tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8882152204870530595..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: A Statement on Moral SenseAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71863004384387455042009-02-19T14:10:00.000-07:002009-02-19T14:10:00.000-07:00Alonzo,I do think that you are taking my invocatio...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>I do think that you are taking my invocation of a "moral sense" as saying more than I actually am. <BR/><BR/>When I say that most of us have a "moral sense" that cuases us to wince at certain acts and praise others, I am not taking this as arguing the rightness or wrongness of that action. <BR/><BR/>I am simply stating what seems a brute fact: that most of us exhibit a seemingly innate capacity to symathize/empathize with others and a capacity to feel for others. Morality, it seems, is premised on these feelings we have. <BR/><BR/>You are taking me to say that since we have a natural aversion to x, then x is wrong. Somewhere, you wrote that saying this would be a commital of the naturalistic fallacy. Correct, which is why I don't say it. <BR/><BR/>I am a big believer in the insolubility of the ought/is dichotomy, and do not take the fact that we have certain innaate moral feelings as providing any sort of moral "ought" (as the hidden premise - that we should do what we feel - is clearly false much of the time.)<BR/><BR/>So when you ask wehether some people's instincts driving them to rape provides an argument that they should rape, I share your answer: clearly not. <BR/><BR/>But I would argue also that the reason we see rape as wrong is because most of us have a natural aversion towards unnecessary suffering. (If most of us did not have that gut feeling, then I do not think we would ever consider the possibility that rape is wrong.)<BR/><BR/>I sitil feel like in knocking any idea of an innate moral sense, you are trying to set up a morality premised on something other than emotions and 'gut feelings.' (Not saying that morality is no more than 'gut feelings,' but simply that without certain moral feelings we have, morality would have no premises to reason from). <BR/><BR/>I know you say you are not ignoring the centrality of feeling/emotion to morality, but I cannot fathom why, then, you would argue with the idea of a moral sense. <BR/><BR/>Thus, I really think you are taking me to say more than I am saying with invocation of a moral sense. I am not arguing that the is of innate moral sympathies is an argument for any type of ought. I am simply suggesting the seeming fact that many basic moral sympathies are innate, and that any morality that makes sense must start with these.Kevin Currie-Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401531417243089948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57322556062361532762009-02-19T11:11:00.000-07:002009-02-19T11:11:00.000-07:00Well stated, Alonzo.Natural selection is, of cours...Well stated, Alonzo.<BR/><BR/>Natural selection is, of course, a mindless process, not a teleological one. The very instincts that developed in the ancient past, which allowed our early ancestors to survive, may well contribute to ending our existence in the very different environment of this modern world.<BR/><BR/>A lump of clay has certain properties that limit what the artist can create with that medium, but don't dictate what work should be derived.Steelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29127670638758410412009-02-19T03:27:00.000-07:002009-02-19T03:27:00.000-07:00"Value is a relationship between states of affairs..."Value is a relationship between states of affairs and desires."<BR/><BR/>Yes! This goes to the heart of the global credit crisis in which all our top politicians and business leaders are floundering, seemingly without a clue as to what has gone wrong.<BR/><BR/>The common assumption is that investments, whether into actual economic activity or hypothetical "financial instruments" [i.e. decorative pieces of paper], have [or should have] some intrinsic actual value - whether overestimated or underestimated by the market - irrespective of whether anybody wants them.<BR/><BR/>This, of course, is absurd.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.com