3 ms·

Necessarily. They make a claim that they then don’t prove. This really isn’t hard. Morality is just goal-based behavior. Paths that lead to a goal are calle

Necessarily. They make a claim that they then don’t prove. This really isn’t hard. Morality is just goal-based behavior. Paths that lead to a goal are called good; paths that lead away from a goal are called bad. Whether or not a goal is itself good or bad depends on where it lies on a larger path. So, what are the ultimate natural goals? Easy. One is life, which is the prequisite for being able to make choices; the other is death, where no more choices are possible. Certainly, you can switch between these goals, but the key point is that nature gives no clue which you should choose. Therefore, all natural ethics is based on personal taste. N.B. In Christianity, something outside of nature steps in and says, “choose life.” That’s why atheists can act morally (search heuristics can end up being similar).

trashtester 8y ago
I partly agree, though I don't think the actual ultimate goals are "chosen" in any free way. Instead, I think they for the most part have evolved through natural selection (most of them by genes, but some by memes). Direct pursuit of the ultimate goals is not efficient, both because it is computationally impossible to calculate what action is most efficient in any situation, and also because direct pursuit will lead to a lot of conflict. As a solution to this problem, one or more levels of heuristic rules have developed that solve this problem in a social environment, and that form some kind of low-level social contract that we will follow if others follow it. Part of "signing" this social contract (ie be perceived as cooperative), is to bind yourself to the commonly accepted morality. Part of this is that you have to convince yourself that you hold the rules sacret. Of couse, if you experience radical changes to the environment, it is likely that your fundamental goals will be in conflict with those additional layers, and your behaviour will change accordingly. Most people are surprised of themselves when this happens.

trashtester 8y ago

I partly agree, though I don't think the actual ultimate goals are "chosen" in any free way. Instead, I think they for the most part have evolved through natural selection (most of them by genes, but some by memes). Direct pursuit of the ultimate goals is not efficient, both because it is computationally impossible to calculate what action is most efficient in any situation, and also because direct pursuit will lead to a lot of conflict. As a solution to this problem, one or more levels of heuristic rules have developed that solve this problem in a social environment, and that form some kind of low-level social contract that we will follow if others follow it. Part of "signing" this social contract (ie be perceived as cooperative), is to bind yourself to the commonly accepted morality. Part of this is that you have to convince yourself that you hold the rules sacret. Of couse, if you experience radical changes to the environment, it is likely that your fundamental goals will be in conflict with those additional layers, and your behaviour will change accordingly. Most people are surprised of themselves when this happens.