Submitted by Ma3Ke4Li3 t3_y0hchd in philosophy
Reply to comment by TMax01 in Patricia Churchland argues that morality is rooted in our Darwinian biology. She links morality to warm-bloodedness, which required an adaptation to care for others (originally, infants). This is the biological basis for unselfish concern, and later, moral intuitions. by Ma3Ke4Li3
You've misunderstood my argument and made multiple logical fallacies.
Morality cannot be compared to gravity. Gravity can be measured. It can predict outcomes. It exists regardless of humanity. You've simply presumed the concept of morality (which apparently only humanity can recognize?) can exist independently of the only species which qualifies as a "moral agent." Your argument begs the question in that it presumes that which it seeks to prove.
>Morality cannot be compared to gravity.
It's an analogy. Deal with it.
>It can predict outcomes. It exists regardless of humanity.
Hmmm...
>You've simply presumed the concept of morality
I've observed the process of morality. Your assumptions (or my presumptions) about what it is or how it works can be quite inaccurate, and are certainly imprecise, without shedding any doubt on the existence of that process.
>can exist independently of the only species which qualifies as a "moral agent."
Indeed, the presumption that morality would be observed by any other species (not in result but in process) which are moral agents (experience consciousness) is a necessary reflection of what morality is. The fact that we know of no other such species does not preclude their existence, and does not change the nature of morality. You may, if you wish, demand that this uncertainty limit your notions of what morality is, but I am not required to join you.
>Your argument begs the question in that it presumes that which it seeks to prove.
My argument seeks to explain, not to prove. Morality isn't quantitative, as you've mentioned, and cannot be 'proved' in the way you are suggesting, it can only be recognized by other moral agents. The truth is, however, that all moral agents (consciousness) does recognize it, even when they seek to avoid it by claiming blindness to it.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
The analogy strikes at the core of the debate: whether morality is objective (like gravity) or subjective (like art).
Morality is a process now? How does that track with the gravity analogy?
I never said morality was quantitative, but you compared it to a phenomenon that could be.
"Recognizing" morality suggests that, like physics, it exists independent from "moral agents."
If we agree that the existence of moral agents is a necessary precondition of the existence of morality, are you saying that there is some universal standard of morality that applied at the dawn of man, remains the same today, but that did not exist until human evolution passed the "moral agent" threshold?
>morality is objective (like gravity) or subjective (like art).
Your false dichotomy strikes at the core of the conundrum. Morality is objective like consciousness, undeniable regardless of whether it is quantifiable. It is fashionable to assume and insist that gravity is absolutely objective and art is entirely subjective, but the truth is not that simplistic.
>Morality is a process now? How does that track with the gravity analogy?
It shows your reaaoning to be a matter of assuming a conclusion, namely, that if morality cannot be simplistically quantified then we should presume it doesn't exist. As if works of art stop existing for those who proclaim "that isn't art!"
I could belabor the point further, identifying how gravity is not directly quantifiable, but can only be measured in terms of mass and acceleration. Does this mean gravity is not real? In some ways, it actually does, in some ways, it doesn't.
>I never said morality was quantitative,
Is there some other way of interpreting "gravity can be measured" that I'm not aware of? Perhaps you don't want to admit it, but the premise that morality must be quantitative like gravity in order to exist is clearly the foundation of your contention.
>but you compared it to a phenomenon that could be.
I used an analogy. It is a kind of comparison, but relies on a level of engagement you haven't provided.
>"Recognizing" morality suggests that, like physics, it exists independent from "moral agents."
It does more than suggest that, it declares it directly. It is a necessary presumption that anything we percieve exists independently of our perceptions if it exists at all. Some people believe that they can be amoral intellectual agents without being moral agents, and if they try hard enough they can refuse to recognize morality at all. It is an easy assumption to make, because of the nature of morality (including the ways it differs from time, mass, velocity, momentum, and gravity, though all of these things can be considered useful analogies for understanding what morality is) but it is a mistake nevertheless. To be conscious is to recognize moral truths, despite any difficulty we might have expressing, describing, or comparing them.
>If we agree that the existence of moral agents is a necessary precondition of the existence of morality,
We don't. In fact, you have it backwards, that is the opposite of what I directly said. The existence of moral agents is a necessary precondition for observing the existence of morality, but not for that existence to occur. The existence of morality is a necessary precondition for the existence of moral agents, but recognizing morality is not a precondition for its existence, just as recognizing gravity as gravity is not a precondition for gravity. Gravity is quantifiable even when it isn't quantified.
>are you saying that there is some universal standard of morality
Apart from "morality exists", no standard, universal or otherwise, is necessary for morality to exist.
>but that did not exist until human evolution passed the "moral agent" threshold?
You keep repeating the same error. Morality exists independently of moral agents, but can only be observed by moral agents. Perhaps "time" would have been a better analogy than gravity? Any analogy would suffice if you were interested in understanding it, but no analogy could suffice if you are not.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments