*Author

Offline OldTrees

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10297
  • Reputation Power: 114
  • OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.
  • I was available for questions.
  • Awards: Brawl #2 Winner - Team FireTeam Card Design Winner
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351803#msg351803
« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2011, 06:08:20 pm »
@Belthus
We, Moral Agents, ask the question "What Ought one do?" however reality answers.
We ask "What is the force due to gravity between objects A and B?" however reality answers. (luckily in this case a means of learning the answer has been developed)

Indeed I define knowledge as the 100% point at the end of a continuum. I used that definition of Moral Competency to elicit your definition (the definition you think is relevant to Moral Agency) so that I could make the case that those two are not connected. It sounded like you thought that 'Moral Competency was the accuracy of someone's knowledge of the society's current consensus on Morality'. Was this right? If so I pointed out that knowledge of the consensus does not correlate with knowledge (or even accurate belief) of the "true moral code".

Separately: Why ought society be sustained? You have claimed that society's norms change promoting the continence of the society. You  also seem to claim that knowledge of society's consensus on "What ought one do?" can be used to measure Moral Competency. This seems to indicate that you are presupposing that society ought to be sustained.

"Reference" in the wikipedia definition does not refer to "knowledge of" but rather "the actions could have these characteristics" if my Philosophy courses are any indication. Hence my laymans definition of Able to have/do/cause moral and immoral intentions/actions/consequences.

I will concede the meme sustaining a detrimental norm argument. I was wrong.

@Neopergoss
Q: "What Ought one do?"
A: "____ as dictated by the true/accurate/valid moral code."
1) One exists and can do (I think therefore I am.).
2) Ought (representing the concept I am describing) implies can.
1+2=3) Ought exists because One can do.
3->4) The question "What Ought one do?" is a valid question for this reality.
5) Valid questions have valid answers.
4+5=6) "What Ought one do?" has a valid answer.
7) ??? [This is where my logic would require inductive reasoning which does not entail a necessarily true conclusion. So I leave it poorly defined when the following inductive leaps are not shared. I will say your leaps from here are plausible, however I am trying to keep the argumentation applicable for everyone.]
"It is common sense to listen to the wisdom of the wise. The wise are marked by their readiness to listen to the wisdom of the fool."
"Nothing exists that cannot be countered." -OldTrees on indirect counters
Ask the Idea Guru: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.htm

Offline Neopergoss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Reputation Power: 8
  • Neopergoss is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351810#msg351810
« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2011, 06:19:42 pm »
@Neopergoss
Q: "What Ought one do?"
A: "____ as dictated by the true/accurate/valid moral code."
1) One exists and can do (I think therefore I am.).
2) Ought (representing the concept I am describing) implies can.
1+2=3) Ought exists because One can do.
3->4) The question "What Ought one do?" is a valid question for this reality.
5) Valid questions have valid answers.
4+5=6) "What Ought one do?" has a valid answer.
7) ??? [This is where my logic would require inductive reasoning which does not entail a necessarily true conclusion. So I leave it poorly defined when the following inductive leaps are not shared. I will say your leaps from here are plausible, however I am trying to keep the argumentation applicable for everyone.]
That unfortunately doesn't clear anything up for me. What makes something right or wrong? What gives it the privilege of being included in the true/accurate/valid moral code? There has to be some kind of criteria. Why should some things be considered more moral than others?

Offline OldTrees

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10297
  • Reputation Power: 114
  • OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.
  • I was available for questions.
  • Awards: Brawl #2 Winner - Team FireTeam Card Design Winner
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351823#msg351823
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2011, 06:42:05 pm »
@Neopergoss
That is what I referenced in 7. I have a belief about what the true moral code is as does everyone. However I do not know of anyone that knows what the true moral code dictates. It is a placeholder name to describe the answer to "What ought one do?" until we know the answer.

Did that explain things better?

Of course if we ever found out the true moral code that would not stop us looking deeper (see particle physics Element-Electrons/Neutrons/Protons-Strings-??).
What ought one do?
One ought to do X. (called the true moral code until someone discovers X)
Why ought one do X?
Because X is Y.
Why does X being Y imply one ought to do X?
...

What ought one do?
One ought to obey God.
What ought one obey God?
Because God is omnibenevolent.
Why does God being omnibenevolent imply one ought to obey God?

What ought one do?
One ought to do anything.
Why ought one do anything?
Because everything is permissible.
Why is everything permissible?

What ought one do?
One ought to Obey the Golden Rule.
Why ought one Obey the Golden Rule?
Because it is fair.
Why does the Golden Rule being fair imply one ought to follow it?
"It is common sense to listen to the wisdom of the wise. The wise are marked by their readiness to listen to the wisdom of the fool."
"Nothing exists that cannot be countered." -OldTrees on indirect counters
Ask the Idea Guru: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.htm

Offline Neopergoss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Reputation Power: 8
  • Neopergoss is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351831#msg351831
« Reply #51 on: June 15, 2011, 06:50:44 pm »
I suppose we'll have to devote another topic to the question of what makes something right or wrong. Though this seems to be a very important question for you, I haven't heard anything about what your answer to it is.

Offline Belthus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 482
  • Reputation Power: 1
  • Belthus is a Spark waiting for a buff.
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351879#msg351879
« Reply #52 on: June 15, 2011, 08:23:31 pm »
We, Moral Agents, ask the question "What Ought one do?" however reality answers.
We ask "What is the force due to gravity between objects A and B?" however reality answers. (luckily in this case a means of learning the answer has been developed)
OK, I agree. That is a key feature of my framework - that a society's norms will have effects that can serve as feedback.

Quote
Indeed I define knowledge as the 100% point at the end of a continuum. I used that definition of Moral Competency to elicit your definition (the definition you think is relevant to Moral Agency) so that I could make the case that those two are not connected. It sounded like you thought that 'Moral Competency was the accuracy of someone's knowledge of the society's current consensus on Morality'. Was this right? If so I pointed out that knowledge of the consensus does not correlate with knowledge (or even accurate belief) of the "true moral code".
As a practical necessity, yes, a passing level of moral competence involves understanding society's norms. It's possible to have more than that, as a conscientious critic of society or an able legislator does. However, on a day-to-day basis, ordinary people cannot be expected to be deep thinkers and make the morally right decisions consistently without reference to social consensus. The deep thought, debate, empirical study, etc. are done when making and implementing the norms.

Quote from: OldTrees
Separately: Why ought society be sustained? You have claimed that society's norms change promoting the continence of the society. You  also seem to claim that knowledge of society's consensus on "What ought one do?" can be used to measure Moral Competency. This seems to indicate that you are presupposing that society ought to be sustained.
Survival is instinctual. It's a built-in motivation. It's also impossible to have morality without moral agents.

Humans are a social species. That's also built in and won't change. A small percentage of humans choose solitary lives, but that just isn't possible for the mass of humanity. Nor are human females going to start laying thousands of eggs and leaving them to their fate, as some insects do. Society in general is here to stay, as long as humans and other social species exist.

If you are asking a question about a particular society, then I certainly do judge some societies to be morally monstrous. I think that promoting social change in such societies is usually better than destroying them.

Quote from: OldTrees
"Reference" in the wikipedia definition does not refer to "knowledge of" but rather "the actions could have these characteristics" if my Philosophy courses are any indication. Hence my laymans definition of Able to have/do/cause moral and immoral intentions/actions/consequences.
A two-year-old boy points a gun and fatally shoots a girl. Diane Downs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Downs) points a gun and fatally shoots a girl. Same action, same moral evaluation of the small boy and Diane Downs?

I believe that Aristotle and others in virtue ethics have emphasized the importance of knowledge in morality [long quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/)]:

Aristotle makes a number of specific remarks about phronesis that are the subject of much scholarly debate, but the (related) modern concept is best understood by thinking of what the virtuous morally mature adult has that nice children, including nice adolescents, lack. Both the virtuous adult and the nice child have good intentions, but the child is much more prone to mess things up because he is ignorant of what he needs to know in order to do what he intends. A virtuous adult is not, of course, infallible and may also, on occasion, fail to do what she intended to do through lack of knowledge, but only on those occasions on which the lack of knowledge is not culpable ignorance. So, for example, children and adolescents often harm those they intend to benefit either because they do not know how to set about securing the benefit or, more importantly, because their understanding of what is beneficial and harmful is limited and often mistaken. Such ignorance in small children is rarely, if ever culpable, and frequently not in adolescents, but it usually is in adults. Adults are culpable if they mess things up by being thoughtless, insensitive, reckless, impulsive, shortsighted, and by assuming that what suits them will suit everyone instead of taking a more objective viewpoint. They are also, importantly, culpable if their understanding of what is beneficial and harmful is mistaken. It is part of practical wisdom to know how to secure real benefits effectively; those who have practical wisdom will not make the mistake of concealing the hurtful truth from the person who really needs to know it in the belief that they are benefiting him.
I would apply the same analysis to knowledge of right and wrong. (Again, I don't mean some ultimate, perfect moral code, but whatever consensus moral code informs the norms of day-to-day life.) The small boy has not been fully socialized yet and so does not know much about right and wrong. Diane Downs, as an adult of at least normal intelligence, does know the difference.

Offline Neopergoss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Reputation Power: 8
  • Neopergoss is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351917#msg351917
« Reply #53 on: June 15, 2011, 09:23:41 pm »
@Belthus: I was wondering if you'd like to respond to the issue I raised about there being an incentive for societies to make war and exploit environmental resources so as to gain a competitive advantage over other societies. One that doesn't engage in these ultimately harmful practices will be less likely to persist if others do. Sort of a fisherman's dilemma for societies. Doesn't this mean that immoral behaviour can be best for society in some situations (the choice being conquer or be conquered/subjugated)?

Offline OldTrees

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10297
  • Reputation Power: 114
  • OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.
  • I was available for questions.
  • Awards: Brawl #2 Winner - Team FireTeam Card Design Winner
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351924#msg351924
« Reply #54 on: June 15, 2011, 09:31:48 pm »
We, Moral Agents, ask the question "What Ought one do?" however reality answers.
We ask "What is the force due to gravity between objects A and B?" however reality answers. (luckily in this case a means of learning the answer has been developed)
OK, I agree. That is a key feature of my framework - that a society's norms will have effects that can serve as feedback.
Please explain what you mean. I did not mention norms anywhere above. Where do these beliefs fit in and why?

As a practical necessity, yes, a passing level of moral competence involves understanding society's norms. It's possible to have more than that, as a conscientious critic of society or an able legislator does. However, on a day-to-day basis, ordinary people cannot be expected to be deep thinkers and make the morally right decisions consistently without reference to social consensus. The deep thought, debate, empirical study, etc. are done when making and implementing the norms.
The correlation between norms and the true moral code fluctuates drastically inside and between cultures (across time or space). Why would knowledge of this consensus of fluctuating validity be useful as a standard for moral competency?

Survival is instinctual. It's a built-in motivation. It's also impossible to have morality without moral agents.

Humans are a social species. That's also built in and won't change. A small percentage of humans choose solitary lives, but that just isn't possible for the mass of humanity. Nor are human females going to start laying thousands of eggs and leaving them to their fate, as some insects do. Society in general is here to stay, as long as humans and other social species exist.
Has some unjustified leaps but I can agree to that. (well I can agree that it is not Morally prohibited. It may or may not be Morally praiseworthy.)

A two-year-old boy points a gun and fatally shoots a girl. Diane Downs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Downs) points a gun and fatally shoots a girl. Same action, same moral evaluation of the small boy and Diane Downs?

I believe that Aristotle and others in virtue ethics have emphasized the importance of knowledge in morality [long quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/)]:

-snip-

I would apply the same analysis to knowledge of right and wrong. (Again, I don't mean some ultimate, perfect moral code, but whatever consensus moral code informs the norms of day-to-day life.) The small boy has not been fully socialized yet and so does not know much about right and wrong. Diane Downs, as an adult of at least normal intelligence, does know the difference.
What I would note is that culpable ignorance (immoral ignorance) would take ability into consideration. Being deceived is not culpable but not asking is culpable. Based on this the Child triggered a strange object and Diane used a weapon. However applying culpable ignorance to knowledge of norms seems to excuse the actions but not the agency (note ignorance can be culpable in children) of the feral. (If triggering a strange object were immoral then the Child would be culpable. This line of thought is fairly standard in intent based ethics.)

@Neopergoss
Meta Ethics: I have discussed these with you.
Normative Ethics: I do not often talk about these beliefs because I find most of them lacking credibility by being based on unsound inductive leaps.
Applied Ethics: I find my doubt on Normative Ethics lends to a morally permissive view of others activities. Libertarian/Anarchocapitalist.
"It is common sense to listen to the wisdom of the wise. The wise are marked by their readiness to listen to the wisdom of the fool."
"Nothing exists that cannot be countered." -OldTrees on indirect counters
Ask the Idea Guru: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.htm

Offline Belthus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 482
  • Reputation Power: 1
  • Belthus is a Spark waiting for a buff.
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351940#msg351940
« Reply #55 on: June 15, 2011, 09:54:41 pm »
@Belthus: I was wondering if you'd like to respond to the issue I raised about there being an incentive for societies to make war and exploit environmental resources so as to gain a competitive advantage over other societies. One that doesn't engage in these ultimately harmful practices will be less likely to persist if others do. Sort of a fisherman's dilemma for societies. Doesn't this mean that immoral behaviour can be best for society in some situations (the choice being conquer or be conquered/subjugated)?
Some practices may pay off in the short term and be detrimental in the long term. I agree with you that war and environmental degradation are threats to all societies, to the whole human species. A world without war is better than a world with war (barring bizarre scenarios), but short-term interests (perceived accurately or not) often prevail to favor war over peace. For humans to reach a sustainable balance with our environment is necessary to avoid disaster, but that isn't a guarantee that we will achieve sustainability. It's an open question how much longer we as a species will survive, or at least avoid regressing to a more miserable state of affairs. I think that abolishing war and achieving environmental sustainability are definitely part of the morally correct path, and both issues informed my thinking.

A few years ago, when a site called Essembly.com existed, I made a few resolutions about "the good society." The three things I mentioned were managing internal conflict within a society, managing conflict between societies, and sustaining the environment. It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list, but those three concerns would certainly loom large in any modern understanding of what a society must do to prosper.

Offline Neopergoss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Reputation Power: 8
  • Neopergoss is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351944#msg351944
« Reply #56 on: June 15, 2011, 10:02:59 pm »
@Neopergoss
Meta Ethics: I have discussed these with you.
Normative Ethics: I do not often talk about these beliefs because I find most of them lacking credibility by being based on unsound inductive leaps.
Applied Ethics: I find my doubt on Normative Ethics lends to a morally permissive view of others activities. Libertarian/Anarchocapitalist.
Meta Ethics: Are you talking about what you just said in this thread, or something we talked about before?
Normative Ethics: In that case, I wonder if you are insecure about the way you're living your life. Seems like it's not a very steady foundation.
Applied Ethics: This reminds me of our earlier conversation. I think the main difference here that we have is that you don't believe in immorality through inaction, so for you as long as no one is actively harming anyone else they can't be doing wrong.

ZergKing

  • Guest
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg351982#msg351982
« Reply #57 on: June 15, 2011, 11:32:40 pm »
Free Will does not exist and will never exist. Even now my body is doing something i am not really sure i want to do and cannot really stop without exerting horrendous mental effort. I feel like an observer in my body watching the day unfold in front of my eyes and feeling what my body is telling me but not really controlling it. I can just tune out for short period of times while my body does everything like usual. It is a really freaky thing to say this but the whole topic of free will is confusing. Now don't think i am some nut case for saying what i say and making it feel like a paradox but it seems that the world feels distant and that i am not actually in control of my body but giving subtle hints to it. Humans don't have free will and never will have free will. It is actually the mind that has the free will, but no physical embodiment to use this and instead hints to the human it controls to do things. This is shown whenever anyone does something that they would never actually do.

Offline OldTrees

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10297
  • Reputation Power: 114
  • OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.
  • I was available for questions.
  • Awards: Brawl #2 Winner - Team FireTeam Card Design Winner
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg352000#msg352000
« Reply #58 on: June 16, 2011, 12:07:11 am »
Free Will does not exist and will never exist. Even now my body is doing something i am not really sure i want to do and cannot really stop without exerting horrendous mental effort. I feel like an observer in my body watching the day unfold in front of my eyes and feeling what my body is telling me but not really controlling it. I can just tune out for short period of times while my body does everything like usual. It is a really freaky thing to say this but the whole topic of free will is confusing. Now don't think i am some nut case for saying what i say and making it feel like a paradox but it seems that the world feels distant and that i am not actually in control of my body but giving subtle hints to it. Humans don't have free will and never will have free will. It is actually the mind that has the free will, but no physical embodiment to use this and instead hints to the human it controls to do things. This is shown whenever anyone does something that they would never actually do.
I too occasionally experience something close to this. However, luckily, most of those times it feels like I am arguing with the body not hinting at it. I have control to demonstrate my mind's Free Will but that control is limited.
(See addictions for harsher examples)

@Neopergoss
MetaE: This thread and the most recent long discussion in the Problem of Pain thread.
NormE: I am insecure and secure at the same time.
I doubt my current moral convictions but I doubt the other theories too.
I doubt if I will ever belief the same as the true moral code but I know I am giving it much better than most.
Applied: Correct. See all my posts in the Politics subforum.
"It is common sense to listen to the wisdom of the wise. The wise are marked by their readiness to listen to the wisdom of the fool."
"Nothing exists that cannot be countered." -OldTrees on indirect counters
Ask the Idea Guru: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.htm

Offline Belthus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 482
  • Reputation Power: 1
  • Belthus is a Spark waiting for a buff.
Re: for and against free will https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27185.msg352101#msg352101
« Reply #59 on: June 16, 2011, 03:56:47 am »
Please explain what you mean. I did not mention norms anywhere above. Where do these beliefs fit in and why?
We are both moral realists [Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/)]:

Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value — moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. That much is the common (and more or less defining) ground of moral realism.

As a result, those who reject moral realism are usefully divided into (i) those who think moral claims do not purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false (noncognitivists) and (ii) those who think that moral claims do carry this purport but deny that any moral claims are actually true (error theorists).
I have said in previous posts that morality is an iterative process of discovering what works and what doesn't work in regulating society. You have said that morality is similar to gravity, in that it exists, regardless of whether people correctly perceive it. So we share a belief in moral realism. I refer to norms and collective discovery, whereas you refer to individual rationality, but we both agree that there is something to be discovered/perceived/understood.

Quote from: OldTrees
The correlation between norms and the true moral code fluctuates drastically inside and between cultures (across time or space).
How would you know? You claim to be as ignorant as the rest of us of the true moral code, so how can you be making correlations?

Quote from: OldTrees
Why would knowledge of this consensus of fluctuating validity be useful as a standard for moral competency?
Because we each live in a particular society. Because we are not disembodied intellects. Because we can't wait for a true moral code that will probably never be discovered. We have to have rules to live with each other. You accept the rules of this forum in order to participate. You accept many sets of rules, at least passively, and you benefit from them, however contemptuous you may be of all rules.

As for moral competence, our standards have to be based on the norms we are using. Ought implies can. If we expect people to know certain things, that set of required knowledge should be knowable and easily accessible, not some unknown "true moral code."

Quote from: OldTrees
However applying culpable ignorance to knowledge of norms seems to excuse the actions but not the agency (note ignorance can be culpable in children) of the feral.
If the feral human has no understanding of right and wrong, then he/she isn't a moral agent. I assume that feral humans can achieve some limited understanding of norms, in the same way that pet dogs and cats can have a limited understanding of the relevant household rules. However, it's unlikely that they will ever be morally competent at the level expected of normal adult humans.

 

blarg: