The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Can Morality be "ontologically soliloquized"?
in Philosophy
Consider a universe with only one mind, a single moral agent, self-contained... Can this mind be immoral, or have any notions of bad and can it be moral or have any notions of good?
I think such a mind can neither be moral or immoral, it would be amoral. Notions of murder, rape, lying, stealing, envy, love, care, etc, all those things that we understand as having moral answers or implications, they can't exists for such a mind, how could they?
I think notions of what we call "morality" do not exists in an egocentric perspective and what I mean by "ontologically soliloquized" is that fundamental truths we can deduce about the Nature of Morality (ontological part) can not be found within The Self (soliloquized) but only in relations to an "Other". If true, it would imply that morality cannot come from god because god, if it exist, is unique and thus amoral by default.
It would also mean that it cannot come from ourselves as individuals, morality implies collectivity... Existential questions like "Should I kill myself" are therefore not related to morality. It does relate to philosophy but not morality as we're used to think of it... For such a single mind, suicide may be a very rational option or an obvious philosophical conclusion, more so if existence has no end. That which is infinite has no value after all...
So, I think that for "morality" to exist there must be, by necessity at least 2 moral agents... Anything that doesn't concern more than one moral agent can't be related to morality.
There's an ingrained notion of "the other" in our intuition of morality, and this notion is naturally buried under the Ego, but this notion of "the other" is intrinsic to what we came to name "morality"...
The works of Patricia Churchland in neurosciences like neuroendocrinology seems to indicates that what we call morality, has its roots in biology, an evolutionary advantage that first expressed itself by the advent of the first brainstems and limbic systems and the evolution of gregarious species... This could, and should IMO, have huge implications about how we think about questions relating to morality. it's a whole new field of study that was unfathomable 50 years ago, Moore's law helping, we may well make discoveries as profoundly challenging as was Gallileo's heliocentric model to his contemporary...
So, can Morality be "ontologically soliloquized"?
I think such a mind can neither be moral or immoral, it would be amoral. Notions of murder, rape, lying, stealing, envy, love, care, etc, all those things that we understand as having moral answers or implications, they can't exists for such a mind, how could they?
I think notions of what we call "morality" do not exists in an egocentric perspective and what I mean by "ontologically soliloquized" is that fundamental truths we can deduce about the Nature of Morality (ontological part) can not be found within The Self (soliloquized) but only in relations to an "Other". If true, it would imply that morality cannot come from god because god, if it exist, is unique and thus amoral by default.
It would also mean that it cannot come from ourselves as individuals, morality implies collectivity... Existential questions like "Should I kill myself" are therefore not related to morality. It does relate to philosophy but not morality as we're used to think of it... For such a single mind, suicide may be a very rational option or an obvious philosophical conclusion, more so if existence has no end. That which is infinite has no value after all...
So, I think that for "morality" to exist there must be, by necessity at least 2 moral agents... Anything that doesn't concern more than one moral agent can't be related to morality.
There's an ingrained notion of "the other" in our intuition of morality, and this notion is naturally buried under the Ego, but this notion of "the other" is intrinsic to what we came to name "morality"...
The works of Patricia Churchland in neurosciences like neuroendocrinology seems to indicates that what we call morality, has its roots in biology, an evolutionary advantage that first expressed itself by the advent of the first brainstems and limbic systems and the evolution of gregarious species... This could, and should IMO, have huge implications about how we think about questions relating to morality. it's a whole new field of study that was unfathomable 50 years ago, Moore's law helping, we may well make discoveries as profoundly challenging as was Gallileo's heliocentric model to his contemporary...
So, can Morality be "ontologically soliloquized"?
" Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
Could not connect: User i2483808_vf2 already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections