[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
If intuition rather than reason is a guide for morality, then by what grounds can an intuited morality be judged other than by the person who came up with it, or God?[/quote]
By it’s fruits. In a sense it is pointless to argue about moral systems or their grounds, because in the end most of us know when an act is morally right. We all learn moral principles by very simple means in the playground and from the actions of our parents and other significant adults. Or rather, from the discrepancies between their words and actions.
Not that I would oppose your view any more than OPs. In practice the are no clear cut rational or intuitive bases for our morals or thinking in general. Like Jacobi or Kant we can lean one way or the other, but basically both ways are open to us.
When we get messed up because of too wierd stimuli as a child or because of our own actions as adults, religion do have a great power to straighten us up, though. But not against our will, so the seed and knowledge that we are doing wrong must still be there. I think there are good reasons to think the basics of morality are hardwired in our brains, or in some cases, it just isn’t there.
[/quote]
That ideas of morality are hardwired into our brains are the very things we can rationalize though. We learn this first from Aristotle who took the perspective that we are rational animals. We look to other plants and animals and see how they operate biologically and socially. We can discern by watching them, which of them are flourishing biologically as well as socially compared to plants and animals which is the basis for human flourishing.
So, the reason for creating a category of good morality itself is rooted in the fact that we identify as reasonable and social animals that are capable of flourishing as well as being capable of the opposite.
Think of it as anthrobiological flourishing, and then add social flourishing to the mix… We can actually create a list of physical and mental attributes that a flourishing human can possess, and because we are rational we can amend those attributes as rationality sees fit.
Take a look at the converse… There are plenty of examples of people out there with psychological problems with various diagnosis, such as schizophrenia, psychopathy etc… So we already have an inbred idea of the conduct of a normal human animal, and we know that these examples are not the norm based on what we know of other humans and how they interact etc.
Then there are examples of people who flourish, take a look at Stephen Hawking, though he may not be flourishing physically there is no doubt his mind is and has flourished. It’s apparent to everyone not because of a leap of faith, but because of reason… Reason based on ideals and benchmarks about ourselves. Reason, based on empathy!
Once we understand what an average human is we can establish with reason what a flourishing human is. We can alter our reason as well… A good example of reason in a practical sense that seems contrary to nature is say the rational decision to not have children in the face of say lack of food or overcrowding. We use our faculties/ reason to over-ride primal desires to procreate.
We always amend what is right and wrong given the environment and rationality, which is why a farmer back in the day might not plan on having a child given the way his food stores are, crops etc. But also reason that while there is abundance the time to have children is ideal. If a farmer say has worry that a child will not survive due to lack of food, and he goes ahead and has a kid anyhow we can say something about that farmers morality given the situation, especially if the child dies.
Is this not reason based ethics? They are subject to everyones criticisms because they are based on reason. Ethics based on leaps of faith, and intuition are not subject to reasonable criticism, because the leap of faith itself is the trump.