Hume: 'Is-Ought'

[_Ren]

Hey Mon :)
...yeah - I think we see things pretty similarly. But a couple of things:

Of course there are problems with looking at ethics purely from an evolutionary standpoint as there are behaviors such as reciprocal altruism

Interested in what you mean here - can you elaborate?
Do you mean that reciprocal altruism could be considered evidence against the idea that morality has an evolutionary origin? Not sure I'm understanding you right...

is it something about our intuitions/gut instincts that make certain scenarios more universal in agreeing to 'oughts'

I'd say it is, yes. I believe our sense of 'Ought' is a function of evolution based on the advantages of social co-operation.

The important part about the monkey in this thought experiment is that it is a valuable way for us to conceptualize the limits of our own mind as might be seen by a superior intelligence (whether alien, divine, or whatever).

I'd honestly have to go with the first one, simply because it's impossible to know where all of the limitations in rationality are by using rational means. No finite system can truly comprehend itself, or so I've been told. ;)

Yeah - fair enough. I get that, and I can't argue against it.
Trying to determine - rationally - if rationality has limits is circular. And - ermm - 'rationally' - that doesn't work.

Oh dear. I just used rationality to tell me that I shouldn't trust rationality too much! Argghhh!

So, we have to decide: Have humans reached some sort of mental threshold, where our logic is finally "complete", our science is able to take on any problem, and our perspective faces no insurmountable barriers... or are we simply a step or two above this monkey, with our science and reason just as fundamentally flawed in ways that are completely outside our capability to comprehend?

Are we only one or two steps away from the monkey? Very possibly.

But are we travelling 'in the right direction'? i.e. using rationality as our ONE AND ONLY true North? I'd say 100% Yes. (Still, only in relation to what IS. 'Ought' is something different).

Does that mean that have still yet to refine how we apply rational thought? Yeah - we're not finished with that yet. For sure. We're still learning how to do that. But HOW do we refine ourselves? Yet more rationality! We use one rational discipine (e.g. philosophy) to patch up, modify and improve other rational endevours (e.g. science and the scientific method).

Even if we might be heading in the right direction, do we ever 'reach the end' where we declare our knowledge 'bullet-proof'? I highly doubt it. And how would we KNOW when we'd reached that point anyway, even if we (ignorantly) ever did?


I'm probably just rephrasing what you've said anyway. But I'm trying to work out if there really is some subtle difference in our views, or if we just have a slightly difference in our levels of trust perhaps.

I think we're seeing things pretty similarly...

[_Moniker]

Hey Mon :)
...yeah - I think we see things pretty similarly. But a couple of things:

Of course there are problems with looking at ethics purely from an evolutionary standpoint as there are behaviors such as reciprocal altruism

Interested in what you mean here - can you elaborate?
Do you mean that reciprocal altruism could be considered evidence against the idea that morality has an evolutionary origin? Not sure I'm understanding you right...

Sorry I get quite sloppy, at times. My full quote is this:

Of course there are problems with looking at ethics purely from an evolutionary standpoint as there are behaviors such as reciprocal altruism and then on the flipside we actually encode into legislation or individually (and collectively) take actions that would go against our self interest.

The reciprocal altruism plays into self interest. On the flip side of that would be those that take actions that would go against self interest. Now, I understand there is a tendency to sacrifice for the greater good within a clan, group, etc... and this is understandable within evolutionary framework. Yet, we see those that look outside their own narrow clans and put themselves on the line for noble ideals, justice, etc... For instance, the underground railroad that smuggled slaves to the North and freedom -- this was done to their potential detriment and actions were taken that put them at risk all for an outside group. Those that hid Jews during the Holocaust the same thing. How is it that some people can look beyond self interest, that would seem to shape human behavior, and become ennobled with ideals that surpass clans? Is this an aspect of evolutionary ethics?

[_Gadianton]

Ren,

My response might not have been on target because nothing that I cited actually tries to reduce one to the other. In fact, it's more of an argument of the form, if we assume moral realism, then the natural world accounts for it the best. I think farther in that page it cites Simon Blackburne who argues that given the inability to reduce, then the skeptic position is still the best. But that does give you the broad form of how if there are real morals, then they seem tied to the natural world.

I think John Searl has an example of what he thinks is a reduction of ought to is, might want to check it out...

Anyway, I'm not a moral realist. I think morals are "fiction". I argue for moral realism in atheism a lot because I think that atheism can ground morals just as good or better than religion can. I just remain unconvinced. Whether or not religion has an advantage in offering false hope to live those morals is another question.

But then again, the more you stare at the "is", realism in general becomes hard for me to accept.

[_Ren]

The reciprocal altruism plays into self interest. On the flip side of that would be those that take actions that would go against self interest. Now, I understand there is a tendency to sacrifice for the greater good within a clan, group, etc... and this is understandable within evolutionary framework. Yet, we see those that look outside their own narrow clans and put themselves on the line for noble ideals, justice, etc... For instance, the underground railroad that smuggled slaves to the North and freedom -- this was done to their potential detriment and actions were taken that put them at risk all for an outside group. Those that hid Jews during the Holocaust the same thing. How is it that some people can look beyond self interest, that would seem to shape human behavior, and become ennobled with ideals that surpass clans? Is this an aspect of evolutionary ethics?

Ahh - ok. I think I get what ya mean.

Yeah, I think the kind of morality evolution developed can certainly be very tribal-orientated. Unfortunately - for example, from what I know - tendancies towards racism can be explained because of seeing people as 'other' just because of how they look based on this 'tribal' instinct. It seems evolution is quite willing to use superficial outward appearance - even small variations - to drive all kinds of different behaviours.

I guess I see two reasons why people might choose to extend this tendancy to view morals not just in terms of their own 'group', but to everybody.
First, it could just be that it just naturally is that way sometimes in certain people. Due to natural variation, some people are just naturally more likely to think outside of their own group than others.
The other reason could be (and that I hope is true) is that our rationality forces us to look outside our own group, regardless of our own internal 'drives'. Our natural drive may want us to think of morality in 'tribal' terms, but then our rational brains look at this person from another 'tribe' and we realise that they are the same as us. They are human beings, just like us. Therefore, why would you think about treating them any less? Or somehow thinking them less worthy of good treatment? I think - in this case - we can force our natural drives to be more inclusive.

...at least I certainly hope this is the case. No hard data to support this really, just something I tend to think might be true from observation.


Gad,
Yeah - pretty sure I get what ya saying.

Anyway, I'm not a moral realist. I think morals are "fiction". I argue for moral realism in atheism a lot because I think that atheism can ground morals just as good or better than religion can. I just remain unconvinced. Whether or not religion has an advantage in offering false hope to live those morals is another question.

But then again, the more you stare at the "is", realism in general becomes hard for me to accept.

Yeah - totally agreed with all this...

[_Moniker]

Ahh - ok. I think I get what ya mean.

Well, what I was really getting at is we've evolved with morality (intuitions/gut instincts that are pretty much universal) is this rational at all?

[_Ren]

Well, what I was really getting at is we've evolved with morality (intuitions/gut instincts that are pretty much universal) is this rational at all?

Oh OK.
...well, no. I don't believe we use rationality when we trust our guts / instincts.

We can rationally inspect how and why these moral 'instincts' came about but - in my opinion - that's about it.
That said, I think the more we can try and ground these moral drives with as much 'rational' thinking as possible, the better...

[_Moniker]

Well, what I was really getting at is we've evolved with morality (intuitions/gut instincts that are pretty much universal) is this rational at all?

Oh OK.
...well, no. I don't believe we use rationality when we trust our guts / instincts.

Yet, how do we separate them, really? I mean are we where we are in terms of morality (some nearly universal oughts) because of evolution and therefore what appears rational thought put into defining and defending the morality is really deeper in us? That it's not really a thought process first, yet only secondary? I don't know if that makes any sense. Maybe I need to think about this more. :)

We can rationally inspect how and why these moral 'instincts' came about but - in my opinion - that's about it.

Right, I agree. Yet, if it is instinctual (some) how can we apply rational thinking to it, really? Can we? I don't know. I want you to tell me. I'm confused! :)

That said, I think the more we can try and ground these moral drives with as much 'rational' thinking as possible, the better...

What do you mean by that, really? I think I know what you mean. I need examples. This is too abstract for me!

[_Moniker]

Okay, here's where I'm confusing myself! :)

Let's say we have instinct X. Instinct X makes us look at an outcome Y that we see as desirable. So we do instinct X and that gives us desirable outcome Y. YET, when looking to get to outcome Y is it our instincts that actually force us to look at what we actually desire, and limit our scope of possibilities? Does that make sense?

[Guest]

Yet, how do we separate them, really? I mean are we where we are in terms of morality (some nearly universal oughts) because of evolution and therefore what appears rational thought put into defining and defending the morality is really deeper in us?

Well, let's use an example:

Pretty much anybody will agree that you shouldn't harm another person 'without good reason'. (e.g. self defense etc.)

OK - so now we could have rational discussions about what things like 'harm' mean.
If senario 'A' is accepted to be 'harmful', then it logically must follow that senario 'B' is also harmful

...or we can have rational discussions about when we have good reason to harm.

If senario 'A' justifies us to harm another person, then - logically - aren't we also justified in harming someone else in senario 'B'?

etc. etc. We can 'rationally' explore the practical boundries of the moral idea. This is what I mean when I say 'ground morals with as much rationality as possible'.


...but now - we still have the fundamental premise. The fundamental premise that it is - in fact - 'wrong' to harm another person without due cause. Did we reach this conclusion .via purely rational means? What logical reasoning bought us to this central conclusion?
You could say it makes rational sense in evolutionary terms. i.e. it makes no evolutionary sense to go around harming members of your own species for kicks...!
...but who says that the continuation of the human species (or any other species) is 'good'? Again, we have to simply 'pick' an eventual outcome or consequence that we will simply label 'good' before we can attempt to think rationally about the issue.

Right, I agree. Yet, if it is instinctual (some) how can we apply rational thinking to it, really? Can we? I don't know. I want you to tell me. I'm confused! :)

What do you mean by that, really? I think I know what you mean. I need examples. This is too abstract for me!

Well, I 'think' we can to some extent. Let me know if you think the above example counts :)
I'd also refer to the one I mentioned a couple of posts back, where I think we are able to take our 'tribal' instinct, and rationally work out that people from other 'tribes' are not different (in any significant way) to us. Therefore, why would we treat them differently?

i.e. rationally 'adjusting' an instinctive moral reaction.

[_Ren]

Let's say we have instinct X. Instinct X makes us look at an outcome Y that we see as desirable. So we do instinct X and that gives us desirable outcome Y. YET, when looking to get to outcome Y is it our instincts that actually force us to look at what we actually desire, and limit our scope of possibilities? Does that make sense?

Heh. Ok - your turn to use an example ;) Are you saying that instinct X drives us to outcome Y, yet it isn't 'just' instinct X that gets that outcome for us?
...if so, I'm pretty sure I agree. But an example might help...