessity to blood-lust.
rational ..........as it applies to social morals - I contend that this word is irrational. Some - would wish to preserve social moral norms and imprison us within them, ignoring the fact that social morals are dynamic. A good example of this is the debate on religion/atheism.
There is no such thing as "Truth" in Socially Acquired Morals....that is irrational. Socially Acquired Morals are dynamic (constantly changing)....This dynamics is irrational as well....there is no reason - no direction. It is part of the evolutionary process and directly reflects on such.
CC wrote:Your empathy (all who possess it) makes you susceptible to influence and then firm in your established beliefs.