Formal and Informal Logic

Except, of course, from the viewpoint of enlightened self interest.

I don't see how enlightened self-interest has any grounds either.

And my point is that there is no such thing as a moral standpoint.
What we call morals are hard coded survival instincts in our DNA

That , I believe, is because the premises you are basing your conclusions are is the conclusion are you coming to.If you have a bad premise in your logic, your conclusion will be bad, no tmatter what kind of logic (formal or informal) you use.

and I would like to question both of those positions.First Robin's.If a moral rule is based on the cummulative experience of a society, why would it be groundless?And for PurpleYouko.If the basis is simply hard coded instructions in DNA, then why do we find variations among peoples with similar DNA? Why would the moral standards of two brothers, one raised in one society, the other raised is a totally different society with a different set of moral standards vary?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

do we not chosse to create moral standpoints , above and beyond the inherited survial instincts .the person who refuses to kill even when their country is at war ..and the person who will commit murder because they belive in their cause ....both create a moral justfication for their standpoint , it may be personal ,but it is as absolute and real as any other standpoint that that person may take , moral , scientific , religious or otherwise ...and that person will use any form of logic to confirm their view as the correct one ....thus making the moral standpoint far from grondless or meaningless or just a survival instinct .

For the same reasons that one brother might be 6'6" with blond hair, blue eyes and muscles that could tear sheet metal while the other brother could be 5'3" with brown hair and eyes, overweight and couldn't bench press 50 pounds.DNA varies from person to person, even brothers.

Any person can be different than society's "norm". That is just variation. And this just makes the point that "moral justification" is arbitrary and groundless since no matter what your standpoint, you can find a way to justify it with morals.I never claimed that every single person has to conform to the identiacl hardwired "moral code". I just said that society as a whole will follow the moral path that has been dictated by their survival instincts. Man is at heart a herd animal.

jar asked: to which PurpleYouko replied Perhaps. But if that were the case why would the individuals morals most often mirror the society the person was raised in as opposed to some individual trait such as height or hair and eye color?I do not doubt that there is some gentic component that controls whether or not someone can learn moral behavior. But why does someones moral behavior most often reflect the society and era, and how can someones morals change over time and with experience if it is only genetically determined?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh right. I see what you mean.
There isn't anything to stop people from learning behaviour from society. When I speak of hard wiring, I'm referring to society as a whole. That pretty much sums what I have been trying to say. i don't think genetics can be the only player here though. Learned behaviour is also a factor. IMO, I would say that generally the underlying morals have not greatly changed, ever. It has always been the way to reject non-conformers from society. It is just the superficial concepts such as the method by which the non-conformers are rejected that changes.
Those things are relatively easy to change in people provided they can rationalize it as a subset of the underlying survival traits.
A strong leader can brainwash his people into believing they are doing the right thing by destroying a neighboring tribe, but he has to strike the right chord in their "hard wired" survival code. the people have to be pursuaded to hate the other tribe or believe them to be some kind of threat. Then it is just a case of rationalizing their actions.

It's subjective. There's no logical ground for it. It doesn't matter if there's a "cumulative experience" or not."Society" is an abstraction. Individuals make moral choices, not society.

jar asked: to which Robin asserted: First, I never said that society makes moral choices although I do believe that I could support such an assertion.What does it being subjective have to do with it being groundless? Why? If it is based on cummulative experience is that not a logical reason?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No. There's no logical reason why someone shouldn't reject any moral rule whatsoever, since there is no logical reason for pronouncing any action either good or bad. All you can do is think up another moral principle to "prove" the original one, and that moral principle is as ungrounded as the first one was.

That is because the desire for morals is 'hard wired'.. but the morals themselves are shapped by society. Just like the ability to learn language as a child is hard coded into the child, but what language is learned is taught.

jar asked what seemed a pretty simple question: to which robinrohan replied: What does any of that have to do with what I asked?So let's try again, if it is based on cummulative experience is that not a logical reason?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion