Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality

i agree we where drifting off topic , lets keep to the OP ,
my question from my last post , reworded .
Question..
You have stated that morality is the product of our genetic make up , it comes inbuilt , do you therefore belive morality , on its own , has a goal , or is it part of our gene pools "goal" , with in the framework of evolution? ( im using goal in the broadest terms here )Further do you consider that we may have moved on from those basic inbuilt moral insticts and taken morality further ....

Thanks for posting all this, molbiogirl. Fascinating research on the psychopaths!I suspect that asking 'What is the goal of morality?' is like asking 'What is the goal of right handedness?'That makes asking 'What should be the goal of morality?' like asking 'What should be the goal of right handedness?'Interesting to be reading all this after a recent visit to the zoo. Our ape kindred are indeed alive and well... and forming cliques and having arguments and showing off and shaming each other and getting cuddly. So many things about us follow from the reality, accepted eons ago, that our chances of survival improve with social cooperation.____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I think asking "what is the goal of morality" is like asking "what is the function of the retina"; both are evolutionary adaptions.

OK. In that case the goal for both, ultimately, would be survival.The retina aids in survival because it does this or that thing that confers an advantage.Morality aids in survival because it confers what advantage? It appears we've addressed it. Morality enables group cooperation.If we're agreed on that much, we still have the question posed in the OP. We are asked what an evolutionary adaptation 'should' do.Most people would say, I think, that retinas 'should' do the things retinas have been doing--that is, function in ways that confer an advantage. If a particular retina does not do this we speak of its impairment. We say something is wrong with the retina.Morality, then, 'should' enable group cooperation for the purpose of survival. If it does not do this, we have impaired functioning. Something is wrong with the morality.Is that fair to say? Thoughts?____Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Indeed, some people do see selfishness as being virtuous. Of course I agree with you that such sentiments are extremely virtuous. My only contention is that you are using a moral in order to prove all morals.Respecting people's rights to personal freedom is based off of a moral template. You can't very well say that this is where our morals derive from, since it in itself is a moral. I just was clarifying what "freedom" entails. Anyone could frame their morals in quaint terms as freedom, but we are not free to do whatever our hearts content. In fact, your freedoms may very well stymie another persons freedom in the process.Case in point: You may want total freedom to have sex with whom ever you want. But another persons morals may not want them to be raped. So which is right if morals are predicated on freedom alone?Obviously, a freedom such as this is not a qualifier. Where then do morals come from? Sure, but that in itself borrows from a moral framework, does it not? Certainly, it feels right to have everyone on a level playing field. It seems righteous. But where does this spring, especially in light of the animal world where domination and selfish will reigns supreme in a dog eat dog, kill or be killed world?What has happened in man that he intrinsically understands these principles without thought, if not by the providence of Almighty God?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

agreed up to a pointretinas do not allow us to interfer with its "funtion" ...
can the same be said to be true with morality ... are we able to over ride the trait of morality , to change its usage , to take it and add to it with concepts and ideas that change it from a instinct into a tool ...?

It depends on how you look at it. Is wearing glasses interfering with the function of the retina? What about an operation to repair retinal detachment?

Must be done? Why? I'm not saying I'd choose for or against it, I can't really fathom being in the position of such a choice. But still, why must it be done? Are you saying it's impossible for anyone to place anything above the human civilization? Depends on how you define moral I define "moral" to be based on the reaction of the person acted upon. I can't think of a scenario where "the human race" would actually want to go extinct, but... that doesn't make such a seemingly-strange thing impossible. I'm not sure I would place "survival of the human species" above freedom. I suppose I'm thankful I don't, and likely won't ever, need to make such a decision.It certainly would give it a run for the money though... is existing most important? Is existing enough if it isn't free?Just questions, I don't really have a side, or an arguement for this line of thought.

I'm still not wording my thoughts correctly. I agree. And that's not what I'm trying to say.Morality: how we interact with our fellow humans.I agree that feedom is not an aspect, or an extension of that.But, what I'm trying to say is that we can personally take this aspect of our lives, and put a purpose to it. Or a "goal". That is, when I interact with other people, I can choose to try and be as nice as possible. I can try to be as evil as possible. I can try to be as fair as possible. I don't have to try to be anything. And I certainly can try to be many things at once.But I can also choose to focus my interactions with other people in a single direction. Which is what I'm talking about, I can choose to try to protect as many individual's freedom's as possible.I wonder if I'm even talking about morality? Maybe that's the confusion. Maybe this is more... social interaction? Although, that's pretty much what I think morality is... how we govern our interactions with others. Depends on how you see the two. What's the difference, according to you?

Yes, I like to strive for "perfection". But, when we don't know who's view is worth more... what is "perfection"?Is a world with no pain perfection? Or simply one that minimizes it?
If "no pain" is perfection... does that mean 'defeat' and therefore any sense of challenge is not a part of perfection?
If we're looking for a minimization, how much is enough?I would love to aim for perfection, if I knew what it was. Yes, I agree. Although I still search for a nice simple solution I just find it easier to argue one thought at a time. Agreeing? I doubt it. That's not what I'm here for, though. I'm here to learn. These threads force me to verbalize my thoughts, which only adds structure and clarity. Of course, I'm always open to having a flaw brought to my attention... that's where the greatest learning can be accomplished.

As molbiogirl is pointing out, maybe I'm not talking about morality at all, but more "social interaction".That is, I probably should have said something like:I think the purpose of our social interactions should be to maximize the most amount of freedom for every individual.That is, if we want to follow the ideal of:Every person should be treated equally with respect to their pursuit for life and happiness.

I agree, and it's a good thing that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying our morals derive from anything.I'm saying that a certain moral derives from a certain assumption.Assumption: Being fair and equal is "the most important" ideal
Proves: We should respect everyone's right to pursue life and happiness equally.It's not circular, it's simply based on the assumption.Assumption: Being selfish is "the most important" ideal
Proves: I should be able to do what I want.That's all I'm saying, it's up to the individual which one's "better" or "worse", we should only be honest with which one we've chosen, that's all.I'm definitely not saying that "being fair and equal" is proven to be better than "being selfish". A great example.I want to have sex with whoever I want.
Some one doesn't want to be raped.
Therefore, if I treat all freedom's equally, we can both have our desires.The problem begins when we act on those desires.Someone not wanting to be raped... the action doesn't affect anyone elses freedoms. Therefore, it's fine.I want to have sex with anyone... the action affects anyone elses freedom who I try to have sex with. Therefore, I should only be allowed to have sex with anyone who agrees to have sex with me.Freedom is the qualifier, and tells us exactly where we can no longer manifest our desires. Specifically... when they restrict the freedom of others.Of course, all this depends on us accepting that fairness and equality is the most important ideal. It's also the only basis available, since we have no basis to say "this guy should be given priority over that guy". Being "righteous" doesn't enter into it.It springs from intelligence and the ability to reason. Don't know, ask molbiogirl, she seems to be very informed on the genetic evolution of man.Personally, if I knew any of this intrinsically, I'd hardly have to be here asking all these questions. Or at least wouldn't have had to re-word my opening post so many times

Freedom: exemption from external control, interference, regulation
Free Will: the ability or discretion to choose
Morality: conformity to the rules of right conductBeing free from interference is not the same as being able to choose. And neither is the same as conforming to rules of right conduct.

yes ok ..)..
but the retina is still doing the same "job"
is morality ?......

I suppose that would depend upon the interference now, wouldn't it?But yes, even under your definitions, I'm talking about freedom (exemption from external control) rather than free-will.As for your definition of morality, yes, that is the most general definition. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm more talking about "the system of the rules", without mention to conformity to them, or whether or not they are "right".Try those definitions, and re-read what I've said. I'm really not talking about genetics in any way.