ruby sparks
Contributor
Claim: morality (for living things) is biological and/or biochemical.
A weaker version of the claim could be to say that the basis of morality (for living things) is biological.
Example: ‘continued existence is right’.
This would mean that moral facts are biological/biochemical facts, and physical facts inasmuch as the laws of physics apply to living things. Variety and complexity in morality would then be due to and explained by biological variety and complexity. In other words, morality would be relative to biology. Morality would be sociobiological where a social species is concerned.
Furthermore, under the above claim, morality would not depend on the experiencing, by this or that species, of propositional attitudes towards or beliefs about what is either right or wrong. In other words, a behaviour could be independently right or wrong in relation to a biological fact, rule, drive, urge or desire (eg 'continued existence is correct', which is offered as a fact that is independent of species) independently of whether or not (a) that fact/rule/drive/urge/desire is consciously felt/experienced/understood by the living things to which it applies, and/ or (b) there are moral attitudes about the behaviour by this or that organism or species.
This claim is in addition to saying that morality is consequentialist (as described in another thread), pragmatic (that the relevant consequences are practical consequences) and relative.
In total, morality, at least for living entities, is consequentialist, pragmatic, relative and biological.
A weaker version of the claim could be to say that the basis of morality (for living things) is biological.
Example: ‘continued existence is right’.
This would mean that moral facts are biological/biochemical facts, and physical facts inasmuch as the laws of physics apply to living things. Variety and complexity in morality would then be due to and explained by biological variety and complexity. In other words, morality would be relative to biology. Morality would be sociobiological where a social species is concerned.
Furthermore, under the above claim, morality would not depend on the experiencing, by this or that species, of propositional attitudes towards or beliefs about what is either right or wrong. In other words, a behaviour could be independently right or wrong in relation to a biological fact, rule, drive, urge or desire (eg 'continued existence is correct', which is offered as a fact that is independent of species) independently of whether or not (a) that fact/rule/drive/urge/desire is consciously felt/experienced/understood by the living things to which it applies, and/ or (b) there are moral attitudes about the behaviour by this or that organism or species.
This claim is in addition to saying that morality is consequentialist (as described in another thread), pragmatic (that the relevant consequences are practical consequences) and relative.
In total, morality, at least for living entities, is consequentialist, pragmatic, relative and biological.
Last edited: