4 ms·

The whole concept that we can specify a universal judgment on whether a given act is moral or not relies on the idea that there is an inherent and universal mor

The whole concept that we can specify a universal judgment on whether a given act is moral or not relies on the idea that there is an inherent and universal morality (which I define as "what ought to be done"). This is a left over notion from the days when there was some reason to believe in a higher authority. For most folks who think about these issues seriously today, the question posed in the title can only be answered with another question: "From whose perspective? According to what values? In what frame?"

achillesheels 6y ago
That is not correct. Cicero in his Laws Book I emphatically states right and wrong as attributable what is proper and improper vis-a-vis Nature. That is to say, what is consistent or what is contradictory to natural action. This is in no way related to believing in a higher (and I suppose you mean) personal authority - and which he uses to demonstrate the wonderful idea of “Natural Law” as that which is supreme to any man.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  That's just like, his opinion, man. :) The concept that what is natural is moral is just a higher authority in another guise. (Or a redefinition of morality away from what it means to me.) It's also inconsistent in many cases with what most humans would label as moral and immoral behavior.
  - achillesheels 6y ago
    Your speech is presupposed by biologically scientific ergo naturally scientific principles. And who cares what most humans think is moral and immoral? Human record testifies to the average persons indecency.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      I don't know what you're getting at in the first sentence. If you restate it in the active voice, it goes: "Biologically scientific ergo naturally scientific principles presuppose your speech." That sounds pretty incoherent to me, but maybe it means something to you. I don't see how these principles could presuppose my speech given that my speech came after. I would argue that any system of morality that is divorced from what humans think is right is of at best questionable utility.
      - achillesheels 6y ago
        Is not your speech an extension of your biology? Thus it is ordered according to natural principles. This is the fundamental point Cicero makes. So while, yes, it is his "opinion", to deny a natural foundation to any morals is itself incoherent and not worthy of entertaining for dialogue, because dialogue itself presupposes the pursuit of the correct mode of living: wisdom. And please make the distinction between "most humans" and exceptional humans. No doubt we all have a sense of right, but it is in its fulfillment - there's the rub!
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        I agree that morals arise from nature, in the same way that all things do, since there is nothing that does not arise from the physical. In that sense all things are natural. I don't think that's what natural principles or natural law mean, and some brief wikipedia reading confirms my suspicion -- this is equivocation. For example, communism and authoritarianism also arise from speech and reason and ultimately human biology, so they are also natural in the sense you referenced. But Cicero would not have endorsed either of those forms of government and would not consider them part of his natural law.
        achillesheels 6y ago
        Just because speech is biological that does not automatically cause it to be moral, only that it serves, as Plato describes, the "self-moving power" of Life. So then, communism and authoritarianism are contradictory to Nature, as has been visually demonstrated. I highly suggest Reading Cicero's Laws, it's quite an original reflection and condenses Western classical thought brilliantly - it after all inspired the founders of the American Republic: http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/cicero/primary-source-documents http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/cicero/primary-source-docume... P.S. If you believe "nothing [does not arise] from the physical" then how do you explain the ordering principles of logic? Are you to suggest that the mind does not exist independently of the physical brain? If so, where is your evidence?

achillesheels 6y ago

That is not correct. Cicero in his Laws Book I emphatically states right and wrong as attributable what is proper and improper vis-a-vis Nature. That is to say, what is consistent or what is contradictory to natural action. This is in no way related to believing in a higher (and I suppose you mean) personal authority - and which he uses to demonstrate the wonderful idea of “Natural Law” as that which is supreme to any man.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
That's just like, his opinion, man. :) The concept that what is natural is moral is just a higher authority in another guise. (Or a redefinition of morality away from what it means to me.) It's also inconsistent in many cases with what most humans would label as moral and immoral behavior.
- achillesheels 6y ago
  Your speech is presupposed by biologically scientific ergo naturally scientific principles. And who cares what most humans think is moral and immoral? Human record testifies to the average persons indecency.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    I don't know what you're getting at in the first sentence. If you restate it in the active voice, it goes: "Biologically scientific ergo naturally scientific principles presuppose your speech." That sounds pretty incoherent to me, but maybe it means something to you. I don't see how these principles could presuppose my speech given that my speech came after. I would argue that any system of morality that is divorced from what humans think is right is of at best questionable utility.
    - achillesheels 6y ago
      Is not your speech an extension of your biology? Thus it is ordered according to natural principles. This is the fundamental point Cicero makes. So while, yes, it is his "opinion", to deny a natural foundation to any morals is itself incoherent and not worthy of entertaining for dialogue, because dialogue itself presupposes the pursuit of the correct mode of living: wisdom. And please make the distinction between "most humans" and exceptional humans. No doubt we all have a sense of right, but it is in its fulfillment - there's the rub!
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        I agree that morals arise from nature, in the same way that all things do, since there is nothing that does not arise from the physical. In that sense all things are natural. I don't think that's what natural principles or natural law mean, and some brief wikipedia reading confirms my suspicion -- this is equivocation. For example, communism and authoritarianism also arise from speech and reason and ultimately human biology, so they are also natural in the sense you referenced. But Cicero would not have endorsed either of those forms of government and would not consider them part of his natural law.
        achillesheels 6y ago
        Just because speech is biological that does not automatically cause it to be moral, only that it serves, as Plato describes, the "self-moving power" of Life. So then, communism and authoritarianism are contradictory to Nature, as has been visually demonstrated. I highly suggest Reading Cicero's Laws, it's quite an original reflection and condenses Western classical thought brilliantly - it after all inspired the founders of the American Republic: http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/cicero/primary-source-documents http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/cicero/primary-source-docume... P.S. If you believe "nothing [does not arise] from the physical" then how do you explain the ordering principles of logic? Are you to suggest that the mind does not exist independently of the physical brain? If so, where is your evidence?