The Origin of Morality Matters

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.

That does not answer my question. But let’s forget about it. I have a different question for you, one that will test whether you yourself are striving to live for as long as possible.

Would you rather live a life that is one hundred years long and pleasurable than live a life of eternal hell?
Would you rather live in horrible pain for all eternity than live a finite life of pleasure?

First I would not want to kill myself at present.
I believe no sane person would want to kill themselves voluntarily.

As I had stated,

  1. DNA wise all humans will strive to survive at all costs till the inevitable.

Your questions are highly theoretical, thus my theoretical answers;

Would you rather live a life that is one hundred years long and pleasurable than live a life of eternal hell?
Given 1. yes I would live a life that is one hundred years long [if that is an assured certainty], not necessary pleasurable [with equanimity and optimality] than eternal hell.

Would you rather live in horrible pain for all eternity than live a finite life of pleasure?
Given 1, I would not prefer to live a life in horrible pain but I would strive to lessen the pain knowing there are ways to modulate the pain [pain-killers, etc.].

As for the OP re morality, we have to be realistic, i.e. there is no fact of eternity but there is the fact of inevitable mortality.

Thus within the limit of the empirical fact of inevitable mortality, humanity can established ‘ought’ from ‘is’ as a guide for morality.

There is no question of origins in this case.

Origin is only referred to from the theological perspective.
This is where God forced his original ‘ought’ upon believers and if they don’t they will be sent to Hell.

The typical question, re Hume, can we get an ‘ought’ from ‘is’ on the basis that an ‘ought’ is reasoned while ‘is’ is empirical which are like oil versus water.

I believe it is justifiable to the individual[s] on a personal basis since no individual would want to kill themselves.
However we can achieve intersubjective consensus. i.e. justified objectively depending on the extend the experiment I suggested above.
The confidence level will depend on how many human being who responded, if 50% then 50% confident level, or 80%, 90% and preferable responses from 99% of all humans on Earth.
I believe 99.9% of humans [except] the mentally ill, will not want to be killed, thus we have a highly justifiable ‘ought’ from ‘is.’

As I had emphasized there is no question of authority, like the ought from God which is punishable with threat of Hell if believers do not comply.
In the case of secular morality, the ‘ought’ is merely a guide. Note ‘guide only’ there should be no enforcement at all by any authority.

If any government were to adopt ‘no killing’ as a legal ‘ought’ that is not morality but rather that is politics and legislature.

Not sure of your question.
In secular morality there is no involvement of the supernatural at all.

The question of such ‘ought’ from ‘is’ is whether their application is positive to mankind or not.

If [note the big ‘if’] every human being can spontaneously carry the consciousness of not killing any other human being, then there will be no murders, genocides, and killing at all within humanity.

So the task is how to implant such spontaneity in every human being so that they will not want to kill any other human being. Note it has to be natural and spontaneous, no forcing will be involved.

Given the current trend, I believe the above is possible in the future in 75 years, 100, 150 years or longer … and eventually humanity will achieve such a state.

That answers my new question. And it does so in a way that shows that you are not striving to live as long as possible.

Your question is very theoretical and theoretically I would strive to live as long as possible in accordance to the program that is inherent in my DNA.

As stated what is critically to the OP is;

  1. DNA wise all humans are programmed to strive to survive at all costs.
  2. DNA wise and empirically, mortality is a fact.

On the subject of morality, the origin of morality should be pivoted on the above two main variables.

Not sure what you mean when you say that my question is very theoretical (or theoretical at all.) Note that what we’re discussing here is what humans want (i.e. their personal preferences) and not what humans are (mortal or immortal, etc.) If you say that you want to live for as long as possible this means that you’d rather live an eternal life of pain than a finite life of pleasure. By claiming otherwise, you’re telling us that you do not strive to live for as long as possible.

In searching this topic, I’m seeing your WTMIJOT thought rising again.

Addressing that purpose of life issue, origin of morality issue, and longevity over pleasure issue is this discussion between phyllo and James.

James is expressing that the origin of morality is necessarily an inherent property of life and inherently leads to a striving to live as joyously as possible for as long as possible even though most people do not realize it and get very confused by the issue.

That is at least one answer to the topic question. But I still think that getting anyone to believe that answer or any other is the greater problem as is being witnessed in this very thread.

James’s position isn’t quite clear. According to him, is Integral of Joy Over Time an end or a means?