tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5360410618362398577..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: E2.0: Jonathan Haidt: Moral IntuitionismAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59394609761370363452009-10-27T13:49:02.312-06:002009-10-27T13:49:02.312-06:00Hi Anon. Desirism rejects the existence of magical...Hi Anon. Desirism rejects the existence of magical "ought" statements that are separate from the reality of "is". To quote:<br /><br /><i>Desire utilitarianism does not have unsupported foundational ‘oughts’. It has desires, ... states of affairs, and relationships whereby the propositions that are the objects of those desires are true or false in any given state of affairs.<br /><br />That’s it</i>.<br /><br />Please see: <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/03/unsupported-fundamental-ought.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2006/10/strangeness-of-ought.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />When you claim:<br /><i>[Without a fundamental ought], all what one gets is an infinite regression of moral justification which are completely circular and question begging</i>.<br /><br />You simply show that you are not yet fully knowledgeable about ethical theories, as there are several which don't fit this criteria.Eneasznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-68580663446045289572009-10-27T07:32:53.268-06:002009-10-27T07:32:53.268-06:00Alonzo,
the problem I have with your argumentatio...Alonzo,<br /><br />the problem I have with your argumentation is that you suppose it is possible to derive an ethical system from reason alone by considering the facts of nature. <br />But Hume famously pointed out, it is not possible to ground moral fundamental propositions (like harm of others is bad, pleasure is good, I ought to give up my own interest for others) from amoral facts about the world. These moral postulates are in fact nothing more than a projection of our deep feelings upon a morally indifferent reality. <br />You give an analogy of theistic intuitions to show the ridiculousness of relying upon ones intuitions to get knowledge, but I believe that each philosophers commit the very same mistake when they are positing the validity of FUNDAMENTAL beliefs. <br /><br />What is the evidence that I ought to give up my own pleasure for the sakes of other ? Because it is selfish to do otherwise . What is the evidence that I ought to not be selfish ? Because if everybody was selfish, human societies could not flourish. What is the evidence that human flourishing ought to be pursued ?<br /> And I could continue further or further, but at the end of the day, nobody has ever been able to justify an "ought" from an "is", from a certain point, it is necessary to recognize that some moral principles is fundamental and can not be deduced from natural facts. <br />Otherwise, all what one gets is an infinite regression of moral justification which are completely circular and question begging.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-50216169975481616222009-07-16T09:53:06.841-06:002009-07-16T09:53:06.841-06:00Alonzo,
Aren't you playing exactly on reader&...Alonzo,<br /><br />Aren't you playing exactly on reader's moral intuitions when you caution against, for ex. a religious intuitionism that would say "God tells me I can harm others" etc.? <br /> <br /> You might believe you have a rational argument that harming others is wrong or should not be done. But you didn't offer one in this particular post, so your writing as it stands, just plays on our intuitions that harming others "becuase God tells me so" without any rational justification, for ex., is a counter-intuitive, even Mad thing to do (which I suspect is for most religious people or atheists).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-43921590942460350592008-01-20T22:16:00.000-07:002008-01-20T22:16:00.000-07:00athiest observerIntuitionism means "an ability to ...<B>athiest observer</B><BR/><BR/>Intuitionism <I>means</I> "an ability to know without reason."<BR/><BR/>It is applied to faculties that are alleged to be able to give one knowledge (<I>correct conclusions</I>) by directly 'sensing' that they are true rather than through the application of reason.<BR/><BR/>Some allowance is given for the possibility that intuitions are fallible. However, if intuitions yield a conclusion of A but reason provides no defense of A (or no compelling reason to believe not-A), then the agent is still considered justified in believing A based on the intuition alone.<BR/><BR/>If an agent has a 'moral intuition' that X is wrong, but cannot come up with a reason or an argument to justify the belief that X is wrong, the 'intuition' justifies his belief, unless evidence can be found against the claim that X is wrong.<BR/><BR/>When we are talking about an 'intuition' that somebody else may be harmed, it is particularly dangerous to be suggestion that a mere feeling that harming somebody is the right thing to do is evidence (even if fallible) that, in fact, harming him is the right thing to do unless somebody else can come up with a reason NOT to harm him.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-30879564425570388942008-01-20T21:37:00.000-07:002008-01-20T21:37:00.000-07:00I have not seen any of the instances you address a...I have not seen any of the instances you address as meeting your “they claim to be describing is, "the method of reaching correct moral conclusions" criterion. They say they have found evidence that humans often rely on moral “intuitions” to make moral decisions. They would be the first to tell you that decisions based on intuitions can easily be wrong. In fact that is one of the major themes addressed in introductory psychology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-89270305251033510082008-01-20T17:03:00.000-07:002008-01-20T17:03:00.000-07:00atheist observerI, too, am quite confident that th...<B>atheist observer</B><BR/><BR/>I, too, am quite confident that the people that I criticize hold that their research does not justify the mistreatment of others.<BR/><BR/>But . . . what kind of treatment is 'mistreatment'? How do we determine whether an act counts as 'mistreatment' or not?<BR/><BR/>In fact, the proposition that mistreatment is justified is a contradiction in terms. Mistreatment is, by definition, that which cannot be justified.<BR/><BR/>The question is not whether mistreatment can be justified, but whether a certain act counts as mistreatment.<BR/><BR/>And how do we know?<BR/><BR/>Intuitionists say that we can know that something counts as mistreatment (or not) by appeal to our 'moral intuitions'. Psychologists may say that they are merely describing some phenomena in nature. However, when the phenomenon they claim to be describing is, "the method of reaching correct moral conclusions", then they are necessarily saying something about the correctness of conclusions reached using the methods they describe.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58842826735389622022008-01-20T10:17:00.000-07:002008-01-20T10:17:00.000-07:00Alonzo,For reasons not clear to me, you seem incap...Alonzo,<BR/><BR/>For reasons not clear to me, you seem incapable of distinguishing between psychologists and philosophers. When a psychologist says something is innate, he or she says nothing about its moral correctness, only about its origin.<BR/>If you accept (and perhaps you do not) that a situation in which one may fulfill or thwart the desire of another is at least a potentially moral situation. And if having a desire to fulfill or thwart the desires of another is a characteristic of one’s morality, then one could ask where this desire came from. If we can prove empirically that these desires were not learned, then they are innate.<BR/>This says nothing about what is a morally correct choice, only the origin of a desire.<BR/>All I believe psychologists are saying is research shows many of the feelings people have about right and wrong, good and bad, and what we ought and ought not to do, are innate feelings that were not specifically taught.<BR/>What that probably means is that having these feelings in some situations had some evolutionary benefit in the past. In no way would they say they prove any sort of moral justification for anything, or even that they have any evolutionary value today.<BR/>You are the one who keeps building up and knocking down the straw man that an intuition, or instinct, or innate characteristics justify harming others. I am quite confident all these you criticize hold exactly the same position as you that their research findings in no way justify the mistreatment of others.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-23335865732898369772008-01-19T01:33:00.000-07:002008-01-19T01:33:00.000-07:00Another excellent critique. I don't know if you'v...Another excellent critique. I don't know if you've read or commented on Haidt's piece he wrote for the Edge website, but it caused quite a bit of controversy. It can be found here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com