Anyway to reiterate, the definitions of “Moral�, “Ethics� and “Absolute� (which I realize due to these friendly exchanges requires me to ponder anew the “Absolute Imperative� about which I would say it’s more akin to the “Law� than value judgments) that I use are to establish boundries for discussion. Again morals = religious values, ethics = secular values. The definitions could easily be switched or used interchangeably but I find generally the connotations for each term comport fairly well. (Morality has a sexual connotation which is usually derived from religious proscriptions – ethics (as you note) has a “fairness� connotation, usually derived from intrapersonal or business contracts.) As long as we separate church and state from the definition it doesn’t matter. State morals (oxymoron?) or church ethics (oxymoronic? Particularly in light of the Pedophile Priests/Ministers scandals.)

I haven’t polled anyone as to whether your assertion that most people tend to think of your #4 definition when they here the word “moral� (which I note includes the ethical sense as well), I would think that #1 would be the common trigger.

I intend to address the whole morality question in the upcoming thread (I see you’ve been there) “Morality: Evolved or God given� but have been too busy at work to give it a thorough opinion. Good to see you’re still at it – Jazzman.

Sorry guys. Back to bed for me…

I’m just dropping in (being too busy to contribute anything worth a damn of my own) and thought I should throw this into your fray, from a reply to jazzman I’ve not had time to finish properly:

From Wikitionary:

Morality:

“morality

1. ability to distingush good and evil or right and wrong, right or good conduct

2. ethics, motivation based on ideas of right and wrong�

Moral:

“Moral

Adjective

1. of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior; as in moral judgments ( see Ethical )

2. expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior; as in a moral poem

3. conforming to a standard of right behavior

4. sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment; as in a moral obligation

5. capable of right and wrong action; as in a moral agent

1. probable but not proved; as in a moral certainty ( see Virtual )

1. having the effects of such on the mind, confidence or will; as in a moral victory or moral support

morally (adverb)

Synonyms: MORAL ETHICAL VIRTUOUS RIGHTEOUS NOBLE mean conforming to a standard of what is right and good. MORAL implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong; ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions or rightness, fairness, or equity; VIRTUOUS implies the possession or manifestation of moral excellence in character; RIGHTEOUS stresses guiltlessness or blamelessnes and often suggests the sanctimonious; NOBLE implies moral eminence and freedom from anything petty, mean or dubious in conduct and character.

[edit]

Noun

moral

1. the moral significance or practical lesson (the moral of a story)

1. moral practices or teachings: modes of conduct

1. syn: Ethics�

Now, my American Heritage gives a much larger set of definitions for these two, replete with surprising nuance. But I’ve been a bit feversih this weekend, so I’m not about to copy it all! Wikitionary will have to suffice.

The beauty of it is that both your prefered definition and mine are shared between the A.H. definitions and the smaller wikitionary set. Above, def. #4 under ‘moral’ is obviously mine, while def.#3 is jazman’s. So, can we agree that both definitions are valid? And that Potter, me, and many if not most others tend to think of #4 when the word ‘moral’ sounds in their minds?

Later, guys.

It’s the moral code of many Islamic women as well, (it’s possible (probable) that this is due to tradition, ignorance (lack of information) or a fundamentalist reading of the Koran. I can’t cite the Koran but female subjugation (they probably don’t consider it that and maintain it’s for their (the woman’s) own good, the veils, birkas and concealing garments damping Nikos’ archetypal hyper-testosterone saturated male’s lust) is sanctioned (undoubtedly contradicted elsewhere in the Koran but one sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest – Paul Simon) and the same can be said for the Old Testament. Anyway not the point, as I merely was stating by my definition Morality is religious dogma as you also imply. The Aztecs as well (and I’m no Aztec scholar) are reputed to have appeased their “godsâ€? with the aforementioned rituals (the weakness of the victims notwithstanding as I noted to Nikos, IMO victims and perpetrators bear the responsibility for the “joint eventâ€?. Again I deplore and would not countenance such events even though by my definition they are moral.

Potter says >>You do not need “accidental evolutionary mutation� for your examples These are variations on similar themes elsewhere.

I was questioning your assertion that by achieving a deeper understanding chemical and physiological causes of behavior (which according to Darwin’s supporters (and I presume you) had to have been caused by “accidental evolutionary mutation�) that the protoscientific sociobiology would become a hard science like physics. Again I seriously (due to a belief in Free Will and observed inconsistencies and foolish consistencies) doubt that human behavior will ever be reducible to chemicals or physiology. I doubt that any of the so called “soft sciences� will “evolve� into a true (hard) science. At best (worst?) they may provide a statistical sort of stereotypical example which may be used in fallacious arguments to persuade the unwary of their position.

Potter says:>>Your Absolute Imperative of course is what WE are trying to impose on THEM even if I agree with it.

I would not recommend imposing ANY imperative on anyone even if I agree with it. (If the Absolute Imperative were to be imposed it would necessarily violate its own 1st principle and likely the 2nd if history is any indication.) The only way for it to work is if it is accepted of one’s free will and practiced “religiously.â€? LOL – IMO the power of persuasion via reasoned discourse (look out for them fallacies) is the only legitimate means of achieving that end. BTW the END NEVER justifies the MEANS. A “goodâ€? (whose good?) end reached unjustly, carries Major baggage – current and historical examples are rife. Just means need no justification by definition. (More to come on the Morality: God Given or Evolved thread.)

Potter says:>>Regarding Darwinism being a “just so story�, Jazzman, with all due respect, you have a long way to go.

Long way? About 4.5 billion years I’d say – I started out as biology major in college was irreligious (still am as far as formal constructs go – by my definition NO One is free of dogma – me included as you point out – more on that below) and bought Darwinism (hook, line and sinker.) as I believed the textbooks and my professors. Later I switched to English but that’s another story. Gradually over the years I have reached the conclusion that I have held for at least 30 years – that Darwinism has no more validity than the Biblical Story of Creation, Greco/Roman myths, any Aboriginal creation stories, or Eastern Philosophical Positions. (Although I’d argue they are closer to apprehending the nature of reality than Darwin ever was.) As a person who is well acquainted with science and scientific method I am shocked (more appalled) that so many scientists are so tunnelvisioned in their acceptance of Darwinism. They forget their basic scientific methodological training. They disregard any evidence that calls into question the tenets of that THEORY (if it were PROVEN fact then it wouldn’t be a theory.) When confronted with the evidence that the evolutionary “Tree of Life� was not tree-like at all (no branches just a collection of discrete lines – a species appears in the fossil record, continues essentially unchanged, then disappears), Stephen Jay Gould (firmly in the “Darwin has to be correct – there is no other explanation!� camp) says: “How can we account for this anomaly? AHA! Stable populations undergo short lived events, so greatly catastrophic, that they result in such complete transmogrification of some members of every evolved species so that there are no intermediary forms to be fossilized. IPSO FACTO the epicyclical THEORY of Punctuated Equilibria. (Don’t Latin words lend cachet to complex reductions?) Why didn’t horseshoe crabs ever suffer these myriad catastrophes? They haven’t evolved in 350 million years. Because the oceans protected them. But what about oceanic diversity – one of the most diverse biomes on the planet. How about cockroaches – stable 300 million years – no oceans (or refrigerators) there!

Crocodiles? 250 million years – the giant ones just ran out of food. These are but a small sample of exceptions that prove the rule.

Potter says:>> This is dogmatism, in other words it’s not based on an understanding of science. One cannot argue with a dogmatist (see the referral in Potter’s Post above.

As far as I know with the possible exception of the Urey-Miller reducing atmosphere (possibly abandoned in favor of clay based amino acid formation) and the hand waving “Miracle�, this is the scientific orthodoxy that holds sway today. The rest of the paragraph is evidential (and BTW capable of falsification), not dogmatic (incapable of falsification.) If you read my post in the Dover thread, and as you posted after it I assume you did, I don’t pretend to an answer for “the 2nd big question� I claim agnosticism until convincing evidence is adduced. BTW you can argue with anyone – persuading them to your point of view is the difficult part.

Potter says:>> With Darwin’s theory,which is proven science, something seems to snap in the human brain even a very bright one

Proven? (By whom?) Science? It doesn’t yet (no dogma!) pass scientific muster. With a challenge to Darwin’s Theory which is considered heresy to a Darwinologist, something seems to snap in the human brain even a very bright one. Nyah, nyah, So’s yer old man. – No animosity – just amusement.

“Next: The subjugation of Islamic women as permitted by the Koran (and not by self-serving interpretation) by my definition is moral. Possibly even ethical. (the Aztec’s practice of human sacrifice and religious cannibalism was both moral & ethical in the terms of their society. Was this due to accidental evolutionary mutation in their Homo sapiens sub-group (possibly chemically induced or a physiological aberration? Potter?) It’s situations like these that require the Absolute Imperative if one is to condemn or place a value judgment regarding the behavior.”

By my definition subjugation of Islamic women and cannibalism is IMmoral but it is a morality ( not my morality). It’s morality of Islamic men. It’s the morality of the stronger Aztec over the weaker Aztec. From that it’s easy to go to biology or sociobiology. You do not need “accidental evolutionary mutation” for your examples These are variations on similar themes elsewhere.

Your Absolute Imperative of course is what WE are trying to impose on THEM even if I agree with it.

Regarding Darwinism being a “just so story”, Jazzman, with all due respect, you have a long way to go.

Jazzman you write this above:

“It is a hand waving explanation (story) that says a primordial soup arose from inorganic components somewhere, some amino acids got created in a Urey-Miller reducing atmosphere, then A MIRACLE OCCURRED and voila – simple life was born. Complex organisms evolve by some mechanism (natural tautological selection) from simpler forms. It is all “look at it – it’s obviousâ€? evidence – unverifiable, experimentally untestable, and incapable of falsifiability. No scientist or genetic manipulator or “natureâ€? (ALL things are natural) has ever created life, transmogrified life from one species to another or anything approaching Darwin’s theory. Did some fish, reptile, amphibian, lay an egg that hatched a chicken? Darwin seems to think so. Micro-evolution is the only evidence we have for any sort of physical evolution (Intellectual or psychical evolution appears to exist as well, however try to find it today – talk about Devolution!!!)”

This is dogmatism, in other words it’s not based on an understanding of science. One cannot argue with a dogmatist.

With Darwin’s theory,which is proven science, something seems to snap in the human brain even a very bright one.

Thanks. A lot. More later, pal. Peace. (& Ramen)

(ps: I knew, somehow, that I was commiting inconsistency-suicide with my pathogen argument. Good work calling me on it. Luckily, I think I can rectify the contradiction — but not tonight!)

Now having invested at least 30 minutes formulating this alternative view – I’m surely due a debunking by probably everyone.

Moving on: As I stated above morals are, by MY definition, based in religious dogma. I don’t generally use the “loaded� term morals for that reason even though certain moral precepts coincide with ethical precepts. As I (like you) attempted to discard formal religion in my youth. I looked for a secular equivalent and ethics seemed to fit the bill. However, I arrived at the conclusion that ethics didn’t always fit my innate sense of “right & wrong� therefore I was led to what I stated as the core Absolute Imperative. I agree that your solipsistic sense of “morals� originated within you as it does in ALL humans as they refine, supplant and justify their worldview and sense of permissible behavior, however the origination is your perception (creation) of reality based on your life experience (which includes information from books (surely, as you’re a writer) and prophets come disguised in many forms.)

Next: The subjugation of Islamic women as permitted by the Koran (and not by self-serving interpretation) by my definition is moral. Possibly even ethical. (the Aztec’s practice of human sacrifice and religious cannibalism was both moral & ethical in the terms of their society. Was this due to accidental evolutionary mutation in their Homo sapiens sub-group (possibly chemically induced or a physiological aberration? Potter?) It’s situations like these that require the Absolute Imperative if one is to condemn or place a value judgment regarding the behavior. The roundup of holocaust (or any pogrom) participants was sanctioned at least tacitly by the majority (bandwagon fallacy) in those atrocities. I’m not sure how many were consciously aware of the actual events that were taking place in that context.

Nikos wrote: >> Is religious sanction of wife-beating and honor-killing ‘moral’, or ‘atrocious’? >> Moral and atrocious!!!

Now: ALL “livingâ€? beings (living is a slippery term), simple to complex have shared similarities, the “higherâ€? life forms seem to show a progression from the “lowerâ€? life forms again: Ontology “seemsâ€? to recapitulate Phylogeny. ALL living (and “non-livingâ€?) beings are composed of sub-atomic particles that form atoms which form elements then molecules and compounds etc. Is it merely some “specialâ€? combination that becomes living and/or conscious? Darwinism is a “Just soâ€? story that can’t address many (most) aspects of existence. It is a hand waving explanation (story) that says a primordial soup arose from inorganic components somewhere, some amino acids got created in a Urey-Miller reducing atmosphere, then A MIRACLE OCCURRED and voila – simple life was born. Complex organisms evolve by some mechanism (natural tautological selection) from simpler forms. It is all “look at it – it’s obviousâ€? evidence – unverifiable, experimentally untestable, and incapable of falsifiability. No scientist or genetic manipulator or “natureâ€? (ALL things are natural) has ever created life, transmogrified life from one species to another or anything approaching Darwin’s theory. Did some fish, reptile, amphibian, lay an egg that hatched a chicken? Darwin seems to think so. Micro-evolution is the only evidence we have for any sort of physical evolution (Intellectual or psychical evolution appears to exist as well, however try to find it today – talk about Devolution!!!)

ALBY: You’ve got good taste in Jazz – check out Sculler’s schedule for this quarter – Robert Glasper, Roy Haynes, Hiromi (Talk about a female keyboard monster- I saw her the last time she was in town.) Brad Mehldau (and a host of other notables!!!)

I can’t read or respond ‘til next week – peace all.