News:

Departing the Vacuousness

Main Menu

Morals....

Started by Asherah, March 23, 2012, 07:38:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Whitney

Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 04:20:15 AM
You cannot test for it and you cannot measure it.

I think you can and so do other people; here is an example: http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm

Asherah

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 24, 2012, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: Asherah on March 24, 2012, 01:48:05 PM
But, in order to have a stable society, you have to have moral laws to some degree.

I disagree.  I think laws only need to be based on practicality, protecting persons and property; that those laws may also intersect with morality is coincidental.

QuoteI think it's wrong kill. However, it's not universally wrong, it's just wrong to me and most societies. I can rationalize it by saying that you shouldn't do anything that hurts another person. But, why shouldn't I hurt another person?

Because it sets a dangerous precedent.  I sure don't want to live in a society where that sort of thing goes unpunished, or where I'm left to my own devices in dealing with it. 

QuoteWhat about someone who is a child molester, looks at child porn, and/or makes it. I want that to be wrong!!!!!!!! I know that we protect children for the good of our society and they are innocent without the ability to consent, etc. But, I can just imagine trying to talk to someone who does that sort of thing and hear them say "There's nothing wrong with this. It's wrong for you, not for me. You think it's bad for society and that society won't function well with folks doing these things? People are involved in this stuff all the time. It's rampant. And, our society isn't falling apart." It infuriates me that I can't say that's wrong for everyone because there's someone or something 'out there' that says it's wrong.

There is something out there that says it's wrong -- other people, society as a whole.  We aren't chopped liver, you know.  You can't control other peoples feelings and desires, and personally I wouldn't want to.  Can't really control other societies either.  Restricting and punishing actions amongst our own is as much as it's possible to get.  Be glad we have that.

Hmmm....really good points. Morality being coincidental with laws is a good point. I'll have to think on that.

Agreed. We aren't chopped liver. And, the more I think about it, you are right about society as a whole saying it's wrong should be good enough for me. Why the need for a higher power that says it's wrong when humans have agreed certain actions are wrong? Makes sense.

DJ: Thanks for link to other thread. Looks like a very interesting read.
As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect. - Dawkins

Stevil

Quote from: Whitney on March 24, 2012, 04:52:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 04:20:15 AM
You cannot test for it and you cannot measure it.

I think you can and so do other people; here is an example: http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm
Great find Whitney, but such a huge article. Gonna take some time to read through and digest.

I assume since your position is that it is measurable then you agree with objective morality?

It will be interesting to see if it is aligned with any of today's religions or if some deists will start using it to define the morality of their deistic god.
At the very least it would be a good way to disprove interpretations of some of today's religions.
I wonder if I personally would agree with the testable, measurable morality or if I would be disagreeable on some of this?
If I disagree, does this mean I have a disorder, that I have become corrupt somehow?

I am documenting these thoughts of mine, because I want to see how they stack up once I have read the article, before I am influenced by the article.

Stevil

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on March 24, 2012, 02:57:56 PM
There is something out there that says it's wrong -- other people, society as a whole.  We aren't chopped liver, you know.  You can't control other peoples feelings and desires, and personally I wouldn't want to.  Can't really control other societies either.  Restricting and punishing actions amongst our own is as much as it's possible to get.  Be glad we have that.
...and with globalisation we are learning to ensure our society is more inclusive, accepting of different religions, different cultures etc. This results in minimalising laws.
It is important to take "God" off money, off national anthems, out of schools, out or court rooms, out of parliament, especially if we want to have all people, not just followers of a specific god, represented by our society.

We need to be careful when implementing law. Not just on a whim, not based on personal values or a personal belief in morality. A representative government needs to justify law in tangibles. Law should allow people freedom to make their own choices, law should seek to oppress only as a last resort. We don't want a majority rules type of society, minorities are also important to society.

Whitney

Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
I assume since your position is that it is measurable then you agree with objective morality?

I think some actions are almost always likely to be good for the group across many cultures and non-human animals...but I don't think that makes them universally objective.

DeterminedJuliet

Quote from: Whitney on March 24, 2012, 04:52:26 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 04:20:15 AM
You cannot test for it and you cannot measure it.

I think you can and so do other people; here is an example: http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm

That's really interesting, thanks Whitney!
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Hector Valdez

To the original Poster:

"You believe that such actions are wrong
solely because your conception of the world
at large presents such actions as wrong.
People with different conceptions of reality
will have different conceptions of what is,
therefore, right and wrong." -- TheSemaestro

En_Route

Quote from: Whitney on March 24, 2012, 10:56:20 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
I assume since your position is that it is measurable then you agree with objective morality?

I think some actions are almost always likely to be good for the group across many cultures and non-human animals...but I don't think that makes them universally objective.

Which leads you inter alia into rather trappy territory about determining the boundaries of "the group" and what criteria you decide what is "good" for them and in particular over what time scale you measure this.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Ali

Quote from: En_Route on April 17, 2012, 08:45:02 PM
Quote from: Whitney on March 24, 2012, 10:56:20 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
I assume since your position is that it is measurable then you agree with objective morality?

I think some actions are almost always likely to be good for the group across many cultures and non-human animals...but I don't think that makes them universally objective.

Which leads you inter alia into rather trappy territory about determining the boundaries of "the group" and what criteria you decide what is "good" for them and in particular over what time scale you measure this.

True.  Ethical behavior is often less than black or white.  For example, if you know a secret that has the potential to disrupt someone's life, do you keep it from them in order to save them from the heartache and disruption, or do you tell on the basis that people have the right to all of the information that would guide an informed decision?  Which is "good" for them? 

NatsuTerran

Quote from: En_Route on April 17, 2012, 08:45:02 PM
Quote from: Whitney on March 24, 2012, 10:56:20 PM
Quote from: Stevil on March 24, 2012, 07:39:02 PM
I assume since your position is that it is measurable then you agree with objective morality?

I think some actions are almost always likely to be good for the group across many cultures and non-human animals...but I don't think that makes them universally objective.

Which leads you inter alia into rather trappy territory about determining the boundaries of "the group" and what criteria you decide what is "good" for them and in particular over what time scale you measure this.

But that's also not to say it's any better to abandon such a moral pursuit in favor of a completely naturalistic approach. Morality is and should be viewed entirely as a matter of conscious experience.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2Jrr0tRXk

Harris explains in very good detail how this works and how it's as close to objective as morals can get. Once you assume the "worst possible misery for everything" that opens up a spectrum of different states, which inevitably has the best state possible at the other end. Both states are impossible to achieve in reality, but it gives us a guideline to judge most moral actions on objectively, with us trying to push the scale towards the side of the spectrum that brings more overall good.

I find the argument that the "group" needs to be defined to be quite poor. It should be obvious that the target goal is for humanity as a whole to be the ingroup, and many modern cultures seem to be adopting this attitude. It is humans that are discussing and creating this moral system to begin with, and humans aren't *that* bad when they kill for food, as opposed to other wildlife. The time scale thing, however, can be problematic. Do we cause widespread suffering to this generation if it will make the next five that much better off? It's hard to say, a lot can happen in that time frame, and chaos theory will surely play a role. I think the best answer to the time frame thing is to usually to do objectively moral things with large consequences when there is some degree of certainty going on. I find it very weird when people question objective morality. Everyone has some kind of morals, but by basing morals on empirical facts, such as the conscience experience of humans and what science entails about it, we can know what is actually objectively beneficial or harmful to the most amount of people.

The question of what "good" is is also lost on me. Objective well-being should be the basis. Values may be subjective, but things like health vs. suffering are not. Other factors can be piece-mealed into moral decisions to form goals. For example, I could say _______ is a predictor of poverty, which in turn is a predictor of depression, lower lifecycle, etc etc. There ARE empirical facts to back up things like this. At that point it becomes obvious that there is a quantifiable value addressed to what causes these objective problems. We can then work together as a society to decide what sacrifices should be made to make sure "______" does not occur.

If science shows that fetus' don't have a consciousness, nervous system, etc and are less aware than a plant, it is describing something that should be self-evident in describing what our moral outlook is going to be. I never really get why people always go on about the woman's rights when it comes to abortion. The most important factor, before even getting into that, is that an abortion is doing no more harm than mowing your backyard. Obviously emotions have a vested interest in all things, but I think objective reality should be the first thing we look at for obvious reasons (it cuts out subjectivity). It bothers me when people genuinely think that *everything* in life is subjective. How can you possibly function like that? Science works and it works well. It has quite a bit to say about morality.

Stevil

Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 06:37:02 AM
Science works and it works well. It has quite a bit to say about morality.
Morality is in the realm of psychology, theology and philosophy it has nothing to do with science.

I don't think Einstein ever came up with a theory of moral relativity.

Tank

Quote from: Stevil on April 19, 2012, 11:53:04 AM
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 06:37:02 AM
Science works and it works well. It has quite a bit to say about morality.
Morality is in the realm of psychology, theology and philosophy it has nothing to do with science.

I don't think Einstein ever came up with a theory of moral relativity.
Psychology is a science. If you disagree I suggest you make sure you never find yourself in a room with my wife  ;D
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

technolud

Going way back to the top, I believe there is a case for "objective morality".  Do no harm to others.  Some of it is pretty black and white.  It is immoral to torture kittens for fun, to rape women because they get their period is immoral.  Lots of other clear cut examples exist.

Layer on top of this consideration of what is good for society per Whitney's post.  Sometimes a person has to be removed from society to stop potential harm to others.  Still, "do no harm to others". 

Then come a lot of "grey" examples.  Abortion? A tough one.

Then finally examples that have nothing to do with "morality".  Being gay.  This is not a "moral" issue.  People opposing it are just a bunch of dumbheads stating "we act the RIGHT way, so you should act like us.  If you don't its immoral".  Hurray for our side as Steve Stills would put it.

Not only do you not NEED to believe in GOD to have morals, I think it complicates the situation. 

NatsuTerran

Quote from: Tank on April 19, 2012, 01:48:15 PM
Quote from: Stevil on April 19, 2012, 11:53:04 AM
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 06:37:02 AM
Science works and it works well. It has quite a bit to say about morality.
Morality is in the realm of psychology, theology and philosophy it has nothing to do with science.

I don't think Einstein ever came up with a theory of moral relativity.
Psychology is a science.

I actually said that exact thing word for word in a group project to my team the other day. A few of the students chewed my head off for that (presumably because they are religious). Psych is clearly a soft science though, I don't see how people can disagree.

I'm not exactly sure how much evidence there is for the cognitive school of psych, which happens to be my favorite, but those students (who were psych majors) certainly didn't have a lot of respect for it. Could you ask your wife what she thinks about that Tank? I've tried looking up criticisms but couldn't find anything against cognitive psych.

NatsuTerran

Quote from: Stevil on April 19, 2012, 11:53:04 AM
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 06:37:02 AM
Science works and it works well. It has quite a bit to say about morality.
Morality is in the realm of psychology, theology and philosophy it has nothing to do with science.

I don't think Einstein ever came up with a theory of moral relativity.

Science only describes, it doesn't mention value or worth. Science cannot say that homosexuality is wrong/right. HOWEVER, science can describe and show what homosexuality IS. Once you have information, it then becomes obvious through rational thought that it can't be wrong if it isn't a choice. The same applies to quite a bit. Science can be used as a tool to rule on morality, it doesn't say things on its own.

And again, because morality is based on the conscious experience (kind of hard to say there are morals in a universe filled with rocks and empty space), it stands to reason that many findings from psychology and neuroscience can be applied to show what really is morally sound or completely ridiculous.