I know you all have probably talked about this topic many times. I couldn't find anything going through the search function. So, I'm just going to ask. I'm sure many have heard about various tribes who have horrible practices such as: clitorectimy for women to keep them from cheating; when a girl starts her period, put her in a tent at the edge of the village and rape her until she gets pregnant, then she can come back home; man/boy sexual relations, etc. So, hopefully, we all find these acts appalling and morally wrong. But, these tribes think it's fine. So, if they think these actions are fine, then how can I tell them they are wrong? If there is no objective morality....than I really can't say that anything some else is doing is wrong. All I can really say is I think it's wrong. This is very unsettling to me. I want certain things to be wrong for everyone.
Now, what about less horrible "sins". Like, I'm pro-life. I think it is morally wrong to have an abortion and I think that the government should protect the unborn. I also think that looking at porn and making porn for others (except your partner ;)) is wrong. I think having multiple partners in a sexual relationship is wrong. I think having sex outside of a committed, loving, relationship is wrong. Etc.... And, I KNOW that many of you will disagree with my values. And, that's fine. I don't want to argue whether something I believe to be wrong might be okay with you.
Why do I have these values that I think are wrong for everyone, but other people think completely differently? How can I tell my kids that this is "right" and that is "wrong". I know that I can rationalize my positions. But, if nothing is wrong outside of our own minds, then is anything really wrong?
Do I have to become completely liberal to be atheist? :D I don't know.....may I should run for the hills...LOL...just kidding ;D
Have you seen Stevils threads on why "right" and "wrong" don't exist? ;)
In my opinion the best we can do is rationalise and persuade others that we're right and they're wrong. I know what I think is wrong, you know what you think is wrong - not much really to do other than talk on how I would like to be treated and you would like to be treated.
The examples of cultural differences of those tribes you listed are wrong because they do harm others, and don't respect those victims' freedom and choices.
I'm wondering how I got a near perfect score in reading comprehension on the ACT and failed to comprehend the entirety of the above post. Let's try this again...
It depends on the reason's behind those views. I have heard some valid arguments against abortion, and I'm still unsure if an unborn child constitutes life. Regardless of my not knowing, a woman should decide what is allowed to develop in her body.
To skip ahead, I think you should rationalize why something is wrong. If you can't justify the reasons behind something being wrong, it's a clear indication your view may be nothing more than a pleasant feeling.
Edited completely.
Quote from: Asherah on March 23, 2012, 07:38:48 PM
Do I have to become completely liberal to be atheist? :D I don't know.....may I should run for the hills...LOL...just kidding ;D
I don't think it's a matter of becoming a liberal, I think it's a matter of challenging assumptions.
And yes, sorry, I do think you listed some assumptions there that should probably be challenged. Being an atheist means that you don't get an "easy way out" for defending a position. You don't get to point to the bible and say "because God said so". You have to pick an argument apart, defend it, analyze it. Even if it's your own argument.
So it can be unsettling, but it's important work, I think. If the world is ever going to come to any kind of consensus on some of the "big issues", it's going to come from a place of rationality, not from a vague sense of morality.
My two cents, anyway.
In societies where a certain gender or class of person can be acceptably treated poorly it is because that gender/class is considered less than the real members of society. All societal morals boil down to actions that are for mutual benefit of members of that society. Since we are all human, acceptable morals tend to be similar across societies if they are boiled down to basics...ie don't do things that harm your society. So, there is a basis for morals; it's just not black and white. I can judge that a society which allows the lawful rape of women to be wrong because they obviously have discounted the value women can add to their society as equal contributors and their society is worse off for it...so they have a broken moral system that will only work as long as the women put up with it (and history has told us that eventually women, or other mistreated groups, rise up and say enough is enough)
Anyway, you don't have to be liberal to be an atheist...you can have all sorts of conservative views and still not believe in god; but it doesn't mean you'd be right about those conservative views.
Really, I think that your idea that government should force women to carry babies they don't want is troubling...there isn't a shortage of people (so there is no reason for government to be forcing more babies to exist) and preventing women from being able to keep medical choices between themselves and their doctors is a infringement on women's freedom...most abortions occur by taking an pill that forces a miscarriage well before the developing cells become a fetus and let's not forget about rape and medically necessary abortions. Way more harm is done by government meddling in abortion decisions than good is done...I'm not even sure what the good is since it's not like elective late term abortions are common enough to even worry about.
Unless there is concern for those employed by the porn industry...I can't think of any reason why that would be wrong. It's not like looking at porn causes anyone to cheat who wouldn't otherwise do so. Considering that sperm comes in different types; some of them to kill of foreign sperm and the human penis is shaped in a way to help scrape out sperm too...there isn't even a reason to think that humans are naturally monogamous. Monogamy is just what some societies have decided is ideal and that's probably because we've moved away from the tribal approach to child rearing. If we had a tribe ready to help take care of new members there wouldn't be a need for society to want couples to stay together for long periods of time. I haven't read this book yet but attended a lecture related to it (through which I learned about the penis shape thing...it was not a lecture for prudes lol); it goes over how religion has distorted sex http://www.amazon.com/Sex-God-Religion-Distorts-Sexuality/dp/0970950543 Darrell Ray has lots of other books too and is a real down to earth intelligent person...one of the few approachable atheists celebs out there (probably because he doesn't seem to really view himself as a celebrity). To the same end...I don't think multiple partners is wrong either; it just needs to be mutual....personally, I find one to be enough to manage and can't imagine trying to balance a third person (especially since society's views would make it even more difficult to manage). I do think that having sex outside a committed relationship is wrong...but it's wrong because it breaks trust, not because it's bad in general (like is done in open relationships).
oh and moving this to the philosophy section since it doesn't have much directly to do with religion.
As long as no-one's being hurt or killed I think everything's ok.
Abortion's a personal choice, and who am I or anyone else to tell people what they can and can't do with their bodies? Same thing goes for casual sex and porn, I don't see anything wrong with either. Porn is just people being naked or having sex (both wholly natural ordinary things) but it's being photographed or filmed. Why should that somehow make it immoral or wrong? Same thing goes for polyamory between consenting adults.
Personally, I like the idea that life isn't black and white and it's all far more shades of grey. But hell, I'm an atheist and a liberal! For me both are the default worldview, it's the way I naturally am. I think the idea of objective morality is highly dangerous, it's resulted in countless thousands of people being persecuted, incarcerated, tortured and murdered for not living by set dictates. Plus who decides what constitutes 'objective morality'? No-one can, what we invariably end up with is people claiming their god dictates objective morality, which is just an extension of peoples' personal subjective morality masquerading as something more. I don't think there is anything as objective morality, just controlling pent-up religious people who claim there is to justify their own personal prejudices.
That's not to say there's anything wrong with you or anyone else being uncomfortable with abortion, casual sex, porn or polyamory, just also accept that those things aren't morally wrong to plenty of people, and neither should they be. It's a subjective personal choice, and nobody's right or wrong.
The only real morality you need is don't go out to hurt anyone else.
Is it so bad to be a liberal? I find it a lot of fun!
Well, I'll go to what I think is the meat of it first:
Quote from: Asherah on March 23, 2012, 07:38:48 PM
I know that I can rationalize my positions. But, if nothing is wrong outside of our own minds, then is anything really wrong?
I'm not sure it's possible not to rationalize, and as pack animals we hardly live entirely inside our own minds so we reach a certain degree of consensus in our societies, and the more different societies interact, the more they start sharing views and values. It seems only the isolated groups are really out there morally in comparison to the rest of us. So, yes, I do think there is a right and wrong outside our own heads but I also think it's subjective, based on whetever society we belong to, and that's an unavoidable result of how morality develops.
QuoteSo, if they think these actions are fine, then how can I tell them they are wrong? If there is no objective morality....than I really can't say that anything some else is doing is wrong. All I can really say is I think it's wrong. This is very unsettling to me. I want certain things to be wrong for everyone.
That would simplify things but let's face it, people have never been simple and never will be.
QuoteNow, what about less horrible "sins". Like, I'm pro-life. I think it is morally wrong to have an abortion and I think that the government should protect the unborn. I also think that looking at porn and making porn for others (except your partner ;)) is wrong. I think having multiple partners in a sexual relationship is wrong. I think having sex outside of a committed, loving, relationship is wrong. Etc.... And, I KNOW that many of you will disagree with my values. And, that's fine. I don't want to argue whether something I believe to be wrong might be okay with you.
Well, aside from also thinking abortion morally wrong (tho not being opposed to its being legal), I would disagree with you on everything else. This is where consenus breaks down to allow more personal leeway, and that's fine with me. The only time I care about other peoples moral opinions is when they try to turn their personal morality into laws that everyone must live by. Obviously, I'm refering to things that are
only moral issues (such as having multiple sex partners) and not things that are based in practical considerations and are coincidentally also moral issues (such as murder, or theft, etc).
QuoteWhy do I have these values that I think are wrong for everyone, but other people think completely differently?
Because we're all individuals, and individuals are different from one another -- sometimes very different. Like I wrote above, humans are never simple.
QuoteHow can I tell my kids that this is "right" and that is "wrong".
Because that's your opinion and those are your kids and you're entitled to raise them according to your own moral values. Just like everyone else does.
QuoteDo I have to become completely liberal to be atheist?
I'm not, I don't see why you should.
Quote from: Too Few Lions on March 24, 2012, 02:40:08 AM
Personally, I like the idea that life isn't black and white and it's all far more shades of grey. But hell, I'm an atheist and a liberal! For me both are the default worldview, it's the way I naturally am. I think the idea of objective morality is highly dangerous, it's resulted in countless thousands of people being persecuted, incarcerated, tortured and murdered for not living by set dictates. Plus who decides what constitutes 'objective morality'? No-one can, what we invariably end up with is people claiming their god dictates objective morality, which is just an extension of peoples' personal subjective morality masquerading as something more. I don't think there is anything as objective morality, just controlling pent-up religious people who claim there is to justify their own personal prejudices.
Completely agree, esp. in liking life for
not being black and white. More difficult, but also much more interesting.
What I think it interesting about the idea of morality is that so many people think they have to be objective in order to be practical or rational...if morality is understood for what it is, a subjective set of evolving rules developed to help society function optimally, then it's a lot easier to make sense of what ought to be considered right or wrong and what ought not to considered either right or wrong.
Quote from: Whitney on March 24, 2012, 03:30:54 AM
What I think it interesting about the idea of morality is that so many people think they have to be objective in order to be practical or rational...if morality is understood for what it is, a subjective set of evolving rules developed to help society function optimally, then it's a lot easier to make sense of what ought to be considered right or wrong and what ought not to considered either right or wrong.
Agreed. I think that people often fall into the trap where they think, in order for an argument to be valid, it has to be rooted in some kind of accessible, objective universal truth. "Universal truth" is its own philosophical debate, but when it comes to whether we should actually DO A vs. B, it's almost irrelevant a lot of the time. I think building a consensus based on the real world functioning of society is a pretty worthy view of morality.
In other words, you can argue a position without making that claim that you are always, objectively, universally right.
I've been told many times by people to try to see the grays in life. I am such a black and white thinker that I have to actively make myself see the gray. I really don't like it. For some reason, I want things to be black and white because somehow that seems more simple. When things start getting too complex, my head hurts LOL. :D Thanks for all the responses. I'm going to work on seeing the gray......
On another note, I definitely don't think that the Bible sets a good moral example. I'm sure we can all agree on that. And, I've also noticed that when people think something is immoral and it conflicts with what the Bible says (such as spanking, or leaving your family for Jesus, homosexuality is wrong, etc), they tend to reinterpret the verses in order to make the Bible fit their moral view. Then they say that the Bible teaches great morals. So, that is as huge indicator for me that we don't need to point to a book to find morality. But, I have to admit that it would be nice to say that something is right or wrong because the book says so! It's so much easier than thinking! :D
So, back to thinking about what my morals are and why.....who knows? maybe I'll change my views....
Quote from: Asherah on March 24, 2012, 03:59:50 AM
I've been told many times by people to try to see the grays in life. I am such a black and white thinker that I have to actively make myself see the gray. I really don't like it. For some reason, I want things to be black and white because somehow that seems more simple. When things start getting too complex, my head hurts LOL. :D Thanks for all the responses. I'm going to work on seeing the gray......
I used to be a very Black & White thinker (actually, if I could debate with the me of ten years ago, I'm sure it would make me shudder now - I thought I had EVERYTHING figured out). It took a lot of head-hurting to get my mind around the fact that I didn't/probably couldn't have the answers to a lot of things. :)
I've been exploring the idea of morality a lot lately.
To get the record straight, I don't believe in morality. I think it is a make believe human made concept. You cannot test for it and you cannot measure it. It is simply a way of categorising human actions into good (right), bad (wrong) and neutral. The thing is, when we start categorising, we all tend to have different lists. There certainly is no absolute standard of right and wrong, so when we categorise, we are using different standards to do this. Some people use the golden rule, others a perception of what humanism is, others use the teachings of the enlightenment of Buddha, others use the teachings of Mohammad, others the teachings of Jesus and others the teachings of the Old Testament, etc.
I guess, people by and large have a desire to be good. The problem is that there is no way of telling what is good from what is bad. I feel this is a driving force behind why people take up religion. They quickly learn that the definition of good differs from person to person hence they realise that they cannot trust themselves and hence they look to the wise. However the problem with the wise is that one wise person's morality differs from anothers. Human defined morality is a problem in that one person's morality is no better or no worse than another's. Thousands of years old religion that claims to know what is good, inspired by a perfect and all good deity becomes a compelling guide. If a person chooses to believe in the deity and believe in the specific religion then their problem of defining good goes away, thus they can now work towards being a good person.
An atheist doesn't have the deity option. An atheist looking for morality must either look for a principle, a wise person/organisation or must trust themselves.
The dangerous side to belief in morality is that morality doesn't stop at the self. Morality leads towards judgement of others, as people are now making bold claims as to whether others are acting morally or immorally. If a person stopped at only the self, they would be defining their own personal values rather than morality. Once people go down that dangerous path of moral judgement of others, they then look to enforce moral rules on others, so they put this into law.
Morality based law will result in oppression, which will result in conflict, which will result in danger for those living within that moral based society.
All religious wars are due to an insistence of pushing a flavour of morality onto others.
I am a strong proponent for defining a clear and specific goal for law. I would rather law act towards creating a stable and functional society rather than a moral one. With this goal in mind it would be hard to justify law against homosexuality, or polygomy, or pornography, or prostitution, or euthanasia, or against religious freedom. You don't have to agree with these things, you would just have to realise that it isn't your place to prevent others from doing them.
But, in order to have a stable society, you have to have moral laws to some degree. I'm sure we can all agree that murder and theft are morally wrong. So, you obviously mean that there should be moral laws that provide a consequence for people who choose to hurt other people. But, if no one is getting hurt and all involved are consenting adults, then there should be no laws in those instances? (homosexuality, porn, polygamy, etc).
I 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? I guess the answer would be because it's not good for society as a whole. That sucks. I want killing to be bad for everyone. I want there to be some omnipotent being that says "that's wrong".
What 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. That this might be okay for some people. I feel like I'm about to throw up.......blah. :(
There seem to be two threads going on about this at the same time, I just wrote a post about child molesters and morality here that's relevant. :)
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9143.msg160771#msg160771 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=9143.msg160771#msg160771)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: technolud on April 19, 2012, 03:14:51 PM
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.
So why is it immoral to torture kittens for fun? Simply saying that it is self-evident is not an argument.
Quote from: Tank on April 19, 2012, 01:48:15 PM
Psychology is a science. If you disagree I suggest you make sure you never find yourself in a room with my wife ;D
Just between you and me, please don't tell your wife but...
I did a google search for "is psychology a science"
The first hits were
Is Psychology a Science? (http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html)
Quote
At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make virtually any claim and offer any kind of therapy, because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science, it is very largely a belief system similar to religion.
Psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology)
QuoteCriticisms of psychological research often come from perceptions that it is a "soft" science. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique[63] implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics.
Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have asserted that psychology is not an objective science. Other concepts that psychologists are interested in, such as personality, thinking, and emotion, cannot be directly measured[64] and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be problematic
Psychology as a Science (http://www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html)
Quote
So, are we any closer to understanding a) what science is, and b) if psychology is a science? Unlikely. There is no definitive philosophy of science, and no flawless scientific methodology. When people use the term "Scientific" we all have a general schema of what they mean, but when we break it down in the way that we just have done, the picture is less certain. What is science? It depends on your philosophy. Is psychology a science? It depends on your definition. So - why bother, and how do we conclude all this?
That's funny, because my cognitive psych professor had this to say to me:
"I appreciate your feedback. You're right, not many people believe that the mind can be reduced to chemistry. When I teach brain & behavior, I stress this in much detail because it's all about the brain and nervous system. But in cognitive psych because the approach is a little different. The experimental method is more the emphasis rather than brain physiology. I think the soft/hard science distinction is a false one. Some researchers investigate larger entities (behavior or the "mind"), while some investigate the same thing by examining the smaller (microscopic) entities that make up the nervous system. Cognitive psychology is very well-received in all empirical circles. After all, atoms and genes were once invisible to us, like the mind. I think that the experimental (cognitive) approach combined with the neurological approach is the best way to understand ourselves. Most scientists would probably agree with that."
I think I'll take her word over some random google searches.
I think i'll take a bunch of published articles over some random psych professor.
Plus my own understanding that psychology requires subjective analysis and interpretation.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 09:08:08 PM
That's funny, because my cognitive psych professor had this to say to me:
"I appreciate your feedback. You're right, not many people believe that the mind can be reduced to chemistry. When I teach brain & behavior, I stress this in much detail because it's all about the brain and nervous system. But in cognitive psych because the approach is a little different. The experimental method is more the emphasis rather than brain physiology. I think the soft/hard science distinction is a false one. Some researchers investigate larger entities (behavior or the "mind"), while some investigate the same thing by examining the smaller (microscopic) entities that make up the nervous system. Cognitive psychology is very well-received in all empirical circles. After all, atoms and genes were once invisible to us, like the mind. I think that the experimental (cognitive) approach combined with the neurological approach is the best way to understand ourselves. Most scientists would probably agree with that."
I think I'll take her word over some random google searches.
I can't help but jump in here. I have no idea which view is more likely, but I must warn you, don't treat your professors as gods'.
They make mistakes, and some are simply idiots. My sociology 101 professor was a communist and taught B.S. most of the semester. He also humiliated a rape victim in the middle of one of his classes by using the news story of her rape as an example of something... (I think it was an example of how victims remember the truth incorrectly, but that is honestly just a guess.)
Simply because something comes from you're professors mouth, does not automatically make it superior to Stevil's google research.
Again, I'm not sure who is correct here, but don't accept something as fact or more conclusive, simply because it came from your teacher.
To try and eliminate confusion. I lean to there being no real moral objectivism, but do believe their are some truths that society as a whole accepts like murder being wrong. I don't think that has anything to do with morals though, it's simply a principle society realizes they have to accept for their own safety.
I just read that entire first article that called psychology a religion. Honestly, the whole thing was a blatant strawman of psychology. It is just taking popular misconceptions and running with it. Obviously psych is going to need to extrapolate something from the data, but the data is still there. It has to be interpreted in a logical manner. His 3 step refutation of psychology being a science was completely off base. Just read his null-hypothesis critique to see that he is full of it. He completely ignores the fact that things don't get just published as fact in a journal unless it is rigorously peer-reviewed. To even think that a Harvard psychologist could pull of what his example did just shows ignorance of how the process works.
I also find it funny that a lot of his "support" comes from quote-mining other psychologists. He also uses psychologist and psychiatrist as synonyms for each other. I can't even begin to point out the flaws in that thing.
I never said I fully accept every word out of a professor's mouth. I have had many instructors with differing views, so obviously I can't just take them at will. But I have become very skeptical about all articles that try to talk about science while not being from an academic database. And plus, my teacher is someone who struggled with the "mind/body split" and used to be spiritual. She has struggled with that as she went through psych so I feel I can trust someone like that who is willing to admit when she is wrong.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 09:31:15 PM
I never said I fully accept every word out of a professor's mouth. I have had many instructors with differing views, so obviously I can't just take them at will. But I have become very skeptical about all articles that try to talk about science while not being from an academic database. And plus, my teacher is someone who struggled with the "mind/body split" and used to be spiritual. She has struggled with that as she went through psych so I feel I can trust someone like that who is willing to admit when she is wrong.
I didn't read his articles, I just wanted to warn everyone about not putting to much weight into what their teachers teach them. I have simply been glancing at this thread from time to time. But I'm skeptical of articles as well, but that isn't in and of itself evidence of the articles being wrong. Just as wikipedia being an unreliable source does not mean all the information found their is wrong.
Aren't psychologists and psychiatrists essentially the same thing? One can prescribe drugs; that is the only difference I have noticed between the two. One may have had more education, but I have never seen anything to suggest they are better qualified. Hell, they keep putting children on ADD for acting like children.
Psychiatrists are more closely linked to pharmacology, specializing only in diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. Psychologist could entail quite a lot. It could be a specialist of Psychology in regards to research, testing, counseling, etc.
Also, the medical model thing is currently a debated topic in Psychology circles. There is concern that the latest DSM is overly broad in categorizing mental illness, and that there is no clear boundary. I am kind of indifferent on the issue. When patients see someone for help, it is assumed that their behavior is problematic and needs fixing. It is true that many things like ADD, SAD, or depression could just be idiosyncrasies of the patient or could be fixed better through other environmental or social changes. But all of this is a whole other can of worms that psychologists do debate on.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/science-psychology.html
This article that Stevil posted explains exactly why I think Psychology is a science. In the middle of the page it describes 5 things in bold that make a science: Control, predictability, testing, replication, and objectivity. Psychology passes these more or less. There are some concerns over certain "just-so" stories managing to leak through the cracks. But the thing to keep in mind is that if some researcher looks at some data on his test and comes up with some off the wall assertion based on that, it usually won't be long (especially if the thing got published) for other researchers to pick it apart. Theory forming is a process.
I guess I was suggesting that "morality" can be defined as doing no harm to others. Thereby torturing kittens is immoral. Being gay wouldn't be. How are other people defining morality?
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: Morals....
« Reply #30 on: Today at 11:43:40 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: technolud on Today at 07:14:51 AM
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.
So why is it immoral to torture kittens for fun? Simply saying that it is self-evident is not an argument.
Quote from: technolud on April 19, 2012, 09:50:13 PM
So why is it immoral to torture kittens for fun? Simply saying that it is self-evident is not an argument.
I would say it is wrong because morality should be based on the conscious experience. Once you make that easy assumption (because how can there be morality without life), you just need to understand that who you were born as is merely a product of chance. You didn't choose to be you any more than those kittens chose to be them. And going back to my objective vs. subjective distinction, there are only two variables at play here. 1 is the kittens' suffering and death, which is tangible and objective. The second is your subjective enjoyment of the exercise. Subjective things are more or less *not* necessary at all, they are permissable in most cases when there is no serious objective consequence. To torture kittens is to assume that the actor would not mind being tortured.
Quote from: technolud on April 19, 2012, 09:50:13 PM
I guess I was suggesting that "morality" can be defined as doing no harm to others. Thereby torturing kittens is immoral. Being gay wouldn't be. How are other people defining morality?
So by your definition, would it be immoral to:
eat meat
use force in self defense
compete in combat sports
compete in contact sports
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 09:28:40 PM
Obviously psych is going to need to extrapolate something from the data, but the data is still there.
I am not saying the articles I presented are conclusive proof that I am right. Just showing that I am not alone, and that it is not rare to think that Psych is not a science, these were the first three articles from google search, I wasn't trying to pick ones that specifically supported me. And yes, three is a very small sample set.
I have no doubt that psych utilises some scientific method in order to gather data.
If the data gathering is asking people for their opinion, then it has much subjectivity in it, it is not discrete measurements made by reliably accurate measuring equipment, (do they include +- attributes to account for the degree of inaccuracy of the measuring equipment?)
In science, given the same data, the scientists will come to the exact same conclusions unless of course the theory is wrong or ambiguous. Inconsistencies either prove that the test was faulty or that at least one of the conclusions was faulty.
With regards to psych it is more than likely the conclusions will be different because of the subjective assessment and interpretation.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 04:13:48 PM
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.
If we define that morality is actions based on choice then we must define choice and prove that definition.
If we are suggesting that the rules of physical reality are reasonably modeled by the documented "Laws of Physics" then we must conclude that anything simply adhering to the "Laws of Physics" is doing what it must and hence no choice is evident.
The atheist position (unless of course you don't believe in god but do believe in magic) is that there is no realm other than the physical realm and that all energy/matter within the physical realm are bound to the "Laws of Physics".
So if an atheist is to suggest we choose our actions then you are necessarily suggesting that your choice isn't entirely bound to the "Laws of Physics". You are suggesting that there is a non physical aspect to your choice and hence a non physical aspect to who you are. Theists call this the soul.
Now if the soul is making moral choices, you are then also suggesting that souls have an attribute of goodness/badness and that good souls make predominantly good/right decisions and bad souls make predominantly bad/wrong decisions.
But then again, even if this were true, who would care? Why is it important to distinguish good decisions from bad decisions? Where is the culpability? Do we need to define ourselves as moral guardians and thus punish immoral people or are we to believe that there is some sort of cosmic justice, that immoral people or immoral actions will be ultimately held accountable?
Quote from: Stevil on April 19, 2012, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 09:28:40 PM
Obviously psych is going to need to extrapolate something from the data, but the data is still there.
I am not saying the articles I presented are conclusive proof that I am right. Just showing that I am not alone, and that it is not rare to think that Psych is not a science, these were the first three articles from google search, I wasn't trying to pick ones that specifically supported me. And yes, three is a very small sample set.
I have no doubt that psych utilises some scientific method in order to gather data.
If the data gathering is asking people for their opinion, then it has much subjectivity in it, it is not discrete measurements made by reliably accurate measuring equipment, (do they include +- attributes to account for the degree of inaccuracy of the measuring equipment?)
In science, given the same data, the scientists will come to the exact same conclusions unless of course the theory is wrong or ambiguous. Inconsistencies either prove that the test was faulty or that at least one of the conclusions was faulty.
With regards to psych it is more than likely the conclusions will be different because of the subjective assessment and interpretation.
I think a lot of people read older things from Psychology like Freud or Skinner and then extrapolate that all modern psychology does is more of the same. No, we actually do rule out all traces of subjectivity in Psychological research, participants are very often lied to for studies. One criticism that I will admit is that what Psychology demonstrates applies only to the time period and people it affects, because obviously things can change about people and the environment. But this doesn't make it less of a science than chemistry or physics which has laws that will never change. It just means we have to keep all the variables in mind. Psychology does indeed isolate variables to the best of its abilities, uses empirical approaches, and yes we do use standard deviation in our graphs and charts to indicate variability. As for your critique of the "subjective assessment and interpretation" I don't really find that to be the case. You can't just point out something about some data and expect it to be taken seriously.
I read an article that I have in paper only from another class. It covers a lot of misconceptions about science in general. One of the first points it made, if I may summarize, is that all the different subjects of science like physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, etc. "are really just branches of one single science."...."any discipline that uses empirical methods is a branch of science." The point it tries to make is that many things that science deals with are interdisciplinary. For example, psychology studies the brain and behavior, which must comply with biology, which in turn must comply with the laws of physics and chemistry, etc etc. All of these things interwoven are what science is. Psychology isn't a "religion" just isolated off in its own world making blatant assumptions. In psychology we very often draw evidence from other disciplines to make sure all the pieces fit. It seems like the people who are saying psych isn't a science are only looking at the older research and some erroneous assumptions on data, while forgetting about all the cross-examination going on. Psychology shouldn't be viewed as an isolated person doing research and drawing conclusions. That is just half of one jigsaw piece. The other half comes from peer-review. And Psychology as a whole is all of the pieces put together in conjunction with pieces from other disciplines.
And as for the moral thing in your last post, you are kind of taking that too seriously. It was meant to be a quick example of how science can show what is, but not make a value judgement. I was saying that using this basis, we can then use our rationale to make decisions for our societies what should go. I thought the example was obvious, but I didn't care to get into the gnitty gritty and define "choice" etc.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 19, 2012, 11:57:32 PM
And as for the moral thing in your last post, you are kind of taking that too seriously. It was meant to be a quick example of how science can show what is, but not make a value judgement. I was saying that using this basis, we can then use our rationale to make decisions for our societies what should go. I thought the example was obvious, but I didn't care to get into the gnitty gritty and define "choice" etc.
Its not obvious to me. I have no belief in morality, no belief in right and wrong. I have no belief in free will.
I absolutely believe that all events have a physical cause.
I would be keen to know what the scientific proof of morality is, what objective test can be applied?
I would actually be quite keen to know what the objective definition of morality is.
If a black widow spider eats her mate how can we know conclusively that this was a moral or immoral action?
There is an objective "idea" about morality though, which gets some discussion in evolutionary psychology. The things you ask are trying to dig too deeply in my opinion. I see where you come from but I think everyone has some sort of idea of right and wrong. I was prescribing my own the best I knew how, by first establishing an objective basis for human morality on a societal level.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 20, 2012, 12:38:03 AM
There is an objective "idea" about morality though
Yes, there is a concept ("idea") of morality, just as there is a concept of god/s.
I am less concerned about the concept and more interested in the actual existence. It seems to me this concept does not have an underlying physical system, hence I have no belief in its existence.
This is dissimilar to the concept of the mind. The mind is a concept, you cannot poke it, prod it, or measure it. As with all things conceptual the mind is unobservable, however the mind does have an underlying physical system, the brain, the mind is a conceptual model of the workings of the brain. I believe in the mind as we can observe the physical workings of the brain.
But morality is a part of consciousness in higher level species. To say you don't believe in morality is similar to me as disbelieving in consciousness. There is clearly some observable behavior to be had that showcases altruism. This is an existing type of behavior and the construct of "morality" captures it.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 20, 2012, 01:24:49 AM
But morality is a part of consciousness in higher level species. To say you don't believe in morality is similar to me as disbelieving in consciousness. There is clearly some observable behavior to be had that showcases altruism. This is an existing type of behavior and the construct of "morality" captures it.
The mind is a concept of the workings of the brain.
Consciousness is an aspect or conceptual property of the mind.
Morality is a concept of adherence to right and wrong. Hence morality is a conceptual protocol.
Right and wrong are.... the byproduct of some conceptual rule which sorts actions into a right list, a wrong list and a neutral list.
But what does right actually mean?, what does wrong actually mean?
Of this, I have no idea.
Without knowing what right and wrong are, I cannot subscribe to the morality concept which is based on right and wrong.
How does the morality conceptual protocol relate to consciousness? The mind might form a belief in right and wrong, it might then form a belief in the morality protocol and suggest that decisions ought to be based on what is believed to be right and wrong.
Does this make morality exist?
Lets say the mind forms a belief in god and then forms a belief in gods law and suggest that decisions ought to be based on what god's law dictates as being right and wrong.
Does this make god's law exist? Does that mean that god exists?
Or does it simply point to the existence of a belief within the conscious mind?
Not long ago, almost everyone in the western world believed that slavery was moral. Today, almost everyone in the west believes that slavery is immoral. There were lots of factors in this turnaround, but one of them surely was the finding of science that we humans are a single, closely-related species. In this way, scientific evidence contributed to a movement from bad morals (based on a bad explanation of what humans were) to better morals (based on a better explanation).
Wow. Log off for a few hours and you all really take off.
I have to agree with Natsu Terran on this: But morality is a part of consciousness in higher level species. To say you don't believe in morality is similar to me as disbelieving in consciousness. There is clearly some observable behavior to be had that showcases altruism. This is an existing type of behavior and the construct of "morality" captures it.
Cannot "Morality" be a construction of consciousness? Name it Altruism? Some stuff is tough to call, if your a carnivore is eating another animal immoral? Maybe not. But I still think torturing kittens is.
I too have the great fortune/misfortune of being married to a psychologist, she a neuropsychologist, sort of more about brain function the "why my parents hate me". I can't get her to sign on, but she agrees that psychology is a science still in its infancy, with this statment:
Criticisms of psychological research often come from perceptions that it is a "soft" science. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique[63] implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics.
Many things not yet known. But definitely still following the scientifc method. Definitely, definitely not a religion.
My problem lies with this example:
Lets say the mind forms a belief in god and then forms a belief in gods law and suggest that decisions ought to be based on what god's law dictates as being right and wrong.
I believe we can each conjure up right and wrong. We don't need a belief in god or god's laws. Just do no harm to others, or as little as possible. Same thing as treat others as you wish to be treated. Sometimes it is hard to figure out the right course. But you gotta try.
Quote from: technolud on April 20, 2012, 02:14:55 AM
My problem lies with this example:
Lets say the mind forms a belief in god and then forms a belief in gods law and suggest that decisions ought to be based on what god's law dictates as being right and wrong.
I believe we can each conjure up right and wrong. We don't need a belief in god or god's laws. Just do no harm to others, or as little as possible. Same thing as treat others as you wish to be treated. Sometimes it is hard to figure out the right course. But you gotta try.
I'm not saying that right and wrong must come from a god. I was merely pointing to a belief in god and god's law as an analogy.
What I am saying is that right and wrong are beliefs and hence morality is a belief.
If you start trying to objectively measure other people or other animals against a specific morality then your measurements are fundamentally flawed. Whose moral believe system are you going to use to measure behaviours against?
There was once an article claiming that a survey proved atheists were more likely to be immoral than theists. And of course the moral standard was a religious belief in morality hence actions such as viewing pornography was classified as immoral behaviour.
Well if an atheists was allowed to set the moral standard for the survey then the atheists would likely have fared better, with theists failing on actions such as respecting homosexuals.
If we humans try to observe animals with regards to adherance of a moral standard, then whose moral standard are we to use? If we use a theistic standard then animals will be deemed as amoral, given that theists belief animals are amoral. I too would provide a moral standard containing a blank sheet thus the animal observations would produce amoral results. Now depending on which atheist you choose to define the moral standard, the results will all be different. The idea of measuring morality is ridiculous.
Morality doesn't even exist.
It's not about measuring morality, but about analyzing a unique behavior called altruism and extrapolating from that a concept in the brain.
Quote from: NatsuTerran on April 20, 2012, 03:50:10 AM
It's not about measuring morality, but about analyzing a unique behavior called altruism and extrapolating from that a concept in the brain.
Altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism)
QuotePure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).
Altruism is fundamentally flawed
The statement "with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving)" certainly cannot be determined on behalf of someone else, especially not on behalf of a non human animal.
We cannot ask the animal if it had an expectation of any compensation for its actions.
Some people help others because:
- that is the type of society they want to live in and they realise that such a society will benefit themselves in the long run.
- they believe it will improve their chances of getting to heaven or being reincarnated in a favourable way.
- it is Status Quo as they have been taught to behave in this way.
- supporting society might be a genetic hard-wiring improving survival chances of the group.
None of this has anything to do with moral choice or personal knowledge of right and wrong
Quote from: technolud on April 19, 2012, 09:50:13 PM
I guess I was suggesting that "morality" can be defined as doing no harm to others. Thereby torturing kittens is immoral.
So why is it wrong/immoral to do harm to others?
Stevil, if you point is that all morality is conciousness based rather then absolute or dictated by some higher authority, I must concede and retract my earlier statement concerning "objective morality".
However, if one accepts that morality is a human created precept I think its fairly easy to arrive at workable definitions of right and wrong and moral and immoral. And as sentient beings and all part of a larger society I believe this is a necessary exercise.
Quote from: technolud on April 20, 2012, 02:39:27 PM
However, if one accepts that morality is a human created precept I think its fairly easy to arrive at workable definitions of right and wrong and moral and immoral. And as sentient beings and all part of a larger society I believe this is a necessary exercise.
Maybe you can postulate a set of rules which would lead to an optimal outcome for this "larger society" of which you speak (though I beg to doubt it).Even so, would such rules have any claim to embody right and wrong as opposed to being rules which if followed would conduce to the greater good (however that is defined) ? In what sense would it be "wrong" to break them?
http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response?ref=list
Stealing this idea from this article, it kind of sums up what I feel about morality:
"For example, some sets of values are more consistent and more conducive to social stability. If moral relativism is true, morality can be regarded as a tool, and we can think about what we'd like that tool to do for us and revise morality accordingly."
I've always thought about it as a tool. But when I say objective morality, I guess I do kind of make a common sense appeal in some way. When I say objective morality, I don't mean an exact value, but more like a general value. There are some things that are *clearly* not conducive to any goal that any sentient being would want. There are just some things that hurt social stability in general and it's just inarguable. You could always argue that someone may have that desolation as their moral goal, but philosophically it just makes more sense to assume anyone could be in anyone else's position, and to strive to treat people like equals. This moral relativist even makes that point in the end. When it comes to objective well-being, there's going to be a right or wrong answer. I am simply saying that much of morality should (common sensically, I know) be based on that.
I've harped on about this many times, so am getting reluctant to keep repeating myself. Of course it is just my personal opinion, but
We can dress any decision making process up in the clothes of morality. This attire conceals the naked truth of decisions.
There is no such thing as right and wrong in and of itself. Actions have direct consequences and secondary consequences, if you have a specific goal in mind and your action helps to achieve that goal and you are willing to invoke all the consequences of your actions then it seems at that point in time, in that specific instance, you have deemed that as the right decision to make. From another person's perspective, your decision (your action) is not moral nor immoral it is simply an action that you have made based on your own decision making process.
If the others deem that your actions are dangerous to themselves or their society then they might choose to oppose you, possibly by force. Their reaction is not because you have made an immoral action but because your action was dangerous to them, they are not guardians of morality, they are fighting for their own survival.
I'm not sure that "morality" and "fighting for their own survival" are necessarily different. It seems to me that the concept of morality only works where communication among beings is possible. Survival is a difficult business, but if I can use communication to enhance my survival then I've improved my situation.
Logical thinking is necessary for things like science and engineering to take hold, but logical thinking has great reach. It stretches into my dealings with other communicative creatures. If I can convince you not to harm me because harming me is bad, then by logical extension I should not be harming you because harming you must be bad, too. If A equals B then B must equal A.
Steven Pinker has a great deal to say about the evolution of morality in The Better Angels of Our Nature. Amazing book. As Pinker argues, there is clear evidence that our world is more moral today than in the past. Think of what we've done away with, or nearly so. Witch burnings. Institutionalized slavery. Routine, state-sanctioned torture. Jim Crow laws. Logical thinking and the scientific revolution are making us more moral creatures.
Of course it's about self-preservation. I would argue, though, that the definition of "self" has expanded with the development of our society. We recognize that other people are more valuable to us alive, free, and happy than dead, enslaved, or tortured.
Quote from: ablprop on April 21, 2012, 03:15:06 PM
I'm not sure that "morality" and "fighting for their own survival" are necessarily different.
Well, the problem is that not everybody has the same perception as you.
Some people think it is their place to ensure immoral actions are not part of society, even if those actions have nothing to do with "fighting for their own survival".
Why do you think some Christians are hell bent on stopping gay people from marrying? It clearly doesn't put their own lives or society in danger. Same thing goes for prostitution, or stem cell research.
If you stick to the ambiguous concept of morality, then you have no place to argue when your government makes laws based on moral grounds.
If witches are deemed as immoral, and burning them is deemed as moral, then who are you to argue otherwise. All you can argue is that "my morality is better than your morality" which is a stalemate unless one of you is in a power position and then it is authoritarian rule.
BTW, there are many old foggies that think our current times are much more immoral than when they were young.
As our reasoning and explanations get better, our conception of morality improves. A big part of that improved conception is the idea that I should be allowed to do what I want as long as I'm not hurting others. I think it comes back to that logical argument again. No one wants others to tell them what to do, and if I'm thinking intelligently and logically I see that such an argument must cut both ways. If A equals B then B must equal A.
We're certainly not anywhere near there yet, and the examples you mention are the evidence. However, we're a lot further along than we were, say, sixty years ago. Gay marriage clearly is coming, just as interracial marriage came to pass over the past sixty years. Despite temporary setbacks, history shows that the conservatives are always wrong, and in the end they always lose these arguments.
You're right that there are plenty of people that argue how immoral our times are today. Their arguments just don't stand up. No public figure today, no matter how right wing, could get away with arguing for segregation, public lynching, witch burning, and so on. Things that were once almost completely accepted (slavery, for instance) are now almost universally condemned. People who don't buy this argument should read both Pinker and Deutsch. We are more moral creatures today than we've been at any time in recorded history.
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 12:32:08 AM
As our reasoning and explanations get better, our conception of morality improves.
Morality is not about reasoning or explanations, it is about knowing what is right and what is wrong, as if we have a sixth sense and can tap into a magical knowledge of cosmic right and wrong, or maybe it is a genetic right and wrong hence subjective but still just a right and wrong without the requirement of reasoning.
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 12:32:08 AM
A big part of that improved conception is the idea that I should be allowed to do what I want as long as I'm not hurting others.
This highlights my point more than yours. The improvements have been due to descoping actions from the immoral classification. Making those actions neutral rather than immoral.
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 12:32:08 AM
I think it comes back to that logical argument again. No one wants others to tell them what to do, and if I'm thinking intelligently and logically I see that such an argument must cut both ways. If A equals B then B must equal A.
Yep, so stop judging actions as right and wrong, moral and immoral. Simply let people do what they want to, as long as it poses no danger to others or society.
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 12:32:08 AM
Gay marriage clearly is coming, just as interracial marriage came to pass over the past sixty years. Despite temporary setbacks, history shows that the conservatives are always wrong, and in the end they always lose these arguments.
Again, the solution is to descope the immoral concept. Slowly and surely we are eroding morality belief and our societies are becoming less oppressive.
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 12:32:08 AM
You're right that there are plenty of people that argue how immoral our times are today. Their arguments just don't stand up. ...We are more moral creatures today than we've been at any time in recorded history.
We all like to think we are right, and that others are wrong. We look at past eras and say they were wrong, they look at us and say we are wrong.
I'm carefully looking at your words to understand exactly what you're saying. I hope I'm not taking anything out of context.
"There is no such thing as right and wrong in and of itself." I agree.
"Some people help others because:
- that is the type of society they want to live in and they realise that such a society will benefit themselves in the long run." Again, I agree.
"If the others deem that your actions are dangerous to themselves or their society then they might choose to oppose you, possibly by force." Certainly true. This, in fact, is a pretty good definition of "society."
"If witches are deemed as immoral, and burning them is deemed as moral, then who are you to argue otherwise." This is where we part company. We ended witch burning not by convincing people to go ahead and let witches be witches. We did it via the Enlightenment view that witchcraft doesn't work. Witches don't sink ships or cause babies to die. Instead of burning witches, we learn to build better ships and cure or prevent disease. My argument with those who burn witches isn't that my morals are better than theirs; it's that my explanations are better.
"Simply let people do what they want to, as long as it poses no danger to others or society." Surely you see that this in itself is a moral stance? (a very good one.) You value freedom, individual expression, and the pursuit of happiness. Think how rare such a stance has been in the history of the world! These are values that came from the Enlightenment realization of the potential of people, armed with good explanations, to understand and thereby improve the world.
However, it is only through the power of good explanations that we can know whether a particular action poses a danger to others. Good explanations show that things like witchcraft, gay marriage, and heresy are harmless. Good explanations also show that firing missiles from your property, flushing motor oil down your toilet, and owning other human beings are actions that do harm (or are likely to do harm) to other people.
"We all like to think we are right, and that others are wrong. We look at past eras and say they were wrong, they look at us and say we are wrong."
Of course we're wrong. Our knowledge (and this includes our moral knowledge) is always fallible. As David Deutsch says, "We are always at the beginning of infinity." However, good explanations for how the world works show that we are less wrong than those who burned witches, tortured homosexuals, or kept black children out of white schools. All advancement, whether scientific, technological, or moral, is the result of improving our explanations.
I really don't think we're that different in our conception. We both value individual choice, freedom of expression, and a rational view of the world. I think the biggest difference is that you don't like the word "morality." I'm urging that we reclaim that word from those who would use it as a club to enforce their views, views that can be shown to be based on very bad explanations. We have made moral progress, and it's because our explanations have improved.
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
*snip only for brevity*
"We all like to think we are right, and that others are wrong. We look at past eras and say they were wrong, they look at us and say we are wrong."
Of course we're wrong. Our knowledge (and this includes our moral knowledge) is always fallible. As David Deutsch says, "We are always at the beginning of infinity." However, good explanations for how the world works show that we are less wrong than those who burned witches, tortured homosexuals, or kept black children out of white schools. All advancement, whether scientific, technological, or moral, is the result of improving our explanations.
Very good post. :)
I singled out this bit because I think it's definitely true that we have better explanations; it's just as true that our explanations will certainly change over time, and will hopefully improve, the more knowledge and understanding we acquire. That quote about being at the beginning of infinity is an interesting one! It reminds us of how little we know, and of how much we still have to learn.
I think people in every era of time have always assumed that their society is at the 'height' of humanity; they assume their ways are best, and the most advanced, and that life as they know it is the best there is to be had. In the last few generations, it seems this thinking has really shifted. We know that in terms of progress, there's still a lot more to learn. I'd also argue that there's still a lot to learn in the area of ethics, too. We certainly aren't at our moral/ethical 'height' right now in history, no more than we are at our technological/scientific height. There's lots of room for improvement and discovery.
The fact we are aware of this now is excellent. However, I always try to keep in mind that this way of looking at things is a fairly modern way. In the past, those who burned witches, tortured groups of people they didn't like, etc... they all assumed that what they thought was 'right' would always be right. They weren't open to new understanding, new evidence, and better explanations. They were looking at their culture through a very, very narrow lens.
Unfortunately, some people today still take on this mentality. They cling to past assumptions, and insist on keeping their minds closed. It's more than just a shame. They're cheating themselves of the opportunity to learn.
If you read The Beginning of Infinity you'll see that I'm just doing my best to spread the meme the author has created there. His major point is that the Enlightenment was a revolution unlike any other, in that it embraced the idea of fallibilism. Rather than replacing one authority with another, as previous revolutions had done, this revolution replaced appeal to authority with appeal to fallible reason, requiring us always to doubt, criticize, and try to improve our ideas.
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
My argument with those who burn witches isn't that my morals are better than theirs; it's that my explanations are better.
We are getting somewhere here.
At least you are realising that explanations and reasoning are not morality. If you go to the trouble to think something through and articulate reasoning then you are not simply invoking a moral stand, you are being clear and specific with regards to an expressed goal. This is what I want, I do not what someone to state "you can't do that, that's immoral!"
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
"Simply let people do what they want to, as long as it poses no danger to others or society." Surely you see that this in itself is a moral stance? (a very good one.)
No, this is not a moral stance. This is a specified goal.
A moral statement would be "It is immoral for people to have homosexual sex", no reasoning, no goal, just a statement bestowing knowledge of right and wrong.
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
I really don't think we're that different in our conception. We both value individual choice, freedom of expression, and a rational view of the world. I think the biggest difference is that you don't like the word "morality." I'm urging that we reclaim that word...
Morality hides reason and agendas, as long as we keep insisting on use of this word we will continue to have oppression in our society.
Morality is the reason why witches were burned, morality is the reason why it is illegal for gay people to marry, morality is the reason why stem cell research is illegal, why euthanasia is illegal and in some countries why prostitution is illegal. If you remove morality as an excuse then your government will struggle to defend such laws. They will need to articulate their reasons and will find that they cannot in these instances find reasons that society will accept.
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 06:34:24 PM
If you read The Beginning of Infinity you'll see that I'm just doing my best to spread the meme the author has created there. His major point is that the Enlightenment was a revolution unlike any other, in that it embraced the idea of fallibilism. Rather than replacing one authority with another, as previous revolutions had done, this revolution replaced appeal to authority with appeal to fallible reason, requiring us always to doubt, criticize, and try to improve our ideas.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/579001_421468357864580_321687357842681_1789348_180149414_n.jpg)
Quote from: Stevil on April 22, 2012, 06:45:42 PM
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 02:12:17 PM
My argument with those who burn witches isn't that my morals are better than theirs; it's that my explanations are better.
We are getting somewhere here.
At least you are realising that explanations and reasoning are not morality. If you go to the trouble to think something through and articulate reasoning then you are not simply invoking a moral stand, you are being clear and specific with regards to an expressed goal. This is what I want, I do not what someone to state "you can't do that, that's immoral!"
Our only quibble is about wording. I think one can reason about things that are generally considered moral questions. You agree, but don't want to call it morality.
I fear, though, that the one statement you've made about what I call morality, "Simply let people do what they want to, as long as it poses no danger to others or society" will not get you through every situation. There are situations where right will conflict with right, and then we need the reasoning tools as a society to come to a moral (there I said it) decision. For instance:
I am an archaeologist and discover some old-looking bones along a riverbank in a state park. You represent people who have lived on the land for millennia, and therefore claim the bones as an ancestor. I want to study the bones to learn more about human evolution and migration. You want to bury the bones as a tribute to those who came before.
I submit to you that we can't decide this case based on the "let people do what they want" credo. We need reasoning, good explanations, and a shared history of conjecture, criticism, and testing to come to a well-reasoned (what I would call moral) decision.
By the way, I picked this example because I predict that you and I will come to the same conclusion, arrived at through a rational picture of how the world works, while others, who don't share that rational view, may well have a different opinion. We can't just tell them that they're wrong and we're right (that would be just as bad as what traditional religious societies do). We have to convince them through good explanations.
My point is that science can speak to traditionally moral issues because the search for good explanations (which is the heart of science) is universal.
Edit: Tweaked quotes - Tank
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 09:05:47 PM
Our only quibble is about wording. I think one can reason about things that are generally considered moral questions. You agree, but don't want to call it morality.
Well, no.
I don't worry about whether my actions are moral or not, I don't worry about whether other people are acting morally or not, i don't judge.
Philosophically speaking, I don't want a government to impose rules and then hide behind morality as their reasoning. Again, we cannot argue that one person's morality is better than another's.
I want specific goals, specific reasoning behind legislated restrictions.
I selfishly want to be safe. If something doesn't impact that, they I don't care what others do.
Quote from: Stevil on April 24, 2012, 03:58:26 AM
Quote from: ablprop on April 22, 2012, 09:05:47 PM
Our only quibble is about wording. I think one can reason about things that are generally considered moral questions. You agree, but don't want to call it morality.
Well, no.
I don't worry about whether my actions are moral or not, I don't worry about whether other people are acting morally or not, i don't judge.
Philosophically speaking, I don't want a government to impose rules and then hide behind morality as their reasoning. Again, we cannot argue that one person's morality is better than another's.
I want specific goals, specific reasoning behind legislated restrictions.
I selfishly want to be safe. If something doesn't impact that, they I don't care what others do.
Stevil,
I was just wondering. I certainly understand the desire to be safe. So, what if something did impact that? What if someone didn't want you to be safe, and actively tried to put you or your loved ones in danger? I'm assuming if they really wanted to harm you, then arguments about choosing actions that keep people safe wouldn't be anything that would interest them. When it came down to it, it would be your desire for you/your family to be safe, over their desire to harm you.
If in your worldview there's no such thing as morality, no such thing as right or wrong... how would you argue against them harming you or your family? What would you say to the authorities, with regards to protecting you or your family?
"It's wrong to want to hurt us", "please protect my family because they deserve to be safe", etc and arguments like it don't seem to fit with morality not existing. If it doesn't exist, then it's not wrong to put you in harm's way -- it's just someone's preference over yours. And nobody would 'deserve' safety, because on what basis does anyone deserve anything? Only if morality exists could someone deserve something.
I'll be interested to see how you'd tackle the problem.
Quote from: Amicale on April 24, 2012, 05:53:44 AM
If in your worldview there's no such thing as morality, no such thing as right or wrong... how would you argue against them harming you or your family? What would you say to the authorities, with regards to protecting you or your family?
"It's wrong to want to hurt us", "please protect my family because they deserve to be safe", etc and arguments like it don't seem to fit with morality not existing. If it doesn't exist, then it's not wrong to put you in harm's way -- it's just someone's preference over yours. And nobody would 'deserve' safety, because on what basis does anyone deserve anything? Only if morality exists could someone deserve something.
I'll be interested to see how you'd tackle the problem.
I don't see this as a morality problem, maybe coincidently it looks like a morality to you, but then again it might look like Christian morality to a Christian, they might then suggest that you are acting like a good Christian.
Anyway,
Let's look at the individual and society aspects of wanting to survive.
Without any rules, no law, no cohesive society, you are basically on your own, to fend for yourself and to protect yourself.
If you have something that someone else wants, and they are bigger, stronger and faster than you then they will probably take it from you since they are also fending for themselves, remember in this hypothetical that there is no sense of society.
They might even use you for sex or as a slave, you are simply a resource and if they can dominate you they will. There is no sense of morality, unless you have been taught to behave a certain way, you will fend for yourself. (I understand that today's people kid themselves into believing that they are Good people and that they act morally because they are Good).
Now, in this hypothetical, the "smart" individuals band together to form a group for mutual protection. They make a pact that certain behaviors are unacceptable and that they will protect each other from outside people whom break certain rules e.g. rape, murder, theft, slavery etc. These rules, this alliance is based on survival, not some moral code, however depending on the individuals they might agree on excess rules to form some sort of morality, e.g. they might not like it if people behave rudely or they might not like people of a certain race or religion.
But a small group is vulnerable to larger, more powerful groups. So the bigger the group, the safer you are, but also the bigger the group the more accommodating the rules must be. If your group includes people of different races then you can't have racist rules, you can't makes slaves of certain races, you need to accommodate different religions and different cultures. The important thing about a lager group is that it must remove the unimportant rules and must stick to the survival ones, so slowly any "morality" is eroded away to exactly equal the bare minimum rules needed for survival. You could have got there much quicker if you removed the insistence on a moral society and simply realized that the importance is survival rather than morality.
Morality is an insistence that actions are good and bad, it hides reasoning and it allows oppression on a whim. We don't need morality, we only need inclusive rules for survival, otherwise let society members live their lives however they please.
Stevil,
I have been following your explorations of the moral question with great interest. You give eloquent voice to an instinct I have had for some time that a proper investigation of such questions would center on specific instances of behavior, and the consequences thereof, with reference to clearly specified, mutually agreed-upon goals. Framing things in this way promises actual progress. Further, it promises to illuminate both what is essential and what is inconsequential to actual daily living.
I fear, however, that there is a deep instinct on the part of many people that decisions based upon 'mere' calculations of mutual survival are somehow not binding enough, or far ranging enough. With respect to the former, they want some extra-special sauce on top of their, or more to the point, other people's promises not to engage in certain behaviors, just to make sure that everyone's really serious. As for the latter, a 'live and let live' philosophy will hardly do for many, since they have deeply entrenched instincts that those other guys are truly screwy in ways that aren't captured by the calculus of survival, and they desperately don't want those instincts dissected in any real way.
But I think your project is a worthwhile one, nevertheless...
Quote from: The Black Jester on April 24, 2012, 11:51:59 PM
Stevil,
I have been following your explorations of the moral question with great interest. You give eloquent voice to an instinct I have had for some time that a proper investigation of such questions would center on specific instances of behavior, and the consequences thereof, with reference to clearly specified, mutually agreed-upon goals. Framing things in this way promises actual progress. Further, it promises to illuminate both what is essential and what is inconsequential to actual daily living.
I fear, however, that there is a deep instinct on the part of many people that decisions based upon 'mere' calculations of mutual survival are somehow not binding enough, or far ranging enough. With respect to the former, they want some extra-special sauce on top of their, or more to the point, other people's promises not to engage in certain behaviors, just to make sure that everyone's really serious. As for the latter, a 'live and let live' philosophy will hardly do for many, since they have deeply entrenched instincts that those other guys are truly screwy in ways that aren't captured by the calculus of survival, and they desperately don't want those instincts dissected in any real way.
But I think your project is a worthwhile one, nevertheless...
Just to add something here...
I heard the other day someone talking about the problems that could happen when there are too many opportunities for free-riding or back-stabbing. Though in my opinion people are neither innately good or evil but have the clear potential for both, very large societies break down when there aren't some commonly shared ideas of what's "good" or "bad".