Now you are confusing "herd instinct" with morality.

We have a natural herd instinct that drives us towards behaviors that are beneficial to us as a species.

I'll use the famous example of the drowning man. Two herd instincts come into play: Self preservation and the desire to help your fellow man. You are going to have both instincts telling you to do a different thing. But you will know that the morally right thing to do is to save the man, regardless of if you know how to swim or if you like the guy.

Another example of the "herd instinct" is the desire to mate, it dictates quite a bit of human behavior. You want to have sex, yet you know that it's morally wrong to use someone for sex.

Herd instinct... he he he...

Hog warts... Mankind has to many 'alpha' type personalities to allow the traditional 'herd' structure that exists in nature.

Who says it is morally wrong?

No using someone for sex is not a decision made because of morals...

it is much more involved than that.

One thing I know for certian... mankind is not now nor will ever be a 'herd'... Anyone that bases decisions on a false assumption that mankind is a herd is destined to be constantly surprised when plans come crashing down.

Not the least bit compelling, you'll need to do much better than this to engage my interest. If you think that my claims have been refuted here or elsewhere, copy and paste it. I suspect that the truth of the matter is that you did not understand what was being said.



You have no idea what you're talking about. Moral realism requires no such a tenet. Get your facts straight. Besides that, the above is incoherent for the following reasons. Moral standards are set by moral agents, necessarily so, therefore any 'moral realist' who holds to the above would either need to invoke a moral agent that exists independently from humanity(like a God) to set the standard, or be a moral subjectivist due to acknowledging the fact that standards of behavior are man-made.



Nah, that would require effort. I just ignore them because where moral standards come from is trivial and completely irrelevent to my position. Judging by your insistence upon wrongfully telling me what my position is, or ought to be, it seems that you would rather me hold a different one.



Seems that you do not understand what my position is. My position was arrived at through demonstrating how. But of course, you could know this having wrongfully presupposed that you already know everything about it.



It might be sad if it were true. Apparantly you also do not understand that in philosophy "natural law" has two faces, legal and moral. The 'moral' face is a theory of objective morality, not a theory of subjective moral belief. So, in that case, natural law means morality. That fact is not at all contigent upon how I've used the term either. That's academic convention.

The above accusation is rather inept at describing the case at hand.

Evidently you also wrongfully presuppose that you know what I mean by moral belief without ever asking. Not surprising from someone who claims to know the mind of God.

The path to understand what morality is requires that we look at how moral claims are used throughout history. Doing that leads to one's acknowledging that moral/ethical claims converge upon behavioral expectation, either of oneself or another. That is a universal truth. If you would like to object to that description, it's refutation has a simple criterion to understand, but not quite so simple to accomplish. All it takes is one example to the contrary.

Just one.

Alright, one last try...

I'm not sure where this is coming from. What in the world makes you falsely believe that I am 'twisting' definitions? My own position follows directly from the conventional meaning of the terms in question along with the rules of correct inference(logic). I was simply asking which definition you were referring to.

That is how one comes to understand another's meaning without wrongfully presupposing a different one. There are a few different definitions given, not all of which are coherent with one another.



I meant justify your claim. In this case you've made the claim that the logic through my retort was flawed and working on false similarity of ideas. That claim cannot be justified by you from my glancing in a dictionary. The Webster's definition is already in use, and does not conflict with anything I've written. That has already been established once in this thread. You can go back and look, if you so choose, or you can show where you think it does. Seeing how I work from Webster's, the claim that I am 'twisting definitions' is completely unsupportable.

Therefore, that claim is empty unless you can justify it by showing where the logic fails, and further explaining how it is that you think I'm "working on false similarity of ideas". I have no idea what that even means.



First of all, iff you wrote in paragraph form, I would be able to quote a whole paragraph. As it stands that is not even possible. Secondly, a single paragraph cannot exhaust the entire context of this discussion. So, my quoting a single paragraph would not necessarily "remain in context" to begin with. Thirdly, you mentioned universality, which has specific meaning, one of which that just so happens to apply to my position on the origin of morality and conflicts with your claim regarding 'universality'. Lastly, are you denying that the context includes my conception of universal morality?



I was showing you where your logic fails. Your conflating between moral belief and morality. I suggest that you look up the meaning of a strawman argument.

The discussion is about the origin of morals and morality. The origin of morals has already been resolved. Morals, as they are defined in Webster's come from society, they are lessons and rules relating to principles of right/wrong behavior. That is not even in question any more. Now if you believe that universal truths have nothing to do with establishing what constitutes universal morality, or perhaps that there is no convincing you that there is a necessary distinction bewteen morality and morals(moral belief), then I'll bow out of our discussion now for it that is not grasped, nothing that follows will make sense either.



Universal can describe a widespread method of application, or a fact that is true of all known cases - that is what defines it. The former hold no value to me, for one can universally apply a falsehood. The latter is a universal truth. I merely showed how you erred in your analysis of what constitutes universality in general. If you err in general regarding what universality means and how it applies, then you'll most likely err in this context as well. That has already been exemplified by the claim that universal truth has nothing to do with universal morality. That claim is prima facie evidence of the lack of understanding what universal means. That understanding is critical to this discussion and my position... in context.



What, you figure the origin of morality has nothing to do with our instincts and/or our survival? How do you know that morality is not an instinct which has been misconceived throughout human history? You further suppose that if morality necessarily emerges from a set of survival needs that that constitutes sufficient reason to deny the origin? Do you also deny the existence of emotion based upon that? A thing's being based upon universal needs is not sufficient ground to reject it. Hell, dude.. there are no stronger justificatory grounds to accept it.

I'm not looking for universal morals. Morals are moral belief. There may or may not be universal morals. I do not believe that any have been formulated. I do not care either way though. The discussion is now the pursuit of the origin of morality, which gives rise to morals. If a universal morality exists, it can only be 'found' through a method of identifying and further examining the objective common denominators in the moral/ethical particulars.

Above is the original OP but a lot has transpired since then. The discussion turned to the difference between moral behavior and morality. I don’t think everyone has actually caught on to the difference yet, or perhaps my view comes from a differnt perspective.

I think that the confusion between morality and moral behavior is the same confusion that prohibits us from answering the most important questions of the OP. So first I’d like to employ some psychology to the concepts of morality and moral behavior and add some situational context.

Morality – is ‘a code’ as defined by groups (family, neighborhood, school, church, city, state, nation), notice that I did not add anything beyond nation, because the codes that are verbally, socially, and legally adhered to begin to loose consistency when the group identity becomes too large (beyond nationality).

Moral behavior, unlike morality, would be equated to behavior that is directed by internal mechanisms which are most likely to be globally consistent in the absence of ‘morality’ which has been taught, learned, and developed by association with …… with what? That’s where psychology came in.

The progression – 1930’s Piaget, late 1960’s Kohlberg and then building on the foundations and the inconsistencies in Kohlberg’s theory, Elliot Turiel (et al) came up with Domain theory or sometimes called social domain theory.

Turiel believed that the inconsistencies in Kholberg’s studies were due to the lack of distinction of domains - specific domains through which children learn the ‘so-called’ rules or ‘morality’.

One of the domains consistent with ‘proper’ behavior is referred to as social convention. A social convention is way in which one is expected to act, ie. respectfully, with dignity, or politely, like the way we address a person as Mr., Mrs., sir or ma’am, Doctor or Professor. Other social conventions might be raising your hand or saying excuse me and waiting to be acknowledged before continuing to speak, or being quiet in a library, or not screaming or shouting in a store. (well it used to be a social convention anyway).

In past theories this ‘convention’ caused problems in studying ‘morality’ because these social conventions were never distinguished from other ‘right and wrong’ behaviors or situations.

Oddly, children totally understood that there is a difference between those two domains but they did not have the verbal skills or cognitive ability to explain exactly why there was a difference.

As it has unfolded, the research indicates that children, (cross-culturally), view moral conflicts in association with fairness, reciprocity, and the level of harm involved – specifically physical harm.

A rule is a rule to be followed and it is wrong to break a rule BUT if there was no rule about being quiet in a library then that would be ok. But ask the same child the following question -

if there is no rule about hitting someone who does not play fair, would it be ok to hit him? a

and the child will say no – YOU SEE the lack of a rule in one case causes no harm so the rule is simply something the child adheres to because they were told by authority to do so. But a rule about hurting another person is NOT necessary for the child to understand that it’s wrong.

MORALITY, in that case has not been taught from outside – the child is even too young to explain the difference but not too young to hold a MORAL, internally, that says it’s wrong to hurt another person.

SO – the real questions are – if social conventions are not morality where does morality come from, what does it entail, and how globally consistent would it be in the absence of social conventions?

Does all that make sense now?

Yup.



Double yup!



Hey Di!

If some moral claims are true, why are they true? What is the moral standard that makes the claim true and from where did that moral standard originate?

And please note that we are talking about Platonic realism here, that is what moral realism is.



When you state that you are a moral realist, you are saying that some moral claims are true, regardless of your religion, culture, education, etc, etc, etc. If that's true, then WHY are those moral claims true? How is that insignificant?

You heard it here guys, throw out modern psychology, AdventureBegins says it's...hog warts? Modern psychology is a school for young wizards?

Herd Instinct is the desire to conform to group behavior. Alpha males/females either form groups of their own or become loners. Humans do that all the time and so do many animal species. Elephants form around a dominate female. Lions form around a dominate male. In all cases in human / animal psychology, it's called herd instinct.

Where does it say that moral realism requires a moral standard that is mind independent?

Do you even read what you post?

Read up a little more in that SEP article. Specifically, the epistemology part.

Moral realism originated with Plato. Realism originated with Plato. It follows that "Moral Realism" is based upon "realism". It's called comprehension, the author often assumes you understand the simple concepts before you move onto the more difficult ones.

But since I'm sure the above hasn't convinced you, I've found another source (which I'm sure you'll reject out of hand, but I'm bored, so here goes)



As a Christian, I should take no joy in humiliating you, but I do. I really do. But in my defense, I've never claimed to be a good Christian.

One more thing, Platonic realism has nothing to do with moral realism. Jeez, get your facts straight.

Oh, you mean like this part?



The flaw of non-theistic Moral Realism is that it purports that some moral claims are true, but it can't produce evidence to support that assertion. As a Christian, I can say "God created a moral standard", but you have to say "A moral standard exists, but I don't know what it is or how it was created or why it was created". Shaky ground to say the least.

Not good at understanding what you read either, I see.



Huge humiliation for me, I tell ya, when everything you post denies your earlier claim and conflicts with mine in no way. Start making sense sometime soon, will ya?

hahaha What a story, Mark.

Quote the whole section Spider. It offers how that justification can be done; what it takes, in other words. Of course I would expect that you would not take note of that, because it conflicts with what you think about moral realism. Difficulty does not equate to impossibility. No one is claiming that morality is an easy concept to grasp, especially from a metaethical or moral realist position.



This is yet another place where you're quite wrong. Moral realism is not as cut and dry as you attempt to claim. I suggest you read up a little more on it. You've already shown on more than one occasion that what you think does not match reality.



Again, stop imposing a moral standard onto moral realism. That tenet does not exist. I've already explained how it is incoherent to begin with. In addition to that explanation which either went ignored, misunderstood, or both - everything you've posted supports my claims regarding it and none of it supports this imaginary moral standard which you falsely attribute to moral realism.

Do you even read what you post?

Oh how you squirm. And you have actually chosen to completely ignore the second source I supplied, which absolutely refutes your hollow claims that moral realism does not require a moral standard that is mind independent.

Thanks for the laughs.

Jesus whore-hopping christ Spider...

Nothing you've posted says anything about a moral standard independent of humanity. Do you not realize what a standard is?

interesting and a good read.
now ... as for the child you ask about the hitting.
I would like to see the study and ages and culture the children came from.
Personal experience says ... its false information and therefor does not back up the idea.

now that may be antidotal but then this post is hearsay.

I see children hit other children for not playing fair all the time.
I cannot believe your claim without real evidence.

the earlier part of the post stated children deduce from levels of pain and hurt the levels of right and wrong ... good and bad ... values of the actions and to me that is closer to the truth and is ... learned behaviour ... not some instinctual moral base.

the instinct is ... self preservation ... the rest develops as we develop empathy. ...

.........

creative ... you still have no evidence for your claims.
so they will go onto that pile called ... personal opinion.

and your argument so far is no better than saying I cannot prove god does not exist ... so there is a god ...
And that is laughable.


I'm not interjecting between you and spider ... that is your problem ... you are losing so far.
you should look up strawman ... that was your primary arguments against what I originally poste.
you get lost in your own rhetoric.

morals origin has been accepted.... good ... then what are you blowing off about my original post....
Oh ... the universal morals nonexistance... hmmm.
prove them. Until you do.... they like god... don't exist outside of your thoughts.

post some studies that at least lean in that direction.
your rhetorical arguments against the semantics of others posts don't work.

Evidence for what claims Thorb? What kind of evidence do you suggest is needed to show that universal morality exists?



Evidently you do not understand my argument then.



Regarding Di's post,

It is not a matter of whether or not children hit one another. It os a matter of whether or not they think that it is wrong to do so, even if there were no rule about it as compared to other rules without moral import, such as behavior in a store.