Hi DT,
Then we would have to apply our ideas to examples of how we make particular decisions and see if it fits with the theory. My argument isn't just that I think A and you think B, its about giving account that makes sense of how we reason about morality in practice. If our morality was just invention, we'd also have to give an account why truth is so deeply presupposed within it and how such a universal distortion could possibly come about.
And I would suggest that our moral reasoning and feelings fit well with the evolutionary model . Most of our moral decisions are directed towards the smoother functioning of the society we live in, and as society changes, our moral decisions tend to alter accordingly. Also, we have evidence that in certain circumstances which involve brain damage or indoctrination, our moral attitudes can also change. For me, this suggests that it is the working of our brain which is the focal point of our feelings of morality/immorality.
What I'd say to that is, if we drilled down into what counted as evidence for you we'd end up with some basic intuitions which cannot be evidenced. Nevertheless I'm glad re yr opinions on theism its nice to be able to have an amicable exchange.
I would agree. Obviously I would suggest that these basic intuitions are simply part of the general evolutionary complexity of the human brain. I do accept however that other views can be equally valid.
As regards an amicable exchange of views, I have never seen any reason not to have such. I take part in such discussions, not only to clarify my own views, but to assess and learn from the views of others. If the exchange isn't reasonably amicable, then I find my ability to do the above becomes increasingly curtailed.
Well you might not think you could but you should make a judgement about what is the right action to take when confronted with something that matches the description TACTDJFF applies. I think if we can make intelligible sense that this description was accurate we have enough of a shared conception of reality to justify our acting.
I'm afraid that would not be applicable as I suggested that no humans actually existed in this scenario, which would obviously include myself. So I would suggest that my opinions would therefore be meaningless. As regards the idea that, by projecting myself into this scenario, I should be against another entity's TACTDJFF, I would and should not make a decision until I was aware of all the salient information which should inform such a decision. I could not, for instance, know whether such an act actually encouraged the survival of this particular species. It is interesting to note that there is a completely natural tendency amongst male lions(admittedly not aware in the same sense as human beings) to kill the offspring of a female lion that they wish to pair with, in order to give their own progeny a greater survival chance.
The reason I don't like TACTDFJFF as an example is that I don't think morality is about principles at all and I agree small changes in circumstances can make a big difference about what is right. I think this because right action is to do with how we apply virtues to situations and nothing like a set of rules we read off and try to apply uniformly.
I tend to agree with you here, although probably for different reasons. I also think that general principles are all very well, but it is the particulars of a situation which help us decide whether we think it moral/immoral. Where I think I differ is that, for me, it would depend on the person, and how their moral views have been fashioned as to how they would judge any particular moral situation.
Agree with that. I just think that some ways of viewing it are accurate and some are not.
No problem. I quite accept that you think this.
no disagreement with that either although this is not intrinsically a moral situation you are describing of course.
I happily accept that. It wasn't meant to be. I simply wanted to show that there are all manner of situations which can trigger our emotions on a personal level, but intrinsically situations/objects have no emotional content.
I think we often react in common because we share a conception of reality to a large extent and this includes perceiving moral properties..
Again I am in broad agreement, although, I would add that our conception of what is moral can be affected by all sorts of environmental/cultural influences which can change over time. Our disagreement is surely where this perception of moral properties comes from.
however I think your last sentence is very revealing "we think that others should also react as we do". To say this is to acknowledge that we think moral judgements have right answers -we think if someone who tolerates torture of children is wrong and blameworthy, unlike someone who prefers a different beverage to us which is nothing like this. Its also why we struggle to get to the right answer when we change our moral beliefs.
Interesting. To me, it simply means that we attach such importance on an emotional level to certain situations that we find it hard to conceive that others should think differently. Obviously, therefore, in such situations we think that we are right in our assessment and consequentially we think that others must be wrong. This, of course, says nothing about the actual rightness and wrongness of any particular situation, or even if there is any intrinsic rightness or wrongness in the situation at all. I, of course, would suggest, that this is the way evolution has made us in order to maintain the viability of our species, wouldn't I? When you talk about liking a different beverage, I don't think I agree that this is so different. If drinking tea had any strong emotional overtones such that we felt our species threatened by those who do not drink tea, then, I suggest, drinking tea would then become a clear moral issue. An instance of such a transformation is smoking, which was once accepted as simply a matter of taste. However, with the clear knowledge of the harm it can do to the individuals and those around them, it has become much more of a moral issue than previously.
This is not a contradiction to realism, it sounds exactly like what a realist of the camp 2 I described in my reply to Wiggs would say.
Yes, I've read that. I don't actually disagree that that our moral views are a part of our overall world view, and the weight we give to our moral values and feelings are a part of that. The problem always arises as to how we have these feelings and values, whatever they are. The title of this thread is: "Objective reality is independent of opinion....or is it?" I suggest that our 'conception of the world' is a belief system, and any belief system is, of itself, an opinion. Hence the moral values and feelings we have, as part of that belief system, unless they can be demonstrated as having an objective basis, are simply beliefs or opinions. And, for me, all opinions/beliefs are open to question.
See comments on this in reply to Wiggs post...the trauma isn't the indicator of OM, the sense of there being a 'right answer' is...the trauma is an indicator of why we can't simply say something like "although we might have evolved to want other people to react as we do, its really just a matter of emotional taste" without massively undermining the role and structure of morality in our lives.
Well, I suggest that you underestimate the power of emotions here. For me, it is not 'just a matter of emotional taste'. We try to rationalise the powerful emotions evoked by all sorts of situations in a socio-political and cultural setting so that our society can function reasonably well. As society changes, so do many of its underlying attitudes and moral thinking.
