Infinite regress problem re: ethics.

[hawkins21]

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.

Your right I did read it the wrong way. What caught my eye was you being concerned with infinate regress. Anyhow I'll sit back and enjoy the show, until some person from the nurture side decides to join in.

[Francois Tremblay]

Seems like they're not interested in helping me out. Oh well. Thanks to everyone else who responded on this thread.

[Wheelsinyourhead]

I'm on the 'social construct' side of this argument, so I'll bite.

In my mind, the first ethical ideas arose when there was the ability or power for one section of a society to define certain truths or ideas for the rest. This could be something as simple as one tribesman bashing the other over the head with a club until he submitted to the formers ethics.

I think ethics still adheres to that basic principle. Certainly you could argue that it is somewhat of a more refined beast than the example I gave above, but ethics is still based on the ability to define 'right and wrong' for others. For me It doesn't have an objective truth to it, and is still an arbitrary social construct.

Then again, it might not be something born out of a power structure, it may well have bio-survival purposes. An example might be an ethic that "incest is wrong" being used to ensure a wide gene pool. It still doesn't have 'truth' as far as I can tell, but it has a purpose that is more than asserting power.

[Guest]

I'm on the 'social construct' side of this argument, so I'll bite.

In my mind, the first ethical ideas arose when there was the ability or power for one section of a society to define certain truths or ideas for the rest. This could be something as simple as one tribesman bashing the other over the head with a club until he submitted to the formers ethics.

I think the problem with this whole argument is that there seems to be a presumption that society's values are moral. The law and morality are not the same, nor are morality and societal values.

Real morality (as a concept) is in-built, it is natural and innate. The societal construct of morality is artificial and invalid, and is often not moral at all. I don't mean that society fails to meet its standards, but the standards themselves are immoral.

That leaves us with a REAL innate morality, and FALSE and societally-constructed 'morality'. So you argue at cross-purposes.

For me It doesn't have an objective truth to it, and is still an arbitrary social construct.

You are correct. But the Q remains if real morality (innate) is the same as false and arbitrary societal morality.

[Echelon]

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)

The first ethical thought in my opinion came in the form 'what is the best way to survive?'
Everything ultimately comes from that, and basically that is how one distinguishes between right and wrong, as to whether it helps or hinders people with regards survival - although granted in recent years survival has melted more into what is the better option in life.

Right is generally accepted as something to the benefit of yourself or other people, and very much depends on the context of a situation.
While i would say that there are no absolute truths in morality in the same way as there are in maths (absolute truths in morality would rely on a god/higher entity of some sort - which i dont believe in), i would say that there is ubiquitous morality, namely that which is likely to be right through looking at the whole of the humans race's actions in the present and past, an example of this would be murder, it is generally accepted that murder is wrong.

[Wheelsinyourhead]

I think the problem with this whole argument is that there seems to be a presumption that society's values are moral. The law and morality are not the same, nor are morality and societal values.

Real morality (as a concept) is in-built, it is natural and innate. The societal construct of morality is artificial and invalid, and is often not moral at all. I don't mean that society fails to meet its standards, but the standards themselves are immoral.

An interesting view, and one I have a couple of questions about.

1: What IS innate morality?

2: What values does it have?

3: How is it innate?

That leaves us with a REAL innate morality, and FALSE and societally-constructed 'morality'. So you argue at cross-purposes.

If I were proposing that there was an innate morality beyond the societal construct, you'd be correct. I wasn't implying that.

I believe there are NO moral or ethical systems that aren't fabricated. For me, there is no innate morality.

[hawkins21]

I think the problem with this whole argument is that there seems to be a presumption that society's values are moral. The law and morality are not the same, nor are morality and societal values.

Real morality (as a concept) is in-built, it is natural and innate. The societal construct of morality is artificial and invalid, and is often not moral at all. I don't mean that society fails to meet its standards, but the standards themselves are immoral.

An interesting view, and one I have a couple of questions about.

1: What IS innate morality?

2: What values does it have?

3: How is it innate?

That leaves us with a REAL innate morality, and FALSE and societally-constructed 'morality'. So you argue at cross-purposes.

If I were proposing that there was an innate morality beyond the societal construct, you'd be correct. I wasn't implying that.

I believe there are NO moral or ethical systems that aren't fabricated. For me, there is no innate morality.

Forgive me for butting into your conversation but your post/questions intrigued me and hopefully I can shed some light on your questions (this does not mean you have to agree but hopefully you’ll understand)

I’m on the side of moral values (at least some) being innate.

Question number 1: What is innate morality?

When we are speaking about morality we are generally speaking about intentions and actions that have a consequential influence upon other individuals (including oneself). When we are speaking about innate morality I think it would be easier to look at it from the perspective of emotions or innate human characteristics (and yes emotions can be correlated with morality).

For example if emotions are states of mind and ones state of mind can dictate their experience of the world, then ones experience of the world can influence one’s actions. (Depression is a great example of this). Now here is my point. Just how humans can be galvanizing, depressed, greedy, etc they can also be loving, caring, compassionate and happy. Believe it or not but all these states of mind (emotions) and cultivated human characteristics can indeed have a profound affect not only on the individual but others as well. Since positive and negative consequences can come out of this sort of mind set, one that will cause well-being for some and the misery for others they all belong in moral discourse.

Now you may ask, well being greedy, compassionate, galvanizing, etc can be cultivated by the environment so how can they be innate? The answer to this question is with one word: Capacity. To have the capability to be compassionate, happy, depressed, galvanizing, etc their would have to be an innate (biological) capacity to do so. And since morality in its widest since is maximizing well-being and decreasing misery or suffering any actions that any conscious/rational being (that have the capacity to understand moral virtues) that have positive, negative or natural consequences on oneself and others belongs in the discourse of morality. They qualify as moral values.

Question 2: What values does it have? I am not sure if I understand this question complete and do not hesitate to tell me if I am treading the wrong waters here.

I would honestly have to go with emotions. I think it starts there. It is really, really difficult to pinpoint all the innate moral values but they are there for sure. Others, due to a change in circumstance are created to accommodate these circumstances. Good question by the way but if someone was to give you these values in a list it would be impossible or even wrong (correct as well). Think about the list of virtues in Aristotle’s Nichomachaen Ethics. He has a list of virtues but at the same time he knows that human experience is so vast that he could not just say that “a just man is one who is a vigilante”. He instead states that the “just man is the one who acts just”…this is an honest response because there are more than one way to act just. So from my perspective it is impossible to pinpoint, with correct precision all the time, which values are innate or which actions are correct (although there are correct and wrong ways to act). But it would be a mistake to say that “it is always wrong to cut someone with a knife” (the reason being is because one could be having surgery to remove a kidney or something )and since the circumstances call for it certain values would have to be modified or have exceptions. Make sense?

Question 3: How is it innate

In the last one I used emotions on this one I’ll take a different route. In this case I’ll cheat and take something from Chomsky’s book Understanding Power. I think he gives an interesting account of morality from the innate perspective. But I must note any answer given to you will come with a lack of understanding . Not only from us but from scientist, moral philosophers, psychologist, etc.

Chomsky states that “We really don’t know what the fundamental principles of moral judgments actually are, but we have very good reason to believe that they’re there (innate). We can make relatively consistent moral judgments, judgments which are understood by other people, and appreciated by them (sometimes with disagreement, in which case we have moral discourse). We can do all that under new conditions that we’ve never seen before and facing new problems, etc. Unless we’re angels, the structures that perform those functions got into the organism the same way other complex things did-they’re largely part of a genetically-determined framework, which, gets marginally modified through the course probably of early experience.” and lastly “our moral systems appears to be complex and determinate and there are only two factors that can enter into determining it: one is our fixed biological nature and the other is individual experience”

I could not say it better myself so I decided to use Chomsky since he already stated this back in 1989 although I did think of this myself and got enlightened by what Chomsky said.

All in all I think it is safe to say that morality is both innate and culturally constructed. I do not think this is the real issue with morality though. I think the next step is determining which acts or intentions are moral and which ones are immoral?

By the way those who think that the mind is a blank slate in terms of morality just think about it for a second and realize how wrong you guys are? I suggest reading Steven Pinkers account of the Blank Slate