Wyz_sub10

I take 'discern' to mean 'recognize or identify'. In that case, evolution "identifies" what is "moral" in the sense that what is moral is the best fit for survival. (one may argue that the premise is untrue, but the connection is valid)

It is not a deliberate distinction based on "right" and "wrong", but a deliberate distinction based on suitability for the environment.

(I doubt we are far apart on the basics here, but I am implying that the base of morality is formed from consequences, not choices based on an abstract concept of "right" and "wrong")

Hence the use of "proven" (with quotes), follow by rationalized, justified, etc.

The view that morality is a standard that exists as an absolute, is what I am arguing against. One can rationalize a moral position based on the consequences of adopting that position - cause and effect. (which is empirical, even granted that some presuppositions must be adopted)

A moral position can be adopted, affirmed, refuted, edited, etc. based on evidence that follows from rationale.

I can be a skeptic and say, "I'm not sure homosexuality is 'evil'" in response to a prevailing moral position that it is so.

To develop a position, I can look at causes, effects, consequences, relevant empirical data, etc. dealing with homosexuality, and see if it supports a position that it is 'evil' **dependant upon the definition of evil** (which I think is what you are getting at).

But either way, it does not matter - what matters is that I have taken a skeptical look at a moral issue, and made a decision based on an empirical approach.

I do not see how one cannot be skeptical and accept morals.

Well, we agree on this much.

Wyz_sub10

Okay, so we can agree that one can be skeptical of certain things and not others. Fine.

Satisfactory evidence is not based on an absolute, but at the discretion of the skeptic, as it must be.

Two "capital 'S' skeptics" can conclude that satisfactory evidence exists that the earth is round, but both individuals need not have the same standards for 'satisfactory'. One may find pictures from space to be satisfactory, while another requires more complex geophysical demonstrations (i.e.Foucault pendulum).

There is no absolute "satisfactory evidence".

Such a person could not function under your definition, because they would not even be convinced of their own existence. A skeptic need only address these factors in his approach to accepting a claim. It is impossible to have irrefutable proof that cannot be explained away through the wildest of suggestions.

If one was going to be so skeptical in every aspect of their thought process - as you suggest they must be to qualify as a real skeptic - then they would not even trust the food they eat.

Someone your skepticism ends when you feel that your questions have been answers to a degree that is reasonable to you.

As such, a skeptic could most certainly adopt morals or even believe in god (although the more one knows, the more questions exists to have reasonably answered).

What behaviour - say, in ordering breakfast at Denny's - would demonstrate "sufficient skepticism"?

This is just an assertion. The road may lead to the destination, but the road is not the destination.

I'm not sure, by the way, why you contend that morals are "irrational".

I understand what you meant. I have no argument with the contention that some people are more comfortable in areas of certainty than others. But I'm not sure if that implies a skeptic will seek a comfort zone of math or (to the other extreme) philosophy. I can see a skeptic becoming a historian or a legal expert of a physician.

Quite frankly, I cannot think of a position to which a skeptic could not apply his approach.

What discipline wouldn't work well with a skeptical mind?

Wyz_sub10

You're all over the place here.

I am saying that morals can be explained by evolution. The foundation for moral belief is natural selection. Being "correct" does not matter if "morals themselves are not true".

What is "correct" is that the belief in morals has a functional prupose. If a functional purpose can be identified, then that is a rationale.

Some may want to separate our rationale from our wiring. I am not going to argue that entire load because it is for another discussion. But my point is that we did not "create" morals from tabula rasa, nor were they imparted to us from a god. There is a function, and we have progressed to the point that we can now review the function of morals to adapt or edit them as necessary.

What exactly is your definition of a "rational belief"?

I'll infer that you mean "it is good, but incorrect". I'd be interested in your definition of "moral".

I could agree that a skeptic may think belief in an afterlife is a good thing for people, but irrational. But I wouldn't call this belief a "moral".

I think I see your distinction, but I do not think it is a meaningful one. I would argue that beliefs dictate our actions.

In any case, is killing someone a moral act even if the killer does not believe killing is moral?

I'm not sure what this proves with regard to whether a skeptic can adopt a moral position based on empirical evidence.

Well, I don't have the time to review the conclusions on 100% of the philosophers who have ever tackled the topic, but I'm sure I don't care whether this is true or not.

A skeptic need only approach a moral position from a perspective that it may be valid or not, then consider evidence that will support one position to a degree that it is satisfactory.



This whole paragraph is a paradox - "the only morals that are true are the ones that show morals are false."

Again, it makes no difference to me. I am only stating that a skeptic's conclusion must be satisfactorily reached - it need not *necessarily* be validated by others.

Well, yes they can. Two can play at that game.

Gurdur

I see your reasoning, but your phrasing was too ambiguous.
uff, I already said that only part of morality is derived from biology; the rest is cognition, which does include abstractions, not only consequence-based morals.

I think you've misunderstood my post badly.

Which is exactly what I was saying.

To restate my very first post in this thread:

I myself am a hard skeptic, and I accept and further derive morals and ethics.

Wyz_sub10

I wasn't referring to your post, Gurdur. I was just making it clear that my original comments re: evolution were meant to counter the oft-forwarded idea that morals exist as something absolute (i.e. god-given or Platonic).

I wasn't trying to imply that you believed this to be the case.

My original responses were to Total.'s comments that one cannot be a "real" skeptic and have morals.