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

[BrianTheMick2]

Originally Posted by jewbinson

Well I know "what morality is", but that does not adress whether or not carlo's claim is true. Carlo's claim is definitely on-topic basically because disproving it would show that morals aren't necessarily community-based.

I didn't mean to imply that Carlo is off-topic. I'm just uncertain what he is really claiming.

I think it is obvious that there is nothing approaching morality on a purely individual level.

And it is not obvious whether morality came first and led to communities, or whether communities created morality.

I have a feeling that morality was probably an extension of taking care of offspring, but have no data to support this.

It is a chicken and egg sort of situation.

[jewbinson]

I think it is obvious that there is nothing approaching morality on a purely individual level.

Setting to one side that I don't think it's obvious that there is nothing approaching morality on an individual level, I'd like to hear why you think that this is the case.

And it is not obvious whether morality came first and led to communities, or whether communities created morality.

Doesn't this contradict your previous statement? How does the statement "morality came first" differ from the statement "nothing approaches morality on a personal level". Don't they both mean the same thing - that is - morals can come from an individual without being involved in a community.

I have a feeling that morality was probably an extension of taking care of offspring, but have no data to support this.

I think the golden rule is an example of a moral that doesn't come from protecting your offspring (maybe it does indirectly, but that's not the main reason for it).

It is a chicken and egg sort of situation.

Nowhere near convinced

[BrianTheMick2]

Originally Posted by jewbinson

Setting to one side that I don't think it's obvious that there is nothing approaching morality on an individual level, I'd like to hear why you think that this is the case.

The ideas of extending morality, which involves interpersonal stuff to self-care is a big leap.

If it were just you in the world, you could do as you will and there'd be no one to complain. Hence, morality involves groups. Obviously, there are individuals within groups.

Doesn't this contradict your previous statement? How does the statement "morality came first" differ from the statement "nothing approaches morality on a personal level". Don't they both mean the same thing - that is - morals can come from an individual without being involved in a community.

I don't think it is contradictory. We had legs before we had the 100m gold medal in the olympics.

The ability to have morals probably preceded us having them. Or maybe not.

I think the golden rule is an example of a moral that doesn't come from protecting your offspring (maybe it does indirectly, but that's not the main reason for it).

That is kind of the point. Morals are generalizations of caring behaviors. They are also seemingly related to having the ability to understand what others want and need. I am positing that this understanding of others probably is an extension of parenting.

Nowhere near convinced

I am glad. You'd be an idiot if a few words from me convinced you.

[jewbinson]

The ideas of extending morality, which involves interpersonal stuff to self-care is a big leap.

If it were just you in the world, you could do as you will and there'd be no one to complain. Hence, morality involves groups. Obviously, there are individuals within groups.

What about morals from/based on behaviour towards animals? If there were just one person, and the person thinks he/she is alone in the region he/she is in, then that person will act in a certain way towards animals. Is that person's actions towards animals based on their moral code? Does that person have morals w.r.t. animals?

Do morals only deal with behaviour towards other human beings??

Wiki on morality: Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong).

[Hector Cerif]

Grunch:

[BrianTheMick2]

Originally Posted by jewbinson

What about morals from/based on behaviour towards animals? If there were just one person, and the person thinks he/she is alone in the region he/she is in, then that person will act in a certain way towards animals. Is that person's actions towards animals based on their moral code? Does that person have morals w.r.t. animals?

On the yes/no questions...

Yes. Yes.

Do morals only deal with behaviour towards other human beings??

I think it is obviously no.

Wiki on morality: Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong).

I have no arguments against. I tend to find that what I find good to be moral and correct, and that that I find to be bad to be yucky and wrong.

Of course, there is something behind this, which is how I feel about things. How I feel about things (including people) is somewhat maleable.

[clowntable]

Pretty sure someone stranded on an island all by himself will eventually come up with stuff others would call ideas (maybe a commuinty is required to conclude what ideas are though).

So you can't really strip the environment (and the way it evolves over time) from the equation. He may very well come up with very different ideas on another island c.p.

Of course we would have to start by defining what an idea is which could turn out to be non-trivial.

[Vael]

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.

This is a consequence only if we assume a certain form of connection between the causal origin of beliefs and their truth value. Seems like we don't make that assumption for empirical or logical beliefs. Why make it for normative ones?

[jewbinson]

"Some ideas are community-based". I can accept this, although it really depends on what is meant by "community-based". Does the statement

(1) All ideas are community-based

mean "people in the community come up with ideas due to the community being there",
or does it mean something else? Couldn't think up of a good other possibility. Gtg back to work.

[BrianTheMick2]

Originally Posted by clowntable

Pretty sure someone stranded on an island all by himself will eventually come up with stuff others would call ideas (maybe a commuinty is required to conclude what ideas are though).

I'd call them ideas. I don't think a community is required to have the idea that "this thing tastes good and that one doesn't taste good" and to make a generalization about other things that look/smell similar.

Since it seems likely that ideas are either prediction-based or description-based (or a combination of the two), I think it is more a matter of how much the values (yummy or yucky, good or bad, nice or mean) is influenced by community, rather than whether those values can exist outside of a community.

So you can't really strip the environment (and the way it evolves over time) from the equation. He may very well come up with very different ideas on another island c.p.

That might get to the crux of the problem. It is very likely that we come up with ideas as we are built to come up with ideas. It certainly seems likely that we are built to come up with certain ideas more easily than others.

Again, though, "ideas" without a person (or animal, to open a can of worms) having them seems to be meaningless.

I have a feeling that the idea of rape requires at least two agents. Since we are social animals, it is really difficult to take out the social in understanding things.

Of course we would have to start by defining what an idea is which could turn out to be non-trivial.

Possibly. It would probably be better to start out by noting what people do inside their noggins and work from there instead.

[BrianTheMick2]

Originally Posted by jewbinson

"Some ideas are community-based". I can accept this, although it really depends on what is meant by "community-based". Does the statement

(1) All ideas are community-based

mean "people in the community come up with ideas due to the community being there",
or does it mean something else? Couldn't think up of a good other possibility. Gtg back to work.

We are social animals. It is hard to separate out what is built in from what is learned.

[jewbinson]

e.g. are ideas when inventing new maths theorems community-based? I don't think so.

So what did Wittgenstein mean? I think he meant that some ideas are community-based.

[newguy1234]

Originally Posted by clowntable

Pretty sure someone stranded on an island all by himself will eventually come up with stuff others would call ideas (maybe a community is required to conclude what ideas are though).

My understanding is that in this sense of the use, HE is the community.

[clowntable]

Ok if one person is a community then I tend to agree. The notion of ideas existing without human beings seems fairly hard to defend/implausible.

Then again there's quite a few people that defend the idea that numbers exists independently from human minds etc.

[newguy1234]

Originally Posted by jewbinson

e.g. are ideas when inventing new maths theorems community-based? I don't think so.

I didn't read the book but I think we can suggest new maths are obviously community based. But we'll prob have to open a few more debates along the way.

I didn't read what you read so I have to try to guess the authors meaning, but isn't the individual is just a collective of the community, through his living, upbringing, friends, school, job, culture, region everything. How can one escape this to create an entire unique idea free from these things.


I actually think hes wrong and you can escape that but I still think his observation is valid with most peoples world views.

How can an idea come to you that is separate from 'community'. We can say another community could bring it, but that idea is subject to that community. Also even accepting the idea is still subject to acceptance and birth from the new community.

Also someone could say the earth was round but if the community doesn't accept it the idea somewhat doesn't exist. And this thinker's round world idea would have come from community influences.

This all makes me think about things like the commandments. They are separate from community and sent from God, and they are stone. Not saying I'm disagreeing with anything but just that religions like this can't exist without that element. Again I'm not saying anything against it, but just that surely it needs an external source.

So what did Wittgenstein mean? I think he meant that some ideas are community-based.

But you didn't think he meant that at the beginning of this thread?