Infinite regress problem re: ethics.

[Francois Tremblay]

I understand that most of you believe that man is born as a blank slate and that ethics is a social construct, created by nurture. We've had disagreements on that before, but that's not why I'm posting.

What I want to know is, how do you deal with the infinite regress problem? If everything we believe about ethics was constructed by society, then how did the first ethical ideas arise? I see this as a fatal flaw of the social construct position, but I'm willing to listen to your answers.

(PS I am not really back, I just want to know if there is an answer to this argument)

[Francois Tremblay]

What, is the question too boring or something?

[Guest]

probably just a socialisation of some basic feelings...

"but mom, that's not fair!" "i have been wronged" "someone i care about how been wronged" -> ethics

"hey, that makes me laugh" "that's funny" "bahahaha" -> humor

[Guest]

oh shit, i just remembered.. this shit should be right up your alley francybaby...

oxytocin (not to be confused with oxycontin).. is, like, a brain hormone or someshit... and there's like this phd professor dude who thinks it's where morality, like, comes from and stuff....or something...

http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/

hella weird shit, like ferreals....

[Francois Tremblay]

probably just a socialisation of some basic feelings...

"but mom, that's not fair!" "i have been wronged" "someone i care about how been wronged" -> ethics

But where does this concept of "not fair" comes from, if ethics is not innate? Remember that I am talking about the origins of ethics. You can't use ethical concepts to show how ethics originated, that's circular.

[Guest]

oh, i do think it's innate. i just don't think it's altruistic. it's about the self and those close to the self.

however, if it ere not innate, then i'd be willing to guess it's an invention of the rulers:

rulers kill people = "we had to kill them, they were a threat to us all!"

people kill rulers = "killing people is wrong!"

[hawkins21]

I'll provide you with a more intellectual response of ethics and morality since I've studied it a lot and is my favorite aspect of philosophy. hopefully I can answer your question.

Morality is circumstantial and is not a area of Infinite regress. There are moral truths to be found, even if we never find them.

First off the mind is totally a blank slate. Otherwise Plato would be correct(in layman terms if the concept of innate ideas were true then we'd all be virtuous, altruistic, souls, since that would be classified as the just way to live).

Now here is where it gets confusing and were Biology comes into play(an no this in not a contradiction) but it will explain why the environment is key to the our socialization process.

It is a known fact that we, as human beings, have innate characteristics, qualities, moral values or whatever term suits you best. Given our different circumstances we are going to react to it differently. I usually give the example of a child born into a society where Nazism is valued and a child who is born into a Buddhist culture. When these two children grow up they will have completely different worldviews, moral values, personalities, intelligence, spirituality, etc. All of this is due to having a conscious experience(i did not feel the need to explain what type of moral values they would have. I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself). But now your wondering how are they capable of having such distinctive characteristics? This is where the innate moral values comes into play.

It is self-evident that we have the capacity to kill, steal, be greedy, violent, galvanizing and pretty much every other characteristic that we have seen in the human condition. But at the same time we are capable of being compassionate, altruistic, loving, caring, trustworthy or any other thing we would classify as "good" moral values. All of this is possible because we have these innate characteristics, all we need is to be in a circumstance that will maximize such things.

Now how is it possible for us to be good, moral, beings? It is possible because we have a higher cognitive capacity for reason that other animals(as of right now) are not capable of doing. Such a rationality thus makes us more responsible in terms of morality. This makes us obligated to the rest of the world since we are capable of destroying it. Everything is interconnected and due to this interconnectedness the way we think matters, the way we feel matters, the intentions we form towards other people matter, our moment to moment experiences of the world matters. All this matters because we have a moral/ethical obligation to the rest of the world due to our higher rationality but this by no means is suggesting that we superior to all other living organisms it just means that we have to make our best efforts in protecting them because we know what is at stake.

This is just an introduction but I hope it answers your question, if not, write back

[hawkins21]

I forgot to mention. What we are looking for in terms of morality is two things: 1) What are was to maximize happiness and decrease human suffering?

2) What is the relationship between the biological complexity of conscious creatures (this is where innate characteristics comes into play) and the well-being of conscious creatures? (if we answer this one we will come to the conclusion that we have, in no way shape or form, a moral obligation towards rocks or statues, or even a computer)

[vaguelyhumanoid]

I think that ethics arise from what is the most conducive to a functioning society. For example, if you kill people, you will be seen as a murderer and ostracized from society, not to mention the person might fight back. Why would they respect the rights of one trying to murder them? People will not trust murderers, or respect their rights. This is pretty universal.

[Francois Tremblay]

hawkins21: I agree with you that we have the capacity for both good and evil, but how does that answer my question? I read your post twice and I don't see your answer to the original question. (also, I understand the basics of your position, so there's no need to repeat them)

You said "Morality is circumstantial and is not a area of Infinite regress", but you didn't explain how that is the case.

[Francois Tremblay]

vaguelyhumanoid: Thanks, but that doesn't answer the question either. From what you said, it doesn't sound like you are one of the proponents of blank slate, and my question is for them only.

[Guest]

I'll provide you with a more intellectual response of ethics and morality since I've studied it a lot

ah, college.... the concentration camp of the mind... and a place where, i assure you, nothing of the intellect is studied or valued.

I usually give the example of a child born into a society where Nazism is valued and a child who is born into a Buddhist culture. When these two children grow up they will have completely different worldviews, moral values, personalities, intelligence, spirituality, etc. All of this is due to having a conscious experience(i did not feel the need to explain what type of moral values they would have. I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself).

wow, that's an incredibly heaping pile of orientalism.

people who grow up in buddhist cultures have values just as fucked up as anyone in the west. it is only your orientalist bias that makes you think of 'the oriental' as somehow more wise, peaceful, and inscrutable. If you think buddhists have a greater sense of moral values, intelligence, spirituality, etc, then you're a raging orientalist.

(fwiw, buddha was just christ for the East. in this case, a rich prince who came out of the palace to tell people that if only they didnt desire a better future, they wouldn't be suffering. typical ruling class lies.)

in the mesoamerican pre-columbian civilizations, people willingly gave their children to the priest class to be slaughtered. women would be slain and young men would wear their skin with pride. if you went there and said "omg! what you all are doing is wrong!" you would have been considered immoral.

and i'm sorry, but the nazis are not the pinnacle of evil in history. the anglo-US empire eclipses it in pure evil by miles. the nazis told the banker class to go fuck themselves and made their own medium of exchange, turning their entire economy around in just a few years. if someone stood up today with this idea, they'd be denounced as nazis.

i guess the lesson here is that the morality that francybaby is talking about is easily instilled through propaganda, so perhaps it is a blank slate... or perhaps there are innate 'values' which get perverted by the state and other institutions.

[hawkins21]

hawkins21: I agree with you that we have the capacity for both good and evil, but how does that answer my question? I read your post twice and I don't see your answer to the original question. (also, I understand the basics of your position, so there's no need to repeat them)

You said "Morality is circumstantial and is not a area of Infinite regress", but you didn't explain how that is the case.

Ok that is good, we are nearly on the same path. It is obvious that your concern is that of meta-ethics.

You honestly answered the question yourself when you mentioned how we have the capacity for good and evil deeds. One cannot have the capacity for somthing without having the innate characteristics, qualities, etc for it. For example humans do not have the capacity to fly like birds because we do not have the proper biological, physiological, neuro-biological, psyhco-physiological make up like birds. Just how it would be a proper statement to say that a tiger does not have the capacity to contemplate moral truths.

Secondly I explained it with my response to your question. Your issue with meta-ethics has been solved a long time ago but it is because we still have dogmatic fundamentalist religious people who reduces the meta-ethical debate to god. We also have the problem of cartisan dualism to worry about as well. It is not an area of infinate regress for the simple fact that it is not. Yes it is true that we derive some of our moral values from our enviorment but for the most part it is innate. If it were not innate then you'd have yourself double negitive. But this is certainly not a question of infinate regress for the simple fact that there is an answer. We are so accustomed to binaries that we forget the possibility of multiple answers

[Francois Tremblay]

Yes it is true that we derive some of our moral values from our enviorment but for the most part it is innate.

Okay, so apparently you didn't notice that my question is for the people who believe in blank slate. Since you don't, there was no point in you answering in the first place.

Of course I believe morality is innate, that's my position and I've never made it a secret on this board. It's the other side I want to hear from.

[hawkins21]

haha do you really think you've acomplshed anything? I'm going to have lots of fun with this, mind you that I am not going to try to hard.. Lets go in order shall we?

I'll provide you with a more intellectual response of ethics and morality since I've studied it a lot

ah, college.... the concentration camp of the mind... and a place where, i assure you, nothing of the intellect is studied or valued.

You know nothing about me so I'm not going to waste my time with this.(BTW intellegence is not only cultivated through the educational system)

I usually give the example of a child born into a society where Nazism is valued and a child who is born into a Buddhist culture. When these two children grow up they will have completely different worldviews, moral values, personalities, intelligence, spirituality, etc. All of this is due to having a conscious experience(i did not feel the need to explain what type of moral values they would have. I'm sure you can figure it out for yourself).

wow, that's an incredibly heaping pile of orientalism.

people who grow up in buddhist cultures have values just as fucked up as anyone in the west. it is only your orientalist bias that makes you think of 'the oriental' as somehow more wise, peaceful, and inscrutable. If you think buddhists have a greater sense of moral values, intelligence, spirituality, etc, then you're a raging orientalist.

This was the funniest one of all. You give me evidance of the world suffering from buddisht principles and then we can talk. Secondly I was giving an example of two distinctive cultures,and was not intending to show a culture that was good and one that was bad. If I wanted to do that I would have refered to the tenats of the bible or the Spainards during columbus's time as opposed to Jainism(the most peacful religion on the planet, or let me guess the world will suffer because of the Jains!!!).

(fwiw, buddha was just christ for the East. in this case, a rich prince who came out of the palace to tell people that if only they didnt desire a better future, they wouldn't be suffering. typical ruling class lies.)
oh stop it with the history lesson. Ok I'll bite...actually all the budda said was "that life is suffering and most of it is caused by ourselves". Buddhist values suffer (Aseticism). They never try to say that you wont suffer. Get your facts straight.

in the mesoamerican pre-columbian civilizations, people willingly gave their children to the priest class to be slaughtered. women would be slain and young men would wear their skin with pride. if you went there and said "omg! what you all are doing is wrong!" you would have been considered immoral.

I dislike moral relativist, you guys are hard to debate. Even if I was deemed be immoral, would that make their moral standards correct?

and i'm sorry, but the nazis are not the pinnacle of evil in history. the anglo-US empire eclipses it in pure evil by miles. the nazis told the banker class to go fuck themselves and made their own medium of exchange, turning their entire economy around in just a few years. if someone stood up today with this idea, they'd be denounced as nazis.

Thats a true statement but totally not the point I was trying to make. next time I will use the Icelandic commonwea and the bushmen. It does not matter which culture you choose. The individuls will aways have different sets of moral values.If you ask me I'd say when you flood the earth for not following your decrees then that should be deemed the pinnacle of evil.

i guess the lesson here is that the morality that francybaby is talking about is easily instilled through propaganda, so perhaps it is a blank slate... or perhaps there are innate 'values' which get perverted by the state and other institutions.

you really are not getting it. It would be better if this was not over the internet...anyhow nice try