Is morality a necessity of reason or only a "muh feelings" social and psychological construct?

Kant would argue that morality originates from reason.
I have no clue how this autist explained it but it sounds plausible.
With reason comes the opportunity to reflect your own actions and therefore the possiblity of morality.

Also other intelligent species have a sense of justice and fairness. There were some studies about this with primates if I remember correctly.

I do think that the possibility of morality comes with reason. But reason alone is not enough.
And therefore morality is, as I said, a possiblity and not a necessity of reason.
Aristotle differed between phronesis and deinotes.
Phronesis can be translated as the "ability of reasonable thought".
A person with deinotes would be considered a "skillful" person.
The point here is that both words can describe a smart person. But Aristotle differed between a smart person using reason in a good (moral) way (=phronesis) and a smart person using its reason mostly for personal gain (=deinotes).

We act ethically because of our ability to feel empathy imo.
And a certain amount of intellect is needed because I cant experience the psyche of another person directly. I have to think about how this other person might be affected by my actions.

tl;dr
>morality is not a necessity of reason but a probable result

>That we have an instinctual idea of 'right' and 'wrong'
But instinct and morality aren't opposites?
Why would something done by mere instinct or any other authority have moral worth?

>Congrats, you've solved meta-ethics, when will you publish and receive the nobel prize?
I didn't solve anything, this is where our investigation should start.

>Morality is a dimension of human existence that arises from free-will
>I didn't solve anything, this is where our investigation should start

Indeed, my friend. Lets prove the existence of free will first :^)

>But instinct and morality aren't opposites?
I'm not saying that, I'm explaining to you what people mean by 'moral intuition'.
>Why would something done by mere instinct or any other authority have moral worth?
Ask a moral intuitionist
or read this
plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism-ethics/

>I didn't solve anything, this is where our investigation should start.
You could start by asserting the fact that morality arises from free will.

I don't think it need to be proven.
What I just stated is the result of a priori reasoning.

If there's no free will, there's no moral worth, only blind obedience.

But I guess the existence of free-will can only be testified by a person who has passed through the experience of having to choose between two or more options. There's no other way free-will permits itself to be proven.

>I can't solve the problem of morality, therefore god did it
kek

>You could start by asserting the fact that morality arises from free will.
Good or bad choices can only exist if you have a choice at all.

Who said that?

>free will
>agency free from causality
>soul
>created by god
>god

>Good or bad choices can only exist if you have a choice at all.

Ok let's see, if determinism is true and you murder somebody, there isn't anything wrong with that?
If determinism is true than we should all just go rape, pillage, and loot, because it doesn't matter anyway?

Determinism doesn't negate moral truth and determinism doesn't negate free will either.
Read a book (or a SEP article or something).

I didn't say free will is freedom from all causality.
Human freedom is the capacity of choosing which causalities determine you.

>if determinism is true and you murder somebody, there isn't anything wrong with that?
No.

>If determinism is true than we should all just go rape, pillage, and loot, because it doesn't matter anyway?
It doesn't.

But these thing do matter, because determinism isn't true.
I don't think you understand what does determinism would be like.

Do we blame nature for killing someone?

>I don't think you understand what does determinism would be like.
No, I think you are the one that has a naive understanding of determinism
read this: plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

>Do we blame nature for killing someone?
Ethics is not about blame

we are sapient, therefore some enquiry into the nature of sapience and sapient beings is warranted

>o, I think you are the one that has a naive understanding of determinism
Maybe, but I'm discussing with you not this article's writer.

>Ethics is not about blame
I think morality is totally about personal responsibility.
We don't study the ethics of rocks.

>Maybe, but I'm discussing with you not this article's writer.
Yes, sourcing certain viewpoints is for nerds, right?

>I think morality is totally about personal responsibility.
We're discussing meta-ethics, not moral responsibility, which is an entirely different argument.

>follows partial causality

It's not partial.
All things have a cause, but some determinations are superior than others.

>Yes, sourcing certain viewpoints is for nerds, right?
No, it's for people who can't defend these points themselves and appeal to some random authority.

>We're discussing meta-ethics, not moral responsibility, which is an entirely different argument.
There is no way you can study moral responsibility ignoring moral responsibility.
You will end up styudying social norms only.

Reason is a psychological construct.

It's not a construct, it's a necessity.

>an agency free from causality changes which determinations are superior to others

There are no human actions free from causality.
The concept of human freedom is not absolute freedom, which is a divine quality.
Our freedom is restricted to some determinations.

>No, it's for people who can't defend these points themselves and appeal to some random authority.

>engage in academic discussion
>citing sources for basic concepts is appeal to authority
nice anti-intellectualism, that's the SEP by the way, not some 'random article'

>There is no way you can study moral responsibility ignoring moral responsibility.
This is a nonsensical sentence
You can still have moral truth if there is no moral responsibilty. You could probably argue murder is wrong from any normative system without resorting to moral responsibility. It's up to you to prove that moral responsibility is necessary for moral facts to exist.

>nice anti-intellectualism, that's the SEP by the way, not some 'random article'
Appeal to authority is still appeal to authority.
No, i don't think only because someone from a socially evaluated university writes something that means it's a divine mandament.
Or you are able to defend it, or you don't even bother me. I can literally find an authority to defend any argument I want, it's 2017 and have internet too.

>You can still have moral truth if there is no moral responsibilty. You could probably argue murder is wrong from any normative system without resorting to moral responsibility. It's up to you to prove that moral responsibility is necessary for moral facts to exist.
"Moral values" and the study of moral systems, which you call moral truth, mean anything without defining the concept of morality itself.
It's only a bunch of numbers in a graph and you can evaluate anything by any standard you want. You can define rape as morally good and that's ok.

What the fuck are you saying? Stop contradicting yourself you fucking retard.

>Appeal to authority is still appeal to authority.
Would you make the same argument if we were discussing physics or medicine? This type of thinking is so fucking prevalent when it comes to philosophy and internet intellectuals, your literary ignorance is just as good as any well sourced and argued article, right?
The reason I'm not explaining it to you, is because it's a nuanced concept that can't be summarised in a few posts on a chinese moving pictures forum. I assume you can read, so maybe try reading for once in your life.

>"Moral values" and the study of moral systems, which you call moral truth, mean anything without defining the concept of morality itself.
You haven't defined anything itt. You haven't taken any discernable meta-ethical position whatsoever to try and argue for it. All you've done is vaguely cite moral responsibility as a necessary concept for morality to exist, while giving no argument for it being that way whatsoever.

The concept of freedom you are using is the concept of absolute freedom. Which only a being like God could have.
You bascically can't accept freedom in the sense it's restricted to a set of options, but not all options.

>Would you make the same argument if we were discussing physics or medicine? This type of thinking is so fucking prevalent when it comes to philosophy and internet intellectuals, your literary ignorance is just as good as any well sourced and argued article, right?
The reason I'm not explaining it to you, is because it's a nuanced concept that can't be summarised in a few posts on a chinese moving pictures forum. I assume you can read, so maybe try reading for once in your life.
Physics and medicine are physics and medicine, philosophy is philosophy.
You don't even need to have consciousness to practice medicine or physics.

>You haven't defined anything itt. You haven't taken any discernable meta-ethical position whatsoever to try and argue for it. All you've done is vaguely cite moral responsibility as a necessary concept for morality to exist, while giving no argument for it being that way whatsoever.
Morality is moral responsibility.
You are confusing morality, which is the human responsibility towards its own choices/life/existence/other people/duties/etc.., with moral norms or conventions. I really can't help you anymore.

>You don't even need to have consciousness to practice medicine or physics.
lmao

>Morality is moral responsibility.
fucking wrong
read a book

why would you even care? it's not like we are aware of rewards in the afterlife for those who put Morality, Justice and "Reason" (?) over profit and expediency (i.e. instrumental reason against which capitalized Reason is powerless)

Can't derive an ought from is statements, IE can't use pure logic to construct a moral framework.
There has to be a leap of logic I think, would love to be proven wrong though.

I think Kant attempted something like this as a response to Hume but I'm not sure.
Ultimately logic itself begins with circular reasoning so maybe it's not big of a problem.

If the set of options is whatever follows from the laws of nature at time t your freedom is completely moot since it doesn't entail actual alternatives.

what matters is effective manipulation of simpletons through memes (like "karma" or non-instrumental capitalized "Reason") for them to put the interests of others (i.e. us) above their own profit

the laws of nature have produced people liable to believe that there is a point in putting duty above expediency and we have no reason not to take advantage of the magic of determinism (i.e. taking advantage of those who are innately liable to believe in "karma" despite the daily sight of the suffering brought by virtue and of the "undeserved" prosperity of the unjust; or of those who are unable to see the pointlessness of acting according to Reason when they can reap benefits by ignoring universality and objectivity)