K

Amos:

Are you saying there are species of animals without drives for self-preservation and procreation? If so, please give an example.

I never claimed that social animals were all that existed. I did claim that the social animals gain an advantage over the loners. But it would be silly to say that socialization confers no benefit for survivability.

The funny thing about your examples is that the Lion King does ask others to do his hunting for him. Male lions make a lot of noise to scare potential prey toward the females. The females do all of the actual hunting.

Starboy

Pug846,

Please make clear your distinction between rule and ought. Perhaps you classify a rule as a law and ought as a social nicety. In any case what I said was clear:

To restate: morals are culture (knowledge passed from one generation to the next non-genetically) for what is required for working social interaction.

How does this make morals rules or oughts?

Starboy

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Longbow

What Kant takes as given is that the *subject* of morality exists. He then tries to understand what is or isn't possible with regard to such a subject. These considerations lead him to consider several things including what is traditionally referred to as "free will". It is based on his idea of the autonomous nature of our wills that he derives the Categorical Imperative which then drives his moral philosophy.

One thing you don't see him spending a lot of time on is considering whether or not a statement like "X is wrong," is actually an assertion that can be true or false. That is a farily modern type of discussion. But, treating moral statements as the assertions they seem to be doesn't really leave holes in his development of morality so much as merely doesn't answer a specific metaethical criticism of moral objectivism that wasn't really issued until after he died.

Specifically, sentences like "X is wrong" are

1) Declarative (as opposed to imperative)
2) Communicative

So, to interpret such sentences as not containing a proposition (ie as being incapable of being true or false), you have to come up with a reason that goes beyond observing that it is possible to make meaningless sentences. In other words, you have to show that they do not mean what they appear to.

Now, if we decide that we cannot do that, then we have to accept that they refer to some sort of an objective subject matter. In fact, I think people usually don't have a problem with anything I have said thus far since they implicitly apply this same argument to just about any declarative sentences and accept them as statements of propositions unless they seem to clearly be meaningless or some other specific aspect (that I am about to disclose) of them exists. The rub is that morals and the content of ethical terms do not seem to be physical objects or states of nature and forcing such an interprettation has a lot of profound problems. This leads a lot of people that think that one cannot have an objective topic that isn't empirical in nature to assume that morality must be subjective (or to a lesser extent force a naturalistic interprettation of morality).

Kant was not an empiricist (and neither am I for that matter). Most people that aren't don't have a problem with the possibility of objective morality and tend to act as though "it is a given", taking it for granted that moral statements are the assertions they appear to be.

Amos

The above is only true if the group advantage is needed and is not true if it is a disadvantage to them. It is nice to observe that wolves hunt in packs but it is wrong to assume that foxes should do the same.

hinduwoman

Since we humans are descended from monkeys who live in groups, obviously morality in the sense of social values are given for us. If we had been descended from let us say tigers, it would not have been the case.

Amos

You mean like in "monkey see monkey do?"

NialScorva

Welcome to the board, LoopHooligan.

You seem to be getting quality replies here, but I know there are some that haunt the Morality forum that have insight more apropos to your topic. I encourage you and all participants to continue this discussion over there.

Glory

Amos,

You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension.

It seems to me that K is confining his remarks to social animals. Clearly animals which are not social would not benefit from behaving like social animals. However, for animals which live in social groups, following the rules of that society helps them and their group survive.

Glory

Glory

At one time or another we have all violated our own moral codes. We then experience guilt. This can lead to a stronger morality. Eg: In first grade I called a little girl a name. I had been teased alot so I knew what it felt like to be ridiculed. I felt that I had done something wrong and felt terrible about it. I never did it again.

If our actions are our morality then by which actions do we judge ourselves?

Pug846,



Can you clarify the differences? It seems to me that some social rules are moral oughts while all moral oughts are social rules.

Glory

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

pug846

K said:

It’s trivially true that as a matter of fact, species that are currently alive and thriving generally follow behavioral patterns that encourage them to stay alive at the very least, until they are able to reproduce. My problem is taking this scientific fact (‘is’) and turning a moral ought from it.

For instance, I realize that certain things I could do would be better for the species and would probably further us as a group, by why ought I do that? As a matter of fact, all humans have genetic tendencies to corporate and take part in activities that promote social cooperation, etc. But the mere fact that we actually do get involved in these acts is not the same as saying we ought to be doing this.

You have snuck in a value statement here: we ought to value the preservation of the species. Well, most of us really don’t even if some of our activities happen to go towards that end.

Starboy said:

To clarify my point: you are describing human behavior. Morality deals with explaining not what we are doing as a matter of fact, but what we ought to be doing.

Why should having a functioning society be the purpose of our ethics? Either way, your general principle here is going to be so vague that you aren’t going to be able to figure out what you ought to be doing. How would your principle be used to clearly defend one side in the abortion debate? The death penalty debate?