What is Moral Folk Theory?

[coberst]

What is Moral Folk Theory?

The attempt to seek knowledge presupposes that the world unfolds in a systematic pattern and that we can gain knowledge of that unfolding. Cognitive science identifies several ideas that seem to come naturally to us and labels such ideas as “Folk Theories”.

The Folk Theory of the Intelligibility of the World
The world makes systematic sense, and we can gain knowledge of it.

The Folk Theory of General Kinds
Every particular thing is a kind of thing.

The Folk Theory of Essences
Every entity has an “essence” or “nature,” that is, a collection of properties that makes it the kind of thing it is and that is the causal source of its natural behavior.

The consequences of the two theories of kinds and essences are:

The Foundational Assumption of Metaphysics
Kinds exist and are defined by essences.

We may not want our friends to know this fact but we are all metaphysicians. We, in fact, assume that things have a nature thereby we are led by the metaphysical impulse to seek knowledge at various levels of reality.

Cognitive science has uncovered these ideas they have labeled as Folk Theories. Such theories when compared to sophisticated philosophical theories are like comparing mountain music with classical music. Such theories seem to come naturally to human consciousness.

What is Moral Law Folk Theory?

Moral Law Folk Theory, encoded within objectivist philosophy, holds “that there are absolute moral laws, that they can be discovered by reason, and that they can be applied directly and objectively to real situations.”

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) claims and I agree that “it is morally irresponsible to think and act as though we possess a universal, disembodied reason that generates absolute rules, decision-making procedures, and universal or categorical laws by which we can tell right from wrong in any situation we encounter.”

Folk Theories are based upon the book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson Philosophy in the Flesh

Moral Law Folk Theory is based upon the book by Mark Johnson Moral Imagination

[Jway]

Is this open for discussion or is this an advertisement?

If an advertisement, then I apologize for posting and ask for moderators to delete my posting.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Jway

Is this open for discussion or is this an advertisement?

If an advertisement, then I apologize for posting and ask for moderators to delete my posting.

I do not comprehend your question.

[pamela]

Coberst,
Jway is unfamiliar with your posting style referencing excerpts from books.
Jway, feel free to respond with your comments on moral folk theory

[Kriminal99]

1. Cognitive Scientists do not have any privileged position with regard to such issues. Education programs for this do not succeed in creating people with a high level of creativity in thought or efficiency in generalizing from experiences, yet this is what is required to decipher the nature of ourselves. To create such people, conditioning outside the scope of what contemporary education is limited to would be required.

All that comes out of Cognitive science programs are people who are proficient at spewing inane bullhonkey with a tone as if they knew something you didn't because of your unfamiliarity with their private language. Even if you take the time to learn their labels for concepts you could otherwise learn through life experience, you find that their arguments are not particularly advanced or well thought out compared to ones you can find elsewhere.

I fail to see a formal network of concepts that is even alluded to by the excerpt provided. Mountain music to Classical? What exactly does that mean, if anything?

2. It is simply the truth that there is a universal moral code that can determine what should be done in any situation. In some situations, it might be more than what the human mind is capable of to process/calculate what should be done on the spot. (How many will be overall harmed and in what manner, vs how many will be overall benefited and in what manner? ) But that does not mean there isn't an answer. Sometimes information is limited, which has it's own rules to govern what must be done.

I can definitely accept a claim that people often oversimplify moral reasoning. Hell, when I think about it, I could fill a book with nothing but precise formalizations of moral rules similar to what a mathematics text might be filled with.

However I don't agree that there are no universal rules and that there are no categorical rules.

I'm not even sure what a lack of categorical rules would mean - no situation could be compared to past situations in this case and all courses of action would always be equally moral.

[coberst]

We can comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.

[Kriminal99]

If you are right, there is always a way.

If you can see no way to convince the other person, then perhaps you should consider that it is you who is unprepared to understand.

[Donk]

Originally Posted by coberst

We can comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.

Sounds like a challenge to me...

Most of the OP says nothing at all. The only paragraph I can see any meat in is:

Originally Posted by coberst

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) claims and I agree that “it is morally irresponsible to think and act as though we possess a universal, disembodied reason that generates absolute rules, decision-making procedures, and universal or categorical laws by which we can tell right from wrong in any situation we encounter.”

which seems to be saying "we need rules imposed from the outside, rather than make up our own." If that's what it says, it's true but trite. If not, perhaps you could tell me where I've misinterpreted the words.

Incidentally, I enjoyed the juxtaposition of

Originally Posted by coberst

I do not comprehend your question.

and

Originally Posted by coberst

We can comprehend only what we are prepared to comprehend.

[Kriminal99]

Why do we need rules imposed from the outside? Who makes the rules then, and how?

I believe that law is necessary because people do not have knowledge of the consequences of their actions. People who are affected negatively by actions drive the creations of laws against such actions.

However this system does not always create valid laws IMO. For instance, police deal with traffic accidents whenever they occur. Because of their constant exposure to a relatively infrequent occurrence, they may drive the creation of laws that cause more harm than good.