Objective Morality - a summary

https://www.facebook.com/groups/philosophyknowledgethoughtexistence/posts/5496053303771771/

QUESTION:

"I'm a 16 year old teen [from Taiwan] who is thinking about my future. Most of the careers are trying to solve the challenges, improving techniques, but few of us think about the major part, which is the direction about our "real" "right" meaning of life and promote the values. Altruism, positive thinking, gratefulness, honesty, morality are the values of most people, but Buddhism, Nihilism are different kinds of value, too. You can share other values of life, but anyway, do you think there’s a “better” value, living way for “each” people? Due to Plato’s cave, people have blind spots, we may be in a stratosphere, can we claim a value is better than other value? Should everyone use the same values in life?

This can be concluded to three questions:

a) Are values objectively true?

b) Are life values universal for all individuals?

c) Are values universal in all circumstances?

These questions are important because if there’s a “best” value, then we can try to promote it. The popular jobs like AI, medical science, global warming solving will keep changing by decades, but the needing education of moral values doesn’t. Only a few people are thinking about these questions

Any thoughts about this?"

ANSWER:

"Wow! Great question Jack! I taught English in Taiwan in the past and your ability to communicate so clearly on such a deep topic is quite impressive! It seems obvious to me that you have the soul of a philosopher. It seems like you will not be happy if your career only gives you money, but no meaning or greater purpose. I share your concerns about morality and values and have been thinking about it for some time.

a) Are values objectively true?

I believe values are not objectively true in two ways - 1) there is no divine authority behind them, 2) there is no magically self-existent rational/logical premise that functions as the foundation to move us from "is" to "ought".

I believe values are objectively true in two ways - 1) they are ontologically objective in that they truly exist inside people's heads; 2) they are evolutionarily objective in that some values are measurably better for the purposes of evolution, and some values are measurably worse for the purposes of evolution.

b) Are life values universal for all individuals? Studies have been done across 60 different cultures and they found 7 universal values that were commonly shared amongst them all. Since human societies have similar needs, it would make sense that they evolve similar values.

https://qz.com/.../the-seven-moral-rules-that-supposedly.../ https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/701478

c) Are values universal in all circumstances? I view values as an evolutionary response to circumstances. I tend to think that the more simple an issue is, the more universal and consistent the evolutionary response will be. The more complex the issue, the more varied and inconsistent the evolutionary response will be. Also, the more evolutionary exposure we have historically had to a problem, the more universal our evolutionary response will be. The more novel a problem is (little prior historical exposure), the less universal our evolutionary response.

Also, I think that human societies have a social style of evolution that is similar to ants - niche role evolution. This means that each niche role might evolve different values, but the entire tribe does better with a diversity of values. If some people care about truth and goodness, they can become philosophers and inspire the group. If some people care about health, they can become doctors to heal the group. If some people care about honor, order, and justice, they can become police officers, soldiers, and judges. We want people to be passionate about their roles. So, values that are role-specific might vary, while values that are role-independent will be more universal."

I have a series of blog articles on morality if you want to dig deeper -

transcendentphilos.wixsite.com

HUME'S GUILLOTINE David Hume was an English philosopher in the 1700s. The following quote by Hume became the foundation for the concept of “Hume’s guillotine”. “In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, i

transcendentphilos.wixsite.com

Moral Feelings I sympathize with David Hume’s understanding that morality comes from human feelings. Emotions (passions) seem to be fast acting brain calculations, whereas rationality (reason) seems to be slower brain calculations. When moral issues seem simple to us, our emotions will instantly answer the moral question. When moral issues become more complex, we must rely on our prefrontal cortex to perform a more intelligent analysis to help us come to a conclusion. Reason is a Slave to Dee

transcendentphilos.wixsite.com

An explication of Sam Harris's philosophy within his book - "The Moral Landscape" Part 1 In order to discuss Sam Harris’s book, “The Moral Landscape”, an intimate understanding of Hume’s guillotine will be necessary, since the book is largely an attack on this philosophic principle [IS OUGHT MORAL LOGIC]. Morality is Natural As you might have seen from the link above, this approach to building a hierarchy of moral logic highlights the fundamental importance of evolution in guiding morality. It

transcendentphilos.wixsite.com

An explication of Sam Harris's philosophy within his book - "The Moral Landscape" Part 2 Before we get into the meta-ethics of meta-wellbeing, be sure to check out the definition of meta-wellbeing in Part 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS META-ETHICS SIMPLE MORAL PROBEMS COMPLEX MORAL PROBLEMS RELIGIOUS MORAL PROBLEMS TRADE-OFFS PHILOSOPHIC MORAL DILEMMAS META-ANALYSIS CONCLUSION META-ETHICS Meta-ethics is a subbranch of axiology, or the study of values. By defining wellbeing as “all human values” Sam basic

transcendentphilos.wixsite.com

An explication of Sam Harris's philosophy within his book - "The Moral Landscape" Part 3 If you haven't already, check out part 2 first: Narrated Version: Table of Contents: SOFT PROPOSITION - Meta-Wellbeing is Good Reflective Equilibrium Socrates Testing Moralistic Resonance Testing Moralistic Integrity Testing Moralistic Goodness Moralistic Resonance Challenges for Moralistic Resonance Moralistic Synthesism as a Solution Moralistic Synthesism in the Brain Moralistic Integrity Moralistic Goodne

transcendentphilos.wixsite.com

An explication of Sam Harris's philosophy within his book - "The Moral Landscape" Part 4 <UNDER CONSTRUCTION> If you haven't already, check out part 3 first: So, as I said in part 1, for purposes of this review of the book, I will first address the soft proposition and then the hard proposition as formulated – Soft Proposition - Meta-wellbeing is subjectively the best axiom to use as the foundation of morality Hard Proposition - Meta-wellbeing is objectively the foundation of morality and can be

And a YouTube channel - https://youtu.be/8O3Ti8VzWcI