That plus we see his real glasses, and not the anime shades he wears on his and the completely-unseen Sitch's on their own stream. Yet this whole morality discussion in itself is boring. Making a game out of it, with placards on the ground don't help.
I don't know who this Adam Friended is -- I've not come across him before -- but after a 5 hour conversation with a friend trying to find a definition morality, we ended up with practically the same definition as Adam's.
He's half of a poltics stream show, the Sitch and Adam show. They attempt to analyze politics through different paradigms to try to make sense of it all.
Peter is talking about what morality is (i.e. how it’s experienced), and Adam is talking about what effect morality should have (e.g. why it evolved). That’s why they’re talking past each other. If they were talking about mops it’d go like this, Peter: “Mops are absorbent material attached to the end of a stick” Adam: “No, mops are what we clean the floor with”
I disagree Adam answered what morality does and what its made of. Morality is a set or rules THAT helps the community function. That is what morality is to Adam and the function of morality is to help the community. What someone should do or shouldn't do isn't determined without a rule. Should or shouldn't implies positive or negative consequences. Immoral things tend to lead to negative consequences or at the very least consequences rhay are perceived to be negative by a community.
well for a start, you said that Adam is just talking about the effect of morality - but that's not the case. He clearly defined morality at the beginning, fleshed out what he meant by that throughout the discussion. We experience mops as things we use to clean the floor with, so the 'how it's experienced' - if that's what you actually mean - is how Adam approached the topic. He said that [we experience morality as] rules by which society lives by, in order to ensure positive outcomes for that society. And you said Peter spoke about the experience of morality, then analogised him describing what a mop is - so that's in conflict. What something is, is not how it is experienced. But did Peter actually talk about how morality is experienced? It seems to me that he started by saying morality isn't about rules, it's about 'what we ought do'. But that's a rule. A rule is a regulation or principle governing conduct or procedure. He then spent the rest of the discussion trying to back up his initial statement and getting nowhere. I did think there was a possibility that he took 'rule' to mean 'law' - as in a regulation set down within the realm of state systems of jurisprudence and legality, which is why he objected to the word having primary relevance to morality, but I think that's being over charitable. If there is any talking past each other, it's because Peter is talking past himself by being typically non-committal, vague and contradictory.
@@bengreen171 I agree that Adam did much better in this discussion than Peter (who was vague in his claims), I’m just saying that Adam’s definition of morality has the desired effect baked in (“those rules which allow a community to function”) whereas the typical idea of morality for most people is how it is experienced (e.g. your gut reaction to an atrocious act). In other words, humans evolved to have a gut level aversion to certain negative behavior in order to have large scale functioning societies. Individually we experience morality as our gut level feelings of right and wrong, but these experiences only evolved to allow for the pro social behavior that allows large non-kin societies and the evolutionary benefits of living in them. The individual experience of morality and the pro social aspect are two sides of the same coin, and likely would not emerge separately, but conceptually they are distinct and can be talked about and thought about separately. Hence the talking past each other.
@@WeAreShowboat I think, if you dig down on what a 'gut level aversion' amounts to is a 'desired effect'. So yeah, Adam's definition had the desired effect baked in, because that's what morality is - a set of rules regarding the desired effect of various experiences. To reword it - morality is the set of behaviours arising from the interaction between people. If you try to reduce it to the simplistic 'aversion or ....whatever the opposite of aversion is - attraction doesn't quite make sense, but you get the idea - then all you are saying is morality means what people like or don't like. But what people like or don't like must have a foundation. Why don't we like or like something? My answer would be that we like things that we find beneficial, and don't like things that are detrimental. I think we can expand that to include society, as we are not only individuals, but attracted to society as an extension of our selves. So not only do we like things that give us selfish 'benefits', we also like things that give the society benefits - because we depend on the society. So in that sense, morality is expressing our attitude towards things that do or do not enable the successful functioning of society. You said it yourself - humans evolved to have a gut level aversion...in order to have large scale functioning societies.' This 'gut level' reaction is what we call morality, at its foundation. I would agree that Adam failed to see the individual aspect of the coin - but I would argue that rather than two sides of the same coin, it's like a bag (society) within a bag (the self). I would argue that evolution has made it so - to some large or small extent - our individual needs include society. SO if society is an individual need, then it's kinda on the same side of your coin. But I'm being a little pedantic there. But I think the entire 'talking past each other' fault lies with Peter. His bizarre assertion that morality didn't involve rules was very weird.
@@bengreen171 No, I disagree, “a gut level desire/aversion” is a gut level desire/aversion. It can result from a desired effect but doesn’t have to, but even if it does, that experience of the desire/aversion is different from the reason for it being evolved. Sex developed for evolutionary benefit, but while I’m engaging in it I’m not concerned at all with evolutionary benefits. The experience of human proclivities is very different from the evolved purpose of those proclivities.
I’ve been watching sitch and Adam for a while now. I truly appreciate Adam because, although an atheist, he has a respect for the faith I have. Mad respect for him going up against an intellectual such a Peter B.
@@AntonioCunningham Adam seems like a genuine good guy and smart too. Just got done watching, and I’ll admit, although it could just be the “on the spot thinking” this type of thing requires, but I was a little disappointed in Peter. Everything else I’ve seen of him he’s been very impressive. On the flip side, Adam definitely impressed me with his ability to explain and communicate his philosophy though.
@@moosechuckle I think Peter was intuitively trying to challenge Adam on his own Definition of Morality being: "a set of rules that binds a society." I've challenged Adams definition before when I put forward my own definition of morality being" the ability to participate in an orderly way. Peter was having a disagreement on Adam having the best definition of morality is all. I think you can push Adam enough to make him have to really think through his definition which he says he could think harder about it.
I'm probably completely wrong, but I think it sounds like Adam was describing a utilitarian description of the benefit of morals, but Peter was thinking more about the phenomena of individual morality. There also seemed to be the underlying idea that an individuals morals are concluded to be "moral" by a third party, which I think confuses the collective concept of ethics with the idea of an individuals morality? I dunno, I think it became very muddy. It also sounded like the word "principle" was used with mixed definitions... I think I would of asked both Peter and Adam (in the games statement form); "morals and ethics are interchangeable", "All morals are ethical" and/or "All ethics are moral", "morals are concluded from principles" and maybe "two individuals can agree to a moral statement while holding completely different principles".
@@lLenn2 I cant really point to the specific livestream but he did talk about it fairly recently and said he should do it because it would be "healthier for the channel". They made a poll to ask the audience and the majority wanted him to do it.
Yes! This was what I perceived this disconnect to be. Peter wanting to change the rules to principles is wrong because the rules are based on the principles. You can have a society that values property rights as a principle but the rules supporting that are the moral rules Adam is talking about and they help govern how the people in a group navigate those principles and values that they share
@@franktank334 So, if someone is from a society does not value property rights, are they immoral for not following the rules of the society that has rules which protect property rights?
@@franktank334yes, sure, I don't think Peter completely dismissed the fact that rules are based on principles, but you may have principles without any rules. Let me give you a personal very easy to understand example. I'm a smoker, way before there was a law that would penalize people for throwing cigarette buds on the floor, I always choose not to. Furthermore, most people where I live do throw them on the ground and sometimes would make fun of me, but just joking around. Even with that new law, people keep doing it, because this law was never enforced here, and I choose to keep on not doing such, despite everyone else around doing so. Why do I act in such a way even when by myself?
@@jswets5007 lol I mean they would be considered immoral by the society that does value property rights but not by the society that doesn’t lol. But if they move from a society that doesn’t value property rights to one that does then they would be considered immoral and punished either legally or socially depending on their behavior. This isn’t that complex
Woah, Adam is way better in a debate than he usually gives him credit. Quite eloquent, clear and well informed on the subject. Good see how it goes when the elephant is well fed prior and not being constantly goaded by other party.
Love Adam almost the 10 year mark I've been following him ever since his supervillains anonymous with Stephen Michael Davis podcast which I found while looking for the bad guy affirmation from wreck it Ralph clip which is the same affirmation I tell myself when I'm sad
@@SploinkyDH. I would classify a religious commandment to be the legislation of the religious leadership or deity/entity. Therefore I would include them in that claim, yes.
You cant force moral acrion period, but we try with social pressure/isolation and laws. Plenty of peopke refrain from doing immoral things for that reason. Though Id argue mkrals have something to do with an innate conscious. It doesnt feel good to steal, even when I want to/want the thing, and even if I got away with it as an example.
@@user-sl4ul4nc3t I agree. Moral action cannot be forced. If the action is forced compliance, it is not a moral action. Moral action is a decision. For some people the decision is almost subconscious. Others struggle with their desires and what they feel is right. Others have no conscience, but some of those still decide to act the way they think is moral out of self preservation. The real question is; is the sociopath who acts the way they think is moral out of self preservation, actually performing a moral action, or is it a lie because they are "acting".
One *ought* to be kind A woman has an unwanted pregnancy Two different moral communities resolve this question based on rules , stemming from their moral intuitions , One cannot be equally kind to both parties in this scenario .
@@UndrState That is an interesting scenario. Especially considering the "save a child from traffic while endangering yourself" hypothetical that Peter presented.
Good point, goes to show some rules are not born of principle, unless you consider disregarding others for personal gain a principle. And great opportunity to show another case where morality can and does exist without rules. If the abortion clinics were operating under the most extreme policy of either side, meaning, if the women got the abortion right away, no questions asked or just could get one because it was illegal, do you think either doctor would be immoral to break the rules and talked to the woman about the pregnancy to understand her motives, not to mention physical examination if it were to proceed?
@@duarteleonardo8352 - Well it really depends on the morality of the person . If you are pro-life , and abortion is on-demand up-to-birth and a doctor is refusing to do abortions , they're acting morally ; if you're pro-choice , abortion is outlawed completely , and a doctor is preforming back-alley abortions , they're acting morally . Now what really throws a wrench into the gears is : What happens when fetuses can be transferred into artificial wombs in procedures that are (theoretically) no more invasive than an abortion ? Pro-choice can hardly argue that killing the fetus is as easy to justify as before ; pro-life often have objections to modern fertility interventions , not to mention the unforeseen consequences of a boom of children given up for adoption .
I think Peter is taking rule to mean something imposed by the group and Adam is using rule to mean an agreement that all members of the community set together. At least that’s how I’m understanding the disagreement at 23:47
Rules and laws are a socially constructed moral framework for communities. There are rules that often conflict with individual morals, sensibilities and principles.
This sounds like the inner monologue of Speedy in Isaac Asimov's Runaround story where he freezes when realizes he can't obey both the 2nd and 3rd law. Very entertaining. This is precisely why believing morals are given to us by a higher power is appealing to many.
A WORKING DEFINITION FOR MORALITY from Peter’s side (I think): “A compulsion or force to do what one ought to do” I think that is the disconnect between Peter and Adam. Adam is arguing there is an absence of a motivation of one ought to, besides societal pressure or societal progression. We don’t get morality from society, but because the discussion of this “drive” is only observed socially, in conversation; it is difficult to picture a realistic moral dilemma where society is absent. This would be the end point of the discussion, “I do what is right because it is the right thing to do” versus “I do what is right because it is good for society or because I have been conditioned to do so”. Operating purely off of tangible evidence, Adam’s position cannot be disproven and Peter’s position is difficult to prove. I strongly agree and am very confident in morality beyond society, but it almost can’t be observed externally. That’s why this conversation is so interesting- it demonstrates the restraints of conversation. Adam, I’m assuming, believes morality is a product or operation of the conscious and subconscious, but Peter’s position leads me to believe: morality, while present in those minds, must not be a product of either… Peter what do you think of Jung?
Conversations like this make me believe even more that the tower of babel isn't a warning against bad architecture, but one of the natural use of language by groups to define reality breaking down when outside of a tribal context creating division within complex systems of humans trying to understand things that are true.
The tower of babel is a warning against trying to build a man made utopia (civilization), even using the latest and greatest technology (baked brick at the time). It will collapse to major horrors. It ties directly into the gnostic impulse.
@@reidosarous It always makes me chuckle when I think about the fact that the English word for formal communication is *discourse,* from the Latin *discursus,* meaning 'running to and fro'. No wonder it is so hard to find common ground. It is written into the words we use. 😂
This is kind of silly. Of course every moral action is guided by rules, even if they are formulated on the fly. And of course morality more generally is rooted in principles from which these rules are derived, often on the fly. Christianity showed the inadequacy of "the Law" over 2000 years ago, and you don't have to believe in God to understand it.
The point I would make here is that breaking rules is just using a different rule over another, depending on the situation and context. And I think we all live by mostly unwritten rules, if we know it or not, since that is how the brain works. Also in my opinion there is a big difference between internal and external rules, or you could say principles and laws.
Great topic with well reasoned and polite participants. The arguments got me wondering if without religion would humans have survived and evolved to the set of moral values we have today?
This argument really brought to my mind the "This is not a pipe" painting. I feel like the concept of morality that we all are grasping for is a thing that societal rules are trying to paint a picture of. Adam is pointing to the painting of the pipe and calling it the pipe itself. The idea of morality, or the sense of it, seems to exist before any complex society, though there would of course be the question of how much nurture plays a part and if there would be ANY sense of morality without some kind of contact with other beings, at least animals if not humans.
Morals are the beliefs, faith, and values that shape how you interact in the shared physical reality. I believe that morals can be "good" but being moral does not strictly make you "good." It does however make you true to your convictions.
After all that sexual tension built up during their vast disagreements, when they both finally ended up on Strongly Agree together...I expected them to kiss ❤
It seems like the question at the heart of this issue is "what does it mean to do the right thing?" Moralty changes because people are willing to contemplate and do the "wrong" things according to their comunity, or in-group.
This is an amazing conversation. I agree with the conclusion of one and the argument of the other. I have a lot to think about. Peter's conclusion is in alignment with mine, but Adam's argument makes lots of sense. I need to figure out what is missing from Adam's view that aligns me with Peter's or be willing to accept this "rule" idea. The end part where Adam believes morality is absent from an example where there is only one individual involved I find totally disagreeable.
I think maybe a way to bridge the gap between Adam and Peter here is that the moral rules are a way to articulate the moral principles of the society. We can have a moral principle of valuing life, or property rights and so we have these rules against murder and against theft that help govern society and bind us in this group that has shared principles and values. But the principles are not the same as rules
I was torn between the 2 statements, but in the end o do believe, morality is mostly individual and can exist without rules. I actually came to the conclusion, that true morality only exists out of the rules. Not saying if there are rules, there's no morality, but rules emerge mostly out of some moral principles, that serve as a guide line for people to follow, but not everyone following the rule is inherently moral, they do it to avoid the punishment. So rules make peole behave accordingly to what's considered moral, without actually being. When you don't consider the rules, people who would still act as such are truly moral.
@Peter Boghossian, in terms of logic for the questions about having rules, would it not be true that in order for you, or me or anyone to 'choose' to be 'moral' would they not have to have some sort of internal set of values? And would those values not be rules? I'm not trying to make a gotcha argument. I am asking if my reasoning is sound? For example, my brother was in and out of prison as I grew up. He still enjoys stealing, it's a thrill for him. One of his deep rules, his values is something like "stealing is good." I don't steal. My might not be "Stealing is bad." I am not a saint, but I don't steal, my rule might be more like "Stealing may get me sent to prison." Or "Imagining people feeling violated, when their house was burgled would feel shitty." So, who's 'moral' framework, who's values ... And either way, are these not simply internalized rules?
There are some people who follow a mindset of, I'm not gonna ask before I do something. And, if someone else doesn't like it, they should be less trusting. They will take advantage in a high trust society and the risk of punishment isn't enough to stop the behavior. There is probably some misconstrued sense of accomplishment. And a want for a more instant gratification. Maybe some boredom in there, and worse if they are hanging out with others who grant status for the activities.
Most people in the modern west like peter thinks of morality like a tool. Morality is the way to act to get a good desired social result. However, why is that result desired in the first place? Morality is actually the fundamental values through which all other values are derived from. Its not a tool towards some desired result, it is the desired result.
The law is there to tell you if youre breaking the rules, but that includes both acts that would be considered immoral to do and not immoral to do. It reflects morality (is changed because morality changes) but is not the index of all immoral things, and includes rules that are not about morality.
Agnostic Morality hypothesis: An objective value set that aims for the balancing point (window) ratio (80/20?) between the interests of the individual and the community/society. This is naturally self-regulating. There is a max point that it is in an individuals-interest to care/give to the community, to benefit themselves. Give too little, and the community isn't there when the individual needs. Give to much, and it becomes diminishing returns for the individual, and becomes a net negative to them. Finding the balancing range between these is an sum Agnostic Objective Morality. Granted, if an individual is short sighted to only their life and not that of their offspring, they will distort they're self interest.
Morality is the way my soul responds to individual situations that cause connection or disconnection to the world around me. It's possible to break the law (rules) and be morally correct. You only have to check ones mental health state.
Hmm, also didn't Adam just prove himself wrong with the court case example? He said the criminal is being judged on law and not principle, obviously, because if he is being accused of whatever felony, he lacked that principle from the start. Now, let's say it's a really serious crime (won't specify because censorship), do you think most, probably over 90% of the population would need the rule to act morally? Rules, or laws, if created with truly good intentions are to correct deviant individuals and align them with what most people regard as moral. If anything is to be questioned here is if rules can exist without morality.
That's my theory as well. @ 14:15 or so, I was thinking : People do moral things all the time without being seen to, told to or otherwise incentivised by anything other than their internal compass. And many who are watched by a 'moral' society, and are told by that society to NOT do (fill in the blank) will still break the rules/laws/mores. Rule and moral are in no way connected in my opinion. We 'know' not to kill (most of us), because that's beneficial to the 'tribe's' survival. Rule or not.
Morality is principles/rules that facilitate right living. Right living is existing on a trajectory towards one's telos (end/goal) which flows from one's essence. As we are all humans, we have some common morals or 'natural laws', but there are also community morals that flow from one's being in that community.
although i'm impressed by how much Peter Boghossian is able to talk about things that are at the edge of his understanding, I'm somewhat disappointed how short a journey he has to IT
So I looked it up and the difference seems to be: "Don't kick a turtle" is a rule. "Handle animals with care and have their capacity for suffering in mind" is a principle. The principle is something that you generally strive towards and a rule is something that tells you specifically what to do and what not to do. So I guess, if you broaden a rule it will turn into principle, depending on how generalized it's application becomes.
The actual final question is: "is there even one single intrinsic moral absolute that is completely independent of human existence?" Answer: probably not. So even if you were the last person in existence, your mere existence probably entails some sort moral ideal / rule that you would either adhere to or reject, but the existence of that moral ideal would be a fact that is rooted in that one person's existence. I am just not sure if it would be the same thing for every possible person.
I think Adam's definition is well thought out and well articulated. However, they're are flaws IMO, which defy conventional wisdom, such as the immortality of being unjust to oneself and the ability to be moral as a matter of personal choice (irrespective of communal implication or rules). Whilst most people's definition of morality do allow for these possibilities, Adam's doesn’t. As such, his definition looses some power, but gains power as an analytical tool to study and discuss the topic. A lot of time was invested in establishing and exploring his definition, which was quite insightful and productive. Peter's definition, which was both expressed as well as implied by his answers, which aligns more with conventional wisdom didn't get explored as thoroughly, and would have been very interesting as well. I would have loved to see Adam's responses to questions geared around exploring Peter's and/or a more conventional definition, which would naturally incorporate aspects of morality outside of the system of rules established by the community. Great video. Thanks guys.
It all falls down when rules are in conflict because morals can have a hierarchy. Its wrong to steal, its wrong to let a baby starve, is it right to steal to feed a starving baby? Depends on which rule is more valued.
Everyone I know would give a kid who's starving some food. If someone is resorting to stealing for that. That society has bigger problems. Or it's someone else who is doing bad by forcing starvation on the most innocent.
Morals and rules are two different things. Morality is subjective; every individual has a moral code that he tries to follow as best he can, according to his conscience. Rules require enforcement to be carried out by a party external to the individual that breaks a rule, whereas the enforcement mechanism for an individual's morality is only that individual's integrity. A person can break his own moral code without injuring another individual.
LAWS VERSUS RULES: First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between laws and rules. A law is a principle predicated on a scientifically-established axiom. A rule is an imperative that is stipulated orally, or in writing, by any authority. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL law, which is based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of theft, murder, and adultery). Additionally, there are conceptual fields in which laws (as well as rules) may be established, such as mathematics, LOGIC, and grammar/syntax. Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons (hardly anyone, in fact!) are able to differentiate the inextricable, singular law of morality from the contrived rules and regulations imposed on society by self-obsessed legislators. Therefore, this supremely-valuable chapter of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, largely via its historically-established and accepted METAETHICAL definition, as opposed to the various laws of physics, which are completely superfluous to the import of this treatise. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, moral law necessarily remains constant within all human societies, throughout time. Never will there come a day when blatantly harmful deeds will be considered beneficial to human society, or else that society will perish! Those perceptive individuals who can clearly distinguish between unjustified harm and justified harm (since virtually all human activity is harmful to a certain degree) will plainly see that this picture of societal degradation, is transpiring before their very own eyes! Later in this chapter, it will be amply explained how this meta-ethical position relates to real-life situations - known as “NORMATIVE ETHICS”. Whilst the laws of physics, such as Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, are extremely difficult (if not impossible) for humans to circumvent, the moral law is easier to break than it is for a healthy fish to swim in a sea of water! In fact, there seems to be very little in common between the natural law and the moral law. Therefore, it is preferable to use the Sanskrit term “DHARMA”, instead of the English word, “law”, since the former word covers every conceivable facet of morality (see the Glossary entries “law” and “dharma”). Whenever dharma/law is transgressed, even to a very minute degree, the entire universe is degraded proportionately. When a man is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all people need to be more vigilant of their belongings. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally demeaned, just as a single cancerous cell debases one’s entire body, even if it is to a minuscule extent. In any case, the laws of physics are irrelevant here. So, to put it very succinctly, the expression “(moral) LAW” refers to an exceptionally-unique and concise idea (the formula of “ahiṃsā paramo dharma” [a Sanskrit maxim meaning “non-harm is the essence of the law”, or “non-violence is the epitome of morality”]), whereas the notion of “RULE” refers to any edict promulgated by a dominator (whether or not the person or body possesses any genuine legitimacy) that decrees or prohibits any particular action. In no way does this imply that a rule cannot be beneficial to society, nor that a rule is intrinsically immoral. Therefore, a RULE can clearly be useful and valid, even though it may not be unequivocally-concerned with LAW - just imagine the result of there being no airport authorities that govern the flight paths of aircraft in our skies! Merely due to the fact that the British government is illegitimate, does not suggest that one should erratically drive a motor vehicle on the streets of rush-hour London, simply in order to convey the fact that the English parliament possesses no actual authority over its citizens! See also the Glossary entries “authority” and “legitimate”.
They're different, but kind of related, because just the fact these laws are there, someone or several people have to sit down to come up with the best possible results for the overall community, or sometimes actually the opposite, they may enforce laws to benefit themselves. Then people's individual moral principles will determine how they interact with those rules. Its very much both things at the same time, but morality does exist without rules, as does immorality with the existence of rules. You can be helpful to a community or individual without following any rules and most people don't kill another human being just because it's against the law. If there's a topic That's on a spectrum, this is it
I mentioned the murder example even before they talked about it, it's a pretty good example I think. Killing being illegal has to be a rule or law because it's just bad for obvious reasons, and most people won't do it, not because there's a punishment for it, it just goes against human nature, generally speaking. But if most people won't do it, and some cases you could consider it in self defense, whats the justification for writing such a law? On the PRINCIPLE or MORAL VALUE, that human life is precious, and you want to prevent it from happening as much as possible. That's how I see it, of course, just have to say, I'm loving this discussion.
I'm most aligned with the philosophy major on this one. Here is my take: Morality is a spectrum to indicate the alignment of something to the truth, more specifically, the truth of its Telos (it's design and reason for being). Humans, given limited perspective and rationality, in a bid to maintain social cohesion, build ethical frameworks based on their limited understanding of what is fully moral, while also trying to include the limited perspective of others within the society. It is then these ethical frameworks that these rules and laws are built. Morality is not a system of rules, but rather is the standard by which ethics and, consequently, rules are made. As such, one can be moral and go against rules and even community ethics and still be moral, but one cannot be moral without at least some sort of internal ethics and rules. As well I would posit that differences in cultural ethics tend to be founded on the highlighting certain morals over other morals within the ethical framework.
Peter, give me an example of a moral that has achieved societal consensus, but doesn't serve a cooperation function? It's accurate to say: morality = cooperation. This is why the vegan moral imperative is an unprecedented attempt to invert the concept.
I would flip it around and say that Cooperation can = Morality. But not the other way around. For example we can say it's moral for a law enforcement officer to have discretion in enforcing the laws. And we would say it's bad if a law enforcement officer is a hard liner who never exercises discretion but always books everyone to any infractions. So I think what's inherent in morality is a need to understand that rules will be broken and a need for the rules to be just, but then a way for the violation to be forgiven. And in there is a good and bad current snapshot for an individual to be more lawful or to be evil.
@@kenhiett5266 I would not say morality encompasses the concept of cooperation alone. A group can cooperate and have little to no progress. So then there has to be something else that makes it Moral. A deck of playing cards has different cards of values and can be organized. But if it's just sitting on a drawer. One would probably say it's morally neutral. It depends on the game being played and the agreed rules. And what constitutes the game progressing and when it ends and who wins. So I think the meaningful conversation is figuring out what order being followed is Objectively the best way to accomplish the most good for all.
@@kenhiett5266 is the conversation about group morality or individual morality? If we agree that a person can do Good and Bad. Then we wouldn't say individual morality is totally subjective. Would you agree that a person could have a better idea of what patterns represent? And by doing that, being able to reason out a social goal. They would then want more groups to also agree with?
