Don't mind at all, appreciate it in fact.

I dug up the actual research paper that the article I linked refers to in case you want to scan it.

The Interface Theory of Perception: Natural Selection Drives True Perception To Swift Extinction

Much of it is beyond my level of knowledge, and probably beyond my level of ability to understand, but I think I understand the general gist of it and it's what is informing the viewpoint on morality that I'm exploring.

It's as if 'Morality & Right/Wrong' is the icon in our interface created by our perception, but it's an icon that disguises and does not reconstruct the process that it links to, which is the ongoing process of survival.

Ie, you have a descriptive claim: that the real reasons we evolved a sense of morality is that it gives an evolutionary advantage. This is a descriptive claim about the universe. This was one of the things on my list you said didn't apply to your view.

This is likely a metaethical view. Indeed moral nihilism is a meta ethical view. This was another on my list you said didn't apply to your view.

Now, as you might have seen previously on this forum, I generally think moral nihilism is good as well, although I tend to be a bit more partial to the expressivist approach, which still maintains a function of moral language: "We are not making an effort to describe the way the world is. We are not trying to report on the moral features possessed by various actions, motives, or policies. Instead, we are venting our emotions, commanding others to act in certain ways, or revealing a plan of action. When we condemn torture, for instance, we are expressing our opposition to it, indicating our disgust at it, publicizing our reluctance to perform it, and strongly encouraging others not to go in for it. We can do all of these things without trying to say anything that is true."



This defence of not having to define the terms you are using seems a bit silly. If you are going to use terms, you should know what it means, and it shouldn't be this hard to get you to tell us what you mean when you use them. For instance, moral objectivism is a metaethical theory that stands in contrast to the metaethical theory you like, moral nihilism. Just because you like the one doesn't mean you should not even learn the basic terminology of the other!

This is very strange. Did you not vociferously tell us repeatedly in this thread and again in PM how you absolutely did not want to keep talking about this publicly on the forum? And yet you are STILL defending it! Well I you feel free to keep talking about it, so shall I. Remember what you said:

NOBODY has suggested in any way that you ought to have read a book before even speaking about the subject. That would be crazy! You were completely wrong to "expect" us to say that. Saying that you are not well versed would be reasonable, saying that you expect to learn about a theory you didn't know of (like moral nihilism) is very reasonable, saying you expect your view to be combated by some book is very reasonable. But saying we would say you ought to have read a book before speaking is not. Do you see the difference? Do you see why the one is very reasonable and the other comes off as passive aggressive, characterization opposition to your post in a completely unreasonable way?

No, this is not my claim. I haven't given a reason for us having evolved an ability or desire to determine right from wrong because for one thing, I don't know that that is true, and secondly, it's not only not necessary for what I'm saying, but contrary to it.

I'm saying that we have evolved a method of perception that has caused us to perceive that there is such a thing as right and wrong, but this may not be true. However, the pursuit of the identification of right and wrong has not hurt our chances of survival so we've never lost that tendency. Sometimes it may even help us (Type 1 error). So in our search for something that doesn't actually exist, we've behaved in ways that increased our survival prospects at a species level.

There seems little point defining terms related to morality when I'm saying that there is no such thing as morality, nor am I trying to express this in terms of morality. A Presuppositional form of Moral Nihilism is the closest thing I've found to what I'm thinking, I'm not saying that's what it is though.

If a man suffers an asthmatic attack he certainly can state that this is untoward for he knows the better state, that of easy breathing. Shortness of breath with associated wheezes which are related to constriction of the bronchials and perhaps even the blood supply to the same.

In out time we call this an illness and do not see this as a manifestation of good and evil. Likewise we conjure bacterium and viral diseases with no respect to good and evil.

In ancient times the illness, or disease, was related to the manifestation of "evil" and healing attempts were initiated to that effect. A noteworthy healing sect were the Manichean's whose present and future purposes were to "take in to one's self" the "evil" and transform it ,particularly, into the "good".

Now days we are truly affected by a cinematic picture of evil such that "pea soup"( Rosemary's Baby for the uninformed ) is the standard bearer of our picture of evil. The consequence of this is that many do not see "evil" for what it is and was and can be.

Intellectually , it seems that what is always asked is a definition of evil then someone may ask the advocate to point it out or weigh and measure it. There are a few approaches to "evil' such as the "good manifesting out of time".

An example is that prior to Golgotha the human being expressed Loive within his nation or race or gender. The "good" beings developed the human soul through these particular enclaves in order to bring Love to the world and within the human being. The antagonist to this love within peoples such as French, Irish, German, Hebrew,Italian,etc would have the human soul leave his nation in independence. this was the conflict between "good and evil" which ws important to the development of the human soul. I am Russian, I am German I am English,..... All according to the "realm of the good".

Its not lost to those who read the New Testament when Christ Jesus states that in order to come to the Father through Him one must leave ones Mother,Father, Nation, Race, and he brought this forth by displaying a conflict between Mother in Law and Daughter in Law, etc... It can be looked up but I believe the pertinent quotations can be crystallized.

With the advent of the "New" the human being is given the greater task of manifesting this "Love" to all peoples and of course to you and I it presents with a difficulty. It doesn't mean that one should usurp one's family or nation but that , having learned the Being of Love within ones national enclaves, for example, now it is to be brought forth to all men. This is the meaning of Christ who sits within the hearts of All Men. the Galileans were peoples who manifested this "independence" and therefore could more easily appreciate the Words of Christ Jesus.

In modren times , or at least in the recent past, there was fault found with Nationalism to which the basis of wars could be attributed. It does become complicated but each and every individual is now capable of manifesting Love but of course Love can only be expressed in Freedom, which is another story. Freedom and Love , the future of the human soul, a moral tone poem, developing through repeated lives, or reincarnation and karma.

This is a descriptive claim about the universe.

This is a descriptive claim about the universe.

This is a descriptive claim about the universe.

This is probably, depending on what you mean by actually exist, a descriptive claim about the universe.

Yet you told me you were not making descriptive claims!

I don't have any idea what you are trying to say here. You claim we have evolved this...but you don't have a reason why we evolved this. What does this mean? Are you claiming you don't know the exact mechanism that led to this being evolved? Evolution is something that happens, it doesn't have a "reason" per se. And I have no idea what you mean by it being contrary to it...


Don't use a word in a sentence - as you did - if you are going to refuse over and over to say what the word means. Particularly in this case where you are proposing a metaethical theory (despite denying you were doing so) it seems like you should be at least broadly familiar with the terminology of the metaethical theories you are claiming are wrong.

Good job on ignoring my other post. You are doing a great job of the "i get to speak about it, and shall ignore any follow ups" MO.

I looked up 'descriptive claim' and the definition I found was that it was a type of Ethics and that "Descriptive ethics thus embraces moral relativism" and what I'm saying isn't doing that. I don't think morals are relative, I'm arguing that there aren't any morals. So, I'm confused about what you mean.

You suggested that I said "that the real reasons we evolved a sense of morality is that it gives an evolutionary advantage" and I denied saying that. I also gave you two reasons why I wouldn't say that; a) I don't know that it's true, b) I think that it contradicts what I am saying which is that I don't know why we started trying to classify 'right' and 'wrong', let alone whether or not those things can actually be identified.

Which terms specifically are we having difficulties with?

Don't you think that I'm aware that if there were any truth at all in what I'm positing, that it would mean all moral theories are a waste of time (because there are no morals), and that some of the greatest minds in history came up with those theories? Let's just say that I'm not confident in what I'm saying and I'm just waiting to find out, or figure out, why I'm wrong.

That sounds an awful lot like saying there is no 5, it is just a concept we invented. It's still pretty dumb to ignore someone pointing out that 5 lions are circling the car.

I don't really know what to say. I'm going to just quote snippets of the exchange. Each quote directly quotes the previous. So there should be absolutely ZERO ambiguity here. It has been absolute pulling of teeth since I asked you at the very beginning.

although it looks like descriptive, normative, ethics, and metaethics can all be added to the list of things that seem rather wishy washy.

The link I posted may be a bit misleading because it references knowledge rather than belief but in this context knowledge entails belief and it is by those sources that we come to hold beliefs.

Perception is commonly restricted to the 5 senses; sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste. My belief that I am looking at a coffee cup originates in my sense of sight. My belief that some act is wrong does not seem to originate in any of those senses, instead it originates via reason or rational intuition. So we don't have a perception that something is right or wrong we have an intuition that something is right or wrong.

And from that link

But you are denying that morality is objective hence it can't be available to an organisms user interface.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M...0&pid=3.1&rm=2

Nature's "5"

It doesn't sound anything like that to me. We did invent numbers, but I don't think that Mathematics and 'right/wrong' are comparable.

I get what you're saying but I think that we don't need to get hung up on exactly what 'perception' is. If you don't think that the article I linked supports my argument I would rather withdraw it than argue the point because I don't really need it. That our brains have evolved to make Type 1 errors is all that I need and I think we don't disagree about that? If separating 'perception' from whatever cognitive processes inform our 'morality' is important for you before we can discuss the main issue then I'll just concede that, not because it's not an interesting discussion, it is, but because I think it's distracting.

I'm denying morality completely (did you see my post about a Presupposition Failure form of Moral Nihilism being the closest thing I found to what I'm thinking?). That doesn't mean though that there couldn't be a 'morality icon' on our interface that in fact is not at all representative of what's really happening. It doesn't matter though because the result is the same.

Okay I'll drop this line given that you're withdrawing the claim the article supports this argument. It's important to separate perception from those cognitive processes that provide our moral beliefs when the study is very specifically addressing a persons perceptual experience in the commonly understood way.

Sure I've said all along that moral nihilism is available to you, you can argue that nothing is morally wrong and you can also argue that the erroneous belief that there are moral properties is a function of some evolutionary advantage derived from holding them.

Presupposition failure is a form of error theory but there are proponents of this view, Joyce for instance who argues that all moral statements are false but describes them as useful. Revolutionary fictionalism of the type he describes, and you seem ready to endorse, considers moral judgements beneficial, this means that we can still construct normative frameworks regardless of the absence of moral properties to which they refer.

Moral nihilism is a meta-ethical claim and it is reasonable when you make a meta-ethical claim to be able to describe the relevant terms. You referenced both subjective and objective morality, given that you are referencing them and rejecting them it is not unreasonable to expect you to be able to define them as per uke_master's request. And I say this not just because he's asked but because it may be beneficial to your attempts to figure out the ethical claims you wish to endorse even when those ethical claims are that there are no moral properties.

Lots of philosophers consider them similar enough. Consider that presuppositional failure in morality is a form of fictionalism in meta-ethics. Consider that one of the other targets of the fictionalists claims is mathematics.

That is once again a very contrived argument. It seems you are fighting to keep your words as opposed to actually reasoning them.

If morality is symbolic, it means it is a symbol for something. It doesn't mean it is useless and it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just like numeric symbols can be used to count, reason and categorize, moral symbols can be used to reason, categorize and model. The only way your argumentation makes sense is if morality is fictional, but it isn't. It is used to describe actual real world phenomena.

Feel free to disprove my point by finding moral verdicts that doesn't relate to actual behavior in some way.

What I meant was that I don't think that they're comparable in how they're used. Me needing to find a way to communicate how many apples I have in front of me is not the same as me trying to determine if a certain type of behaviour is right or wrong. The apples exist, the behaviour exists, but one thing is simply quantifying, the other is classifying. Are they the same?

Doesn't mean the something is real, or what we think it is. Did you look at the paper that I linked?

Doesn't mean that it does exist either.

Since that's what I'm arguing, that 'morality is fictional', or more specifically, that maybe nothing is 'right' or 'wrong', that it's simply the wrong paradigm, I'm not sure how to respond to that.

The behaviour might be real, I might really steal some bread for example, but your verdict on whether or not it is 'right' or 'wrong' may not be meaningful. I could show how stealing that bread is both wrong and right and the only thing that might actually matter is that by stealing the bread, I behaved in a way that had an impact on my survival.

Oh shoot, I just realized that my entire first response to mightyboosh doesn't seem to be ITT. Well no wonder he didn't respond to it that's annoying.

In short because I don't want to type it out again: a descriptive claim describes some feature of the universe. A normative claim says we ought to do something. Obama is the potus is a descriptive claim, Obama should not use drones is a normative one. Of course there are several variants and nuances in the like in this or that theory ( such as descriptive ethics as you googled), but this is the general concept (and forms a basis for discussions of morality or the lack thereof). Now do you see why you have been making a combination of descriptive points and meta ethical points with little distinction between them?

Great link.

Nope, gonna need to read up on this some more.

Ok, interesting read. I'm assuming that you're linking it just for info (wrt to whether or not I think 'right/wrong' are different from 'maths') and not as part of your argument since what I'm saying doesn't appear to be in conflict with it?
Ok, it can be valuable even if there is no such thing as a moral right or wrong, even if the idea of that might "bolster self-control against practical irrationality", but doesn't change that it's fiction. I'm not arguing that we don't behave as if there are morals and that such behaviour couldn't help us, I'm arguing that we might be behaving like that for entirely the wrong reasons, and it still be helping us anyway.

Yeah I posted that link for information I'm not arguing against moral nihilism, in fact I don't really have an argument in this thread I've just been looking to clarify some terms and outline my objection to that studies relevance.

Okay? I don't really know what reading could possibly be needed to see that "humans evolved this sense of morality" does indeed describe an alleged feature of the universe. Critically thinking about the terms as defined should be sufficient. Besides, where was this hesitation to say anything when you confidently told me that no you were not making a descriptive claim?

I wasn't hesitant then because I was confident that I wasn't making a descriptive claim but your insistence that I am has made me less confident about that. At some point I'm going to have another look at that.

I'm still missing what needs to be looked at? Like I don't have any suggestions for something to read. It is just a basic application of the definition. You described a feature of the universe, that humans evolved something. A claim about a feature of the universe is called a descriptive claim. Hence you made a descriptive claim. I don't know what else there is here?

Besides, your story seems to be changing. Previously you made it sound like you didn't know what a descriptive claim was, this was something you had to google before I gave you a definition. How then could you be confident you were not making a descriptive claim then? What did you think the word meant before you googled?

The part you might need to look up is the other half, the bit about the meta ethical claims.