Methodological Naturalism and Morality
If morality is codified rules of acceptable and/or unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour, then it only follows - it must be the case - that morality is relative to familial, societal, and/or cultural particular circumstances, with language playing an irrevocable role.
Where there has never been language, then could not ever have been codified anything... rules of acceptable thought, belief, and behaviours(morality) notwithstanding. This sheds light upon an existential dependency between morality and common language use. This train of thought needs to rest where it's at, at least for now...
All morality is existentially dependent upon common language use.
It does not follow from all moralities being relative to such circumstances that there is no unassailable ground upon which to build what would qualify as a moral theory, or a theory of morality. It does not follow from all moralities being relative to individual particular circumstances that all moralities are on any other sort of equal footing. So, all morality is relative.
So what?
Everything is a goat. Nothing further to say about everything being a relative goat for not all else pertaining to morality is equal.
The common denominators are the focus here. Being relative to individual particulars is one, make no mistake, but that alone doesn't serve to ground and/or justify our saying much else. To quite the contrary, it seems to me that the vast breadth of different moralities readily available for us to pick and choose from serves as prima facie evidence for realizing, acknowledging, and/or otherwise firmly believing that certain features of morality are common to all moralities... that is to say that there are common denominators shared between all moralites. Each and every human civilization throughout history, despite the individual, societal, familial, and/or cultural differences between them have certain things in common with one another. All morality is relative to individual particular circumstances, but that does not negate the reality that morality is itself an irrevocably important of humanity... of being a human.
We are by our very nature, interdependent social creatures. We all have a worldview replete with thought and belief about what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. We all have a worldview replete with morality. We all adopt our worldview from those around us while we're amidst learning about the world. We all adopt morality while we're learning what to avoid, and what to aspire towards. We all adopt morality when we're learning how to act in this or that situation. We all adopt morality when we're learning who to consider admirable and who to shun, and/or otherwise avoid.
We all have morality.
Because we all have morality; because we know that all morality is the codified rules of behaviour; because we can gather and compare the different moralities from the different parts of the world; because we can compare historical accounts/reports of formerly accepted rules; because of all these things...
We can check and verify much of what is claimed about morality and glean some significantly improved understanding about morality by virtue of acquiring and utilizing knowledge of the universal common denominators extant within all moralities.
Where there has never been language, then could not ever have been codified anything... rules of acceptable thought, belief, and behaviours(morality) notwithstanding. This sheds light upon an existential dependency between morality and common language use. This train of thought needs to rest where it's at, at least for now...
All morality is existentially dependent upon common language use.
It does not follow from all moralities being relative to such circumstances that there is no unassailable ground upon which to build what would qualify as a moral theory, or a theory of morality. It does not follow from all moralities being relative to individual particular circumstances that all moralities are on any other sort of equal footing. So, all morality is relative.
So what?
Everything is a goat. Nothing further to say about everything being a relative goat for not all else pertaining to morality is equal.
The common denominators are the focus here. Being relative to individual particulars is one, make no mistake, but that alone doesn't serve to ground and/or justify our saying much else. To quite the contrary, it seems to me that the vast breadth of different moralities readily available for us to pick and choose from serves as prima facie evidence for realizing, acknowledging, and/or otherwise firmly believing that certain features of morality are common to all moralities... that is to say that there are common denominators shared between all moralites. Each and every human civilization throughout history, despite the individual, societal, familial, and/or cultural differences between them have certain things in common with one another. All morality is relative to individual particular circumstances, but that does not negate the reality that morality is itself an irrevocably important of humanity... of being a human.
We are by our very nature, interdependent social creatures. We all have a worldview replete with thought and belief about what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. We all have a worldview replete with morality. We all adopt our worldview from those around us while we're amidst learning about the world. We all adopt morality while we're learning what to avoid, and what to aspire towards. We all adopt morality when we're learning how to act in this or that situation. We all adopt morality when we're learning who to consider admirable and who to shun, and/or otherwise avoid.
We all have morality.
Because we all have morality; because we know that all morality is the codified rules of behaviour; because we can gather and compare the different moralities from the different parts of the world; because we can compare historical accounts/reports of formerly accepted rules; because of all these things...
We can check and verify much of what is claimed about morality and glean some significantly improved understanding about morality by virtue of acquiring and utilizing knowledge of the universal common denominators extant within all moralities.
Comments (33)
Morality is not based on language use.
I can make an able judgement using my eyes, and never speak in a language.
It's a hot subject, we may not 'hold a valid position' about morality unless we first settle the debate on what it is.
I believe morality is based on judgement; as to what the optimal course of action is.
We can't make video games, without consuming resources; a moral position would be to make sure we own enough resource and keep a stable continuum. Immorally, just make games anyway, don't care about resource consumption.
My authority, and the way the universe works, is what makes it moral. Conscious beings can freely be evil in this universe, we can debate forever if there is good and evil, but when our resources run dry it's kaput.
What could possibly make you, free-to-do-evil, respect my judgement? Nothing while you've face planted into your device screen. If someone tried to take it away from you, would you complain? Come on, put on a brave face.
What I'm trying to suggest is it's a tough one to reach an agreement on but those who can agree have better odds.
Moral people; We'll always have resources lest a massive disaster.
Immoral people: We'll just keep consuming till we die.
Moral people have chosen the optimal course of action given resources, through the authoritive catalyst(s) who take those people forward.
I'm saying this action is good, this is why, blah blah, nothing else is saying keeping resources is good unless you deter pain or desire pleasure.
Is there a common moral code we can all follow? Yes, but it requires everyone is purely good willed.
Hard to find in such an abstract civilization that tempts and distracts us.
If civilization wasn't so and so evil, we'd be more moral, and naturally, these good things would happen, almost automatically.
Maybe some higher power agrees? What value is lost otherwise?
(I understand some of this is wrong but I hope you can see through to what's implied, ironically).
We all know about Hume. For those who do not: Look up Hume's guillotine. Hume is perhaps best known for it. He convincingly argued that one cannot derive an ought from an is without presupposing another ought somewhere along the line. This basically put an end to such derivations being bandied about as if they are somehow logically convincing trains of thought, and helped give rise to the moral intuition vein of thinking common nowadays.
The issue pertains to what we're supposed to do when there are conflicting moralities; conflicting thought, belief, and/or ideas about what ought be done, about what we ought aspire towards. The issue is who is the ultimate arbiter; by what standard ought we decide what to do as a result of the conflicting ideas resulting from relative nature of all morality.
There can be no doubt that something must be done. That's not a matter of ought. What is a matter of ought, is which action ought be chosen, which kind of thinking ought be fostered, which beliefs ought be cultivated, and what standard we use to establish and/or determine this.
I've offered an argument. The justificatory ground of which cannot be any stronger. Answering "no" and then neglecting to address the aforementioned argument leaves me non-plussed... to borrow a phrase from one I admire. Hell, you didn't even get what I did say right.
You ought pay closer attention.
I'm granting the current conventional understanding of morality. The SEP has an article of the definition of morality...
Moral behavior?
"Moral" as in good or moral as in being moral in kind? Same question and/or concern with "moral intuitions"...
Quoting creativesoul
It depends on how you define "moral" and "good". If someone acts with the best intentions to maximize the well-being of others, would that count as moral behavior for you regardless of outcomes? Same question for the moral intuitions that might precede behaviors.
Personally I think of 'moral' as pertaining to beneficent concern for others.
What morality is is not a matter of 'for you' or 'for me'. The SEP article I linked earlier categorizes uses of the term "morality" in one of two ways, prescriptive and descriptive. Both are about codes of conduct. Thus, morality is all codes of conduct. All codes of conduct are about acceptable and/or unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. That is how I've arrived at morality being that which counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. It would follow from that that what counts as moral - in kind, as compared/contrasted to moral as a value judgment - is so by the very same measure. All things moral involve what counts as acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour.
To directly answer your question. Formulations are not codes of conduct. So, formulations are not equivalent to morality. Therefore, the answer is yes. Things other than formulations 'count' as morality.
To be clear, just in case it hasn't been... You're employing the term "moral" as a value judgment, whereas I am not.
Follow me on that?
Of course not all formulations are codes of conduct, but all codes of conduct are formulations, at least insofar as they are made explicit.
I count some intuitions and behaviors as moral, insofar as they are manifestations of beneficent concern for others. These, unlike codes of conduct, cannot be reduced to formulations.
So it seems that we are on very different pages, and will not be able to have a productive conversation.
Have fun....
Ok?
:brow:
Be well...
You must be using the term "formulation" a bit looser than I. Not all rule writing counts as formulations.
But this mistakenly presupposes that all codes of conduct can be reduced to formulations. It cannot be translated in such a way without significant loss of meaning.
Manifestations of X are moral ones.
Moral intuitions and moral behaviours count as being moral because they are the result of some previous beneficent concern.
Here you've placed much importance upon having beneficent concern for another.
Is that the criterion for what counts and/or qualifies as being moral in kind?
Surely not.
:brow:
In either descriptive or prescriptive terms, being moral takes more than just mere well intended concern for another. I mean, in order for something to be so deserving as to be called and/or further qualified as moral takes more than just keeping other's benefit in mind.
Strictly speaking... when that is the single guiding principle governing one's own deliberate consciously thought about and carefully considered course of action, well you've no better example of altruism.
[I]How[/i] does it follow? As it stands this is an enthymeme - it's missing a premise that would make it a complete argument, or indeed, an argument at all.
All codes of conduct are existentially dependent upon common language use. All language use is relative to individual particulars.
Look towards the top of the OP. Second paragraph.
The second para is just more bare assertion. Still waiting for an argument.
Do you disagree with any particular statement?
"Writing a rule" would be to formulate a rule; so any written rule is a formulation.
Moral intuitions or moral behaviors could be codified as rules; spoken or written. so I'm not seeing how morality is dependent upon language, except for its formulation as sets of written or spoken rules.
What "more" would you say it takes?
Are you really saying that without an argument you do not know if you agree to any of the numerous claims I've made?
:brow:
That strikes me as rather odd. Hopefully the thread will lead somewhere more clearly understood by you when you read it. Then, perhaps you'll know if you agree with any specific claim herein.
Something that doesn't allow a masochist thinking about what's in my best interest to have moral intent.
...
Of course I am. It's literally the basis of all rational assessment. It's worrying that this seems so puzzling to you.
What's puzzling to me is that you are arguing that you cannot know if you agree that some statement is true unless you see it in an argument.
As if statements cannot be thought, believed, and/or known to be true unless they're part of an argument.
Morality is more than rule writing.
...but it is not enough to be called "moral" unless all wants and needs and all consideration thereof also counts.
Weird.
True statements are the strongest possible justificatory ground. I wouldn't expect you to know that though if you believe that you cannot agree that a statement is true unless it is already part of an argument...
If morality - as a term - refers to codes of conduct, and all codes consist entirely of common language, then it only follows that so too does all moralities. It would also follow that whatever all common language consists of, so too does all morality. It would also follow that whatever all common language is existentially dependent upon, so too is all morality.
My suspicion is that you're using the term "moral" in two different ways here. Sometimes as a value judgment similar to "good" or "right", or "worthy of assent", and other times as naming practice for anything and everything that is based upon - or a manifestation of - keeping others interest/benefit in mind.
I don't think we're too far apart here.
There's still much headway to make, on my part, concerning the overall thread. Much ground to cover.
I agree.
Quoting creativesoul
Not sure what you are driving at here.
Quoting creativesoul
There are two issues in what you say in the post the above is quoted from
First, there is your statement that 'morality' as a term, refers only to codes of conduct. I agree that is one of its senses.
Second, you identify a distinction you think I am emphasizing between morality as judgement and morality as process of feeling, deliberation and action. I accept the distinction, but I was only concerned with the latter.
Quoting creativesoul
That which consists of something else cannot exist prior to that something else. Codes of conduct consist of common language. Codes of conduct cannot exist prior to common language. Morality consists of codes of conduct. Morality cannot exist prior to codes of conduct. Morality cannot exist prior to common language. Common language consists of thought and belief statements. Common language cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements. Morality cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements.
That which consists of something else is existentially dependent upon that something else. Morality consists of codes of conduct. Morality is existentially dependent upon codes of conduct. Codes of conduct consist of common language. Codes of conduct are existentially dependent upon common language. Morality is existentially dependent upon common language. Common language consists of thought and belief statements. Morality is existentially dependent upon thought and belief statements.
That which is existentially dependent upon something else cannot exist prior to that something else. Codes of conduct are existentially dependent upon common language. Codes of conduct cannot exist prior to common language. Common language is existentially dependent upon thought and belief statements. Common language cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements. Morality is existentially dependent upon common language. Morality cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements.
So, we've arrived at the irrevocably important role that thought and belief play here, in morality.
Thought and belief statements consist of correlations drawn between different things, as all thought and belief do. Statements thereof involve naming and descriptive practices(common language use), and are of a more complex kind as a result of including language use as an integral part of the aforementioned correlations. Morality cannot exist prior to thought and belief statements, but it seems to me - and I suspect you'll readily agree - that morality is also existentially dependent upon whatever thought and belief statements are also dependent upon. Morality would also consist of whatever thought and belief statements consist of, which brings us to the parts of morality that are not existentially dependent upon language, but are irrevocably important elements nonetheless.
Prelinguistic thought and belief. Here, is perhaps where the intuitionist's basis can be found, and on a universally applicable and/or extant way... rather than just being relative to individual particulars.
That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else. Some thought and belief is prior to common language use, and thus prior to all codes of conduct.
Here is where we find the need to distinguish between morality, and what's universally relevant to it. Perhaps then, we can establish some true statements about morality that are universal.
:wink:
Moral intuition, I suspect, is founded upon(consists of) such morally relevant prelinguistic universal thought and belief.