Gyroscopic Investing

Could we please broaden out "utility" to mean more than just Homo economicus?  There's no need to start bringing in moral metaphysics to account for the utilitarian gains from altruism.  Anything that makes a human being happy is "utility" so long as it does not infringe on anyone else's happiness.

MachineGhost wrote: Could we please broaden out "utility" to mean more than just Homo economicus?  There's no need to start bringing in moral metaphysics to account for the utilitarian gains from altruism.  Anything that makes a human being happy is "utility" so long as it does not infringe on anyone else's happiness.

I suspect the "answer" depends on the presuppositions that one brings to the table - pre-modern worldview, modern world view, or post-modern worldview.  MG's comment was a post-modern perspective, as I understand it.  A few typical post-modern statements are: whatever, I'm OK you're OK, whatever floats your boat, if it feels good do it, we all worship the same God, truth is whatever it is to you, my reality is not your reality, etc.

My "gut" says that in order to believe in an objective morality, one would have to either hold a pre-modern or a modern world view - the ones that believe in an absolute truth, that is an objective or external source of truth, not an internal subjective source.  The pre-modern worldview tilts toward a God based source, the modern tilts toward a science based source - both require faith, just as the post-modern worldview requires faith in self.  Just a few rambling thoughts, not proofs, on a beautiful Sunday morning.

... Mountaineer

To me it seems obvious from even the brief slice of recorded history available to us that morality evolves on its own without a law giver and that this is a good and necessary thing for the survival of the species. For a modern example of a whole people rejecting subjective morality and adhering strictly to the belief that all moral laws come from an objective source, aka a divine lawgiver, I give you ISIS.

Now contrast with Judaism. They also have an objective source of morality supposedly given to them personally by their God Yahweh or El through a man named Moses. That canon of law commands that transgressors be stoned to death for many reasons including adultery, homosexuality, and even children disobeying their parents. It also allowed for the beating of slaves as long as they weren't killed. The Jews do not do any of these things today however, even though the same deity they believe in is said to have punished them severely and repeatedly in the past for not obeying his laws. Why not? What is it that has told them not to do these things?

Is this not an example of evolving morality in the case of the Jews and the evolution of morality being impeded by a strict belief in objective morality in the case of ISIS?

Back in the day, saving someone from drowning would have a high probability of that someone being related to you in some way.  So apparently altruistic acts can have a basis in natural selection.

Saving somebody from drowning?  You've violated that person's right to be left alone!  Nothing could be more immoral than saving somebody from drowning.

(Sorry, I just missed you-know-who and had to channel him briefly)