What do you think of Moral Foundations Theory? It similarly tries to describe morality in terms of evolved affect-laden responses for individual and collective survival, without claiming to uncover moral "facts." Seems like a reminder that an ought cannot be derived from an is.
I love Haidt’s work. The five foundations may not be the best way to carve up morality, but his characterization of where morality comes from is almost identical to Nietzsche’s and is spot on IMO.
Reading BB's post it is clear that he does not take Nietzsche's advice to go 'beyond good and evil' in his analysis. It seems an easy thing to do reading Nietzsche to be left with the impression that slave morality is bad thing to be avoided. Whereas I think slave morality was a necessary transformation that has enabled us to build the incredibly large, complex and co-operative societies we now live in.
But it is now in the wake of the 'death of god' and the collapse of the Christian worldview that Nietzsche's analysis is all the more important and needed.
Great stuff. We like to think we came to see slavery and the subjugation of women as wrong because we became enlightened and suddenly noticed that such things as reprehensible when the underlying causes are more pragmatic. I conclude that slavery ended because we invented machines that did everything quicker, more efficiently and the machines didn't run away. Suddenly then we had the space to get all moralistic about it.
Upper body strength meant that men had to specialise in tasks that required greater strength. There was no choice but for men to go to work and women to do the housework. it took one person's full-time work to keep a household.. Machines now bridge the gap between the two so women are free for much more. there are also things like contraception, women working in men's roles during WWII when the men were away and proving themselves capable. Only when there was a viable alternative did we suddenly get enlightened.
Closer to our time. As a five-year-old I walked to school and back - and home and back at lunchtime, over a quiet road and a very busy road with no thought that it might be dangerous. maybe a kilometer each way. Not many people had cars in the 50s, heaps had bikes. Today I would get arrested for allowing that to happen.
Brings to mind the book "Attending: An Ethical Art" by Warren Heiti which I'm currently reading. I'm not well-versed in philosophical lineage, but as best as I can summarize, he is comparing two approaches to ethics, one that starts with David Hume and the other that starts with Simone Weil. From what I've read so far, the Humean ethics begins from the point of view of a problem-solver and Weilian ethics begins from the point of view of non-doing. These two points of view lead to a difference even at the level of perception - ie, looking at what you see as if to answer the question: "what is the correct thing to do here?" vs. "what exactly am I looking at." Both observers might take action to save a drowning child, but one is doing so more based on reasoning while the other one is deciding with their body.
Anyways, that's the gist of what I've understood so far.
I think it's pretty fascinating in this sense: If I have reliable pre-determined formulas for 'right' and 'wrong', I might get lazy with my attention in complex circumstances. On the other hand, if I continue to attend to complexity, more will be revealed to me - potentially causing a shift where what initially seems morally ambiguous to me is transformed into a calling towards one single action that I feel called to without hesitation.
I appreciate the length of the article because for me, it only became clear after the extensive development of your argument that your target was truly a category error.
What do you think of Moral Foundations Theory? It similarly tries to describe morality in terms of evolved affect-laden responses for individual and collective survival, without claiming to uncover moral "facts." Seems like a reminder that an ought cannot be derived from an is.
I love Haidt’s work. The five foundations may not be the best way to carve up morality, but his characterization of where morality comes from is almost identical to Nietzsche’s and is spot on IMO.
Reading BB's post it is clear that he does not take Nietzsche's advice to go 'beyond good and evil' in his analysis. It seems an easy thing to do reading Nietzsche to be left with the impression that slave morality is bad thing to be avoided. Whereas I think slave morality was a necessary transformation that has enabled us to build the incredibly large, complex and co-operative societies we now live in.
But it is now in the wake of the 'death of god' and the collapse of the Christian worldview that Nietzsche's analysis is all the more important and needed.
Great stuff. We like to think we came to see slavery and the subjugation of women as wrong because we became enlightened and suddenly noticed that such things as reprehensible when the underlying causes are more pragmatic. I conclude that slavery ended because we invented machines that did everything quicker, more efficiently and the machines didn't run away. Suddenly then we had the space to get all moralistic about it.
Upper body strength meant that men had to specialise in tasks that required greater strength. There was no choice but for men to go to work and women to do the housework. it took one person's full-time work to keep a household.. Machines now bridge the gap between the two so women are free for much more. there are also things like contraception, women working in men's roles during WWII when the men were away and proving themselves capable. Only when there was a viable alternative did we suddenly get enlightened.
Closer to our time. As a five-year-old I walked to school and back - and home and back at lunchtime, over a quiet road and a very busy road with no thought that it might be dangerous. maybe a kilometer each way. Not many people had cars in the 50s, heaps had bikes. Today I would get arrested for allowing that to happen.
Brings to mind the book "Attending: An Ethical Art" by Warren Heiti which I'm currently reading. I'm not well-versed in philosophical lineage, but as best as I can summarize, he is comparing two approaches to ethics, one that starts with David Hume and the other that starts with Simone Weil. From what I've read so far, the Humean ethics begins from the point of view of a problem-solver and Weilian ethics begins from the point of view of non-doing. These two points of view lead to a difference even at the level of perception - ie, looking at what you see as if to answer the question: "what is the correct thing to do here?" vs. "what exactly am I looking at." Both observers might take action to save a drowning child, but one is doing so more based on reasoning while the other one is deciding with their body.
Anyways, that's the gist of what I've understood so far.
I think it's pretty fascinating in this sense: If I have reliable pre-determined formulas for 'right' and 'wrong', I might get lazy with my attention in complex circumstances. On the other hand, if I continue to attend to complexity, more will be revealed to me - potentially causing a shift where what initially seems morally ambiguous to me is transformed into a calling towards one single action that I feel called to without hesitation.
I appreciate the length of the article because for me, it only became clear after the extensive development of your argument that your target was truly a category error.
I have read these long essays and conclude you should have taken the time to write FEWER words.
If morals refer to things one should do or avoid, it seems to not be so complex. Morality is complicated, true, but not to the extent you find it so.
I'll have to re-read these, but I'm thinking you've overcooked this goose.
Believe it or not, lots of people have written 60,000+ word books on morality. If long essays aren't your thing, don't read them.