WarrenPlatts said:
Dmstifik8ion, your writing style baffles me. By "Do you mean before, during or after birth[?]" I assume you are referring to learning about right and wrong ostensively at a young age--in which case the learning would take place after birth.
"How does this explain the mother who comes to witness her sons extinction on death row upon being convicted of rape/murder?" I guess you mean here that the son would not be on death row if the mother had properly taught her son the difference between right and wrong. In which case there are at least three explanations: (1) she did not properly teach her son causing her son to grow up a moral cripple; (2) she did properly teach her son, but he suffers from some sort of neurological problems; (3) she did properly teach her son, but for whatever sociological or personal reasons the son chose to do evil. What's the relevance, though? The mere fact that some people are evil does not eliminate the difference between right and wrong.
By this mystifying sentence, "I can only guess that she would gladly take his place for believing that morals are hereditary" I can only assume you misunderstood me when I wrote "learned ostensively". I should have been more clear. An ostensive definition is where one learns how a word is used by showing, rather than through other words. If you want to learn what 'yellow' means, you have to have someone show you. Same with the earliest development of morality within a child. Ostensive definitions have nothing to do directly with genetic heredity.
Then this statement, "Important stuff deserves important consideration" --which is rather ironic in a thread consisting of 56 sound bites--I assume you are implying that I have not given due consideration to this "stuff". This is a false accusation, however, as you can see for yourself if you also care about morality:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98081
My apologies for my
thinking out loud without providing context writing style. What seems perfectly clear to me is evidently confusing to you. I share with you in this dilemma as I have difficulty myself with your writing style; (this is not meant as a criticism of your style, just an explanation). Please consider all responses as an attempt to arrive at understanding and truth rather than a pointed refutation of your position.
There is a third option: moral realism. Moral claims (as opposed to moral absolutes which are necessarily true) are either true or false. We learn the definitions of (I would change this to for since definitions as given are not necessarily accurate) right and wrong ostensively from our mothers; this provides an empirical foundation for ethics that is consistent with physicalism. In this way, the useless ontological quagmire of what morals actually are is entirely avoided.
Perhaps the confusion can be deciphered by an understanding of my method (or madness if you prefer). I do not attempt to drag reality out of a quagmire of false premises and fuzzy (if not faulty) logic. Also confusion can arise out of an inability to distinguish whether a statement is of ones position or to refute another’s. Sometimes (and it seems to me more often that not) we need to start with a clean slate and define, or at lest reaffirm, the basics.
Once these are established we are in a position where ironing out the details becomes possible. If we can not agree at least on the basics then further exploits quickly degenerate in incoherence.
I am providing the following because this is the best I have to offer for the moment. I hope it is a little better slop than the slop I left you with last time.
Morality first arises as the availability of a choice and the means to choose becomes a reality. Next a basis for making the best possible choice must be established.
Morality has as least two primary interrelated and coexisting paradigms; personal and interpersonal morality.
On a personal level it involves the reasoning that leads to making the best possible choice in the face of an alternative; the most primary alternative of all and obviously the most important, life and death but beyond this the ultimately achievable quality of life.
Interpersonal morality has two main derivative but related branches; relationships between two individuals and the relationship between different individuals in a group; this group might be an association or society, humanity, as a whole.
When morality involves more than one person, agreement upon the rules is essential to the success of a moral code and the resulting success in the case of humanity of civilization. It would be ideal if everyone could agree on such a moral code. Up until this moment in history unanimous agreement seems unlikely if not impossible so a more reasonable goal might be to have as wide ranging an agreement as possible with no more restrictions placed upon individuals or groups than is absolutely necessary. In this framework where it becomes necessary to enforce certain moral precepts upon those for whom agreement is not appreciated for its inherent value, the more people who appreciate the justification for a given moral precept, the more people will stand behind it and the easier and less costly in terms of human suffering it will be to enforce.
No moral precept should limit individual freedom beyond an absolute necessity and tolerance should be viewed as a benefit to us all in respect to enjoying our individual freedoms.
This brings us to a point where it becomes essential to define what is and what constitutes an absolute necessity. Life stands out as an obvious precondition for, let alone an absolute standard for establishing morality. Choice quickly follows as an obvious precondition since without choice there would be no need for or the ways and means to determine what those standards are.
