Ideas are community-based implies there are no absolute moral truths

[jewbinson]

I am currently reading Why it doesn't matter what you believe if it's not true by Stephen McAndrew. On page 15, McAndrew starts talking about Wittgenstein. I shall quote the paragaph I am enquiring about.

Wittgenstein proposed solving the question of where ideas come from by theorizing that all of our ideas come from the community into which we are born and raised. However, a consequence of the theory that ideas are community-based is that there can be no absolute moral truths and therefore no absolute moral standards.

1. How valid is Wittgenstein's claim that ideas are community-based?

2. Ussuming that ideas are community-based, how do we possibly conculde that there are no absolute moral truths? I just don't see it. Why can't both the statements be true?

[starvingwriter82]

The flaw in his argument is that if we start with the assumption that morality comes from the community, generally speaking, the morality that arises will be beneficial to that community.

So on the surface "it's all relative," until you realize that there are certain things that are beneficial to nearly any community. It's the reason why things like murder, theft, lying, etc. are almost universally seen as immoral - any society that said, "Hey, murder is awesome, let's all do that!" wouldn't be around very long.

So in the mind of the original author, moral relativism means anything could happen, but he misses the reality that some moral teachings are fundamental to keeping a society together, effectively making those "moral absolutes."

[Bill Haywood]

Depends what "community-based" means. If morality is arbitrarily invented, like language, then yes, it's all relative. But if part of where the community gets its morality is from our biological nature, then there is a basis for moral absolutes.

[BrianTheMick2]

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

But if part of where the community gets its morality is from our biological nature, then there is a basis for moral absolutes.

Nuh uh.

We do get the basics of morality from our hard-wiring, but that hard-wiring has quite a few different versions and can easily be written over.

[Bill Haywood]

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

Nuh uh.

We do get the basics of morality from our hard-wiring, but that hard-wiring has quite a few different versions and can easily be written over.

There are moral values common to all human communities, reciprocity for example.

[13ball]

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

There are moral values common to all human communities, reciprocity for example.

Well, reciprocity is more a function of the nature of communities than any hard-wiring.

But it's kind of weird to say that morals are derived from hard-wiring, which would make rape moral.

[Bill Haywood]

Wot.

[BrianTheMick2]

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

There are moral values common to all human communities, reciprocity for example.

This seems to be true. However, you will find that reciprocity is not a moral absolute at all in any meaningful sense.

An absolute implies (I think even requires) hard and fast rules.

More what I was getting at is that if morality has any component which is in the individual, then all the individuals must have the same moral sense (or however you want to discuss it) for any absolutes to exist.

[Aaron W.]

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

There are moral values common to all human communities, reciprocity for example.

I think that any attempt you make to define what you mean by this word will result in the existence of a counter-example.

[Bill Haywood]

Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2

More what I was getting at is that if morality has any component which is in the individual, then all the individuals must have the same moral sense (or however you want to discuss it) for any absolutes to exist.

The incest taboo is universal.

A biological component of behavior, including morality, is a major field of research. To take a recent book, there's http://www.amazon.com/Social-Conques...dward+o+wilson

In The Social Conquest of Earth, Wilson offers a full explanation of his latest thinking on evolution. Group dynamics, not selfish genes, drive altruism, he argues: “Colonies of cheaters lose to colonies of cooperators.” As the cooperative colonies dominate and multiply, so do their alleged ”altruism” genes. Wilson uses what he calls “multilevel selection”—group and individual selection combined—to discuss the emergence of the creative arts and humanities, morality, religion...

[BrianTheMick2]

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

The incest taboo is universal.

What is not universal is "what qualifies as incest." Boinking one's sister doesn't qualify universally as incest.

Sometimes boinking one's second cousin twice removed is verboten even if one can boink one's sister.

What is universal is that there seems to always be rules on who one can boink or not boink.

A biological component of behavior, including morality, is a major field of research. To take a recent book, there's http://www.amazon.com/Social-Conques...dward+o+wilson

I recommended this book recently in this forum

[Bill Haywood]

Are you arguing there's no biological programing against incest? Parent-child is universal and exceptions on sibling are very rare. This behavior is directly related to survival fitness.

It's not the case that there's a universal tendency that is implemented arbitrarily, like language. It's specific rules against incest within the nuclear family. Cousins--yes, variability.

Humans also have a powerful desire to be treated fairly. The test of what constitutes fairness may vary, but whatever the criteria are, there's a biological insistence that they be followed.

[Aaron W.]

Originally Posted by Bill Haywood

Are you arguing there's no biological programing against incest? Parent-child is universal and exceptions on sibling are very rare.

Very rare = not universal

This behavior is directly related to survival fitness.

While it may be true, I've never seen a biological mechanism which demonstrates the connection between survival fitness and the behavior. By this, I mean that it's unclear to me what exactly DNA "knows" about itself to create non-incestuous behaviors and link it to survival. (See the other thread about "X evolved because of Y"). How do you know that this isn't an artifact of social conditioning or just a side effect of other evolutionary changes?

The test of what constitutes fairness may vary, but whatever the criteria are, there's a biological insistence that they be followed.

Evidence? This reasoning sounds like incredibly bad evolutionary psychology, not evolutionary biology.

[Bill Haywood]

Read. Wilson.

[longmissedblind]

there are no absolutes. there is always uncertainty. conditions change. life adapts.