DRFseven

I agree with what you posted, but I'm a little uncertain of whether you were agreeing with me, disagreeing, or enlarging upon what I said.

Sometimes when I note that we learn according to experience people object, citing biological determining factors. I never discount biology, but, always, experience must occur before the perception, even though the experience occurs in light of biological/psychological factors. So, if I am innately inclined to be happy/optimistic, I might respond to seeing an unexpected letter from the IRS with the eager anticipation of getting a juicy refund check. Still, my eager anticipation of a refund would not occur without the experience of receiving the letter.

excreationist

DRFseven:
Yeah, people must experience things like bodily pain or sucking to realize that their brains are compelled to avoid it (dislike it) or seek it (like it) - though I think those compulsions are programmed in...

Well earlier you said "We all learn to want what we want through life experience (conditioning)"....
I guess to want something you've got to have an idea of what it is you are trying to seek/avoid.... (through experience) - though this is determined by fundamental desires that may be conflicting. I just thought the word "conditioning" implied in a way that all desires are learnt - rather than sort of "discovered" (like that bitter/sour foods must be avoided to some degree, etc).

DRFseven

Learning needn't even be a conscious activity. All that is necessary is that an experience occurs by which the involved neurons in the CNS change, which produces conscious/unconscious memory. In the case of "what we want" as moral behavior, the experience comes in the form of external occurences in conjunction with physiological function.

excreationist

HelenM:
Well I think people go through Kohlberg's stages of moral development - though only a few people reach the sixth stage - like Gandhi and Martin Luther-King (I'm talking about the morality that people actually live their lives according to).
Earlier stages are more self-centered and better for individual survival, later stages are better for community well-being though perhaps at the expense of their own material wealth or life...
I don't think it's clear which stage is better "objectively" but I often have opinions about which course of action sounds better - according to my personal point of view.

DRFseven:
Yeah, but I had a problem with the idea that all desires are self-taught... (which was what your earlier post seemed to say) They are self-taught - but I just wanted to point out that they aren't *arbitrarily* self-taught and some could be said to be "discovered" (though still self-taught). You would agree that they aren't *arbitrarily* self-taught so I guess I was just clarifying what you wrote.

Alonzo Fyfe

People must be taught because sainthood is not an innate human characteristic.

Moral propositions have to do with relationships between desires and all other desires. This is largely external to the agent, and very complex.

Objectivity does not have to do with being taught or perceived directly. Things we cannot perceive directly are just as real and objective as things we do perceive directly. Many laws of physics, chemistry, even mathematics and logic have to be taught.

Objective morality falls into this category.

The major difference between moral teaching and those listed above is that, with respect to moral teaching, we are teaching desires in addition to beliefs. We are causing the student to desire what he ought to desire, in addition to teaching him an objective fact about those desires. That is, if we ourselves get it right. (We don't, obviously. But our moral knowledge does improve over time -- moral progress is real.)

I defined objectivity above a number of times. There are three types of objectivity.

Objectivity(1): Propositions have an actual truth content; they refer to something capable of being true or false. People who believe that moral claims are objecte(1) are called cognitivists in contrast to noncognitivists who hold that moral claims are more like grunts, smiles, and frowns.

Objectivity(2): Moral claims are claims about how states of affairs relate to mental states, but the agent's mental states make up an insignificantly small portion of the relevant mental states. Some forms of utilitarianism and neutral observer theories (including some Divine Command theories, which make moral claims dependent on the beliefs and desires of a diety), and all forms of contractarian, are Objective(2).insignificantly small impact

Objectivity(3): Moral claims are claims about facts independent of all mental states. This is "intrinsic value theory" or "absolutism".

I hold that moral claims are objective(1) and objective(2). Because they are claims about what is true relative to all mental states, a fact that changes imperceptibly with any change in the agent's own desires.

There simply is no intuitive "direct-access" knowledge to the ways in which certain desires relate to the desires of others. This has to be learned.

HelenM

Hi ex-creationist,

Apparently the site you linked to is that of a Bible-believer, so I'm sure he believes in objective morals. It seems that Kohlbergs stages having 'universal principles' as the highest stage, implies objective morality.

Helen

Alonzo Fyfe

The problem with accounts such as Kohlberg's theory is that people tend to claim more from such a theory than the theory has the power to deliver.

One could probably come up with a theory of logical development, whereby people also go through stages. Yet, this has no relevance to the question of whether D'Morgan's theorem is proved or not proved.

Similarly, such theories risk being seriously question-begging.

There is another theory out that talks about the stages of spiritual development, that identifies atheists as people who simply cannot make it outside of the first stage of spiritual development (sometimes explained in terms of their not having good relationships with their fathers).

There are also theories on the stages on the psychological development of serial killers and rapists.

Even if Kohlberg et al. are correct in showing that these are the stages that people go through in fact, any assumption that these are the stages that people should go through are in need of their own separate defense.

Alonzo Fyfe

Just to be clear.

Objective(2) morality -- relative to all desires and not just the mental states of the speaker -- fall under the category of "universal principles."

HelenM

Alonzo,

Could you delineate how you can teach someone to have a specific 'desire' because I still don't understand that.

Can you teach me to desire to go to a sports game? I find them very boring. I can't imagine how anything you can teach me would change that. What you could teach me is reasons why it would be good for me to go - such as, my family likes to go and enjoys it when I go with them. You could point that out and I may decide to go because I agree that it's good and therefore decide I should go for moral reasons. But I don't think I'll find it any less boring, if I do go. So I still have no desire to go. I go for the sake of my family. If they are glad I go then I'll be happy about that. But your teaching did not change my lack of desire to go watch a sports game.

As I just attempted to illustrate, I'm having a great deal of difficulty envisaging how teaching can change anyone's desires. If you can shed light on that for me I'd appreciate it.

Helen

DRFseven

I have to point out, Helen, that if you choose to go for the sake of your family, then going to the game is what you desire. You desire it more than you desire the alternative, which is to disappoint your family.

Also, you can be taught by ANY experience, regardless of whether someone intends for you to learn it or not. All of life is a teaching.