The Origin of Morality Matters

I agree with the above in a way but would extend it as follows;

If a human do not eat, he will die.
If all humans don’t eat, the whole human specie will be extinct.
DNA wise all humans are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [exception exists only when the program is defective].
Thus all humans ought to eat.
This ought is derived from “is”.
This ‘ought’ is reasoned out from facts, i.e. “is”

To reconcile the ‘is’ with ‘ought’ we can verify it with a scientific experiment [i.e. empirical is].
We can do this experiment by taking a sampling from the full range of humans on Earth, e.g. in terms of gender, age, race, countries, states, and all other demographic sectors.
Then we ask each the following question,
“Will you volunteer to kill yourself to death?”
Common sense will inform us no ordinary human will answer ‘Yes’.
Those who answer ‘yes’ would likely be the mentally ill due to defects in their DNA, e.g. the certified heavily depressed suicidal person, and other mentally ill. The % of these people are like to be very minimal.

The above experiment and question can be extended to every ordinary human on Earth.
Common sense again will inform us, all will answer ‘No!’ [note exceptions as explained above]

From the above and imputing the Golden Rule, we can derive the primary ‘ought,’
“No human ought to kill another human”
From there we will be able to derive a hierarchy of ‘ought’ with different weightages and values.

The origin of Morality is driven by the survival instinct [till the inevitable] and an inherent Faculty and Function of Morality within the human brain/mind that is slowly evolving just like how the human faculty of the reasoning and planning executive function had evolved from eons ago as distinct from the primates and other animals.
One of the parts of the brain that support this faculty of Morality are the presence of Mirror Neurons working with other parts of the brain.

The point here is while it is possible to reason out an ‘ought’ from ‘is,’ that “ought” as an ideal should never be enforced upon anybody but merely to be used as a GUIDE only to facilitate continuous improvement of narrowing the moral-ethics GAP.

The above are in accordance with Kantian Morality and Ethics

That would be WTL (short for Will to Longevity) which can be contrasted with WTP and WTMIJOT.

I am not exactly sure there is a single human being out there striving to live for as long as possible let alone that all human beings do so. How would you go about demonstrating such a thing?
Not that it’s relevant to the thread, just curious.

Well, to the best of my knowledge, once a thread is begun ILP, members are permitted to respond either to the points raised in the OP or to the points raised by others in responding to them. It happens all the time. I merely suspect the is/ought distinctions that I make here between what someone concludes the origin of morality is and how those conclusions might factor into a description/assessment of a particular context are important to raise.

You will either address them or not.

I’ll admit that my own “technical” understanding of “is” and “ought” here may not be up to snuff.

But to argue that humans ought to eat or they will die seems less a moral obligation than a biological imperative. Similarly, to argue that the human species itself ought to survive is an assumption that is not able to be demonstrated in and of itself as a moral imperative. That too seems more a manifestation of biological laws embedded in the evolution of life on Earth.

It may turn out that everything we do here is entirely programed by nature. But to the extent that we do have a say in all of this how can it be determined that it is immoral/unethical to refuse to either eat or to survive? Going back to what one construes the origin of that to be.

How is that not instead largely embedded in particular contexts understood in particular ways by particular individuals?

The part that ever and always fascinates me the most here.

It is extremely unlikely. I mean, I see a lot of contented smokers for example. Then there are all people who love high-risk sports. There are men and even now women who re-up for military service - to be with the troops they know, to serve their country and so on. This is after being in wars where they see their comrades get killed. Sometimes precisely because they saw them get killed and want to prevent others they know from dying.

There are criminals who even when offered a way out of a dangerous criminal life do not take.

People who abuse all sorts of substances.

Most people trade off potential negative healthy effects for pleasure, powerful experiences, their passions.

People travel to dangerous places. Heck, so many people in the US decide to drive when they could just as easily take public transport - not all have this option, but many do. That decision right their radically increases their chance of death.

In many societies men especially put themselves at risk - hunting a lion alone, counting coup, exploring new areas - out of a sense of honor, to demonstrate courage, for the good of the tribe, to compete for status with other men and more.

It is not remotely just damaged individuals who will risk their lives, risk shortening their lives, for all sorts of reasons

because humans have many values - some can be categorized as WTP, some in other ways.

Does the underlined bit not look like what my point is?

I then went on to suggest that oughts (e.g. about lying) emerge either from ignorance of more complex objective processes that can be explained purely in terms of “is” (useful for kids and the unintelligent/uneducated), or as a simplifying shortcut to bypass the need to fully understand these objective processes (to blackbox the need to put thought into social decisions for the sake of efficiency at the cost of being fully appropriate). Moral statements function as though certain rules simply “come into existence”, as if commanded by a deity, or placed into your heart from divine origin, when really there’s a reason that exists to explain why e.g. lying is a bad idea that can be explained completely in terms of “is”. This exposes “oughts” as invalid in the first place - meaning they aren’t merely “not derived from an is” like they try to be, but they don’t validly exist in the first place.

That’s not to say you can’t use them in place of an “is”, or redundantly, and still seem to make sense. This is what you’re doing here:

My point is that this is either a mistake, or unnecessary - serving only to obfuscate.

The reason for correcting your counter point is that it allows us to correctly answer the OP:
Oughts are presented as though “1) Morality is a handed down by a divine creator, who commands us to behave a certain way on threat of damnation.”
But in fact “2) Morality is an evolved trait in social animals, which has helped our ancestors survive.” means there’s an objective reason why morality emerged that can be explained purely in terms of “is”, without requiring the conjuration of a mysterious source like a divine creator, who supernaturally bestows “oughts” to us. “Is” comes from “is”, and “oughts” aren’t derived from them, they’re simply inserted unnecessarily.

To address the OP, as I already covered: “morality” is a description of “what works”, rather than a prescription of “what should work”, meaning it does change over time in line with the rate of change in environments, it’s just that environments change slowly. Realising this makes sense of the barbarism permitted in older religious texts, and why some of it still applies. It also makes sense of why conservatives are useful to keep liberals in check but only in as much as environments are changing slowly - when environments are changing more rapidly, keeping the change and adaptation of morality in check does more harm than good.

You mean drugs? I agree. However, it’s important to note that just because people take drugs does not mean they do not strive to live the longest life possible. It could simply be the case that they are foolish i.e. that they falsely think (not necessarily consciously) that by taking drugs they are extending their lives. Note that I am not saying this is the case. I am simply saying that one must be aware of the distinction between irrationality (poor attempts at attaining certain goal) and different values/goals.

The idea that people have different, algthough generally similar, values is much more convincing to me than the idea that every single human being (let alone every living being, not to mention every being, living or not) has the same exact values.

What is either a mistake or unnecessary? The statement that the truth value of the statement “You ought to eat if you don’t want to die” is derived from the truth value of the statement “People die when they don’t eat”? How is that either a mistake or unnecessary?

Inserting the “ought” into “You ought to eat if you don’t want to die” is at least unnecessary to the truth value of “People die when they don’t eat”, if not a mistake - that’s not to say there’s anything mistaken in the true statement “People die when they don’t eat”, just that rephrasing it with an “ought” added in to mean the exact same thing as an “is”, is unnecessary.

This is because “ought” can potentially carry with it implications that extend beyond “is”, so using “ought” in place of “is” only looks like an “ought” derived from an “is”, when really it’s just an “is” derived from an “is” worded misleadingly.

At best you could say that an “ought” can be derived from an “is” if the “ought” is an “is”, but this still only tells us anything about deriving an “is” from an “is” and how to mistake an “is” with an “ought”, which is more than an “is” even if it can also be used as the same as an “is”. But even accepting this example of trying to derive an “ought” from an “is” would not prove the general case, because “ought” can also imply more than an “is” in different examples. For example, if something is natural, it doesn’t follow that it ought to be.

Yes, and they also simply could be compartmentalizing. They follow their desire for the drug, while at the same time not facing the damage this may be doing, while during the same days, cutting down on bad fats, exercising or in whatever way trying to extend their lives, never wanting to notice the contraditions in their lifestyle. IOW yes, they very likely do not say, heck, I will live a shorter life since I value the drug experience higher. On the other hand many others will consciously value quality of life, as evaluated in many different ways, higher than the quantity of months of a life.

As I had stated DNA wise all human beings will strive to survival at all costs at least till the inevitable fact of mortality.

DNA wise, all human beings are also programmed to let go of the above clinging to live as they get older when all the aggressive will to life are eroded due to the atrophy of the relevant neurons.
This is where suicides happen to younger people when the above program is initiated too early in life.

As mentioned [in theory] we can confirm the above by asking a sample of humans from every demographic or ask everyone on Earth the question ‘Will you kill yourself to death’? It is feasible for such an experiment to be done when all people are connected to the internet in the future.

I stated;

DNA wise all humans are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [exception exists only when the program is defective].

It is true many humans as observed take risks the average person would not dare to venture.
But the point is these people think they will not die in the belief they have done the necessary calculated-risk they will not die and they don’t want to die. Otherwise if they want to die voluntarily, they might as well jump off the cliff like the suicidal ones which I mentioned are exception due to a mental illness.

Recently I saw the film ‘Free Solo’ where Alex Honnold climb Al Capitan a 3000 foot wall [90% vertical] in Yosemite Park without ropes, only by himself. In this climb his life is hanging merely by his finger tips and one slip he will fall and die. 90% of free-soloists had died.
But Alex Honnold has stated he has fear of death and do not want to die in any of his climbs.
Why he is able to do it was due to the calculated risks he had taken. He climbed the wall many times and each time studied every hold carefully thus to reduce the risk but any thing can still happen. He did that over 8 years.

It is also naturally there are mutations in a small % [say 10%] of humans so that they are risk-seekers which will also facilitate the survival of species where they helped to open new frontiers [dangerous] to seek new resources for an expanding population which is also another feature to ensure the survival of the species.

Those who go to war believe they may die but many believed they will be lucky and they don’t want to die like the suicidals.

As for the drug addicts who keep going despite knowing the probability they will die, they do not want to die voluntarily. Their problem is they are trapped by the addiction in which case is a mental problem thus the exception like the suicidal.

There are those who died from carelessness, ignorance, stupidity, irrational acts in their actions, but it is inherently in them they do not want to die and had not planned to die voluntarily like the suicidal.

My point is a valid one;

DNA wise ALL humans [generic] are programmed to survive at all costs till the inevitable to ensure the human species is not extinct. [a small % of exceptions exist only when the program is defective].

I’m a little new at this but I thought that it was well established that everything came from what “is” (or was). And so if “oughts” exist at all, there can be no question that ought came from is.

I image the problem has merely been one of finding the proper connection.

You mention contingencies and it seems obvious that all priorities are contingent upon higher priorities up to some ultimate “purpose of life” concern. And if that is right, the issue seems to be one of merely resolving that infamous “purpose of life” question.

A few people have done just that to their own satisfaction. I’ll have to study it a little more. But I’m thinking that the bigger issue is going to wind up being one of getting anyone to believe an answer regardless of its accuracy.

Is it possible for something to come from what isn’t?

All “is” and “ought” statements are going to be about what “is” and in terms of what “is”, but this doesn’t mean their source is something that “is”. Voices in your head can tell you what you “ought” to do, fictional characters can tell you what “is” - but they’re not embedded in reality - at best their “is” and “ought” are personal and no more than accidentally or coincidentally apply beyond that scope. I guess that’s why this thread is called “the origin of morality matters” and not the content or terms of morality.

Is something derived from what it applies to, or the terms it deals in? An “ought” derived from an “is” requires that its source is embedded in reality.
A supernatural source, or an arbitrary or subjective insertion does not meet this requirement.
If morality is derived from what “is” (embedded in reality) then it applies to reality even if you use the language of “ought” that carries with it implications of arbitrary/supernatural insertion from what isn’t.

You did say that but that does not answer my question. My question is: how do you know that all human beings strive to live for as long as possible? Where’s the argument?

You did mention that earlier. Here it is:

If I understand correctly, what you’re saying can be represented by the following argument:

Premise: All humans answer with “No” when asked “Will you volunteer to kill yourself to death?”
Conclusion: Every human strives to live for as long as possible.

If this is an accurate representation of your argument, I would have to disagree with you. If humans are not striving to live the shortest life possible, it does not follow that they are striving to live the longest life possible. Their highest goal may have nothing to do with how long they live.

You stated it, but you’re wrong.

Actually pretty much all people take risks that lower their longevity.

It really seems like you didn’t read what I wrote. People take quality of life risks. We all do. We take risks to improve our lives, because longevity is not the only value we have.

Further you are confused about DNA. If anything there is a drive to procreate and further the genes. Longevity is not necessary for this. A certain amount is, but not over all other values.

But the risk that he will die is greatly increased by his climbing and he knows that. His body knows it, his mind knows it, his emotions know it. Yet, he does it. We are not programmed to survive at all costs. And further we are social mammals and all sorts of relationships will lead us to risk our lives.

As I said, every human who drives instead of takign public transport risks their lives for status, comfort, reduced travelling time. It is not just that small percentage group.

And they will fight for their country, for honor, to test their manhood, and even return to battle after first tours, knowing damn well in every cell that they may die having seen their peers die. We have many values. DNA does not work like you say.

No one is saying they want to die. Though some do.

What you are saying is not remotely scientific, or supported by sociology.

WE obviously, all of us, do not do everything to survive the longests. We all take risks. And many of us would risk or even sacrifice our lives for various things. It is so tiring over the years that you just state stuff over and over without evidence and which is contradicted by the obvious.

It’s actually rude. I am going to ignore you again for a while.

You missed out on the critical point, at least till the inevitable fact of mortality

As I had stated DNA wise all human beings will strive to survival at all costs at least till the inevitable fact of mortality.

The basic program is DNA wise all human beings will strive to survival at all costs.
I did not mention ‘as long as possible’ but I agree it is implied.
While the DNA has an “independent” program that drive all humans to survive at all cost, the strength of the impulse also vary with age, stronger during the person’s productive age and lesser as one grow older.
The natural thing is while the human DNA is embedded with an independent program for survival as long as possible, DNA wise, there is a program of mortality in a matter of time and mortality as evident is a certainty.
Thus I had stated, survival at all costs but only as far as till the inevitable fact of mortality.

The inherent for immortality [to live as long as possible and eternally] is evident from the mummies dug out from various civilization all over the world.
At present the majority of people are theists clinging to a God for salvation to eternal life.

Thus,
Premise: All humans answer with “No” when asked “Will you volunteer to kill yourself to death?”
Conclusion: Every human strives to live for as long as possible until the inevitability of mortality.

Therefore incorporating the Golden Rule, we can deduce an ‘ought’ from the above ‘is’ i.e.
‘No human shall kill another human’.

But note this critical point, the above ‘ought’ MUST NEVER be enforced upon any human being as a law or whatever rule.
This ought can only be used as a guide within morality.

How can a fact be rude?
It is your discretion to discuss the points.

As mentioned, DNA wise, ALL humans are programmed with the following independent functions;

1. To survive at all costs and as long as possible.
2. All physical and mental functions, especially the brain, will deteriorate expeditiously after the productive age.

It is empirical and evident no human has survived more that 150 years.

My premise 1 is supported by a very tenable hypothesis and can be tested by the experiment I suggested above and the conclusion hypothesized is very probable.
In addition I stated in the above, the following;
The inherent impulse for immortality [to live as long as possible and eternally] is evident from the mummies dug out from various civilization all over the world.
At present the majority of people are theists clinging to a God for salvation to eternal life.

The drive “To survive at all costs and as long as possible” is coded in the human DNA and embedded, i.e. it is solidly hardwired deep in the brain, thus will not disappear.
It is only activated or inhibited by sub-programs.

It is “is” that generates ‘ought’.
It is "is’ that ‘ought’ need to follow.
This is the basis of morality.

But morality do not demand that what ‘ought’ MUST be followed, thus no enforcement.
What morality induces is, from “what is” it is preferable to do ‘what ought’.
So the question of morality is how to motivate all humans to prefer ‘what ought’ than preferring what-ought-not to be done.

The question of ‘motivation’ in this case is grounded on human psychology.
Thus the ultimate of dealing with morality has to be traced to the mechanisms of the human brain, thus neuro-psychology backed by the neurosciences.

This is the attempt that succeeds only through the terms “ought” consists of and what they refer to, but is it a valid attempt from its origins? This is my question.

Yes this is the basis of morality, but is it justified?

That’s the thing: since oughts are generated in terms of “is” and in reference to “is” does that mean that the authority of the origin “is”? Does it mean the authority of the origin is legitimate?

Whether or not it “is” preferable to do what “ought” to be done is down to “is”, not “ought”.
The “ought” gives it this supernatural and/or imposed legitimacy

Absolutely it’s grounded in psychology. Are people more likely to accept what “is” or would they prefer to impose alternatives through some other less legitimate means - such as the supernatural?

Even today few people accept the most logically sound arguments if they counter what they would prefer to believe.

“Oughts” are a way to give false legitimacy to such commands, because they can come “from nowhere”.
Necessitate that they come from what “is”, and “oughts” go out the window unless they are justified by what “is”, and are in fact “is” all along.
You can put “is” in terms of ought, like Magnus tried, in sentences that imply they are the same thing that could potentially be misused to justify all use of “ought” as “is”, or “ought” from “is”, but this is a deception - meaningfully or not. Using “is” as “ought” to justify “ought” from “is” is just “is” from “is”, and this interchangeability should not be accepted as valid for the general case just because of less legitimate specific cases.