Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.
Modular Morality What’s good for one function is bad for another. So the Brain is morally conflicted and must either compromise or overrule itself.
Post 53. October 10, 2018 continued . . .
Moral Philosophies Morality of the Modular Mind
In Mccaffree's article he says, “the pursuit of moral truth is, for Shermer, fundamentally tied to 'the debunking of incorrect theories of causality'”6. Supernatural interference in the natural progression of causation would defeat the whole premise of Science. So he continues, “Massimo is wrong. There is a defensible notion of natural rights that does not rely on any ideal forms, circular reasoning, religion, or other social constructs”. He goes on to show how Shermer constructs his “oughts” from natural “facts”. Hence, he concludes that “human rights are etched into the natural world for us to discover and discern.” But you have to be looking with an open mind about mental facts & faculties.
Recent evidence from Neuroscience and Psychology have shown that the human brain is not a blank slate7, free of biases, and open to inscribing with arbitrary social constructs. Instead, it comes prepared to meet the immediate challenges of life with an operating system that includes general moral categories necessary for metaphysical social survival . . . as well as the Darwinian selfish-gene categories for personal physical survival. However, innate morality is written in subconscious non-verbal feelings that may be misinterpreted when translated into conscious concepts. When called upon to convert sympathies, empathies, and personal needs into action, our brain modules8 may disagree on the best course of action. In that case, they may be influenced by officially sanctioned moral concepts (commandments & regulations) from Politics and Religion.
Like Shermer, I try to construct my personal theory of Morality upon natural facts, as far as they go. But when I trace the chain of causality back to the beginning of space-time, implicit dots of elipsis . . . continue into eternity & infinity, leaving the common sense impression that some kind of trans-natural First Cause exists out there in the great beyond. Since Morality is, in effect, artificially regulated causation9, as energy flows through a moral agent, I think we need to include a reference to that Primordial Moral force in the definition of ethics. Yet, most Materialists are content to accept the Big Bang as the ultimate limit to scientific understanding. Except of course for Multiverse theorists, who assume that something physical outside our little 'verse was the hidden cause. So, as speculative philosophers, they merely extend the definition of physical "Nature" to include whatever self-existent something spawned the world as we know it. But that sly gambit allows no answer to the origins of the immaterial qualities & properties by which we know and interpret sensory impressions of substantial things. And it provides no justification for Shermer's "moral starting point", human flourishing10. So I must assume that, at least the statistical possibility — raw potential — for human moral & cultural advances were encoded in the algorithms of genesis, in the anomalous creative Singularity11.
End of Post 53
NOTES :
A. Natural Selection is amoral, and can be objectively Utilitarian in its calculation of which genes live and which die. But humans are both selectees and selectors, hence must include both Subjective (quality) and Objective (quantity) criteria in their considerations.
B. The Utilitarian calculus is rational, but not moral. Moral actions must be reciprocal, considering and respecting both perspectives : judge and judged. Only G*D (Nature) can be perfectly utilitarian, making decisions (selections) on the basis of the ultimate Good for the whole universe, including all people of all times.
C. Utilitarianism is Moral Idealism : absolute, logical, and impersonal. Moral Realism is pragmatic, empirical, and personal.
D. Kant said that morality required us to treat people as Subjects. But Mill’s Utilitarianism requires that we treat those moral agents as Objects.
E. Most moralities place each moral act into a two-value Good or Evil category. universal rules versus local choices. But the BothAnd ethic allows for a Fuzzy Logic range of values..
10. Moral Flourishing : As Hume noted, “you can't derive an “ought” from an “is”. For example: in Nature, survival is an imperative, but flourishing is optional. Survival “is”, but flourishing “ain't”, except in the idealistic wishful thinking of sentient creatures. In any case, if morality is not just an arbitrary construct, you can derive “oughts” from “facts”.
Fascist policies, especially Nazism, which idealizes tribalism and Nationalism, seems to be based on a rational Utilitarian calculus, where individuals are treated as “Objects” in service to the State. The tribe or race is the focus of moral concern. So, as in Natural Selection, “unfit” objects, detrimental to the good of society, should be sacrificed for the good of the whole system.
By contrast, Democratic policies, apply the rules of moral Utility differently, in that individuals are treated as Kantian “Subjects”, and the state exists for service to its constituents as moral agents. In that case, the individual is the basis of moral value. This allows “unfit” persons, e.g with genetic diseases, to propagate, polluting the gene pool.
So, to avoid confusion with Mill’s liberalism, some Fascists prefer to label their morality as Communitarian* instead of Utilitarian. This restricts the sphere of moral concern to a particular race of people. But, otherwise the moral calculus is still Utilitarian —logical and impersonal — instead of emotional and personal.
Fascism denies any general principle based on natural rights of Man. For them, there is no universal “Man”, only specific tribes and races of men. Morality applies to Us, not Them. It seems to be a might-makes-right morality. Superior races “ought” to rule the lower races.
Ideally, Liberal Democracies will include all people of all races, religions, and genders as equal partners in the sphere of moral interest. Such Universalism is of course idealistic & futuristic, because it’s obvious that egalitarian societies ceased after nomadic tribalism gave way to settled civilization. On the other hand, Conservative Communitarianism is mythical & past-oriented, because it seeks a return to the mythical golden age of communal tribalism, and noble savages.
NEXT
BACK
Forum
