1

In Arabic, we have the concept 'ahlak' which is often translated into english as 'moral', but in fact they are not the same, and so following the principle of exegetical neutrality, I shall simply use 'moral' and 'morality'. Please note 'ahlak' means something close to the human instinct for values whether they're are right or wrong, good or bad so it differs from altruism. It is about your expectations for others or your innate attitudes. So in this vein, 'ahlak' is a property of agents and roughly encompasses how values impact the community.

So, what does contemporary philosophy say about the purpose of moral values in the context of community?

J D
  • 19,541
  • 3
  • 18
  • 83
Ferkan Zeki
  • 63
  • 6
  • I gave an answer here, that we hijacked shame and disgust which were evolved, to serve purposes of more flexibly adapting how we live together, and that we call this morality https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/77168/how-do-ethicists-tackle-the-question-is-it-immoral-to-have-sex-in-public-places/77170#77170 Utopia is a slippery concept.. We discussed a related question: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/76956/is-the-foundation-of-morality-subjectively-survival-and-happiness-and-why-or-wh – CriglCragl Nov 14 '20 at 21:09
  • I am talking about philosophy . But you are talking about science . How questions are unique to science and answer how morality or sth evolved over the course of time. But it cannot answer my question. You have to make the difference between science and philosopy. Science can not answer ' what is Sth For' questions I mean theological questions ,final questions. Questions about the essence of the things . thological,final questions refers future but science can explain only past. This is a platform which phılosophıcal ıssues are debated with philosophical expressions but not scientific . – Ferkan Zeki Nov 14 '20 at 21:32
  • 1
    It is *for* living well together. Now, how to create a future where we live better or the best (utopia) together, that requires all of philosophy to answer. And, until an approach is tried, it's pretty much just an opinion. In the long post I linked I suggested recognising intersubjectivity as pre-foundational to language helps, and that play is part of the mode of creative development of ourselves & our capacities, in which once we have met our material needs we find greatest fulfilment. I see that as directed towards greater eusociality, collective intelligence, in which we are like cells. – CriglCragl Nov 14 '20 at 21:51
  • Morals from latin mores = (social) habits. Teleological thinking brings us nowhere here, it's just a fact that there is social and anti-social behaviour. – Philip Klöcking Nov 14 '20 at 21:57
  • 1
    @CriglCragl As for the evolutionary side, Michael Tomasello is an excellent source on that, in case you don't know him. – Philip Klöcking Nov 14 '20 at 21:59
  • sorry englısh is not my mother tonque . We have the concept 'Ahlak' which we translated into english as 'moral' but in fact they are not the same . Ahlak means humanities instict values whether there are wrong or right ,good or bad . It is about your expectations for others . your innate attitudes , . thıs concept is about you and your attitudes and expactations about others. so in this vein ahlak(morality or ethics) is for your essence , the other's effect to your essence and the effect of your essence to others. which all means togetherness, living together . – Ferkan Zeki Nov 14 '20 at 22:09
  • philıp klocking , I recommend you john lennox and wiliam lane craig. I study phılosophy not scıence . Science can not answer my questıons it can only serve a data for me . – Ferkan Zeki Nov 14 '20 at 22:12
  • 1
    I have studied ethics and human nature in my masters degree in philosophy, thanks ;) Philosophy should not try to separate itself from science IMHO. And speaking of essences is just outdated in contemporary philosophy. – Philip Klöcking Nov 14 '20 at 22:16
  • There is no phılosophıcal questıons outdated . They only change their dress but they are always the same by nature.don't forget that science's dare breakthroughs became real thanks to philosophical foundatıons. like Francis Bacon's novum organum. – Ferkan Zeki Nov 14 '20 at 22:22
  • Science can explain why and how moral values emerged. And this scientific data is not usefull for phılosophy. how and why values emerged thıngs can not answer the questıon what ıs the thıng for? whıch ı saıd before. And this scientific data are not reliable in science because it is not measurable thing. – Ferkan Zeki Nov 14 '20 at 22:26
  • Essences have been out of date since Buddha's time, & the understanding of anatma. So, for two & a half millenia.. – CriglCragl Nov 15 '20 at 00:35
  • Edited to avoid the "focus objection". – J D Nov 15 '20 at 02:38
  • What something is for is a counterfactual question in disguise: what would be lost without it? And science is what allows us to play out counterfactuals in the most reliable way that we know. What would be lost without morality? Motivation and determination of individuals, cohesiveness of human communities, viability of collective actions that are only beneficial when most participate, etc. That is what morality is for. The reason you are still asking is that you are discarding the very means that give you the answer. The only part science does not answer is whether we wish to keep those. – Conifold Nov 15 '20 at 07:44

0 Answers0