News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Morality and reasoned justification are incompatable

Started by Stevil, January 15, 2012, 11:01:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Stevil

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 02:41:10 AM
Since telling a lie to save the jews in that situation is definitely the lesser evil (if you're talking about values) I would lie.

I use the words 'lesser evil' loosely, but doubtless you get what I mean. I don't believe there is such a clear cut thing such as 'evil' or 'good' in the first place.

I think that personal values can be more problematic than a moral code, especially since such codes are made up of personal values/morals. They're organised in hierarchy, and sometimes different people's views of what's a 'lesser evil' conflict with that of others.
I see personal values as simply pre-thought scenarios which are needed in order to make decisions quickly. (Have you ever worked in a values based organisation?). Having values can speed up the decision making process dramatically. You don't have to sit down and try to think of everything ahead of time. A principle can help e.g. The golden rule. It is a great guide.
I actually think the principle of functioning society as opposed to "moral" society is also a great guide.

It would be interesting to understand what it takes for a person to consciously re-assess their personal values or to decide that a particular scenario requires more in-depth discovery rather than simply referral to the personal values.

But thinking about things as personal values rather than morals hopefully makes it obvious to the person that these are personal and hence others can't be judged by these.

Society rules need to be based on something specific in my opinion e.g. "functioning society" so any social rules put into place need to be assessed against that goal. If it doesn't work towards that goal then the rule is unnecessary. For example, does restricting gay sex improve the ability for society to function? The answer is obviously no therefore the rule is unnecessary. Unnecessary rules oppress members of society and hence can cause conflict which is contrary to the goal of a functioning society.

Stevil

Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 03:08:26 AM
I'm interested in the fact that you feel differently.  Please elaborate/  Would you NOT free the orphans?
Here might be an interesting scenario.
In NZ we had a Penguin swim to our country all the way from the Antarctic.
The media got all excited and decided to name him "Happy Feet". All the discussion was about how to get Happy Feet back home where he belongs.
I told my colleague that they would be better off making an exotic meal out of this lost penguin. Maybe auction it on TradeMe (NZ version of e-Bay), it could be an extra special romantic meal for an eccentric wealthy person looking to propose over. The money could then go to supporting Antarctic expeditions or research.

My colleague of course thought I was joking. But I wasn't, I knew it was going to cost large sums of money to get Happy Feet back home. There was also a risk that he had caught some exotic disease and could bring that back to the penguin colony.

Anyway, in the end some rich person funded getting Happy Feet cleaned up, quarantined and shipped almost all the way back home. They put a beacon on him, and noticed shortly after release the beacon stopped. It seems something probably ate him, a free lunch you could say, I would say an opportunity wasted and Antarctica has missed out on some well needed funding.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 03:31:24 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 02:41:10 AM
Since telling a lie to save the jews in that situation is definitely the lesser evil (if you're talking about values) I would lie.

I use the words 'lesser evil' loosely, but doubtless you get what I mean. I don't believe there is such a clear cut thing such as 'evil' or 'good' in the first place.

I think that personal values can be more problematic than a moral code, especially since such codes are made up of personal values/morals. They're organised in hierarchy, and sometimes different people's views of what's a 'lesser evil' conflict with that of others.
I see personal values as simply pre-thought scenarios which are needed in order to make decisions quickly. (Have you ever worked in a values based organisation?). Having values can speed up the decision making process dramatically. You don't have to sit down and try to think of everything ahead of time. A principle can help e.g. The golden rule. It is a great guide.
I actually think the principle of functioning society as opposed to "moral" society is also a great guide.

That's interesting. No, I've never worked in a value based organisation where values are seen as facilitating the decision-making process. I always saw such things as more goal-oriented, having a cohesive and better functioning society could be one of those goals.

QuoteIt would be interesting to understand what it takes for a person to consciously re-assess their personal values or to decide that a particular scenario requires more in-depth discovery rather than simply referral to the personal values.

If they're beliefs about what's good and what isn't, then they might also be subject to empiricism first and foremost. You stick to what works until you see that it doesn't, and your beliefs need to be tweaked. That's when reasoned conclusions come into play.

Not so with the purely authoritive form, such as theistic moral codes.

Evolutionarily, taking the ability to be moral, or arrive at good (in the generally accepted sense) personal values are time tried solutions. Humans are social species so it's no coincidence that some of the more widely shared values are the same. Problem is we're also incredibly tribal, which can conflict with our wider interests in a larger group of people. That whole diverse group of people with conflicting interests can get in the way sometimes. ;D

QuoteBut thinking about things as personal values rather than morals hopefully makes it obvious to the person that these are personal and hence others can't be judged by these.

I agree, but the whole idea about subjective morality is that one knows that it's subjective and not necessarily shared nor True?

QuoteSociety rules need to be based on something specific in my opinion e.g. "functioning society" so any social rules put into place need to be assessed against that goal. If it doesn't work towards that goal then the rule is unnecessary. For example, does restricting gay sex improve the ability for society to function? The answer is obviously no therefore the rule is unnecessary. Unnecessary rules oppress members of society and hence can cause conflict which is contrary to the goal of a functioning society.

I think that deep down they think that if gay couples were allowed to exist, then the smallest unit of groups (families) would be destroyed. It goes a bit beyond just being douches and interfering in people's private lives. They try and justify it with their 'natural law' but they don't know enough about nature in the first place to make that sort of judgement.

Of course, it's just paranoia on their part. And I don't see the same sort of zeal directed at divorced couples...

On the other hand, it's all about sodomy, in which case there would be a huge among of hypocrites among them.

QuoteIn NZ we had a Penguin swim to our country all the way from the Antarctic.
The media got all excited and decided to name him "Happy Feet". All the discussion was about how to get Happy Feet back home where he belongs.
I told my colleague that they would be better off making an exotic meal out of this lost penguin. Maybe auction it on TradeMe (NZ version of e-Bay), it could be an extra special romantic meal for an eccentric wealthy person looking to propose over. The money could then go to supporting Antarctic expeditions or research.

My colleague of course thought I was joking. But I wasn't, I knew it was going to cost large sums of money to get Happy Feet back home. There was also a risk that he had caught some exotic disease and could bring that back to the penguin colony.

Anyway, in the end some rich person funded getting Happy Feet cleaned up, quarantined and shipped almost all the way back home. They put a beacon on him, and noticed shortly after release the beacon stopped. It seems something probably ate him, a free lunch you could say, I would say an opportunity wasted and Antarctica has missed out on some well needed funding.

Hmm...rational.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Stevil

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 04:17:29 AM
I agree, but the whole idea about subjective morality is that one knows that it's subjective and not necessarily shared nor True?
Problem is though that people go around stating that something is moral or immoral. This judgment can't help but imply an objective morality.
If they simply said this is contrary to my personal values then what they are saying is perfectly clear to all.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 04:17:29 AM
I think that deep down they think that if gay couples were allowed to exist, then the smallest unit of groups (families) would be destroyed. It goes a bit beyond just being douches and interfering in people's private lives. They try and justify it with their 'natural law' but they don't know enough about nature in the first place to make that sort of judgement.

Of course, it's just paranoia on their part. And I don't see the same sort of zeal directed at divorced couples...
This is the thing, they could have a very strong debating point with regards to the importance of certain types of families within society. Possibly a strong case against divorce of people with young children.
It would be worthy of further investigation.
But with regards to gay people, you can't fit square pegs into round holes. A gay person could never fit a one man, one woman, lots and lots of christian children outlook. I don't think they could prove that two gay people living as a family is detrimental to society, or even two gay people with adopted children.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 04:33:10 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 04:17:29 AM
I agree, but the whole idea about subjective morality is that one knows that it's subjective and not necessarily shared nor True?
Problem is though that people go around stating that something is moral or immoral. This judgment can't help but imply an objective morality.
If they simply said this is contrary to my personal values then what they are saying is perfectly clear to all.

Well, I agree with that. I think we'd be arguing definitions here. The way I see it, someone who knows that their moral code is subjective also knows that it's not a basis to judge others on alone.

Quote
This is the thing, they could have a very strong debating point with regards to the importance of certain types of families within society. Possibly a strong case against divorce of people with young children.
It would be worthy of further investigation.
But with regards to gay people, you can't fit square pegs into round holes. A gay person could never fit a one man, one woman, lots and lots of christian children outlook. I don't think they could prove that two gay people living as a family is detrimental to society, or even two gay people with adopted children.

They can't. All they have are arguments from authority.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Stevil

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 04:40:23 AM
Well, I agree with that. I think we'd be arguing definitions here. The way I see it, someone who knows that their moral code is subjective also knows that it's not a basis to judge others on alone.
Yes, as a guess I would think in principle you could go along with the concepts of amoralism. Even though I can't convince you to drop the "moral" word, conceptually we are talking about the same thing.

Asmodean

Hmm... I like this thread, even though it does not quite address the selfish "morality" that people like me practice.

Why do I act in a a way many people would consider "moral"? Because that's how I balance acceptable gains and coresponding acceptable losses. Playing by the society's rules means that every now and then, I win the prize I wouldn't have won by ignoring said rules.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Stevil

Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 06:54:49 AM
Hmm... I like this thread, even though it does not quite address the selfish "morality" that people like me practice.

Why do I act in a a way many people would consider "moral"? Because that's how I balance acceptable gains and coresponding acceptable losses. Playing by the society's rules means that every now and then, I win the prize I wouldn't have won by ignoring said rules.
If there were no laws and you acted only in your own immeadiate best interest, you would find yourself in alot of trouble. Members of society would act with violence against you, eventually you would end up either dead, or toeing the line.
You would toe the line because you would realise that this is in your best interest.

Asmodean

Ah, but I DO act in my best interest, and yet the society doesn't really have anything to avenge.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Stevil

Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 08:01:24 AM
Ah, but I DO act in my best interest, and yet the society doesn't really have anything to avenge.
Possibly because of two things:
1. Acting within the law is in your best interest
2. Not giving anyone reason to act violently against you is in your best interest

Asmodean

Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 09:17:31 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 08:01:24 AM
Ah, but I DO act in my best interest, and yet the society doesn't really have anything to avenge.
Possibly because of two things:
1. Acting within the law is in your best interest
2. Not giving anyone reason to act violently against you is in your best interest
3. My interests do not demand acting against the law or acts of violence against others. What do I have to achieve by either that I want and that is worth the trouble?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Asmodean on January 16, 2012, 06:54:49 AM
Hmm... I like this thread, even though it does not quite address the selfish "morality" that people like me practice.

Why do I act in a a way many people would consider "moral"? Because that's how I balance acceptable gains and coresponding acceptable losses. Playing by the society's rules means that every now and then, I win the prize I wouldn't have won by ignoring said rules.

What sort of selfish morality do you practice? It could be argued that even doing anything for the release of reward or happy neurotransmissors is not a totally selfless act. What do you mean by "selfish"?

With my sister, for instance, I help her out as much as I can financially because I know that if I don't, she'd affect my family with her debts. I consider that act to be selfish even though it is detrimental to my side. By helping her, I'm avoiding disaster and helping myself and the rest of my family.



I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Ali

Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 03:42:53 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 03:08:26 AM
I'm interested in the fact that you feel differently.  Please elaborate/  Would you NOT free the orphans?
Here might be an interesting scenario.
In NZ we had a Penguin swim to our country all the way from the Antarctic.
The media got all excited and decided to name him "Happy Feet". All the discussion was about how to get Happy Feet back home where he belongs.
I told my colleague that they would be better off making an exotic meal out of this lost penguin. Maybe auction it on TradeMe (NZ version of e-Bay), it could be an extra special romantic meal for an eccentric wealthy person looking to propose over. The money could then go to supporting Antarctic expeditions or research.

My colleague of course thought I was joking. But I wasn't, I knew it was going to cost large sums of money to get Happy Feet back home. There was also a risk that he had caught some exotic disease and could bring that back to the penguin colony.

Anyway, in the end some rich person funded getting Happy Feet cleaned up, quarantined and shipped almost all the way back home. They put a beacon on him, and noticed shortly after release the beacon stopped. It seems something probably ate him, a free lunch you could say, I would say an opportunity wasted and Antarctica has missed out on some well needed funding.
Haha, I'm sure you can guess my reaction to the lost penguin.  "Awwwwww baby penguin!!!!"  But you had a good point about the money and the possibility of him taking an illness back to his penguin colony.  I think a better option might have been putting him in a zoo?

You can't seriously think that proposing over Penguin A L'Orange is romantic?   ;D


xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 03:23:33 PM
Quote from: Stevil on January 16, 2012, 03:42:53 AM
Quote from: Ali on January 16, 2012, 03:08:26 AM
I'm interested in the fact that you feel differently.  Please elaborate/  Would you NOT free the orphans?
Here might be an interesting scenario.
In NZ we had a Penguin swim to our country all the way from the Antarctic.
The media got all excited and decided to name him "Happy Feet". All the discussion was about how to get Happy Feet back home where he belongs.
I told my colleague that they would be better off making an exotic meal out of this lost penguin. Maybe auction it on TradeMe (NZ version of e-Bay), it could be an extra special romantic meal for an eccentric wealthy person looking to propose over. The money could then go to supporting Antarctic expeditions or research.

My colleague of course thought I was joking. But I wasn't, I knew it was going to cost large sums of money to get Happy Feet back home. There was also a risk that he had caught some exotic disease and could bring that back to the penguin colony.

Anyway, in the end some rich person funded getting Happy Feet cleaned up, quarantined and shipped almost all the way back home. They put a beacon on him, and noticed shortly after release the beacon stopped. It seems something probably ate him, a free lunch you could say, I would say an opportunity wasted and Antarctica has missed out on some well needed funding.
Haha, I'm sure you can guess my reaction to the lost penguin.  "Awwwwww baby penguin!!!!"  But you had a good point about the money and the possibility of him taking an illness back to his penguin colony.  I think a better option might have been putting him in a zoo?

You can't seriously think that proposing over Penguin A L'Orange is romantic?   ;D



I get the impression that if the proposer mentions where the penguin came from, in that hypothetical scenario...things might not turn out as well as he had previously hoped.

;)
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Asmodean

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 16, 2012, 02:59:20 PM
What sort of selfish morality do you practice? It could be argued that even doing anything for the release of reward or happy neurotransmissors is not a totally selfless act. What do you mean by "selfish"?

With my sister, for instance, I help her out as much as I can financially because I know that if I don't, she'd affect my family with her debts. I consider that act to be selfish even though it is detrimental to my side. By helping her, I'm avoiding disaster and helping myself and the rest of my family.
Do what I please, then pay for it, pretty much.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.