Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I nice TED talk here (http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html), which you don't need to watch unless you're interested.

The main point is this: we have the idea in our society that values and morals belong to the "religious sphere/personal sphere" and are matters of opinion. But they should be just as subject to reason and scientific evidence as the laws of physics.

We need to get away from the idea that "I think this is wrong/I think this is right" is a position that does not have to be defended. "My religion teaches that this is moral" is not an argument. We have to understand that our ideas about right and wrong, even if strongly held, can be incorrect, and can possible be shown to be incorrect.

If we don't acknowledge this, then the atmosphere is one where morality is dogmatic and subjective. I don't feel like laying out the problems inherent in that, but I'll quote an excerpt on credulity:



If a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future. It goes to make a part of that aggregate of beliefs which is the link between sensation and action at every moment of all our lives, and which is so organized and compacted together that no part of it can be isolated from the rest, but every new addition modifies the structure of the whole. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may some day explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever.

...

It is not only the leader of men, statesmen, philosopher, or poet, that owes this bounden duty to mankind. Every rustic who delivers in the village alehouse his slow, infrequent sentences, may help to kill or keep alive the fatal superstitions which clog his race. Every hard-worked wife of an artisan may transmit to her children beliefs which shall knit society together, or rend it in pieces. No simplicity of mind, no obscurity of station, can escape the universal duty of questioning all that we believe.

...

And, as in other such cases, it is not the risk only which has to be considered; for a bad action is always bad at the time when it is done, no matter what happens afterwards. Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to, and the evil born when one such belief is entertained is great and wide. But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent. If I steal money from any person, there may be no harm done by the mere transfer of possession; he may not feel the loss, or it may prevent him from using the money badly. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself dishonest. What hurts society is not that it should lose its property, but that it should become a den of thieves; for then it must cease to be society. This is why we ought not to do evil that good may come; for at any rate this great evil has come, that we have done evil and are made wicked thereby. In like manner, if I let myself believe anything on insufficient evidence, there may be no great harm done by the mere belief; it may be true after all, or I may never have occasion to exhibit it in outward acts. But I cannot help doing this great wrong towards Man, that I make myself credulous. The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.

The harm which is done by credulity in a man is not confined to the fostering of a credulous character in others, and consequent support of false beliefs. Habitual want of care about what I believe leads to habitual want of care in others about the truth of what is told to me. Men speak the truth to one another when each reveres the truth in his own mind and in the other’s mind; but how shall my friend revere the truth in my mind when I myself am careless about it, when I believe things because I want to believe them, and because they are comforting and pleasant? Will he not learn to cry, “Peace,” to me, when there is no peace? By such a course I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live. It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbours ready to deceive. The credulous man is father to the liar and the cheat; he lives in the bosom of this his family, and it is no marvel if he should become even as they are. So closely are our duties knit together, that whoso shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.


from The Ethics of Belief (http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm)

****************************************************

From the dogmatic religious zealot to the outraged cultural relativist, this attitude infects much of our politics and has even seeped into the backroom at times :p

It's probably a natural human tendency and certainly a cultural one. No excuse.

We like to take politics and such casually, because the politicians are the ones that decide things and our votes barely count. But places like this are where beliefs are formed and changed. Laws don't usually change until enough of the people's beliefs have changed.

Surely we should promote rigor and debate over opinion stating, here in the backroom and in society at large? This is not to degrade opinion stating or to require advanced knowledge. It is simply a matter of approaching the subject matter with the assumption that some answers are better than others, and that the proposed answers are to be argued for and against, not simply accepted or rejected.

[CountArach]

Morality is simply one or more groups' discourses put into an ethical sphere and labelled as such. The idea that there is one universal morality is deeply flawed (unless of course we add religion into the equation, but seeing as you have discounted that from the outset we do not need to cover it) because morality has changed so much as each society and social group's discourse has been changed. As the discourse changes so too does the morality, which in turn will affect all subsequent discourse and so on. I think you would be hard-pressed to find too many academics who disagree with this general statement, though they would probably frame it differently or along their own discursive lines (or that has been my experience at least).

Now, the entire field of science is based in Modernity, which is itself simply a broader social discourse that is commonly agreed on by most (if not all) of the major powerful discourses that most people ascribe to. As such looking to apply anything even resembling the scientific method to morality will only find what is considered the most moral thing from the point of view of a Modern society. As society continues to develop away from the search for an 'objective' truth (as it already is) and moves towards a Postmodern society or something resembling it, the morality that is discovered by this scientific method would be proven to be more and more vaunted as other, minor, discourses are examined and given voice and the major discourses change in relation to these and each other. Thus discourses would change and, again, so too would morality. This would only pick up pace as discourse pluralises, as it has for much of the last two centuries. So, ultimately, the search for an objective morality would suffer from general human advancement and would find itself quickly outdated and vaunted, a relic of a Modern age.

2 cents.

[Husar]

Good point, CA.

I also don't think that there is some ultimate morality that can be scientifically proven to be right, most likely they would look at what is useful for society or so, as is already the case with many laws.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Science has nothing to do with morality, only the understanding of natural phenomena.

Morality being subject to reason is different.

I'm going to sleep now, though I will return!

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

Science and reason have little to do with morality. Without religion and individual philosophy there is no such thing as transcedental morality. "My religion teaches me that this is wrong/right" IS an arguement, just not a scientific arguement. What is wrong with you people? The best people I've ever met are bright, logical and religious. Most of the people I've known who lack the last part I have very little respect for in the long term. This is my personal, life verified position, so suck on it.

[Beskar]

I thnk the speaker is talking more about Secular Humanism is the way forward.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Science and reason have little to do with morality. Without religion and individual philosophy there is no such thing as transcedental morality. "My religion teaches me that this is wrong/right" IS an arguement, just not a scientific arguement. What is wrong with you people?

It isn't a matter of opinion. Morality starts with a few metaphysical claims about the nature of morality, which need to be defended by reason. For example the claim "It's moral because in the bible" would not be a very defensible claim.


Science has nothing to do with morality, only the understanding of natural phenomena.


But science has very much to do with our understanding of how people function. Most moral systems have something to do with the idea of 'wellbeing' or happiness. So what makes a good life? You don't think science has anything to say about what does or does not lead to happiness?


Good point, CA.

I also don't think that there is some ultimate morality that can be scientifically proven to be right, most likely they would look at what is useful for society or so, as is already the case with many laws.

The analogy used in the video is of the rule for chess: "don't let them take your queen". Objectively this is a good rule, even though there are situations where you want your queen to be taken. We don't need "always true" rules.


Morality is simply one or more groups' discourses put into an ethical sphere and labelled as such. The idea that there is one universal morality is deeply flawed (unless of course we add religion into the equation, but seeing as you have discounted that from the outset we do not need to cover it) because morality has changed so much as each society and social group's discourse has been changed. As the discourse changes so too does the morality, which in turn will affect all subsequent discourse and so on. I think you would be hard-pressed to find too many academics who disagree with this general statement, though they would probably frame it differently or along their own discursive lines (or that has been my experience at least).

We don't need one universal morality. We need to be able to say that some moral systems are better than others. Societies can reach a high level individually and in different ways (because culture has a large effect on personality), but they can fail in many more ways.


So, ultimately, the search for an objective morality would suffer from general human advancement and would find itself quickly outdated and vaunted, a relic of a Modern age.

2 cents.

The best moral system for our time might not be the best for a future time. That is not to say that there isn't a best for our time worth striving for. For example, you (CA) might argue that it is wrong for a certain amount of society to be in desperate poverty while a small fraction of a percent are hugely rich. This view may be outdated in a future society that doesn't have poverty problems.

******************************

What I'm saying applies to many areas, but particularly morality, because that's where people are most likely to say "this is my opinion, not up for argument". It absolutely is up for argument. And to argue you need reasoning and facts (which we get from science).

[The Wizard]

Morality is simply one or more groups' discourses put into an ethical sphere and labelled as such. The idea that there is one universal morality is deeply flawed (unless of course we add religion into the equation, but seeing as you have discounted that from the outset we do not need to cover it) because morality has changed so much as each society and social group's discourse has been changed. As the discourse changes so too does the morality, which in turn will affect all subsequent discourse and so on. I think you would be hard-pressed to find too many academics who disagree with this general statement, though they would probably frame it differently or along their own discursive lines (or that has been my experience at least).

Now, the entire field of science is based in Modernity, which is itself simply a broader social discourse that is commonly agreed on by most (if not all) of the major powerful discourses that most people ascribe to. As such looking to apply anything even resembling the scientific method to morality will only find what is considered the most moral thing from the point of view of a Modern society. As society continues to develop away from the search for an 'objective' truth (as it already is) and moves towards a Postmodern society or something resembling it, the morality that is discovered by this scientific method would be proven to be more and more vaunted as other, minor, discourses are examined and given voice and the major discourses change in relation to these and each other. Thus discourses would change and, again, so too would morality. This would only pick up pace as discourse pluralises, as it has for much of the last two centuries. So, ultimately, the search for an objective morality would suffer from general human advancement and would find itself quickly outdated and vaunted, a relic of a Modern age.

2 cents.

Sounds like a pretty radical form of postmodernism you're adhering to, here. That kind of postmodernism has its limits. Not everything is merely competing discourses, some discourses are worth less than others. Compare "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon" to "Martians control the White House". Derrida went a little too far to be taken entirely seriously if you ask me.

As for the OP, I don't think it's quite that bad. Surely the Church no longer has a monopoly on morality? Everything it says can, will, and is challenged. Every single day. As we speak, because that's what we're doing in this very thread. Though this is obviously still not the case in many non-Western societies.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As for the OP, I don't think it's quite that bad. Surely the Church (let alone the mosque) no longer has a monopoly on morality? Everything it says can, will, and is challenged. Every single day. As we speak, because that's what we're doing in this very thread.

It's true that the church doesn't have a monopoly on morality for everyone. But many of the people dispute that in one instance, support something similar another instance. So you get people criticizing the Christian church but still not allowing argument about their personal beliefs.

Religion is the main offender to the extent that it systematically promotes dogmatism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tuff seems to have tripped over himself, so let me try.

The statement:

"My God is Good, is ruler of the Universe, and has commanded this of Me, so it is Right"

Is a perfectly logical and unanswerable statement.

As far as Dogmatism goes, the worst offenders in Western society currently are probably militant atheists; not theists. whether militant atheists count as "religious" or not is a different debate.

However, while I agree that Reason is a central faculty in the application of morality it cannot create the metaphysical concepts which morality ultimately rests on.

Science, on the other hand, is merely a glorified means of measurement; it is inherrently blind and has no place trying to impinge upon moral philosophy.

[The Stranger]

objectivism vs subjectivism... it preceded science and it will outlive scientific system.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"My God is Good, is ruler of the Universe, and has commanded this of Me, so it is Right"

Is a perfectly logical and unanswerable statement.

Being logically consistent is not impressive. Why do you think we cannot reply to logically consistent claims? In other words, just because a statement can't be attacked internally is no reason to say it can't be attacked externally.


As far as Dogmatism goes, the worst offenders in Western society currently are probably militant atheists; not theists. whether militant atheists count as "religious" or not is a different debate.

Arguable, but not particularly relevent. My argument was against Dogmatists, the existence of dogmatic atheists is not an excuse of any kind for religious dogmatists. It's not particularly important which group is the "worst" since answering that would involve complicated statistics and because it's worse to be dogmatic about some things than others. So why did you say that?


However, while I agree that Reason is a central faculty in the application of morality it cannot create the metaphysical concepts which morality ultimately rests on.

I don't think the metaphysical concepts need to be created. Morality viewed as a whole is driving towards a general direction. That part is already in place, it comes from our nature.


Science, on the other hand, is merely a glorified means of measurement; it is inherrently blind and has no place trying to impinge upon moral philosophy.

There are metaphysical moral concepts that measurement is not useful for, but all moral systems get down to the nitty gritty eventually. Part of morality is concerned with human wellbeing, yes? That is a case where science can shine a light.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This is a good idea for a thread. :bow:

I agree, we religious folk should try to put forward more reasoned and logical arguments in order to support our position when it comes to morality. Especially when it comes to the more controversial ones.

For example, few atheists would argue when a Christian says you should not steal, or murder, or whatever. The logic behind such morals are based on the idea of consent, and are necessary to live in any decent society.

But for the more controversial ones that can't be explained through consent, we need to offer other explanations. Such is the case with the condemnation of things like homosexuality, or women having short hair, or sex before marriage etc. In these cases its tougher. I guess you could appeal to some sense of natural law. In the first two examples above, you might say people are going against their responsibilities that come with their position on life, and that such behaviours prevent them from fulfilling their duty or role in society. In the case of sex before marriage, maybe you could say that it demeans something that would otherwise have a more important role in relationships. :shrug:

[Reenk Roink]

Not gonna bother with Sam Harris's talk unless a member here really makes the case that it is important to the discussion (reason being because I skimmed through "The End of Faith" a while back when all the hardcore athiests seemed to be making their cases, and his book was by far the crappiest - Dawkins himself had plenty of poor arguments and flippant rejections of arguments he liked, but there was something about his rhetoric that made his case much better - a kind of self assurance and even cockiness that wasn't angry or hysterical - that's why the man is getting paid and laid despite being an old and dorky British naturalist)


The main point is this: we have the idea in our society that values and morals belong to the "religious sphere/personal sphere" and are matters of opinion. But they should be just as subject to reason and scientific evidence as the laws of physics.

Before we get any further here, you need to define 'reason' and 'scientific evidence' (basically just 'evidence') very clearly. Otherwise the discussion will just meander into semantics. I personally think you're just using reason and evidence as buzzwords, as these words have positive connotations, never mind that nobody knows exactly how the hell they're being used. Given that you started this thread, and seem to have a strong opinion on the matter, the privilege should be yours, and your interlocutors can then use those definitions as a baseline to continue. :bow:

You also have to show how reason and evidence can be applied to values and morals so as to create and/or extract them. This is gonna be a toughy. :wink:


We need to get away from the idea that "I think this is wrong/I think this is right" is a position that does not have to be defended. "My religion teaches that this is moral" is not an argument. We have to understand that our ideas about right and wrong, even if strongly held, can be incorrect, and can possible be shown to be incorrect.

I don't believe people in general have this idea of holding moral positions that aren't defending. In the Backroom itself, you see examples of people making arguments and getting into discussions about certain positions (say abortion) and always defending their positions, even co-opting scientific evidence for example.

"My religion teaches that this is moral" may not be an argument as stated if interpreted in a literal sense, but it is not hard to see that various implicit arguments are present in this statement. As we converse in natural language and not in a formal calculus, one must be aware of such nuances, because if not, an extra step may be needed to lay out the argument in formal terms or strawmen can be constructed.


If we don't acknowledge this, then the atmosphere is one where morality is dogmatic and subjective. I don't feel like laying out the problems inherent in that, but I'll quote an excerpt on credulity:

Dogma is exceptionally important. How could create our systems of mathematics without sets of axioms to start with? How could we make sense of scientific data without the theories through which we interpret them and the necessary metaphysical ideas behind them. And most importantly, how could we work out systems of theology without a basic set of principles of dogma?

As for subjectivity, I can already see you seem to hold some idea of objectivity. :laugh4: Perhaps reachable by "reason" or "evidence". :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I don't feel like laying out the problems inherent in that, but I won't quote anything that actually does attempt to lay out the problems with my view because then it makes my previous assertion somewhat contradicted by my action.

As for your Clifford quote, I note with great regret that you have quoted him twice in a recent timespan now. :sad: The problem with Clifford's argument are threefold:

1) He's just wrong.

Going his argument itself instead of the the substance of it:

I would say he can be summed up as stating: "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"

2) One problem that arises is exactly what the hell he means as evidence, how he determines the necessary and sufficient conditions for this evidence. Billy just used vague but feel good terms along with a type of writing that is just douchebagtistic to make his point. It may be all head nod and feel good for those who want to live the "rational lifestyle" but he really hasn't made clear what the hell he means and how he knows.

3) What is the evidence for the belief: "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"? Bet the big red dog didn't think of that one. :laugh4:


It's probably a natural human tendency and certainly a cultural one. No excuse.

Why is the fact that it may be natural tendency and a cultural one not an excuse for this purported behavior? I'm guessing that you place "reason" and "evidence" above psychological feelings and believe that the should guide our morals and values, am I correct? If so, then why do you do this? Why are these the criteria?

************


It isn't a matter of opinion. Morality starts with a few metaphysical claims about the nature of morality, which need to be defended by reason. For example the claim "It's moral because in the bible" would not be a very defensible claim.

How is it not a matter of opinion first of all? I agree that there are some metaphysical claims about the nature of morality, now then, WHY do these claims need to be "defended by reason" and HOW is "reason" going to "defend" them and WHAT the **** is "reason"?

Now you give a claim that you say is not defensible. I assume you believe that "reason" has not been able to "defend" it. Please show.


But science has very much to do with our understanding of how people function. Most moral systems have something to do with the idea of 'wellbeing' or happiness. So what makes a good life? You don't think science has anything to say about what does or does not lead to happiness?

This is opening another can of worms. I will say that for "science" to "say" stuff about "what makes a good life" requires a certain interpretation of the scientific results which in themselves are not governed by science but rather a set of more primitive beliefs. You could very easily be a scientist and believe the stuff you do has no bearing on the real world because you adopt a particularly skeptical anti-realist view.


I agree, we religious folk should try to put forward more reasoned and logical arguments in order to support our position when it comes to morality. Especially when it comes to the more controversial ones.

Depends on what the position is and what the purpose is. For the purposes of prostelyzation, it seems that nowadays, appeals with logical arguments and scientific results are very convincing to a subset of people, yes. :yes:

Now then Sasaki, I'd like to see your argument in action if you get what I mean. Use your basic principle of morality dealing with leading towards happiness (if this is what it is) and then make a case based on "reason" and "scientific evidence" to purport a moral position. :bow:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Before we get any further here, you need to define 'reason' and 'scientific evidence' (basically just 'evidence') very clearly. Otherwise the discussion will just meander into semantics. I personally think you're just using reason and evidence as buzzwords, as these words have positive connotations, never mind that nobody knows exactly how the hell they're being used. Given that you started this thread, and seem to have a strong opinion on the matter, the privilege should be yours, and your interlocutors can then use those definitions as a baseline to continue. :bow:

If you say: It's going to rain tomorrow
And I say: How do you know that?

Reason and evidence are what you might offer me in answer to my question. You might say "the forecaster said that it was, and he is usually right, this is good enough grounds for me to believe it will rain tomorrow because it is not very important to me either way".

If you were to make a moral statement, and I responded in that way, a response similar to the one above is better than an automatic answer of the "just because" type. That would bypass our mental faculty of reason, and ignore the factual knowledge that can be brought to bear (the importance of factual knowledge is not often clear until we have dug down into the reasons for the reasons why we think something btw).

Beyond that you'll have to start a semantics argument if you want :juggle2:


You also have to show how reason and evidence can be applied to values and morals so as to create and/or extract them. This is gonna be a toughy. :wink:

It is tough. But I don't think values need to be created or extracted. They can be observed, which science and reason do a decent job at. Most moral systems have a goal. A reason for existence, even if it isn't explicitly stated. When you examine it, you see a general theme of promoting things like security and well being. Sometimes our beliefs about what will lead to those things are wrong, which is why basing them on more than faith and tradition is important. You can call happiness and well being buzzwords too if you want, but that's missing the point :beam:


I don't believe people in general have this idea of holding moral positions that aren't defending. In the Backroom itself, you see examples of people making arguments and getting into discussions about certain positions (say abortion) and always defending their positions, even co-opting scientific evidence for example.

Yes, defense is vaguely used here. People often defend their positions with the intent of protecting their beliefs (for example, by co-opting scientific evidence). I was thinking of defend as "provide a foundation for" rather than "assume it is true and work from there". The backroom does pretty well in this regard actually.


"My religion teaches that this is moral" may not be an argument as stated if interpreted in a literal sense, but it is not hard to see that various implicit arguments are present in this statement. As we converse in natural language and not in a formal calculus, one must be aware of such nuances, because if not, an extra step may be needed to lay out the argument in formal terms or strawmen can be constructed.

PVC offered the full argument. But as I said to him, more than logical consistency is required. Speaking of nuances, "argument" has a few :)


Dogma is exceptionally important. How could create our systems of mathematics without sets of axioms to start with? How could we make sense of scientific data without the theories through which we interpret them and the necessary metaphysical ideas behind them. And most importantly, how could we work out systems of theology without a basic set of principles of dogma?

I am talking about what you do when you have axioms that differ. To be dogmatic in that case would be to reject the axiom that you didn't agree. I think you are going off track here Reenk.


As for subjectivity, I can already see you seem to hold some idea of objectivity. :laugh4: Perhaps reachable by "reason" or "evidence". :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I don't feel like laying out the problems inherent in that, but I won't quote anything that actually does attempt to lay out the problems with my view because then it makes my previous assertion somewhat contradicted by my action.

I'm not suggesting that perfection is required.


I would say he can be summed up as stating: "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence"

2) One problem that arises is exactly what the hell he means as evidence, how he determines the necessary and sufficient conditions for this evidence.

It's been a while, but I remember him laying out what conditions he thinks are sufficient. But remember, perfection is not required.



Why is the fact that it may be natural tendency and a cultural one not an excuse for this purported behavior? I'm guessing that you place "reason" and "evidence" above psychological feelings and believe that the should guide our morals and values, am I correct? If so, then why do you do this? Why are these the criteria?

Not an excuse, because some people are wrong and believe in doing things that are immoral, based on false beliefs they have. Our psychological feelings should be influenced by reason and evidence.

************************

Don't strawman me :stare:

I am arguing for a superior process. I don't have an axe to grind, so remember, any minor points in favor of faith you bring up (in a reasoned or evidential manner) are supporting my argument, because then the process is working :bounce:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How is it not a matter of opinion first of all? I agree that there are some metaphysical claims about the nature of morality, now then, WHY do these claims need to be "defended by reason" and HOW is "reason" going to "defend" them and WHAT the **** is "reason"?

Here's a metaphysical claim: morality doesn't exist
Another claim: morality exists

They contradict each other, so how can it be a matter of opinion?

Don't you think there are moral claims that a wrong, and are based off of faulty reasoning?


Now you give a claim that you say is not defensible. I assume you believe that "reason" has not been able to "defend" it. Please show.

I talked about what I meant by defensible in my last post. But I think this is a sidetrack Reenk. We can argue about whether taking moral principles from a book without questioning them is a good thing some other time :book:


This is opening another can of worms. I will say that for "science" to "say" stuff about "what makes a good life" requires a certain interpretation of the scientific results which in themselves are not governed by science but rather a set of more primitive beliefs. You could very easily be a scientist and believe the stuff you do has no bearing on the real world because you adopt a particularly skeptical anti-realist view.

And that is why I specifically paired science and reason. One can reasonably argue against extreme skepticism.



Now then Sasaki, I'd like to see your argument in action if you get what I mean. Use your basic principle of morality dealing with leading towards happiness (if this is what it is) and then make a case based on "reason" and "scientific evidence" to purport a moral position. :bow:

I don't quite get what you mean. You want an example where someone uses reason to purport a moral position? And for it to be compared to an example where someone is unreasonable? Why would you care about anecdotes? You could theoretically be a perfect moral being without any reasoning at all to back it up. The bible could theoretically be the ultimate source of morality. I'm talking about how we should try and determine if it is or not. You have to be willing to put yourself through the intellectual meatgrinder, no?

[Reenk Roink]

First off Sasaki, given your clarifications of what you meant in this post, your characterizations against the examples of arguments like "My religion teaches that this is moral" are just wrong, because your own definition of reason is so incredibly broad (despite getting the chance to narrow it down). You said later that "logically consistent is not impressive" but that means nothing, because according to your own idea, it is a reason to believe whatever.


Reason and evidence are what you might offer me in answer to my question. You might say "the forecaster said that it was, and he is usually right, this is good enough grounds for me to believe it will rain tomorrow because it is not very important to me either way".

If you were to make a moral statement, and I responded in that way, a response similar to the one above is better than an automatic answer of the "just because" type. That would bypass our mental faculty of reason, and ignore the factual knowledge that can be brought to bear (the importance of factual knowledge is not often clear until we have dug down into the reasons for the reasons why we think something btw).

A truly colloquial sense of the word?

So is it fair to say you essentially want an response based on just about anything instead of a simple assertion?

To that I'd argue that both accomplish the same thing in epistemic terms, the simple assertion being more concise. :beam: That being said, I'll agree with you that in rhetorical terms giving "reasons" or "evidence" seems to be more convincing. For example, when I stated I would dismiss Harris, I had a little "reason being" thingy, because I didn't want people to just jump on me and go :furious3:.

Needless to say, I absolutely disagree with your belief that: "a response similar to the one above is better than an automatic answer of the "just because" type" if better is in the context of epistemic virtue. If "better" is in the context of some pragmatic or other virtue then it depends. As I've mentioned, making your belief supported with some logical argument based on premises with scientific stuff sometimes is of rhetorical value in certain cases. Then again, by that same token, a "just because" response is much better if you are in a different context when you aren't bored and willing to argue with someone you see no point in convincing anyway.


It is tough. But I don't think values need to be created or extracted. They can be observed, which science and reason do a decent job at. Most moral systems have a goal. A reason for existence, even if it isn't explicitly stated. When you examine it, you see a general theme of promoting things like security and well being. Sometimes our beliefs about what will lead to those things are wrong, which is why basing them on more than faith and tradition is important. You can call happiness and well being buzzwords too if you want, but that's missing the point :beam:

Damn, I was waiting for you to bring an example of using reason and evidence so that I could bring up the problem with the vaguely defined goals of happiness and well being. :laugh4:

I'll argue that while part of moral systems existence may appear to be to promote some goal (leave exactly what the goal vague for your sake now), it's not their main virtue - rather it is a derived virtue from the actual main virtue. Consider religious moral systems, which seem to be the biggest target of your discussion by your own admission. It would be arguable, that the moral system based on these religions is not primarily to make life happy or easier or whatever for people, rather it is voluntarist divine fiat (Catholics are a notable exception to this theory of morality). The well being of people and the rules designed to that effect may come out of the divine will, but it's hard to say that they are the goal themselves.

What do you think? It seems you believe in a moral theory based on principles of leading to well being. There are alternatives to it, and furthermore, they look to be widely realizable and widely realized?

For a secular look: utilitarian ethics are the only ones which can be said to be based on a goal (of course the problem of defining that goal still exists). Duty free and virtue seem to be unconcerned with goals.

I think you're ignoring much when you say "Most moral systems have a goal." I guess if you were able to show that most people are utilitarian in their approach it would be one thing, but imma bet against that, also, I'm not utilitarian myself so a discussion targeted towards me should take that into account.


I was thinking of defend as "provide a foundation for" rather than "assume it is true and work from there". The backroom does pretty well in this regard actually.

I am talking about what you do when you have axioms that differ. To be dogmatic in that case would be to reject the axiom that you didn't agree.

Here's the crux of the issue. I'll keep it short for now though I have a lot to say:

How would you choose (defend) on the basis of reason and science, between these axioms?

1) I believe in utilitarian ethics (goal geared)
2) I believe in deontological ethics (not goal geared)

or

1) I believe in the moral authority of so and so's sayings
2) I don't believe in the moral authority of so and so's sayings


It's been a while, but I remember him laying out what conditions he thinks are sufficient. But remember, perfection is not required.

I'm fairly sure he did too (which is why I made point 3 :beam:). But the problem is what if someone doesn't accept those conditions?

Also, perfection in the matter is irrelevant, dunno why you're bringing it up. The idea of your beliefs having to be based on "reason and evidence" or otherwise you are unethical/wrong/worse is.


Our psychological feelings should be influenced by reason and evidence.

What is the reason and evidence for this belief? Also, I believe out psychological feelings should not be influenced by reason and evidence.


Don't strawman me :stare:

I am arguing for a superior process. I don't have an axe to grind, so remember, any minor points in favor of faith you bring up (in a reasoned or evidential manner) are supporting my argument, because then the process is working :bounce:

I'm not trying to strawman you (this isn't Mafia :beam:). But I'll admit I had a hard time grasping what you were talking about until this reply. I don't believe your process is superior at all by the way. In the way I originally envisioned it, I thought it was inferior to the same. In the way of your process working at the level of meta beliefs or beliefs about beliefs (as you seem to be saying now) I say your process is just useless.

Lastly, just because I am indulging you by giving you arguments in a reasoned or evidential manner does not at all show the superiority of your process. I am using the process it for pragmatic reasons, epistemically, it is the same whether I do this or quote your post and say :no:.

Say guy 1 goes to guy 2 and then gives him a logical argument that we should be skeptical of logic. Guy 1 shows that the axiom of the principle of non contradiction is not derived through a valid syntactical form (actually it can, by doing a circular P therefore P form :beam: which is a perfectly valid argument, Aristotle and his crappy game be damned, but for the purposes of discussion let's say both guys exclude that avenue).

Guy 2 is a smartass and so he, feeling very good about himself, remarks, "But in your argument you used logic yourself... lololol nub gtfo!"

Guy 1 though just says, "Still doesn't prove that we have any logical reason to believe the principle so NO U!"

Guy 2 says "stupid map u h4xor!" and rage quits.


Here's a metaphysical claim: morality doesn't exist
Another claim: morality exists

They contradict each other, so how can it be a matter of opinion?

Another one: morality exists and doesn't exist (yes I went there :beam:).

Another: it is not possible to know whether morality exists or not.

I'm not understanding you here, why does it matter if they contradict themselves? It's still a matter of opinion.


Don't you think there are moral claims that a wrong, and are based off of faulty reasoning?

Of course I think moral claims are wrong. Faulty reasoning has nothing to do with the truth value of any claim anyway so it's irrelevant.


You have to be willing to put yourself through the intellectual meatgrinder, no?

Why? Why is this such an important virtue to you? I really don't understand the appeal of having beliefs based on reason, don't understand why people think it makes them superior in anyway.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But I'll admit I had a hard time grasping what you were talking about until this reply. I don't believe your process is superior at all by the way. In the way I originally envisioned it, I thought it was inferior to the same. In the way of your process working at the level of meta beliefs or beliefs about beliefs (as you seem to be saying now) I say your process is just useless.

It's not clear what you are really proposing. If we were discussing the morality of drunk driving, you think a conversation of just :no:'s or :yes:'s would have as much merit as one of reasoned arguments?

You spend a lot of time pointing out the difficulty inherent in determining things with reason and science. I have suggested that these are the best tools we have, and saying that we should use them rather than not use them. What you'd propose as an alternative isn't clear...some sort of instinct? That would be disengenuous, because when you judge a claim instinctively you are relying on a vast foundation of past reasoning and science. You are using your reading comprehension and understanding of logic right now, these all effect your psychological feelings, even if you think they shouldn't. You don't have a choice.


So is it fair to say you essentially want an response based on just about anything instead of a simple assertion?

What makes you say that? This would imply that I would like gibberish rather than an assertion. I don't mind assertions per se, my complaint is about the assumption that certain types of assertions are just opinion, and don't have to be reasonable and can contradict facts.

Why do you think including reason and evidence with a statement makes it more convincing, but at the same time doesn't give it any more merit? Do we just not process the worth of the reasoning? That's very counter intuitive.


It would be arguable, that the moral system based on these religions is not primarily to make life happy or easier or whatever for people, rather it is voluntarist divine fiat (Catholics are a notable exception to this theory of morality). The well being of people and the rules designed to that effect may come out of the divine will, but it's hard to say that they are the goal themselves.


But why do people base a moral system on a divine fiat? I think this question eventually works out to "what is the best life". I am suggesting human nature as the guideline, not just the current moral systems.

As you say, this ignores much. I don't have a good feel for why people believe in systems with a different goal. Don't really comprehend it.


1) I believe in utilitarian ethics (goal geared)
2) I believe in deontological ethics (not goal geared)

Again not that familiar with the ins and outs, but...

What is the purpose of a system of ethics that doesn't have a goal? What reasons would you provide for why the rules you have are rules? I would bet they come from human nature, that seems like a solid bet? There aren't going to be any rules that nobody would ever consider breaking, most likely.

I think you can argue that if everyone wants, deep down, something like well being, then morality should be focused on that.



1) I believe in the moral authority of so and so's sayings
2) I don't believe in the moral authority of so and so's sayings

History has provided no one who is considered infallible, morality is not constant, and so... :book:


What is the reason and evidence for this belief? Also, I believe out psychological feelings should not be influenced by reason and evidence.


So if you are worried about something, and then provided with evidence that there is nothing to worry about, this shouldn't affect your feelings?


Lastly, just because I am indulging you by giving you arguments in a reasoned or evidential manner does not at all show the superiority of your process. I am using the process it for pragmatic reasons, epistemically, it is the same whether I do this or quote your post and say :no:

Pragmatic reasons? :tongue3:

You can't escape the process Reenk. You use it unconsciously.


I'm not understanding you here, why does it matter if they contradict themselves? It's still a matter of opinion.

This ignores the nuance of what "a matter of opinion" is. That implies an "agree to disagree, see ya" approach.


Of course I think moral claims are wrong. Faulty reasoning has nothing to do with the truth value of any claim anyway so it's irrelevant.

Don't you think people believe in false moral claims because of faulty reasoning?


Why? Why is this such an important virtue to you? I really don't understand the appeal of having beliefs based on reason, don't understand why people think it makes them superior in anyway.

You say you don't have beliefs based on reasoning? But if they were taught to you without reasoning, someone still reasoned them out. You have many beliefs shared by society at large don't you? Those are all based on reasoning.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I don't understand this thread or even half of all those arguments and difficult words people use. ~:mecry:

[Myrddraal]

It seems you believe in a moral theory based on principles of leading to well being. There are alternatives to it, and furthermore, they look to be widely realizable and widely realized?

Exactly. Scientific process can be applied to morality once you decide a set of moral rules, but it cannot be used to determined what the 'right' set of moral rules are, because this is entirely subjective.

You could argue that you will determine the 'right' cause of action by examining each alternative and scientifically measuring the benefit or cost to society, but not only is the benefit to society subjective, the whole principle is subjective. Who says you should benefit society? I may be a psycopath and believe the the only 'right' is my own pleasure, and that the only 'wrongs' are things I dislike. This is a moral system of sorts, and who is to say, scientifically, that it is 'wrong'? We can all agree that this moral code is flawed, but what are we basing this opinion on but our own subjective opinions. We may even all agree, but this does not make it any more scientifically correct.

By the way I think your OP is really interesting, and right on many points, but it has it's limits and I fail to see what this has to do with morality. What the article is saying is that we should never be absolutely satisfied with any of our beliefs, that we should always be examining them to ensure that we are not decieving ourselves, and that lies breed lies, self-deception breeds deception. But at the end of the day, some things against which we must test our philosophy will be subjective. Scientific method cannot solve everything. (One could argue that scientific method solves or decides nothing, merely observes and models behaviour)




To change tack slightly: you seem to be particularly trying to get at religious dogma, and whether it is unacceptable to follow a set of moral just because somebody told you that it was right. I find it very interesting that you used predicting the weather as an example of scientific reasoning.


If you say: It's going to rain tomorrow
And I say: How do you know that?

Reason and evidence are what you might offer me in answer to my question. You might say "the forecaster said that it was, and he is usually right, this is good enough grounds for me to believe it will rain tomorrow because it is not very important to me either way".

I think the logic is more like: "the forecaster said it was, and he is qualified to make such judgements", in other words deferal to authority. It is based on a reasoned decision by yourself, but it is a deferal nonetheless. It's the same as not crossing a bridge because an Engineer has deemed it unsafe. The Engineer is qualified to make such judgements, therefore you defer to his authority.

The same logic applies to religious organisations. Most religious people have not read any significant part of their respective holy books, however they respect the authority of those in their church, who have dedicated their lives to determining the will of God. I know several clergymen who are as sharp as razor blades. How could I critise their congregation for defering to them on moral matters? After all, if they believe in a benevolant God, and these intelligent, apparently trustworthy people who have dedicated their lives to the study fo this God teach a set of morals based on their studies, why not defer to their authority?

You could argue that deferal to authority is in itself 'bad', but the world is to complex for us to understand it all in infinite detail. We all must defer to authority at some point, and we all do. Just because you don't believe in God does not make deferal to dogma any less valid than your deferal to an Engineer. After all, I could say that I don't believe in the laws of physics, but I couldn't critise you personally, as someone who does believe in the law of physics, for not investigating how those laws relate to this bridge apparently being unstable. After all, an Engineer who has studied physics has advised you that according to these false laws of physics which you believe exist, the bridge is unsafe.

[Myrddraal]

Hmm, re-reading my post above I don't think I'm being entirely clear, but hopefully you get this jist of what I'm trying to express.

EDIT:

You spend a lot of time pointing out the difficulty inherent in determining things with reason and science. I have suggested that these are the best tools we have, and saying that we should use them rather than not use them.

Just to be a little clearer, the first line of my last post is addressing this point. Logical reasoning and science can be used to explore a set of moral rules and apply them to specific cases. logical reasonging and science can also be used to try to determine what the majority 'moral code' is, but they cannot be used to determine what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'.

Science observes and models.

[Reenk Roink]

The full response is spoilered below Sasaki, however that discussion is meandering.

This is probably the main point of your thread:


my complaint is about the assumption that certain types of assertions are just opinion, and don't have to be reasonable and can contradict facts.

Further supported with:


We need to get away from the idea that "I think this is wrong/I think this is right" is a position that does not have to be defended.


From the dogmatic religious zealot to the outraged cultural relativist, this attitude infects much of our politics and has even seeped into the backroom at times :p

The problem with your complaint seems to be that because of the exceedingly broad way you previously used the word 'reason', all of these so called assertions that are just opinion and don't have to be reasonable and contradict facts actually have "reasons" for them. So under that use of the word, you should have no complaint. Every individual opinion and point of religious dogma fits your definition of 'reason'.

Under that use of the word, this statement:


"My religion teaches that this is moral" is not an argument.

Is false. It is most likely an argument, as it most likely has reasons for it (implicit they may be).

However, you also seemed to have a nuanced view of reason when you wrote your thread tile of "Morality belongs to Science and Reason, not Religion or Individual Opinion" seemingly excluding religion and individual opinion from "reason". You further showed this view when you responded to someone pointing out the logical consistency of a claim by saying:


Being logically consistent is not impressive. Why do you think we cannot reply to logically consistent claims? In other words, just because a statement can't be attacked internally is no reason to say it can't be attacked externally.

So from all of this, I think it can be gathered that you do not consider logical consistency to be a sufficient criterion for "reason" when discussing morality.

Now then, which one is it? So I can see exactly in which way I disagree with you. :laugh4:


If we were discussing the morality of drunk driving, you think a conversation of just :no:'s or :yes:'s would have as much merit as one of reasoned arguments?

Depends but the general answer with respect to epistemic merit is yes, of course. To simplify, assuming the basic rules of logic: (given a certain context) there's a right option a wrong option with the drunk driving scenario. Just because one makes a reasoned argument for the wrong option does not make the incorrect option. Similarly, just because one makes a reasoned argument for the right option does not give it any more merit. Just because we do more than go :yes: and :no: in our discussions doesn't mean all the extra crap we do really matters.


You spend a lot of time pointing out the difficulty inherent in determining things with reason and science. I have suggested that these are the best tools we have, and saying that we should use them rather than not use them. What you'd propose as an alternative isn't clear...some sort of instinct? That would be disengenuous, because when you judge a claim instinctively you are relying on a vast foundation of past reasoning and science. You are using your reading comprehension and understanding of logic right now, these all effect your psychological feelings, even if you think they shouldn't. You don't have a choice.

They aren't, mysticism is the best tool for knowledge (there's a difference between say gut feeling and mysticism - your gut is just basically your ideas coming from that vast foundations, blah blah, blah, but mystical intuition is a totally different game, not relying on any of that junk).

As I've mentioned before, does the fact that I don't have a choice validate the tools whatsoever? Just because I'm forced to use them, I want to tell myself they're good? The guy 1/guy 2 example comes up.


Why do you think including reason and evidence with a statement makes it more convincing, but at the same time doesn't give it any more merit? Do we just not process the worth of the reasoning? That's very counter intuitive.

It sometimes makes it more convincing, because many people seem to put a great weight, and so if your bring up reasons to boost your rhetoric, you may convince someone, or manipulate someone, which can be very handy. :2thumbsup:

Sometimes it doesn't. All depending on the rhetorical context.


But why do people base a moral system on a divine fiat? I think this question eventually works out to "what is the best life". I am suggesting human nature as the guideline, not just the current moral systems.

Well, I don't know. They seem to believe in god and it goes from their in whatever way.


What is the purpose of a system of ethics that doesn't have a goal? What reasons would you provide for why the rules you have are rules? I would bet they come from human nature, that seems like a solid bet? There aren't going to be any rules that nobody would ever consider breaking, most likely.

I think you can argue that if everyone wants, deep down, something like well being, then morality should be focused on that.

Sure, but I think a goals orientated ethics doesn't work. :shrug:


History has provided no one who is considered infallible, morality is not constant, and so... :book:

There are many people in history considered infallible... The second part of your statement is just a contradicting assertion. Finally! Well done! :2thumbsup:


So if you are worried about something, and then provided with evidence that there is nothing to worry about, this shouldn't affect your feelings?

"Also, I believe out psychological feelings should not be influenced by reason and evidence."


Pragmatic reasons? :tongue3:

You can't escape the process Reenk. You use it unconsciously.

First, see point about how you've been sloppy in using the world 'reason'. Second, as I've mentioned before, though I may not be able to escape the "process", my using it gives it no merit whatsoever. See guy 1 and guy 2 on logic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Exactly. Scientific process can be applied to morality once you decide a set of moral rules, but it cannot be used to determined what the 'right' set of moral rules are, because this is entirely subjective.

Well, the strength of that position is that it avoids having to determine some kind of moral system that would have to be defended. The weakness is that it makes it harder to call terrorism wrong--since it's subjective. Except it doesn't leave you unable, because people only believe morality is subjective on an intellectual level.

I think you can argue for objective morality if you assume that morality is goal focused. Let's compare it to medicine. If we start with the assumption that the purpose of medicine is to keep people healthy, then we can objectively compare medical practices. If we don't start with that assumption, then we can't, right? But why on earth would we think that medicine isn't about health?

So if we assume that morality is focused on keeping society "healthy" (<--vague, mind you) then we can objectively compare systems of morality. Although there can be more than one way to keep society "healthy".


You could argue that you will determine the 'right' cause of action by examining each alternative and scientifically measuring the benefit or cost to society, but not only is the benefit to society subjective, the whole principle is subjective. Who says you should benefit society? I may be a psycopath and believe the the only 'right' is my own pleasure, and that the only 'wrongs' are things I dislike. This is a moral system of sorts, and who is to say, scientifically, that it is 'wrong'? We can all agree that this moral code is flawed, but what are we basing this opinion on but our own subjective opinions. We may even all agree, but this does not make it any more scientifically correct.

This is a good argument, and I wouldn't expect to convince a psychopath. But if we define morality as a system for society as a whole, abnormal individuals don't have an effect on it. I think "who says it should benefit society?" is reaching too far into skepticism.


By the way I think your OP is really interesting, and right on many points, but it has it's limits and I fail to see what this has to do with morality. What the article is saying is that we should never be absolutely satisfied with any of our beliefs, that we should always be examining them to ensure that we are not decieving ourselves, and that lies breed lies, self-deception breeds deception. But at the end of the day, some things against which we must test our philosophy will be subjective. Scientific method cannot solve everything. (One could argue that scientific method solves or decides nothing, merely observes and models behaviour)

To change tack slightly: you seem to be particularly trying to get at religious dogma, and whether it is unacceptable to follow a set of moral just because somebody told you that it was right. I find it very interesting that you used predicting the weather as an example of scientific reasoning.

Moral beliefs are one kind of belief, one that people hold particularly strongly. I chose predicting weather very specifically, because it is quite inexact, and I wanted to get away from the assumption that perfection is required.



I think the logic is more like: "the forecaster said it was, and he is qualified to make such judgements", in other words deferal to authority. It is based on a reasoned decision by yourself, but it is a deferal nonetheless. It's the same as not crossing a bridge because an Engineer has deemed it unsafe. The Engineer is qualified to make such judgements, therefore you defer to his authority.

The same logic applies to religious organisations. Most religious people have not read any significant part of their respective holy books, however they respect the authority of those in their church, who have dedicated their lives to determining the will of God.

I did lay out a caveat--he is trusting the weatherman because it doesn't matter much to him if it rains or not. Presumably if it did matter a lot more, he would take extra measures.

Clifford deals with this as well:


The goodness and greatness of a man do not justify us in accepting a belief upon the warrant of his authority, unless there are reasonable grounds for supposing that he knew the truth of what he was saying. And there can be no grounds for supposing that a man knows that which we, without ceasing to be men, could not be supposed to verify.

If a chemist tells me, who am no chemist, that a certain substance can be made by putting together other substances in certain proportions and subjecting them to a known process, I am quite justified in believing this upon his authority, unless I know anything against his character or his judgment. For his professional training is one which tends to encourage veracity and the honest pursuit of truth, and to produce a dislike of hasty conclusions and slovenly investigation. And I have reasonable ground for supposing that he knows the truth of what he is saying, for although I am no chemist, I can be made to understand so much of the methods and processes of the science as makes it conceivable to me that, without ceasing to be man, I might verify the statement.

But if my chemist tells me that an atom of oxygen has existed unaltered in weight and rate of vibration throughout all time I have no right to believe this on his authority, for it is a thing which he cannot know without ceasing to be man.

The case of the weatherman and the engineer is quite similar. We can reasonably defer to their authority.

Can we defer to the authority of clergymen? Unfortunately not, which is part of the point of this thread. The engineer uses science and reasoning in his craft, and is questioned and must defend his decisions. The clergyman uses reasoning to the extent that he decides which part of the teachings he will accept vs what he will take from society. It is not the same rigorous atmosphere. When you are wrong in science and math it is often obvious--with the weather especially. Not so in moral theory, and religion has its biases.


You could argue that deferal to authority is in itself 'bad', but the world is to complex for us to understand it all in infinite detail. We all must defer to authority at some point, and we all do.

No argument from me. When we have no better option we must do so. Very often people do so when it is a bad option however.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So from all of this, I think it can be gathered that you do not consider logical consistency to be a sufficient criterion for "reason" when discussing morality.

Well yeah. Logical consistency is good, but why would it be sufficient? You can argue that all of life is a dream and no mind independent objects exist, and be logically consistent. In fact, people who assume that just because they are logically consistent, they are being reasonable, cause a lot of problems. I heard a talk from someone who used to be in a cult once, and the mindset they had there was "so and so is always right"-->"he said do this"-->"therefore it is right to do this".


The problem with your complaint seems to be that because of the exceedingly broad way you previously used the word 'reason', all of these so called assertions that are just opinion and don't have to be reasonable and contradict facts actually have "reasons" for them. So under that use of the word, you should have no complaint. Every individual opinion and point of religious dogma fits your definition of 'reason'.

I think I am using the words quite normally ...perhaps you are the problem :inquisitive:

I probably use it sloppily, but I also use the wrong "their" a lot, and type "the" instead of "they".


They aren't, mysticism is the best tool for knowledge (there's a difference between say gut feeling and mysticism - your gut is just basically your ideas coming from that vast foundations, blah blah, blah, but mystical intuition is a totally different game, not relying on any of that junk).

Second, as I've mentioned before, though I may not be able to escape the "process", my using it gives it no merit whatsoever. See guy 1 and guy 2 on logic.

So what if I say my mystical intuition says that you are wrong? Is that the same as the 1 and 2 logic guys?

[Myrddraal]

The goodness and greatness of a man do not justify us in accepting a belief upon the warrant of his authority, unless there are reasonable grounds for supposing that he knew the truth of what he was saying.

I think this is wrong in a subtle but important way. As you said yourself, absolute truth is not necessary. If an Engineer declares that a bridge must not be used, he could be operating with industry standard margins of error. It may be quite possible that the bridge was carry heavy traffic in a storm, but in his professional judgement it is too risky. We defer to his authority because he has studied the problem, and there is a risk of disaster according to his judgement.

You (and Clifford) are both making very strong and detailed arguments to back up what should be obvious to everyone: saying it is so does not make it so. However I think you are approaching this argument with the thought in the back of you head: "God does not exist, therefore dedicating your life to the study of God gives you no authority". If you start with the opposite assumption, then a clergyman has a great deal of authority, as he has dedicated his life in search of the truth of God's intentions. True, study of God is less rigourous almost by definition, in that it is harder to test empirically, but that does not mean that clergymen (many of which are much more intelligent than myself, and possibly you too) do not approach the problem with the same rigourous attitude. So dare I say it, the implicit attack on organised religion and the clergy boils down to the question of wether God exists or not, which, let's face it, we're probably tired of arguing about in the Backroom. Of course if we take the Christian belief, then Jesus has moral authority beyond that which any man can obtain without ceasing to be man, but that's an aside. :smile:


Can we defer to the authority of clergymen? Unfortunately not, which is part of the point of this thread.
I guess that my argument is that your case is strong to the point of undeniable as it builds up the argument that self-deception does not justify deception, but it breaks down here. The fact that an Engineer studies Engineering and a clergyman studies God does not give one more authority than the other in their given field, unless you begin by saying that the study of God is invalid. Saying that religion is less rigorous by its nature isn't enough to make this point imo, you are jumping to a conclusion without filling in the gap (does God exist).

I guess that's what my point about the physics denier is: as a physics denier I cannot deny your authority in matter of physics, even though I don't believe that physics is real. Now get your tongue around that :tongue:
So as an atheist, you can say that the Bible does not affect your morals, but you cannot use the same argument to denounce dogma and the 'moral authority' of clergy for those who do believe.

At the end of the day, it makes very little practical difference. Most theists believe in a benevolant God who wants the best for humanity. Most people believe that what is 'right' is what is 'best' for 'society'. We (both atheist and theist) can certainly apply scientific methodology in exploring (and modelling/codifying?) what this means.

As for filling in that gap, perhaps another time, and as for the core of your argument, it's very true, almost obvious when you explain it, but also very easy to loose sight of.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You (and Clifford) are both making very strong and detailed arguments to back up what should be obvious to everyone: saying it is so does not make it so. However I think you are approaching this argument with the thought in the back of you head: "God does not exist, therefore dedicating your life to the study of God gives you no authority".

So dare I say it, the implicit attack on organised religion and the clergy boils down to the question of wether God exists or not, which, let's face it, we're probably tired of arguing about in the Backroom.

I know I approach it with the assumption that God doesn't exist. But god is just one of many things that we don't have grounds to believe. If I study engineering for years, I can eventually be in a position to verify whether or not the Engineer is correct in his claim. If I study religion and the bible for years, I will not be in a position to verify whether or not God exists.


The fact that an Engineer studies Engineering and a clergyman studies God does not give one more authority than the other in their given field, unless you begin by saying that the study of God is invalid.

Ah, but I am denying that morality is in the field of religion. So the given field of a clergyman is simply whichever religion he is involved in, and he may certainly be an expert on Christianity. That does not make him a moral expert. You wouldn't go to an Engineer when you needed a physics authority, would you? This is in addition to the verifiability point. It is possible for a clergyman to be a moral expert of course.



At the end of the day, it makes very little practical difference. Most theists believe in a benevolant God who wants the best for humanity. Most people believe that what is 'right' is what is 'best' for 'society'. We (both atheist and theist) can certainly apply scientific methodology in exploring (and modelling/codifying?) what this means.

I agree that they can, but there is a trend of believing that they don't need to.

[jabarto]

As far as Dogmatism goes, the worst offenders in Western society currently are probably militant atheists; not theists.

Er...in what way? I mean, you don't see many atheists bombing abortions clinics, do you?

[Myrddraal]

Hmm, but morality is not really a field of study, it is an abstract concept to describe how we think we 'should' (in the vaguest sense) behave. You are denying that morality is in the field of religion, but if there is a divine, all-powerful, benevolant, personal being then behaving as they would want us to seems like a pretty sensible moral code to me. You can deny that religion has no say in your morals, but you can't say so without denying the existance of this devine being. Likewise, a Christian cannot deny the moral authority of his religion without denying the existance of the Christian God. So again the fundemental question is about the existance of God. Since we are not going to prove the non-existance of God any more than we are going to prove his existance you cannot say (with any universal authority) that religion has no place in discussions of morality. It clearly does, since the question of the existance of God almost dictates the fundemental axioms behind morality.

Of course I'm of the opinion that whatever the axioms we choose to base our decisions of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' most people will reach codified forms of morality which are all rather similar.
If one person says that we must do as a benevolant God would want us to do, and another says we must do what is 'best' for 'society', the argument is pretty academic.

[Myrddraal]

Hmm hmm. You say:

there is a trend of believing that they don't need to.
It's certainly true that some people defer totally to the authority of their religion without giving it much thought. That's not an ideal situation I agree, but at the end of the day, if the person they defer to has honestly dedicated their life to exploring the truth of their religion then is that a major problem? If the person they defer to is maliciously trying to mislead them, that's another matter altogether, regardless of the rights or wrongs of their faith.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Morality is actually a pretty big field of study; being one of the four `all time greats' of Philosophy. It's more commonly known as `ethics'.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hmm, but morality is not really a field of study, it is an abstract concept to describe how we think we 'should' (in the vaguest sense) behave. You are denying that morality is in the field of religion, but if there is a divine, all-powerful, benevolant, personal being then behaving as they would want us to seems like a pretty sensible moral code to me. You can deny that religion has no say in your morals, but you can't say so without denying the existance of this devine being. Likewise, a Christian cannot deny the moral authority of his religion without denying the existance of the Christian God. So again the fundemental question is about the existance of God. Since we are not going to prove the non-existance of God any more than we are going to prove his existance you cannot say (with any universal authority) that religion has no place in discussions of morality. It clearly does, since the question of the existance of God almost dictates the fundemental axioms behind morality.

Ok. But if the world doesn't exist independent of my mind [insert logically consistent argument for that here], then I am the only living thing, and therefore it's only sensible for a moral code to be centered around me. There are many things that could dictate the fundamental axioms behind morality. So, religion has a place in discussions of morality only because it happens to be something that a lot of people believe in.


Of course I'm of the opinion that whatever the axioms we choose to base our decisions of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' most people will reach codified forms of morality which are all rather similar.
If one person says that we must do as a benevolant God would want us to do, and another says we must do what is 'best' for 'society', the argument is pretty academic.

If they both agree the difference is academic. But in practice they disagree, yes? And that's where the problem of dogmatism fits in. If I'm passionate about what's best for society I might reject new ideas that don't fit my image of it, and if I'm devoutly religious I might do the same if they don't fit my image of God.


It's certainly true that some people defer totally to the authority of their religion without giving it much thought. That's not an ideal situation I agree, but at the end of the day, if the person they defer to has honestly dedicated their life to exploring the truth of their religion then is that a major problem? If the person they defer to is maliciously trying to mislead them, that's another matter altogether, regardless of the rights or wrongs of their faith.

This is true, but isn't quite the trend I was thinking off. Often even the people who don't defer to the authority of society or a religion have the idea that morality is a closed book.

[Myrddraal]

Morality is actually a pretty big field of study; being one of the four `all time greats' of Philosophy. It's more commonly known as `ethics'.

Good point :bow: but I was trying to reply to Sasaki's point "You wouldn't go to an Engineer when you needed a physics authority, would you". Just because you are a clergyman doesn't prevent you being a 'Moralist' (or something :tongue:). I should have answered by agreeing with his point about "It is possible for a clergyman to be a moral expert of course". If the clergyman believes that God exists, it is practically in his job description to study morals.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't mean to hate on the clergy, certainly. A lot of moral philosophy has been done by religious people, heck 2000+ years worth. But it has to stand on its own merits.

[Myrddraal]

So, religion has a place in discussions of morality only because it happens to be something that a lot of people believe in.
Agreed, but why the 'only'? Is that not a reason as valid as your own opinion? (if not more so for the fact that many people believe it)


If I'm passionate about what's best for society I might reject new ideas that don't fit my image of it, and if I'm devoutly religious I might do the same if they don't fit my image of God.
I don't think your argument was about whether or not God existed, but rather whether or not (regardless of the existance of a God) religion should have any say in morals. If those who are religious are thorough in their approach to religion, question their faith, do not decieve themselves and truely believe, what's the problem? You may disagree with their view, but if we are all being honest with ourselves and each other I don't see how you can 'invalidate' the religious person's point of view without debating the existance of God.


Essentially my problem with this whole thread is this: You article argues very convincingly that decieving yourself invalidates your moral authority. It (and you) go on to say that therefore religions have no moral authority. The leap between those two statements is that religion is ridiculous, and you have to decieve yourself to be religious.

In other words, "I don't believe in God and my reasoning is obvious and infallible. These people who believe in God have been brainwashed, decieved and are decieving themselves *. Therefore they have no moral authority. Therefore the scientific** approach to morality is my idea of morality: to do what is 'best' for 'society'."

* I disagree with this point, some people genuinely believe in their relgion, and constantly and rigourously question their own beliefs.
** I strongly disagree with this point. There is nothing scientific about deciding that morality should be based on what is 'best' for 'society'. This is entirely subjective. We can only be scientific in our approach to morality once we have got past this stage of defining the basis or axiom on which we are going to build our moral code.

EDIT: Both atheist and theist can be equally scientific in their approach once this is done, indeed one could argue that this is what the clergy do.

[Myrddraal]

It's six o'clock in the :daisy: morning. What have you done to me? I know I shouldn't put the blame on you for this, but if we hadn't been discussing the rights and wrongs of morality, I would be in bed by now. I propose a new basis for the determination of morals: the right thing to do is to go to bed. Now.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Agreed, but why the 'only'? Is that not a reason as valid as your own opinion? (if not more so for the fact that many people believe it)

But, my belief in what I say does not make what I say valid.


I don't think your argument was about whether or not God existed, but rather whether or not (regardless of the existance of a God) religion should have any say in morals. If those who are religious are thorough in their approach to religion, question their faith, do not decieve themselves and truely believe, what's the problem? You may disagree with their view, but if we are all being honest with ourselves and each other I don't see how you can 'invalidate' the religious person's point of view without debating the existance of God.
Essentially my problem with this whole thread is this: You article argues very convincingly that decieving yourself invalidates your moral authority. It (and you) go on to say that therefore religions have no moral authority. The leap between those two statements is that religion is ridiculous, and you have to decieve yourself to be religious.

I don't think I am quite making that leap. The thread title is in reference to the fact that people believe in unquestioned morality--either from religion or their own opinion. I then argue that moral statements are to be argued and reasoned etc, not merely accepted. One can be religious and believe in god, and have a rigorous standard for questioning their beliefs. I am denying that the questions of morals belong to religion.

I admit to using it is a scapegoat frequently, but I think I tried to stress a couple times that people naturally tend to believe without reason to (self included) and that my criticism of religion was focused on what I would argue is a systematic dogma, since the beliefs are traced back to a book or set of teachings which remains constant. Secular society has a degree of dogma, and religious beliefs aren't static (mainly through influence of secular society), so it isn't like a clear cut divide.

I at least didn't intend the thread as an attack on religion in all forms.


** I strongly disagree with this point. There is nothing scientific about deciding that morality should be based on what is 'best' for 'society'. This is entirely subjective. We can only be scientific in our approach to morality once we have got past this stage of defining the basis or axiom on which we are going to build our moral code.

But I included both science and reason in my criteria. Science may have nothing to say about deciding the basis for morality, but can't reason? I suggested earlier that:


I think you can argue for objective morality if you assume that morality is goal focused. Let's compare it to medicine. If we start with the assumption that the purpose of medicine is to keep people healthy, then we can objectively compare medical practices. If we don't start with that assumption, then we can't, right? But why on earth would we think that medicine isn't about health?

So if we assume that morality is focused on keeping society "healthy" (<--vague, mind you) then we can objectively compare systems of morality. Although there can be more than one way to keep society "healthy".


**********


It's six o'clock in the morning. What have you done to me? I know I shouldn't put the blame on you for this, but if we hadn't been discussing the rights and wrongs of morality, I would be in bed by now. I propose a new basis for the determination of morals: the right thing to do is to go to bed. Now.

:laugh4:

[Reenk Roink]

Well yeah. Logical consistency is good, but why would it be sufficient? You can argue that all of life is a dream and no mind independent objects exist, and be logically consistent. In fact, people who assume that just because they are logically consistent, they are being reasonable, cause a lot of problems. I heard a talk from someone who used to be in a cult once, and the mindset they had there was "so and so is always right"-->"he said do this"-->"therefore it is right to do this".

So then take up my original offer and actually define what the heck you mean by 'reason' (told you it would meander into semantics otherwise). As you seem to use it with me in certain cases like "Pragmatic reason? :tongue3:" it just seems broad based. But then you have some strict criteria when actually pressed. Because in light of one interpretation, all your 'complaints' are groundless as most would then have some reason and evidence. In light of another, you have the problem that other people don't accept your definition at all.


I think I am using the words quite normally ...perhaps you are the problem :inquisitive:

You're using them normally I suppose, but inconsistently and then equivocating between the two. See above. The problem cannot be me of course. :toff:


So what if I say my mystical intuition says that you are wrong? Is that the same as the 1 and 2 logic guys?

Well no it's not the same as the guy 1 / guy 2 thing. How did you get that? Though if you really do get mystical intuition awesome. :2thumbsup:


Essentially my problem with this whole thread is this: You article argues very convincingly that decieving yourself invalidates your moral authority. It (and you) go on to say that therefore religions have no moral authority. The leap between those two statements is that religion is ridiculous, and you have to decieve yourself to be religious.

In other words, "I don't believe in God and my reasoning is obvious and infallible. These people who believe in God have been brainwashed, decieved and are decieving themselves *. Therefore they have no moral authority. Therefore the scientific** approach to morality is my idea of morality: to do what is 'best' for 'society'."

* I disagree with this point, some people genuinely believe in their relgion, and constantly and rigourously question their own beliefs.
** I strongly disagree with this point. There is nothing scientific about deciding that morality should be based on what is 'best' for 'society'. This is entirely subjective. We can only be scientific in our approach to morality once we have got past this stage of defining the basis or axiom on which we are going to build our moral code.

Emphasis mine.

Well you should sleep but this is mostly how I feel too. :bow: I especially don't see how morality should be goal orientated (which I have shown an alternative which is both realizable and widely realized).

[Reenk Roink]

The thread title is in reference to the fact that people believe in unquestioned morality--either from religion or their own opinion. I then argue that moral statements are to be argued and reasoned etc, not merely accepted.

I don't think that most people are unwilling to argue their moral beliefs.


I am denying that the questions of morals belong to religion.

Well who is asserting what you deny? I deny that morals belong to reason or science btw.


people naturally tend to believe without reason to

First, this depends on your meaning of reason, but assuming a more narrow one, why is this a problem? Why is believing without reason bad? What virtue does reason and evidence have, when the truth value of assertions are independent of them?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So then take up my original offer and actually define what the heck you mean by 'reason' (told you it would meander into semantics otherwise).
You're using them normally I suppose, but inconsistently and then equivocating between the two. See above. The problem cannot be me of course. :toff:

I will try...I guess I'm generally talking about reasoning as a thing you, as the mental faculty where you weight facts and premises and come to a conclusion. And then I'm probably talking about how one can reason in a good way. So I probably said "reasoning" at some point when I meant "good reasoning".


Well no it's not the same as the guy 1 / guy 2 thing. How did you get that? Though if you really do get mystical intuition awesome. :2thumbsup:

Still not sure what you mean by that. I suppose I have an intuition that reasoning leads to truth, it certainly feels that way...?


I don't think that most people are unwilling to argue their moral beliefs.

Do you consider abortion threads to be examples of people arguing their moral beliefs?


First, this depends on your meaning of reason, but assuming a more narrow one, why is this a problem? Why is believing without reason bad? What virtue does reason and evidence have, when the truth value of assertions are independent of them?

I would part with clifford on this (I think he argues something about developing a habit of credulity), and say that it is having false beliefs that is bad. For example, believing that you can drive ok when you're drunk. And that reason and evidence are the best way we have of believing things that are true.

You'll have to explain the mystical intuition thing to me sometime :juggle2:

[Reenk Roink]

I will try...I guess I'm generally talking about reasoning as a thing you, as the mental faculty where you weight facts and premises and come to a conclusion. And then I'm probably talking about how one can reason in a good way. So I probably said "reasoning" at some point when I meant "good reasoning".

Fair enough. I say this because PVC brought up an example of a logically consistent system, and reason is used synonymously with (classical) logic many times.

So the natural followup question to you is, what other than logic do you need for good reasoning? Or does logic cover reason and you now want the "science" part along with it (reason being necessary but not sufficient)? Perhaps you need some empirical evidence that is interpreted through current scientific theory (for example, you need that jar of material but you also need the scientific theory which tells you it is oxygen and not dephlogisticated air like another theory).


Do you consider abortion threads to be examples of people arguing their moral beliefs?

Yes. Along with gun threads, and the like. How is it not an example?

You may reply people don't usually question their moral axioms in those threads, and this is true (though at least in abortion threads, you would probably find attacks on the religious moral edifice). But it makes sense why they don't. These people are going based off axioms they hold. They probably believe that morality is the domain of (their interpretation of their) religion even as you conversely may believe it belongs to science and reason.

"As the other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences, so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else."
-Aquinas

I know you've stated you want to differentiate between the axioms in this thread, but how are you going to do that? With science and reason presumably? But to the "faithful" this will not fly, because he does not presuppose those like you.

For an example, how do we choose between Euclid's axioms of geometry, or spherical geometry, or hyperbolic geometry?

[Beskar]

Er...in what way? I mean, you don't see many atheists bombing abortions clinics, do you?

No, they wear t-shirts that say "Atheism is a non-prophet organisation" or put posters (legally) on the side of a bus going "God may not even exist". Far worse crimes than bombing an abortion clinic.


Also, I like to re-point out Secular Humanism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

[Askthepizzaguy]

First of all, I want to say I find this thread and discussion fascinating. Thank you Sasaki.


My thoughts on the matter:

If morality is simply what our opinion of morality is, then it is merely subjective and there is no way to define anything as moral or immoral unless you take a vote or have a supreme ruler. Which is, of course, how many societies settle the issue. I think something is moral, others think it is immoral, and we have a difference of opinion. Sometimes we feel there needs to be a law against it, or a legal protection for it, and then we settle it by vote (hopefully) or have some person in an official-looking hat tell us it is right or wrong. I, on the other hand, think that it is obviously not the case that morality is a human construct, a figment of our imagination based purely on the popular opinions of the day. If that is the case, then what is our real argument when something is clearly wrong, but society accepts it? If slavery is considered okay by the masses, especially by the slave-owners, and morality is just an opinion with no meaning, then there is no reason they should listen to you when you say it is wrong. They can reply "it is right, that is what I was brought up to believe, and I believe it."

What can be said? How is it settled? Sure, we can vote on it, but if the premise is that morality is subjective, why are we bringing in popular opinion to settle the issue? If my morality is as good as their morality, shouldn't both be allowed to exist? Why must one belief system even trump the other by a vote, or be imposed on others by the sword? If all opinions are equal then why even have laws? If you're simply saying that majority rules define morality, or whoever has the most guns defines morality, then societal progress would never ever have been made. What changes things? Sometimes belief systems are imposed on others. Whenever there are laws, this is the case. Is it just the sword or the vote which gives them the right? To me, that is merely how our civilization settles the dispute. It is not the reason why things are right or wrong. Even if the votes are against you, and the guns are also against you, that does not make the status quo moral. It can be quite terrible, in fact. What makes something moral, if not our little opinions, our votes, or our guns?

If morality does not flow from the belief systems of the individual, or even the opinion of the masses, or the rule of those in power, from where does it flow? If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe, that we simply have words for and belief systems surrounding. In other words, the universe has morality, and we interpret it. One might even consider this to be a religious stance I'm taking. But consider also that mankind did not invent mathematics. Mathematics is a natural extension of the laws of the universe. We have added words to it, and we have a limited understanding of it, but there are laws that we didn't invent, and truths we did not create. Truth is a thing we do not control by the vote, by our opinion, by the sword. Truth is objective, not subjective, or else it is not truth and there is no truth. If there is no truth, then mathematics would not exist.

Math is a very disciplined, principled, structured understanding of the natural law of the universe. This reality we are in... if we have three points, and the distance between points a and b is 3, and b and c is 4, and the points have an angle of 90 degrees on one side, the the distance between points c and a is 5. (I hope I got that right). This isn't something that we created, it existed before we were aware of it. We have simply named it and begun to understand it. Mathematics is an objective, logical, structured part of the understanding of the laws of this universe. To gain knowledge of x, we can understand everything about x simply by observing the other pertinent facts. And the correct answer is always the same. Logic is another thing. Man did not invent logic, we simply discovered truths and how they relate with one another. Sometimes our understanding of these truths is flawed, but that does not change them. It changes us. We also cannot change what is logical; it either follows logic or it does not. Some concepts are filled with too many unknowns for us to apply our limited understanding of logic. We also do not understand logic itself enough to be infallible when discussing truths.

Morality seems to me to be a very logical thing, or at the very least it should be. Slavery is immoral, but the reason for it is not because it was popular (I guarantee you it is unpopular with the slaves) and not because it was legal (if so, then all laws are moral... but we have laws that contradict other laws) and not because people could use violence to enforce it. There was a non-subjective reason; an objective reason why it was wrong. For it to be so objective, that means the reasons are based on an underlying truth about the universe... a truth that exists whether we are aware of it or agree with it. It is based on those truths that people should be treated equally. But what are those truths? Can we make a logical, scientific argument which explains why slavery is immoral? Why it is immoral even if you don't think it is immoral? That's very difficult. It can be more difficult than explaining why something is logical. Morality is an extremely complicated thing to quantify and define. The only way I know how is to begin with mathematics. A crude, crude beginning, but a beginning nonetheless.

The first principle I can think of when speaking about morality in mathematical terms is the principle that 1=1. One person is worth the same as another person. Why is this so? Again difficult to define. But it would be far more difficult to define why a person is not equal to another person. Perhaps we value an innocent, law-abiding person more than we value say, a terrorist, but that is when you add additional circumstances to the definition of the person. It is no longer a person of equal moral standing compared with another, but people of different moral standings. Instead of comparing apples and apples, you're comparing an apple and a rotten apple, or a better example would be an apple, and an apple filled with poison. Perhaps they both started out the same, they both started out as apples. But they became morally different through their actions. So perhaps 1=1, but not if you add another one. One plus one does not equal one. Now they are different. But we agree, they started out the same. 1 minus 1 does not equal 1. Morality is similar, if you take certain actions they have certain consequences, and the impact of those consequences might determine what makes things moral. What actions have an impact of morality? That's a whole different discussion. Even to begin with I have difficulties quantifying and defining morality. But then again I have difficulty with Calculus as well, that doesn't mean there aren't real answers.

Even harder to explain is that the same actions do not always have the same consequences. If someone were to commit adultery, and no one found out about it, what are the consequences? Other than guilty feelings, maybe nothing. If someone were to commit adultery, and then people found out about it, there are very different consequences. Yet they are both the same action... and they are both equally immoral. So morality is not based on consequences alone, either. If I started shooting random people, and I assassinated the next Adolf Hitler accidentally, the end result might have been a better world than it may have otherwise been. But I have still committed a heinous, evil deed. What if that same next-Adolf-Hitler could have been educated, or persuaded to do something better with their life? What if they become a saint? Then I have assassinated a saint, in addition to other people who didn't "deserve it". Thus, I have committed the same action and it appears to somehow be much worse an action. But we cannot predict the future, we cannot predict all possible consequences. Our own ignorance prevents us from having perfect knowledge about what is or is not moral, because the potential consequences of your actions are part, if not the whole, or what determines if something is moral or not. That is why I feel that morality may be something which is beyond our understanding, at least in the most advanced sense. Like science, we may never know everything about the universe.

But does that mean science is a wasted effort? I think not. Even a limited understanding of the world around us is far superior than none. It is a worthy endeavor. I believe morality is much the same way... a logical field of study and theorizing. There is room for more than "God said it, I believe it, that ends it" because such stances have been used to justify immoral things. There is room for more than "There's no God, no meaning, no purpose... morality doesn't exist". There doesn't have to be religion involved in a logical study of morality. In the end, you will find that most people think murder is wrong, and for many if not most of those people, it is not because God said so. It is because it is a truth that we somehow know and have arrived at naturally.

Our brains understand other fundamental laws of the universe, without knowing exactly why we know them. Even the most basic mind comprehends that one banana is less than two bananas. The brain may not understand mathematics, and may never be able to explain why that is, but perhaps it is simply something that we wouldn't be able to function without. A basic, basic understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe. Perhaps those who didn't understand that were naturally selected against and eventually died off. Morality may be the same way. A species seems to understand, on the whole, that it is not a wise move to wipe out others of your species. Sure, it gets more complicated than that, especially when it pertains to matters of territory or mating rights, but if a species spends most of its time wiping itself out, then sooner or later, there won't be anyone left to procreate with. That's too complicated a concept for some animals to understand, but it is a fundamental aspect of this existence: death is pretty much irreversible. Too much death and what happens is that your species doesn't exist anymore. And so you've exited the universe, in favor of others who understand or at least obey this concept.

But again, morality is not the same as consequences. What defines morality? There are too many factors for me to explain or even totally comprehend. But in my limited capacity, I can still see that some things are moral whether people think they are, or not. And so, what needs to be done is that we need to think about morality, and try to explain why things are moral in a way that is very fact-based, and objective. In a way we can understand. Much like science... man did not start off knowing exactly why certain objects fell to the earth, and some things soared above the clouds. But some people decided to examine it and look for the why. Indeed, we still do not know exactly how, but we do understand a lot of the why. And that understanding has led to great advances in human society. Greater understanding often leads to better application of ourselves. I believe that studying morality would be a great endeavor, and a lot of what is holding us back is the position that morality cannot be quantified or codified or defined in any way besides "That is what I believe" or some appeal to authority, or appeal to popularity, or appeal to violence.

There is room for much improvement, and much understanding here.

[CountArach]

The best moral system for our time might not be the best for a future time. That is not to say that there isn't a best for our time worth striving for. For example, you (CA) might argue that it is wrong for a certain amount of society to be in desperate poverty while a small fraction of a percent are hugely rich. This view may be outdated in a future society that doesn't have poverty problems.
I understand this and I also understand that I only believe what you stated because they are part of the same discourses that I have been most influenced by throughout my life. Humanism is also a Modernist discourse and I would never claim that I have transcended Modernity by any means. Absolutely we have a moral obligation to these people, but that is irrelevant because a scientific claim to morality, as I described, is based in Modernity and as such would not be applicable for more than the moment it is created in. I can understand that a constant re-evaluation would iron out some of the kinks in this, but at the same time these would themselves also be simply in response to other discourses, which is not a search for morality, it is a search for a scientific basis for our momentary belief systems.

Sounds like a pretty radical form of postmodernism you're adhering to, here. That kind of postmodernism has its limits. Not everything is merely competing discourses, some discourses are worth less than others. Compare "Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon" to "Martians control the White House". Derrida went a little too far to be taken entirely seriously if you ask me..
I have never in my life read Derrida, I look towards Foucault as the future of the study of History and Society in general. I agree that taking Postmodernism to a certain extreme has its downsides, but general facts can still be covered by the fact that the overwhelming majority of discourses would concur on basic "X happened" facts, simply disagreeing on the "X happened because of Y". The study of the marginalised discourses who deny the "X happened" part would be interesting and would undeniably further the study of the fact X. Foucault willingly used simple events to study things and just focussed on discursive analysis.

[The Stranger]

First of all, I want to say I find this thread and discussion fascinating. Thank you Sasaki.


My thoughts on the matter:

If morality is simply what our opinion of morality is, then it is merely subjective and there is no way to define anything as moral or immoral unless you take a vote or have a supreme ruler. Which is, of course, how many societies settle the issue. I think something is moral, others think it is immoral, and we have a difference of opinion. Sometimes we feel there needs to be a law against it, or a legal protection for it, and then we settle it by vote (hopefully) or have some person in an official-looking hat tell us it is right or wrong. I, on the other hand, think that it is obviously not the case that morality is a human construct, a figment of our imagination based purely on the popular opinions of the day. If that is the case, then what is our real argument when something is clearly wrong, but society accepts it? If slavery is considered okay by the masses, especially by the slave-owners, and morality is just an opinion with no meaning, then there is no reason they should listen to you when you say it is wrong. They can reply "it is right, that is what I was brought up to believe, and I believe it."

What can be said? How is it settled? Sure, we can vote on it, but if the premise is that morality is subjective, why are we bringing in popular opinion to settle the issue? If my morality is as good as their morality, shouldn't both be allowed to exist? Why must one belief system even trump the other by a vote, or be imposed on others by the sword? If all opinions are equal then why even have laws? If you're simply saying that majority rules define morality, or whoever has the most guns defines morality, then societal progress would never ever have been made. What changes things? Sometimes belief systems are imposed on others. Whenever there are laws, this is the case. Is it just the sword or the vote which gives them the right? To me, that is merely how our civilization settles the dispute. It is not the reason why things are right or wrong. Even if the votes are against you, and the guns are also against you, that does not make the status quo moral. It can be quite terrible, in fact. What makes something moral, if not our little opinions, our votes, or our guns?

If morality does not flow from the belief systems of the individual, or even the opinion of the masses, or the rule of those in power, from where does it flow? If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe, that we simply have words for and belief systems surrounding. In other words, the universe has morality, and we interpret it. One might even consider this to be a religious stance I'm taking. But consider also that mankind did not invent mathematics. Mathematics is a natural extension of the laws of the universe. We have added words to it, and we have a limited understanding of it, but there are laws that we didn't invent, and truths we did not create. Truth is a thing we do not control by the vote, by our opinion, by the sword. Truth is objective, not subjective, or else it is not truth and there is no truth. If there is no truth, then mathematics would not exist.

Math is a very disciplined, principled, structured understanding of the natural law of the universe. This reality we are in... if we have three points, and the distance between points a and b is 3, and b and c is 4, and the points have an angle of 90 degrees on one side, the the distance between points c and a is 5. (I hope I got that right). This isn't something that we created, it existed before we were aware of it. We have simply named it and begun to understand it. Mathematics is an objective, logical, structured part of the understanding of the laws of this universe. To gain knowledge of x, we can understand everything about x simply by observing the other pertinent facts. And the correct answer is always the same. Logic is another thing. Man did not invent logic, we simply discovered truths and how they relate with one another. Sometimes our understanding of these truths is flawed, but that does not change them. It changes us. We also cannot change what is logical; it either follows logic or it does not. Some concepts are filled with too many unknowns for us to apply our limited understanding of logic. We also do not understand logic itself enough to be infallible when discussing truths.

Morality seems to me to be a very logical thing, or at the very least it should be. Slavery is immoral, but the reason for it is not because it was popular (I guarantee you it is unpopular with the slaves) and not because it was legal (if so, then all laws are moral... but we have laws that contradict other laws) and not because people could use violence to enforce it. There was a non-subjective reason; an objective reason why it was wrong. For it to be so objective, that means the reasons are based on an underlying truth about the universe... a truth that exists whether we are aware of it or agree with it. It is based on those truths that people should be treated equally. But what are those truths? Can we make a logical, scientific argument which explains why slavery is immoral? Why it is immoral even if you don't think it is immoral? That's very difficult. It can be more difficult than explaining why something is logical. Morality is an extremely complicated thing to quantify and define. The only way I know how is to begin with mathematics. A crude, crude beginning, but a beginning nonetheless.

The first principle I can think of when speaking about morality in mathematical terms is the principle that 1=1. One person is worth the same as another person. Why is this so? Again difficult to define. But it would be far more difficult to define why a person is not equal to another person. Perhaps we value an innocent, law-abiding person more than we value say, a terrorist, but that is when you add additional circumstances to the definition of the person. It is no longer a person of equal moral standing compared with another, but people of different moral standings. Instead of comparing apples and apples, you're comparing an apple and a rotten apple, or a better example would be an apple, and an apple filled with poison. Perhaps they both started out the same, they both started out as apples. But they became morally different through their actions. So perhaps 1=1, but not if you add another one. One plus one does not equal one. Now they are different. But we agree, they started out the same. 1 minus 1 does not equal 1. Morality is similar, if you take certain actions they have certain consequences, and the impact of those consequences might determine what makes things moral. What actions have an impact of morality? That's a whole different discussion. Even to begin with I have difficulties quantifying and defining morality. But then again I have difficulty with Calculus as well, that doesn't mean there aren't real answers.

Even harder to explain is that the same actions do not always have the same consequences. If someone were to commit adultery, and no one found out about it, what are the consequences? Other than guilty feelings, maybe nothing. If someone were to commit adultery, and then people found out about it, there are very different consequences. Yet they are both the same action... and they are both equally immoral. So morality is not based on consequences alone, either. If I started shooting random people, and I assassinated the next Adolf Hitler accidentally, the end result might have been a better world than it may have otherwise been. But I have still committed a heinous, evil deed. What if that same next-Adolf-Hitler could have been educated, or persuaded to do something better with their life? What if they become a saint? Then I have assassinated a saint, in addition to other people who didn't "deserve it". Thus, I have committed the same action and it appears to somehow be much worse an action. But we cannot predict the future, we cannot predict all possible consequences. Our own ignorance prevents us from having perfect knowledge about what is or is not moral, because the potential consequences of your actions are part, if not the whole, or what determines if something is moral or not. That is why I feel that morality may be something which is beyond our understanding, at least in the most advanced sense. Like science, we may never know everything about the universe.

But does that mean science is a wasted effort? I think not. Even a limited understanding of the world around us is far superior than none. It is a worthy endeavor. I believe morality is much the same way... a logical field of study and theorizing. There is room for more than "God said it, I believe it, that ends it" because such stances have been used to justify immoral things. There is room for more than "There's no God, no meaning, no purpose... morality doesn't exist". There doesn't have to be religion involved in a logical study of morality. In the end, you will find that most people think murder is wrong, and for many if not most of those people, it is not because God said so. It is because it is a truth that we somehow know and have arrived at naturally.

Our brains understand other fundamental laws of the universe, without knowing exactly why we know them. Even the most basic mind comprehends that one banana is less than two bananas. The brain may not understand mathematics, and may never be able to explain why that is, but perhaps it is simply something that we wouldn't be able to function without. A basic, basic understanding of the fundamental nature of the universe. Perhaps those who didn't understand that were naturally selected against and eventually died off. Morality may be the same way. A species seems to understand, on the whole, that it is not a wise move to wipe out others of your species. Sure, it gets more complicated than that, especially when it pertains to matters of territory or mating rights, but if a species spends most of its time wiping itself out, then sooner or later, there won't be anyone left to procreate with. That's too complicated a concept for some animals to understand, but it is a fundamental aspect of this existence: death is pretty much irreversible. Too much death and what happens is that your species doesn't exist anymore. And so you've exited the universe, in favor of others who understand or at least obey this concept.

But again, morality is not the same as consequences. What defines morality? There are too many factors for me to explain or even totally comprehend. But in my limited capacity, I can still see that some things are moral whether people think they are, or not. And so, what needs to be done is that we need to think about morality, and try to explain why things are moral in a way that is very fact-based, and objective. In a way we can understand. Much like science... man did not start off knowing exactly why certain objects fell to the earth, and some things soared above the clouds. But some people decided to examine it and look for the why. Indeed, we still do not know exactly how, but we do understand a lot of the why. And that understanding has led to great advances in human society. Greater understanding often leads to better application of ourselves. I believe that studying morality would be a great endeavor, and a lot of what is holding us back is the position that morality cannot be quantified or codified or defined in any way besides "That is what I believe" or some appeal to authority, or appeal to popularity, or appeal to violence.

There is room for much improvement, and much understanding here.

i think more of the view of nietzsche. morality is no mora than perception, but the reason we discuss it and say that one is better than the other is because we all think we are right. we all want our truth to be the truth of for all. atleast the rulers do. it is difficult to account for voluntary agreement but i think it can be explained in the way that people adopt newer and better weapons when they come across it.

and about maths and objective truths, they are not truth we need in our lives. it is about the subjective truth of how i should live my life and how i become the person i want to be. objective minutes and such, extensive mathematics are not applied in day to day life. mathematics is true only within the system of mathematics. if you would not accept the system of mathematics as valid it is not true. same for the system of economics.

no truth in morality does not equal there is no truth at all. just as to say there is no objective standard in morality is not selfdefeating because it is not a moral claim but a claim about morality.

morality is not only about consequences but also about intention. not only that it is also about the view of the other people. if morality is objective though and things that were accepted to be moral were believed falsely to be so. they made mistake. the one thing i dislike is that every age in which the objective moralist brings forth his points he acts as if his age is the endstation, everything is know and discovered. they know what is true and dismiss 10000 years of history as irrelevant insofar it does not coincide with their view.

[Myrddraal]

Ok, I'm about to enter ATPG's post. If I'm not out the other side in three hours, tell my family I love them, and that though there may be storms ahead I've already taken the drying clothes in from the garden.

[Myrddraal]

They can reply "it is right, that is what I was brought up to believe, and I believe it."
I get your point, but fundemental differences in morality occur less often that you might think. In many historical cases such as slavery, one could quite strongly argue that there was some error according the slavers own moral principles. In going from their fundemental principles or axioms of morality to their codified form of morals, they had committed hypocracy, decieved themselves.
So you can argue against these people, without getting into absolute morality, by using their own principals to show them the wrong of what they are doing. Many slavers were Christian, and also believed in doing what is 'good' for 'society'. The hypocracy was that God's laws did not extend to black people or that black's were not part of society. You can argue against this using the bible or having a go at defining what 'society' is.


Why must one belief system even trump the other by a vote, or be imposed on others by the sword? If all opinions are equal then why even have laws? If you're simply saying that majority rules define morality, or whoever has the most guns defines morality, then societal progress would never ever have been made.
Let's not confuse the law with morality. The law has always been determined by a combination of popular opinion and the sword. That popular opinion may be based on a moral code, and I may personally believe that moral code to be the right one, so I am satisfied. If I believe that moral code to be 'wrong' then I may argue or fight against it. Others may come to agree with me and society shifts, laws change.
But for all that I may thing that one moral principle is 'right' and the other 'wrong', what scientific or logical argument can I use to back me up? There are none. Though I may be convinced in my heart of hearts that someone's moral code is 'wrong' I cannot fundementally prove it to be so.
Also, I'd like to stress that I'm not saying that all moral codes are equal. I believe that my moral code (which I hope you all share) is superiour to all others. What I am arguing is that I cannot prove this or fundementally argue about this in a scientific way.


If morality does not flow from the belief systems of the individual, or even the opinion of the masses, or the rule of those in power, from where does it flow? If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe, that we simply have words for and belief systems surrounding. In other words, the universe has morality, and we interpret it. One might even consider this to be a religious stance I'm taking.
Definately sounding religious here :wink:, and I think I might even subcribe to your religion, but not on any scientific basis. You are defining some axioms here (albeit rather vague ones :wink:), which I must accept in order to follow the rest of your argument.


There was a non-subjective reason; an objective reason why it was wrong.
But it is an objective reason you cannot define with logical reasoning. I may agree with you that there is some underlying objective reason why something is moral, but I cannot define that objective reason without simply saying 'because it is' (something Sasaki would object to) or 'because I think it is' (something Sasaki might accept :wink:)


The only way I know how is to begin with mathematics. A crude, crude beginning, but a beginning nonetheless.
Even mathematics has it's fundemental axioms. Like a scientific approach, a mathematical approach can only be taken once you have defined the axioms of morality. Although I disagree with lots in his post, the Stranger has the right of it here:


mathematics is true only within the system of mathematics.
I can disagree with The Stranger's view that there is no fundementally 'right' moral code, but I cannot argue against him with reason, logic and scientific methods. It would be like arguing against someone who claims that Sasaki is a figment of our imaginations.

[Myrddraal]

I get the feeling we're getting mired in details here so I thought I'd try to summarise, please feel free to add to this/correct me.:

If I've understood it correctly the purpose of this thread was to argue that scientific methodology could be used to determine morality, thereby making religion obsolete.

Several of us have argued that scientific methodology can only be used to explore and expand a system of morals based on some fundemental axioms which cannot be deduced scientifically.

This is very different from subscribing to Nietzsche's view, and saying that there is no spoon. I think there is a spoon.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Fair enough. I say this because PVC brought up an example of a logically consistent system, and reason is used synonymously with (classical) logic many times.

So the natural followup question to you is, what other than logic do you need for good reasoning? Or does logic cover reason and you now want the "science" part along with it (reason being necessary but not sufficient)? Perhaps you need some empirical evidence that is interpreted through current scientific theory (for example, you need that jar of material but you also need the scientific theory which tells you it is oxygen and not dephlogisticated air like another theory).

Yes, you need some sort of ability to judge the premises of the logical arguments, and the ability to accommodate a range of information.




Yes. Along with gun threads, and the like. How is it not an example?

You may reply people don't usually question their moral axioms in those threads, and this is true (though at least in abortion threads, you would probably find attacks on the religious moral edifice). But it makes sense why they don't. These people are going based off axioms they hold. They probably believe that morality is the domain of (their interpretation of their) religion even as you conversely may believe it belongs to science and reason.

Well yes, I expect they do. Which is why I started the argue that it shouldn't belong to religion. However, I will probably revise that in a minute.


"As the other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences, so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else."
-Aquinas

But, I think although you can't argue in proof of the principles, you can argue for the principles. You can argue for our number system being in base 10 by saying that for ordinary purposes there is no reason to change it, since change would be difficult and pointless, and so on. But we needn't accept that base 10 is the one true way--when binary and hexadecimal are found to be useful, we use them instead. In other words, there are reasons why we choose to accept a given axiom. I may not be able to logically disprove your axiom, but if I can show that the reasons you used when you chose to accept it apply better to a different axiom, isn't that significant?

************

I do think that you are right about my conflating a couple things in the thread. I was mixing a couple different ideas.

I should say that morality doesn't necessarily belong to science and reason over religion and individual opinion. But that if it does belong to religion, it needs to be shown to do so by reason and/or science.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If I've understood it correctly the purpose of this thread was to argue that scientific methodology could be used to determine morality, thereby making religion obsolete.

That was one point, but the main one was that axioms are arguable. We don't just take anything as an axiom, right? There are many moral axioms, and we must have some way of choosing between them. The way of choosing between them is science and reason (I'll allow reenk his mystical intuition if he wants). Where I went wrong is assuming from the start that choosing between them would involve dismissing the religious axioms, as you and reenk pointed out in some form :bow:

That is a valid discussion I think, but my main point was that it has to be argued.


If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe, that we simply have words for and belief systems surrounding. In other words, the universe has morality, and we interpret it.

I wouldn't say universe pizza. Morality is inherent to human nature, we can say, it's in our genes. That's where the objectivity comes from. You can have a logically consistent moral system that starts with the axiom that that the goal of life is kill everyone you see, and that system would be objectively wrong because morality is human.

[Myrddraal]

and that system would be objectively wrong because morality is human.

How unscientific of you Sasaki. I agree though. :grin:

PS: this definately get's my 'favourite Backroom thread of the month' vote.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ah ah, you keep jumping on science when I said science and reason :)

Glad you've enjoyed it, I certainly have.

[The Stranger]

I can disagree with The Stranger's view that there is no fundementally 'right' moral code, but I cannot argue against him with reason, logic and scientific methods. It would be like arguing against someone who claims that Sasaki is a figment of our imaginations.

lol should i be offended or flattered :P

and Sasaki is a figment of our imagination. Put in our minds solely to annoy and haunt people in mafia games and take the sword in the backroom-arena.

[The Stranger]

That was one point, but the main one was that axioms are arguable. We don't just take anything as an axiom, right? There are many moral axioms, and we must have some way of choosing between them. The way of choosing between them is science and reason (I'll allow reenk his mystical intuition if he wants). Where I went wrong is assuming from the start that choosing between them would involve dismissing the religious axioms, as you and reenk pointed out in some form :bow:

That is a valid discussion I think, but my main point was that it has to be argued.



I wouldn't say universe pizza. Morality is inherent to human nature, we can say, it's in our genes. That's where the objectivity comes from. You can have a logically consistent moral system that starts with the axiom that that the goal of life is kill everyone you see, and that system would be objectively wrong because morality is human.

thats just survival instinct. and we turn it into morals. it is also in animals but they dont turn it into as extensive systems as ours.

so far ive only heard one moral code which i believe could be or should be morally objective:

any action or intention should always keep in mind and act upon the greatest happiness of all those involved.

or something like it. it sounds utilitarian, but thats not what it was i think. ill look it up.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I wouldn't say universe pizza. Morality is inherent to human nature, we can say, it's in our genes. That's where the objectivity comes from. You can have a logically consistent moral system that starts with the axiom that that the goal of life is kill everyone you see, and that system would be objectively wrong because morality is human.

Objectivity does not flow from within. The object is outside of us, part of the universe. A subjective thing is one which changes depending on the perspective or opinion of the observer... an objective thing exists whether we perceive it, understand it, or agree with it or not. Just because we understand things about electricity and can use it to power our society, that does not mean we invented electricity, we simply understand it better. It existed before we could comprehend it. It is an objective thing.

If morality is a purely human construct, based not on the natural world but on our opinions and beliefs, then it will never be a thing beyond our whims. If morality is based upon the phenomena inherent to the universe itself, such as death, cause and effect, and so on, then it is not merely an idea, but a thing to be studied and observed and quantified as a science, not merely an opinion.

If you are looking for a scientific, reasonable morality, you will not find it in our emotions or belief systems. You will find it in observation of the universe and the society itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Objectivity does not flow from within. The object is outside of us, part of the universe. A subjective thing is one which changes depending on the perspective or opinion of the observer... an objective thing exists whether we perceive it, understand it, or agree with it or not. Just because we understand things about electricity and can use it to power our society, that does not mean we invented electricity, we simply understand it better. It existed before we could comprehend it. It is an objective thing.

If morality is a purely human construct, based not on the natural world but on our opinions and beliefs, then it will never be a thing beyond our whims. If morality is based upon the phenomena inherent to the universe itself, such as death, cause and effect, and so on, then it is not merely an idea, but a thing to be studied and observed and quantified as a science, not merely an opinion.

If you are looking for a scientific, reasonable morality, you will not find it in our emotions or belief systems. You will find it in observation of the universe and the society itself.

Again with the universe though. What do the stars and other planets tell us about morality? You would be better off with a microscope than a telescope, and best off with an fMRI. Remember I said it would be based on the natural world (human nature) and not entirely on our opinions and beliefs.

You compare it to electricity, and point out that without us, electrons would still flow. But without us, would it still be wrong to cheat on your wife? There would be no wife and no cheater and no cheating...and no wrong.


thats just survival instinct. and we turn it into morals. it is also in animals but they dont turn it into as extensive systems as ours.

Why do you say survival instinct? We have the brain structure required to make moral judgement, that is why we have morality.


VVVVV well said pizza :yes:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I get your point, but fundemental differences in morality occur less often that you might think. In many historical cases such as slavery, one could quite strongly argue that there was some error according the slavers own moral principles. In going from their fundemental principles or axioms of morality to their codified form of morals, they had committed hypocracy, decieved themselves.
So you can argue against these people, without getting into absolute morality, by using their own principals to show them the wrong of what they are doing. Many slavers were Christian, and also believed in doing what is 'good' for 'society'. The hypocracy was that God's laws did not extend to black people or that black's were not part of society. You can argue against this using the bible or having a go at defining what 'society' is.

Not all immorality is based in hypocrisy, however. A large amount of it is, but I do not need to subscribe to someone's belief system alone and point out where they are being internally inconsistent to argue that they are being immoral. What they BELIEVE is irrelevant. I'm talking about what they do and how they treat others, regardless of belief. Their morality or immorality is based upon that, and even if they were being totally consistent with their philosophy, that does not ipso facto make it correct and morally righteous.


Let's not confuse the law with morality. The law has always been determined by a combination of popular opinion and the sword.

That's precisely what I was saying. Law, opinion, and violence do not make morality.


That popular opinion may be based on a moral code, and I may personally believe that moral code to be the right one, so I am satisfied. If I believe that moral code to be 'wrong' then I may argue or fight against it. Others may come to agree with me and society shifts, laws change.
But for all that I may thing that one moral principle is 'right' and the other 'wrong', what scientific or logical argument can I use to back me up? There are none.

There are none yet.

A science will never be if people do not try. What argument could I use to make men fly? Were I a cave man, perhaps I could not. But if I knew about the principles of aerodynamics, perhaps I could make men fly.

Simply because I cannot do so now, that does not mean I can never.


Though I may be convinced in my heart of hearts that someone's moral code is 'wrong' I cannot fundementally prove it to be so.

One couldn't fundamentally prove the Earth was round without the proper evidence and equipment.

I am wary of simply saying "I cannot" and leaving it be. That leads to nothing.


Also, I'd like to stress that I'm not saying that all moral codes are equal. I believe that my moral code (which I hope you all share) is superiour to all others. What I am arguing is that I cannot prove this or fundementally argue about this in a scientific way.

Why not?

Other sciences are still in development. Do we understand the human mind fully? No, we do not. We cannot explain everything we see. And yet there is a science of the brain.

Surely there can be a science of morality, if, as I hold to be true, morality is an objective concept, not a subjective one.


Definately sounding religious here :wink:

A man who believes the world is round, without proof, even with mathematics to back him up (which later proved to be miscalculated) may have to have belief in his opinions before he has the proof. Otherwise, why look for the proof?


But it is an objective reason you cannot define with logical reasoning. I may agree with you that there is some underlying objective reason why something is moral, but I cannot define that objective reason without simply saying 'because it is' (something Sasaki would object to) or 'because I think it is' (something Sasaki might accept :wink:)

That is because we lack the objective terminology, we lack the initiative to study the phenomenon of morality, and we are as cavemen attempting to describe eternity. But, over time, I believe it is possible to say more than "I believe it is so."


Even mathematics has it's fundemental axioms.

At one point, those axioms did not exist because we had not theorized about it yet. Morality is the same way.


Like a scientific approach, a mathematical approach can only be taken once you have defined the axioms of morality. Although I disagree with lots in his post, the Stranger has the right of it here:

Then why do we not attempt to define these axioms?

I think the reason why is because people are happy with their beliefs. Challenging the status quo and offering new theories is frightening to people, or confusing. Some might even call it dangerous. Certain people who wanted to study the dead were called witches and sorcerers and wizards and evil people. This study lead to modern anatomical knowledge and modern medicine.

I believe there is room for theory and advancement in the field of moral and ethical study.


I can disagree with The Stranger's view that there is no fundementally 'right' moral code, but I cannot argue against him with reason, logic and scientific methods. It would be like arguing against someone who claims that Sasaki is a figment of our imaginations.

It is also difficult to argue with someone who believes that the Gods create lightning to punish the evil ones among us. And yet, with a little study, one might conclude that lightning does not strike people who commit certain deeds any more than people who have not committed those same deeds. With such knowledge, one could challenge the superstition.

I won't deny that forming our arguments and definitions, and even theorizing would look awfully silly to some people, and perhaps make no progress for quite some time. But simply because we lack the means to currently challenge accepted views with reason, that does not mean we can never. And, if we never try to make an advance along a scientific disciplined study of morality, then we will always be where we are: in opinion and superstition-land.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Again with the universe though. What do the stars and other planets tell us about morality? You would be better off with a microscope than a telescope, and best off with an fMRI. Remember I said it would be based on the natural world (human nature) and not entirely on our opinions and beliefs.

The microscope studies the universe as much as a telescope does.

When I say Universe I do not necessarily mean "up". I mean existence itself, from the small to the large.


You compare it to electricity, and point out that without us, electrons would still flow. But without us, would it still be wrong to cheat on your wife? There would be no wife and no cheater and no cheating...and no wrong.

Then let us create an object: A robot. It exists independent of us, and is not human. Can morality apply to the robot? Suppose the robot builds a weapon and wipes out all species on some alien planet. Does morality enter into it? I contend that it does. The act is still immoral... doesn't matter if there are humans involved. Certainly morality impacts human beings, and certainly specific examples such as "man cheating on wife" requires people. But I would argue that a truly objective morality would apply to all forms of intelligent beings, naturally, and by extension. It is just a strange circumstance where I can only name humans as intelligent beings in this sense, at least comparably intelligent to humans. I'd imagine that if there were gods, morality would apply to them as well. Greater-than-human beings? If they have intelligence and they commit consequential deeds, then their choices have morality or immorality.

Some people believe in demons and devils. Intelligent non-humans who plot to corrupt and twist and make suffer and destroy. Are these things immoral? Just because we live in a human-centric world, that does not mean that the universal laws which seem to apply only to us especially, necessarily are such. They would apply to any intelligent beings. But if I am a man standing in an empty room, and I have never seen other people, it is difficult to prove my point that other people might also stand in empty rooms. I don't have evidence of any universal truth here, but that does not mean it does not exist.

[The Stranger]

Again with the universe though. What do the stars and other planets tell us about morality? You would be better off with a microscope than a telescope, and best off with an fMRI. Remember I said it would be based on the natural world (human nature) and not entirely on our opinions and beliefs.

You compare it to electricity, and point out that without us, electrons would still flow. But without us, would it still be wrong to cheat on your wife? There would be no wife and no cheater and no cheating...and no wrong.



Why do you say survival instinct? We have the brain structure required to make moral judgement, that is why we have morality.


VVVVV well said pizza :yes:

yes that doesnt change a thing. we the moral judgement brain structure adds morality to what is survival instinct. if we did not have that moral structure we would be like animals in that respect (or atleast our current conception of animals and their possibilities) a baboon has pretty much the same survival instinct as we do, yet a dominant baboon male killing an infant is not doing anything wrong. while if a human would do so, most people would say that he is doing something wrong.

the most basic (often referred to as objective, because they are found in almost if not every culture) moral claims are to be traced back to these instincts. they are not outside us, but they are inherently in us. if morality was something objective, outside us, within the universe (or why not also outside the universe, surely then things would still be moral if the universe would cease to exist) than it would also have to be shared atleast in some respect by other intelligent alien lifeform. not only that, but also to the gods.

and im very much doubting that.

[The Stranger]

It is also difficult to argue with someone who believes that the Gods create lightning to punish the evil ones among us. And yet, with a little study, one might conclude that lightning does not strike people who commit certain deeds any more than people who have not committed those same deeds. With such knowledge, one could challenge the superstition.

I won't deny that forming our arguments and definitions, and even theorizing would look awfully silly to some people, and perhaps make no progress for quite some time. But simply because we lack the means to currently challenge accepted views with reason, that does not mean we can never. And, if we never try to make an advance along a scientific disciplined study of morality, then we will always be where we are: in opinion and superstition-land.

superstitious? me? now im offended!

i just dont understand why people who charge at religion and morality and such to the very foundations that support it, but refuse to look if their own building is properly supported, if at all.

there is a difference between the scientific method and science. a difference between mathematics and the mathematic system, between practised religion and religion as a system.

if you accept christianity to be true than it works. if you accept the mathematic system to be true than 1 + 1 = 2. but actually its complete bs. Why can't A not be NotA at the same time. in reality manythings are and are not at the same time. yet we accept the rule of A cant be NotA at the same time as an objective truth.

[The Stranger]

The microscope studies the universe as much as a telescope does.

When I say Universe I do not necessarily mean "up". I mean existence itself, from the small to the large.



Then let us create an object: A robot. It exists independent of us, and is not human. Can morality apply to the robot? Suppose the robot builds a weapon and wipes out all species on some alien planet. Does morality enter into it? I contend that it does. The act is still immoral... doesn't matter if there are humans involved. Certainly morality impacts human beings, and certainly specific examples such as "man cheating on wife" requires people. But I would argue that a truly objective morality would apply to all forms of intelligent beings, naturally, and by extension. It is just a strange circumstance where I can only name humans as intelligent beings in this sense, at least comparably intelligent to humans. I'd imagine that if there were gods, morality would apply to them as well. Greater-than-human beings? If they have intelligence and they commit consequential deeds, then their choices have morality or immorality.

Some people believe in demons and devils. Intelligent non-humans who plot to corrupt and twist and make suffer and destroy. Are these things immoral? Just because we live in a human-centric world, that does not mean that the universal laws which seem to apply only to us especially, necessarily are such. They would apply to any intelligent beings. But if I am a man standing in an empty room, and I have never seen other people, it is difficult to prove my point that other people might also stand in empty rooms. I don't have evidence of any universal truth here, but that does not mean it does not exist.

if there were no humans there would be no one to say that it is wrong. if suddenly humans appear and hear of it and say it is wrong, it is wrong because there are humans to say it is. this proves no point, because it is a human saying so. i would only be convinced if a martian pink hippo would tell it to me.

[The Stranger]

if there were no humans there would be no one to say that it is wrong. if suddenly humans appear and hear of it and say it is wrong, it is wrong because there are humans to say it is. this proves no point, because it is a human saying so. i would only be convinced if a martian pink hippo would tell it to me.

it indeed does not prove it does not exist. but it also no real argument for it. moral objectivity can exist, it might not exist. untill we find out when we look at the world all we see is moral diversity guided by a few apparantly universal apriori structures.

[Askthepizzaguy]

A baboon may not understand the consequences of his actions. While the actions might be defined in moral terms, the baboon isn't competent enough to understand right and wrong. At least, that is the defense that we might come up with.

I do not expect a plant to understand morality, nor a fish, nor a duck. I don't expect a baboon to understand consequences and morality. People are advanced enough to begin to comprehend it.

Perhaps we are the first advanced life on this planet capable of even having this discussion. Does that mean that we shouldn't have it? Does that mean that other species, sufficiently advanced, couldn't do so?

What of children? At what point do they become understanding and sentient enough to understand morality?

Further, without such a science of morality, how can we even say that we understand morality? Perhaps it is too large a concept for even us to grasp, like a baboon trying to design a gasoline engine. But I feel it is worth a try.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The microscope studies the universe as much as a telescope does.

When I say Universe I do not necessarily mean "up". I mean existence itself, from the small to the large.

Then let us create an object: A robot. It exists independent of us, and is not human. Can morality apply to the robot? Suppose the robot builds a weapon and wipes out all species on some alien planet. Does morality enter into it? I contend that it does.

But you are now postulating two other kinds of life forms. If they have morality it comes from them, and is particular to them--they might even have no use for it. So it seems to me like your are really arguing that morality is inherent to humanity, which is what I'm saying...


the most basic (often referred to as objective, because they are found in almost if not every culture) moral claims are to be traced back to these instincts. they are not outside us, but they are inherently in us. if morality was something objective, outside us, within the universe (or why not also outside the universe, surely then things would still be moral if the universe would cease to exist) than it would also have to be shared atleast in some respect by other intelligent alien lifeform. not only that, but also to the gods.

and im very much doubting that.

I don't see why you go from "inherently in us" to "therefore: subjective". We can observe our inherent internal phenomena can't we?

[Askthepizzaguy]

superstitious? me? now im offended!

i just dont understand why people who charge at religion and morality and such to the very foundations that support it, but refuse to look if their own building is properly supported, if at all

Actually that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that in the field of scientific morality, there is no building whatsoever. No supports.

What I propose is a construction project. Religion already has cathedrals. Why can science not at least attempt to explain morality?

I am not satisfied with "I believe it." I want to understand why. Other than turning to a deity or a guru who I also have to accept at face value without understanding the why, and getting nothing except "because I said so".

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying "Science knows morality better than religion". I am saying Science hasn't even attempted to understand morality. I believe a building, with proper supports, is in order.


if you accept christianity to be true than it works.

I'd disagree, but that's theology and not the topic.


if you accept the mathematic system to be true than 1 + 1 = 2. but actually its complete bs.

That's your opinion, now prove it.


Why can't A not be NotA at the same time.

Now you're asking questions, which is a start.


in reality manythings are and are not at the same time. yet we accept the rule of A cant be Not A at the same time as an objective truth.

It is difficult to respond to this, it is quite vague and I don't agree with it.


if there were no humans there would be no one to say that it is wrong. if suddenly humans appear and hear of it and say it is wrong, it is wrong because there are humans to say it is. this proves no point, because it is a human saying so. i would only be convinced if a martian pink hippo would tell it to me.

If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound, The Stranger.

Just because we aren't around, that does not mean the universe ceases to function with the same rules.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound, The Stranger.

Just because we aren't around, that does not mean the universe ceases to function with the same rules.

I must disagree pizza, if a tree falls in the forest it creates air waves, and if those waves hit our eardrum we hear a sound. That's a simple description of what happens. There is no guarantee that any alien lifeform has a sense of hearing, or that it is at all comparable to our own. So sound, which you must remember is an english, human word--is specific to us, not the universe. Air waves from moving objects are not.

[Askthepizzaguy]

But you are now postulating two other kinds of life forms. If they have morality it comes from them, and is particular to them--they might even have no use for it. So it seems to me like your are really arguing that morality is inherent to humanity, which is what I'm saying...

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life. I agree with you on a thousand points, but I challenge you that morality is purely a human construct, because you are basing that on observation alone. If there are underlying universal principles, they would apply to everyone and everything that it applies to, human or not. I don't have any proof of that, but we are talking theory. If you want a scientific morality, based in reason, then you're talking about one based on things which are not merely human opinions, but functions of our existence. If there is ever to be any morality based on something besides anger or joy or belief, which does not equal morality, then it has to be based on objective things.

Objective things exist outside of humanity and would apply to all sentient life.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

I wouldn't agree with any form of moral theory was broken simply because now we aren't talking about humans anymore. Then it simply becomes our opinions again. I don't think that science should be based on solely that.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I must disagree pizza, if a tree falls in the forest it creates air waves, and if those waves hit our eardrum we hear a sound. That's a simple description of what happens. There is no guarantee that any alien lifeform has a sense of hearing, or that it is at all comparable to our own. So sound, which you must remember is an english, human word--is specific to us, not the universe. Air waves from moving objects are not.

Critters in the forest can hear the tree fall, and we can observe that using scientific instruments.

Sound is a very real physical phenomenon which I could prove to any alien species, just as I can prove it to you.

Maybe you would call it "air waves hitting an eardrum" but I can prove both the air waves, the ear drum, and the electrical activity in the brain, and prove that there is an intelligent comprehension of that data.

You've given a bad example.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life.

But could these being understand neuroscience? You are assuming that a moral system is necessary for these beings. If there is no life, there is no morality. Chemistry would not be a valid discipline if nothing that it related to existed. You may as well argue that "buy low, sell high" is an inherent law of the universe.



If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

If they don't have the moral feelings we do, they will not be convinced.


Critters in the forest can hear the tree fall, and we can observe that using scientific instruments.

They don't hear it fall if there is "no one to hear it fall" as the saying usually goes.


Sound is a very real physical phenomenon which I could prove to any alien species, just as I can prove it to you.

I'm afraid not. Look out your window, and then describe what you see to a blind man. Describe "blue" to him. Sound is not an inherent phenomena, only the bouncing of air molecules is.

[The Stranger]

A baboon may not understand the consequences of his actions. While the actions might be defined in moral terms, the baboon isn't competent enough to understand right and wrong. At least, that is the defense that we might come up with.

I do not expect a plant to understand morality, nor a fish, nor a duck. I don't expect a baboon to understand consequences and morality. People are advanced enough to begin to comprehend it.

Perhaps we are the first advanced life on this planet capable of even having this discussion. Does that mean that we shouldn't have it? Does that mean that other species, sufficiently advanced, couldn't do so?

What of children? At what point do they become understanding and sentient enough to understand morality?

Further, without such a science of morality, how can we even say that we understand morality? Perhaps it is too large a concept for even us to grasp, like a baboon trying to design a gasoline engine. But I feel it is worth a try.

so becuase he doesnt understand right and wrong in the way humans (or intelligent rational creatures) would right and wrong do not apply to it. you can say what u want but that is the same as for the baboon it does not exist. so morality is inherent to intelligent and rationility which corresponds to our type. because sure dolphins are intelligent, probably also rational (if i understand the definition right) but no one is applying moral rules to them.

i dont say we shouldnt have the discussion. dont confuse there is no objective right and wrong with there is no reason to talk. or even because i claim it it doesnt mean that i am not open to arguments that will convince me otherwise. just because im a moral subjectivest doesnt make me a global subjectivist. and even if i was a global subjectivist i would still discuss it because i want my truth to be the universal truth.

the question of the children is not one for me to answer. i dont care when they become sentient enough. i think its a more urgent question for objectivism.

there is also a difference between a science of morality, one which objectively talks about morality and documents all the moral codes and such and an ethical scientificbased theory. such as that of dawkins.

[The Stranger]

I don't see why you go from "inherently in us" to "therefore: subjective". We can observe our inherent internal phenomena can't we?

i didnt mention subjective at all. im just saying i doubt it is objective. the point about it being inherently in us is only to prove wrong the idea that morality is outside us. it could be objectively in us, though even that i doubt.

[The Stranger]

Actually that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that in the field of scientific morality, there is no building whatsoever. No supports.

What I propose is a construction project. Religion already has cathedrals. Why can science not at least attempt to explain morality?

I am not satisfied with "I believe it." I want to understand why. Other than turning to a deity or a guru who I also have to accept at face value without understanding the why, and getting nothing except "because I said so".

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying "Science knows morality better than religion". I am saying Science hasn't even attempted to understand morality. I believe a building, with proper supports, is in order.



I'd disagree, but that's theology and not the topic.



That's your opinion, now prove it.



Now you're asking questions, which is a start.



It is difficult to respond to this, it is quite vague and I don't agree with it.



If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound, The Stranger.

Just because we aren't around, that does not mean the universe ceases to function with the same rules.

science can attempt all it want and i will be the last person to stop it. why do keep connecting subjectivism to conservatism.

you prove to me that 1 + 1 = 2 without using the mathematic system. i dont see why and apple (or wakhsdhadbhak) and apple (or wakhsdhadbhak) = 2 apples ( (or 2 wakhsdhadbhaks).

there are days when you feel happy and unhappy at the same time for an example. yet that is supposedly to be mathematically impossible. humans are full of contradictions.

oke. but to what level of intelligence will morality start to apply? is a baboon evil for killing an infant. answer that question according to those objective universal rules. surely if it is objective and universal it applies the same to humans as to all other animals whether they grasp the concept or not. whether they understand the consequences or not.

[The Stranger]

I must disagree pizza, if a tree falls in the forest it creates air waves, and if those waves hit our eardrum we hear a sound. That's a simple description of what happens. There is no guarantee that any alien lifeform has a sense of hearing, or that it is at all comparable to our own. So sound, which you must remember is an english, human word--is specific to us, not the universe. Air waves from moving objects are not.

which only changes the question to

if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around does it still create airwaves. this is an objection against idealism and in which ever way formulated it is a diffecult subjectmatter. i will return to it later on.

[The Stranger]

I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things. If there is an objective definition for morality, a scientific one, then that definition can apply to all intelligent sentient life. I agree with you on a thousand points, but I challenge you that morality is purely a human construct, because you are basing that on observation alone. If there are underlying universal principles, they would apply to everyone and everything that it applies to, human or not. I don't have any proof of that, but we are talking theory. If you want a scientific morality, based in reason, then you're talking about one based on things which are not merely human opinions, but functions of our existence. If there is ever to be any morality based on something besides anger or joy or belief, which does not equal morality, then it has to be based on objective things.

Objective things exist outside of humanity and would apply to all sentient life.

If we one day met an intelligent, alien species, but they enslaved other intelligent beings against their will, we might have a universal basis for showing them why it is immoral, based on universal, actual principles.

I wouldn't agree with any form of moral theory was broken simply because now we aren't talking about humans anymore. Then it simply becomes our opinions again. I don't think that science should be based on solely that.

no. just because one can understand it doesnt make it true. everyone can understand christianity surely. but that does not make it true. everyone can understand the idea of the earth being flat but that does not make it true. I'm sure there are more people having a hard time understanding maths than christianity, does this make christianity more truthful than maths? mathematics is comprehensible yes, it is a very neat system, but it is only true when you accept the system, it is only true within the system. in the same way that god is true when you accept the religion.

and why is science so neccesarily objective when it is still being performed by humans. nothing humans produce can ever be 100% objective.

bah scientists and priests... both metaphysici.

how can you explain the change from sentient to intelligent. surely if morality is objective it is as wrong to kill a human infant as it is to kill a infant cow (calf). or does the moral objective rule only apply to killing within ones species. against which i again take the baboon infant killer example. and if the baboon is not intelligent enough is it accounted for a species or individual. if accounted for as a species, than would the case arive that an superintteligent baboon would do all kinds of stuff morally wrong for humans it is not wrong for him because his species as a whole are deemed outside morality. if accounted for indivually, than also the stupid humans would fall outside morality.

[Cronos Impera]

Morality belongs to the blood and not to anything else.
What serves the purpose of furthering the blood line (straight sex and a normal family are moral while celibacy, homosexuality and self sacrifice are immoral and should be treated as such)
The individual or the group don't matter, only that glorious piece of DNA that is the link with Creation itself.Anything must be judged through the prism of this truth.

The I century AD was about Divine rights, the XIX century was about group rights, the XX was about human rights. Now this century must belong to blood rights.

Accepting Science means rejecting Humanism since after all Kukri's children might evolve into Mermaids while mine might evolve into Protoss and become distinct species with distinct needs.

Psychology today is just a secular means of inducing that manipulation that blocks your development and reduces you to a sterile drone and makes you proud of that. It also diminueshes your sex appeal amd makes you put on a few ponuds so you might just change gender cause you will be totally unatractive to the opposite sex after a psychology class.

[Myrddraal]

Then why do we not attempt to define these axioms?

That's what we've been doing all thread. You are claiming that you have some way to decide which moral axioms are right, but this is subjective by definition. It is not a case of missing terminology or lack of equipment. You cannot objectively differentiate between entirely subjective concepts such as 'right' and 'wrong'.

[Megas Methuselah]

A baboon may not understand the consequences of his actions. While the actions might be defined in moral terms, the baboon isn't competent enough to understand right and wrong.

I'm not sure about this in a very amusing sort of way. You see, my dog knows what is right and what is wrong, because I drilled it into his little brain. He knows that taking a piss inside the house is bad; he doesn't do it because he knows I'll punish him for it. Likewise, he knows that doing whatever I tell him to do (sit, lay down, etc.) is the right thing to do. :laugh4:

You know what? He lives a pretty sad life. His sense of morality: right = obeying me. wrong = disobeying me. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Just felt like adding this in when ATPG underestimated inferior beings a bit too much. Go on with your serious discussion, bro's.

[The Stranger]

I'm not sure about this in a very amusing sort of way. You see, my dog knows what is right and what is wrong, because I drilled it into his little brain. He knows that taking a piss inside the house is bad; he doesn't do it because he knows I'll punish him for it. Likewise, he knows that doing whatever I tell him to do (sit, lay down, etc.) is the right thing to do. :laugh4:

You know what? He lives a pretty sad life. His sense of morality: right = obeying me. wrong = disobeying me. :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Just felt like adding this in when ATPG underestimated inferior beings a bit too much. Go on with your serious discussion, bro's.

ur life aint better. good = obeying morality and bad = disobeying morality. the sadder part is morality doesnt even live. it doesnt really exist.

[The Stranger]

srry doublepost.

[Megas Methuselah]

Wait, wait, wait... I has morality?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Morality belongs to the blood and not to anything else.
What serves the purpose of furthering the blood line (straight sex and a normal family are moral while celibacy, homosexuality and self sacrifice are immoral and should be treated as such)
The individual or the group don't matter, only that glorious piece of DNA that is the link with Creation itself.Anything must be judged through the prism of this truth.

The I century AD was about Divine rights, the XIX century was about group rights, the XX was about human rights. Now this century must belong to blood rights.

Accepting Science means rejecting Humanism since after all Kukri's children might evolve into Mermaids while mine might evolve into Protoss and become distinct species with distinct needs.

Psychology today is just a secular means of inducing that manipulation that blocks your development and reduces you to a sterile drone and makes you proud of that. It also diminueshes your sex appeal amd makes you put on a few ponuds so you might just change gender cause you will be totally unatractive to the opposite sex after a psychology class.

Using your genetic survival baseline, self-sacrifice is not immoral if said sacrifice is made in order preserve your own or your collective's genetic future.

In addition, as failure to develop colonies on other, younger planets produces a long-term extinction problem, failure to develop space travel etc. would be immoral using your rubric. Correct?

[Megas Methuselah]

In addition, as failure to develop colonies on other, younger planets produces a long-term extinction problem, failure to develop space travel etc. would be immoral using your rubric. Correct?

Funnily enough, I can actually picture a futurastic (and science fiction) world of humans living by this weird morality with a sort of manifest destiny idea to spread their blood across the stars. :inquisitive:

[Viking]

ur life aint better. good = obeying morality and bad = disobeying morality. the sadder part is morality doesnt even live. it doesnt really exist.

We can define it to exist, and so we have it. It's just like math. Differentiating the cosine function has an inherent meaning to me - differentiation does exist. :yes:

I assume that you meant "objective morality" though, which I agree that do not exist. There is nothing about morals that can be defended, because there is no objective starting point. Bringing science and "reason" into this is absurd.

--
I want to state something:

"It is immoral to pluck flowers."

If morals belong to reason and science; then either I can prove this to be correct, or anyone else can prove it to be wrong; hypothetically.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I have found the answer to all the great questions in this thread on epistemological issues, and chartered the evolution of human understanding...

https://img717.imageshack.us/img717/710/moralitylol.jpg (https://img717.imageshack.us/i/moralitylol.jpg/)

[Megas Methuselah]

I have found the answer to all the great questions in this thread on epistemological issues, and chartered the evolution of human understanding...

https://img717.imageshack.us/img717/710/moralitylol.jpg (https://img717.imageshack.us/i/moralitylol.jpg/)

This was posted some months ago on these very same forums, you obselete Scot. :clown:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

We can define it to exist, and so we have it. It's just like math. Differentiating the cosine function has an inherent meaning to me - differentiation does exist. :yes:

I assume that you meant "objective morality" though, which I agree that do not exist. There is nothing about morals that can be defended, because there is no objective starting point. Bringing science and "reason" into this is absurd.

--
I want to state something:

"It is immoral to pluck flowers."

If morals belong to reason and science; then either I can prove this to be correct, or anyone else can prove it to be wrong; hypothetically.

But that isn't really a problem isn't it? I actually like your example a lot. Do you consider yourself able to come to a reasonable conclusion about whether it is inherently immoral to pluck flowers? If not, why? :dizzy2:

Let me put it to you this way. You are very ill, and need treatment. I say to you, "there is no objective way to prove that this medicine really works--it could all be an illusion by a mystical creature. In fact, it can't even be proven that you are sick". How do you make the decision on whether to take the medicine?


I have found the answer to all the great questions in this thread on epistemological issues, and chartered the evolution of human understanding...

https://img717.imageshack.us/img717/710/moralitylol.jpg (https://img717.imageshack.us/i/moralitylol.jpg/)

:2thumbsup:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

..., you obselete Scot.

Isn't that redundant?


:clown:

[Reenk Roink]

But, I think although you can't argue in proof of the principles, you can argue for the principles. You can argue for our number system being in base 10 by saying that for ordinary purposes there is no reason to change it, since change would be difficult and pointless, and so on. But we needn't accept that base 10 is the one true way--when binary and hexadecimal are found to be useful, we use them instead. In other words, there are reasons why we choose to accept a given axiom. I may not be able to logically disprove your axiom, but if I can show that the reasons you used when you chose to accept it apply better to a different axiom, isn't that significant?

Yes I agree, there are usually "reasons" (in the broad sense) of why we believe the axioms we do. Our upbringing, both with our family and greater society, and so on with other crap.

If you could show the last part it would be interesting... I'm not betting on an successful attempt but still interesting... :wink:


I should say that morality doesn't necessarily belong to science and reason over religion and individual opinion. But that if it does belong to religion, it needs to be shown to do so by reason and/or science.

Why? For that matter, I will say that if morality does belong to science and/or reason, it needs to be shown to do so by religion.


If morality is not subjective, but rather something objective, then it is a natural phenomenon inherent to the universe

How does it follow that an objective morality is a "natural phenomenon"? What the hell does that even mean? :huh: Even if morality was objective, it seems much more likely that it is a non natural phenomenon.


But consider also that mankind did not invent mathematics. Mathematics is a natural extension of the laws of the universe.

The argument that mathematics is invented rather than merely discovered is much better. Show me an actual infinite in the universe (in fact one could strongly argue that an actual infinite is physically unrealizable).

Nuancing this, I would say pure mathematics is invented, and then the application of these mathematics are either discovered (usually after looking).


Man did not invent logic

Then why is there classical logic and the opposing paraconsistent logic?


We also do not understand logic itself enough to be infallible when discussing truths.

What does this mean? Most systems of logic are very complete. Classical logic for examples guarantees the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premises.


I believe there is room for theory and advancement in the field of moral and ethical study.

Ethics (theory of morality) is probably the MOST studied field in philosophy. There's tons written on it.


I challenge you on that. Other beings, sufficiently advanced, could understand chemistry and mathematics. Those are objective things.

Absolutely not. I've pointed out in this very thread as much examples of such.

Chemistry: The theoretical framework of phlogistic chemistry has a jar of something. The theoretical framework of modern chemistry has a jar of the same thing. Under the paradigm of pholgistic chemistry it is dephlogisiticated air, under the paradigm of modern chemistry it is oxygen. Completely incommensurable theoretical frameworks lead to a completely different understanding of what is going on.

Mathematics: The axioms of Euclidian, spherical, and hyperbolic geometry are in conflict.

Science ain't "objective". There are many different ways of understanding "the facts" - see interpretations of QM. Math is obviously not objective.

Do you believe in a Geocentric solar system or a Heliocentric solar system? A Geocentric solar system is still defendable with a complicated set of math to model it, but the Heliocentric solar system got popular because of a change in the religious views of the medieval European elite (it was definitely religion and God that drove Copernicus and crew to postulate a new system, that had a more simplistic and what they would call "elegant" coordinate system).

Of course nowadays with GR, all that centrism crap is meaningless.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes I agree, there are usually "reasons" (in the broad sense) of why we believe the axioms we do. Our upbringing, both with our family and greater society, and so on with other crap.

If you could show the last part it would be interesting... I'm not betting on an successful attempt but still interesting... :wink:

Moral rule: it is wrong to pull the plug on someone in a [certain type of] coma

The reasoning for the rule assumes that the person is still alive in some way, still "there". That's what motivates the rule. If it is shown that the person is brain dead, then does the rule still apply? You see what I'm getting at? That isn't a basic moral rule though. Not feeling up to arguing against a more basic axiom at the moment, but it's the same principle :juggle2:

Most of the axioms we do follow have some reasoning behind them though, yes?



Why? For that matter, I will say that if morality does belong to science and/or reason, it needs to be shown to do so by religion.
...
Ethics (theory of morality) is probably the MOST studied field in philosophy. There's tons written on it.


Well, do you think ethics has accomplished anything? Does god have reasons for the 10 commandments or are they arbitrary?

[Reenk Roink]

Moral rule: it is wrong to pull the plug on someone in a [certain type of] coma

The reasoning for the rule assumes that the person is still alive in some way, still "there". That's what motivates the rule. If it is shown that the person is brain dead, then does the rule still apply? You see what I'm getting at? That isn't a basic moral rule though. Not feeling up to arguing against a more basic axiom at the moment, but it's the same principle :juggle2:

Most of the axioms we do follow have some reasoning behind them though, yes?

But that is really what I would call something much more targeted than an axiom. An axiom might be something like "right to life" or something (that might still be too narrow).

These aren't the basic principles I (or likely Aquinas) had in mind.


Well, do you think ethics has accomplished anything? Does god have reasons for the 10 commandments or are they arbitrary?

I don't think most philosophy has accomplished anything. :beam: But the goals orientated morality you were proclaiming earlier (maybe still are) has already been discussed in great detail (utilitarianism).

As for the God having reasons, my personal view is that morality is solely decided by the fiat of God (by the way this morality isn't "objective" at least not in the sense the moral realists would like - where they would see a morality independent of God who is the agent of that morality - that doesn't fly with me).

So in my moral theory when God commanded the Israelites to go and raze the cities, kill the men, enslave (or also kill - not sure) the women and children, it was morally obligatory.

Of course the objection is going to be it's "arbitrary" but I would reply it has to be (no moral considerations can inform the will of God cause they don't exist without him willing them into existence). For that matter, an (god independent) 'objective' morality has to be arbitrary itself.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But that is really what I would call something much more targeted than an axiom. An axiom might be something like "right to life" or something (that might still be too narrow).

These aren't the basic principles I (or likely Aquinas) had in mind.

Yes I agree. Although I think it does demonstrate the use of reason on many moral arguments.

I think the basic problem with my argument is that I am basing the moral axioms on human nature--but it is human nature to be very flexible and to be greatly effected by culture and environment. So it's all well and good to suggest happiness and wellbeing as the goals, but people raised in a different system may not be happy in that system :juggle2:



I don't think most philosophy has accomplished anything. :beam: But the goals orientated morality you were proclaiming earlier (maybe still are) has already been discussed in great detail (utilitarianism).

Mmm, don't you think philosophy was a contributing factor in the spread of civil rights?


As for the God having reasons, my personal view is that morality is solely decided by the fiat of God (by the way this morality isn't "objective" at least not in the sense the moral realists would like - where they would see a morality independent of God who is the agent of that morality - that doesn't fly with me).

So in my moral theory when God commanded the Israelites to go and raze the cities, kill the men, enslave (or also kill - not sure) the women and children, it was morally obligatory.

Of course the objection is going to be it's "arbitrary" but I would reply it has to be (no moral considerations can inform the will of God cause they don't exist without him willing them into existence). For that matter, an (god independent) 'objective' morality has to be arbitrary itself.

How do you know what God's fiat is? I'd object if I disagreed with what it was...that's the problem with arbitrary to me. It does have to be arbitrary if it's as you describe though.

[Reenk Roink]

Yes I agree. Although I think it does demonstrate the use of reason on many moral arguments.

Well I agree that reason/science usually comes into play at a lower level in moral discussions (look at the science brought up in the abortion debates - or the "reason" (an argument that if it's not moral to abort at time t why not time t - 1 second/minute/day/week - good old trying to use paradoxes and vaguely defined time to promote a pro life agenda).

I actually think (despite some skeptical posturing you may see) that they're important at that level.


Mmm, don't you think philosophy was a contributing factor in the spread of civil rights?

It was a contributing factor, but minor, nor do I believe it was big in the scientific revolution or enlightenment. Theology played more of a role (I guess you could call that philosophy too). Either way, I'm not big on intellectual positions being the major driving force in shaping history. :shrug:


How do you know what God's fiat is? I'd object if I disagreed with what it was...that's the problem with arbitrary to me. It does have to be arbitrary if it's as you describe though.

I don't. :beam: I have no idea, I don't even know how strongly I follow any religious tradition. I do believe morality lies with God's fiat but that's about the only strong belief I have on moral theory. It's a problem, as is the problem of defining happiness or well being when faced with a goal based ethics. Or the seemingly unsavory conclusions such systems come to (is it moral to kill 1 healthy man to use his organs to save 10 dying men who will die without the respective organs? -isn't that for the greater good though?).

I'll have this discussion with you, but then I'll go to sleep, wake up, drive to school listening to U2, and spend time with my family and friends. :beam: My sense of morality on issues will always be vaguely defined and not reflected upon much, lest I upset myself too much. :beam:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I actually think (despite some skeptical posturing you may see) that they're important at that level.

~:)

I would claim they are important at the highest level, but then I would have to show that...umm. And I don't think that our current problems are at that level. We can probably do just fine improving on the lower level.



It was a contributing factor, but minor, nor do I believe it was big in the scientific revolution or enlightenment. Theology played more of a role (I guess you could call that philosophy too). Either way, I'm not big on intellectual positions being the major driving force in shaping history. :shrug:

It's hard to say. I don't know enough history to claim it. Our ideas have changed greatly over time, but how much is due to us simply having the luxury to be less brutal?


I don't. :beam: I have no idea, I don't even know how strongly I follow any religious tradition. I do believe morality lies with God's fiat but that's about the only strong belief I have on moral theory. It's a problem, as is the problem of defining happiness or well being when faced with a goal based ethics. Or the seemingly unsavory conclusions such systems come to (is it moral to kill 1 healthy man to use his organs to save 10 dying men who will die without the respective organs? -isn't that for the greater good though?).

It is morale to kill 1 healthy man to save a million. I'm fully comfortable claiming that. So I believe in the principle. With 10, it's more complicated, you have to start considering all of the factors. You have to acknowledge that practically speaking we have instincts, and that no system of morality would be worth squat if we didn't. I think goal based ethics certainly works to the extent that it doesn't bother our feelings. But our feelings aren't entirely static either...and it begins to get fuzzy.


I'll have this discussion with you, but then I'll go to sleep, wake up, drive to school listening to U2, and spend time with my family and friends. :beam: My sense of morality on issues will always be vaguely defined and not reflected upon much, lest I upset myself too much. :beam:

Yeah, most of the time. Sometimes I get the curiosity urge though.

[Cronos Impera]

Using your genetic survival baseline, self-sacrifice is not immoral if said sacrifice is made in order preserve your own or your collective's genetic future.

In addition, as failure to develop colonies on other, younger planets produces a long-term extinction problem, failure to develop space travel etc. would be immoral using your rubric. Correct?

Well, imagine that if the chimps thought like you, there would be no capuceen meat on their tables cause this would diminuish the gene pool of the primates as a genre, and that would halp the parrots and dolphins become the dominant species.
If you haven't produced viable offspring and can do so, wasting yourself is a waste of your parent's time and effort into bringing you up. On the other hand if you're sterile or can't get an erection you can sacrifice yourself for fame....
It is perfectly normal for a parent to sacrifice itself for his/her child. It is dumb to sacrifice yourself for "the greater genepool". I mean a ameoba can evolve into a human.

[Viking]

But that isn't really a problem isn't it? I actually like your example a lot. Do you consider yourself able to come to a reasonable conclusion about whether it is inherently immoral to pluck flowers? If not, why? :dizzy2:

Let me put it to you this way. You are very ill, and need treatment. I say to you, "there is no objective way to prove that this medicine really works--it could all be an illusion by a mystical creature. In fact, it can't even be proven that you are sick". How do you make the decision on whether to take the medicine?


There is no objective starting point when it comes to deciding whether or not it is immoral to pluck flowers. Even if I provided a reason for why I think it is immoral, you could only counter it if it was based on underlying morals - morals need to be relative to each other in order to be debatable. If you want to disprove it, there is no way to test the statement.

Medicines are testable, morals are not. That's the bottom line.

I'll go into details about what I mean with starting points. There are two different starting points for the statement "it is immoral to pluck flowers". The first one is the statement itself, it doesn't need any justification from other morals - it's a moral cornerstone. This means that whatever that could lead to a flower getting plucked could be considered immoral/taking unnecessary risks because plucking flowers in itself is an immoral thing to do. The ten commandments are of this class, I believe; they are not derived from other morals; e.g. "adultery is immoral" is a statement without justification (?).

A second starting point is with a different moral, e.g. "it is immoral to kill/destroy living creatures for any other reason than getting fed". Now plucking flowers is immoral because of the consequences of another moral.

I don't think it is meaningful to talk about the rightness of the statement, because there is no objective starting point.

[The Stranger]

Yes I agree, there are usually "reasons" (in the broad sense) of why we believe the axioms we do. Our upbringing, both with our family and greater society, and so on with other crap.

If you could show the last part it would be interesting... I'm not betting on an successful attempt but still interesting... :wink:



Why? For that matter, I will say that if morality does belong to science and/or reason, it needs to be shown to do so by religion.



How does it follow that an objective morality is a "natural phenomenon"? What the hell does that even mean? :huh: Even if morality was objective, it seems much more likely that it is a non natural phenomenon.



The argument that mathematics is invented rather than merely discovered is much better. Show me an actual infinite in the universe (in fact one could strongly argue that an actual infinite is physically unrealizable).

Nuancing this, I would say pure mathematics is invented, and then the application of these mathematics are either discovered (usually after looking).



Then why is there classical logic and the opposing paraconsistent logic?



What does this mean? Most systems of logic are very complete. Classical logic for examples guarantees the truth of the conclusion given the truth of the premises.



Ethics (theory of morality) is probably the MOST studied field in philosophy. There's tons written on it.



Absolutely not. I've pointed out in this very thread as much examples of such.

Chemistry: The theoretical framework of phlogistic chemistry has a jar of something. The theoretical framework of modern chemistry has a jar of the same thing. Under the paradigm of pholgistic chemistry it is dephlogisiticated air, under the paradigm of modern chemistry it is oxygen. Completely incommensurable theoretical frameworks lead to a completely different understanding of what is going on.

Mathematics: The axioms of Euclidian, spherical, and hyperbolic geometry are in conflict.

Science ain't "objective". There are many different ways of understanding "the facts" - see interpretations of QM. Math is obviously not objective.

Do you believe in a Geocentric solar system or a Heliocentric solar system? A Geocentric solar system is still defendable with a complicated set of math to model it, but the Heliocentric solar system got popular because of a change in the religious views of the medieval European elite (it was definitely religion and God that drove Copernicus and crew to postulate a new system, that had a more simplistic and what they would call "elegant" coordinate system).

Of course nowadays with GR, all that centrism crap is meaningless.

thank you Reenk for doing it better than I could say! :bow:

[The Stranger]

Moral rule: it is wrong to pull the plug on someone in a [certain type of] coma

The reasoning for the rule assumes that the person is still alive in some way, still "there". That's what motivates the rule. If it is shown that the person is brain dead, then does the rule still apply? You see what I'm getting at? That isn't a basic moral rule though. Not feeling up to arguing against a more basic axiom at the moment, but it's the same principle :juggle2:

Most of the axioms we do follow have some reasoning behind them though, yes?


that Sanctictity of Life is a Very Jewish-Christian-Muslim value (people will attack me for saying muslim :P). Read Peter Singer about it. I dont agree one bit with the man but he has some very interesting things to say about it.

[The Stranger]

I don't think most philosophy has accomplished anything. :beam: But the goals orientated morality you were proclaiming earlier (maybe still are) has already been discussed in great detail (utilitarianism).

As for the God having reasons, my personal view is that morality is solely decided by the fiat of God (by the way this morality isn't "objective" at least not in the sense the moral realists would like - where they would see a morality independent of God who is the agent of that morality - that doesn't fly with me).

So in my moral theory when God commanded the Israelites to go and raze the cities, kill the men, enslave (or also kill - not sure) the women and children, it was morally obligatory.

Of course the objection is going to be it's "arbitrary" but I would reply it has to be (no moral considerations can inform the will of God cause they don't exist without him willing them into existence). For that matter, an (god independent) 'objective' morality has to be arbitrary itself.

i think philosophy has had alot more influence in the history of mankind than is being admitted or even recognized. it didnt have much direct influence. but dont forget that christanity took alot of stuff from plato. Augustine was a philosopher. Philosophers-scientists changed alot of our worldview.l The idea of the rational individual agent is a philosophical project. World war I was caused by nationalism which found is roots in Historical and Cultural Relativism which again was in defiance of Hegel. I think of theology (not practical religion) also as a philosphy, so atleast in the west it has had a lot of influence. but ofcourse its never one way, philosophy has been influence by many other things as well.


oooh oooh and dont forget Marckx whose ideas indirectly influenced half the worlds population.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There is no objective starting point when it comes to deciding whether or not it is immoral to pluck flowers. Even if I provided a reason for why I think it is immoral, you could only counter it if it was based on underlying morals - morals need to be relative to each other in order to be debatable. If you want to disprove it, there is no way to test the statement.

Medicines are testable, morals are not. That's the bottom line.

I'll go into details about what I mean with starting points. There are two different starting points for the statement "it is immoral to pluck flowers". The first one is the statement itself, it doesn't need any justification from other morals - it's a moral cornerstone. This means that whatever that could lead to a flower getting plucked could be considered immoral/taking unnecessary risks because plucking flowers in itself is an immoral thing to do. The ten commandments are of this class, I believe; they are not derived from other morals; e.g. "adultery is immoral" is a statement without justification (?).

A second starting point is with a different moral, e.g. "it is immoral to kill/destroy living creatures for any other reason than getting fed". Now plucking flowers is immoral because of the consequences of another moral.

I don't think it is meaningful to talk about the rightness of the statement, because there is no objective starting point.

But that's the key isn't it? You can't prove that medicine is testable. You are willing to make that your starting point though. This is why I say that lack of objective starting point is not a problem.

[The Stranger]

But that's the key isn't it? You can't prove that medicine is testable. You are willing to make that your starting point though. This is why I say that lack of objective starting point is not a problem.

and which is exactly the reason why i do have a problem with an objective starting point. and science as a religion... etc. etc.

[Viking]

But that's the key isn't it? You can't prove that medicine is testable. You are willing to make that your starting point though. This is why I say that lack of objective starting point is not a problem.

It's not comparable, because testing is related to a [presumeably] objective reality. You could define the medicine as either working/not working depending on the outcome of its usage, which depends on factual reality.

You can only use testing on relative morals, not absolute.


and which is exactly the reason why i do have a problem with an objective starting point. and science as a religion... etc. etc.

You could say existing is being religious, because you need to interpret reality in your own subjective ways. Science is though a method, it doesn't take any faith to practice, only to interpret.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

and which is exactly the reason why i do have a problem with an objective starting point. and science as a religion... etc. etc.

I see :yes:


It's not comparable, because testing is related to a [presumeably] objective reality. You could define the medicine as either working/not working depending on the outcome of its usage, which depends on factual reality.

You can only use testing on relative morals, not absolute.


Why do you define medicine as being about curing people? You are assuming that as a starting point. I say it's supposed to kill people. And you are presuming objective reality as you say :yes:

Just because it isn't objective doesn't mean that reasoning is not important.

VVV what don't you like about the "yes" smileys?

[The Stranger]

It's not comparable, because testing is related to a [presumeably] objective reality. You could define the medicine as either working/not working depending on the outcome of its usage, which depends on factual reality.

You can only use testing on relative morals, not absolute.



You could say existing is being religious, because you need to interpret reality in your own subjective ways. Science is though a method, it doesn't take any faith to practice, only to interpret.

no. religion has nothing to do with subjectivism. both christianity and science (which is as much as secular christianity often) are about objectivism. they believe in an absolute truth outside reality which can be known by finite creatures. it is total arrogance.

and sasaki, people will one day get you for those smilies :P

now im going to watch THE PACIFIC

[Myrddraal]

The comparison with medicine isn't accurate imo:

We can define medicine by what it is supposed to achieve: "Taking medicine helps you recover from illness". This is a definition and cannot be argued with. We can then test medicine by checking that it does what it is supposed to.

But 'morals' is a word to describe how we feel we should behave. This is much harder to define in any more precise manner. What is the objective of morals?

We can define individual moral codes more precisely, something like: "The rights of one man end where the rights of the next begin". This is a definition and cannot be argued with. We can then test 'morals' against this definition to see if they are 'good' or 'bad' morals, but we must have that initial definition.

You could argue that my moral system is itself 'bad' but how could you do so with reason? You could suggest alternative definitions which I feel are 'better', but nothing more scientific than that.
I could argue that medicine is not supposed to help you recover from injury. That instead we take medicine to make us fat. Well that's a different definition of medicine. By my definition your pills aren't medicine, fast food is. That's plainly ridiculous by your definition of medicine.

But just to be sure you don't miss my point. I'm not saying that there is no right and wrong. Unlike me choosing my defintion of medicine, we cannot choose what we believe to be right or wrong, just as we cannot choose to believe in God or atheism. We express our inner belief of what is 'right' and 'wrong' by modelling this belief with some objective rules or laws, but we cannot judge other people's beliefs other than by our own beliefs, and the laws that come from them. There is no 'scientific' way of picking apart another person's moral axioms. There is no reasonable way other than by judging these axioms according to our own.

Because let's face it, many things seem naturally wrong to us all. We rationalise these things afterwards, but at the time they just feel wrong. We might rationalise them by saying "That action caused unhappiness, and my morals are to maximise happiness" or we might say "That action would never be condoned by a benevolant person, let alone a benvolant flawless God", but these thoughts are added after the initial reaction to rationalise it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The comparison with medicine isn't accurate imo:

We can define medicine by what it is supposed to achieve: "Taking medicine helps you recover from illness". This is a definition and cannot be argued with. We can then test medicine by checking that it does what it is supposed to.

But 'morals' is a word to describe how we feel we should behave. This is much harder to define in any more precise manner. What is the objective of morals?

We can define individual moral codes more precisely, something like: "The rights of one man end where the rights of the next begin". This is a definition and cannot be argued with. We can then test 'morals' against this definition to see if they are 'good' or 'bad' morals, but we must have that initial definition.

You could argue that my moral system is itself 'bad' but how could you do so with reason? You could suggest alternative definitions which I feel are 'better', but nothing more scientific than that.
I could argue that medicine is not supposed to help you recover from injury. That instead we take medicine to make us fat. Well that's a different definition of medicine. By my definition your pills aren't medicine, fast food is. That's plainly ridiculous by your definition of medicine.

I think it's a kind of muddy comparison because we all know what medicine is supposed to do. Or we think we know. There is actually a lot of disagreement about it. Are steroids a medicine? They are used for a variety of reasons, some of which are called "medical" and others not. What's the difference between curing a "defect" and just improving from "normal"? What about drugs that change people's personalities? Should medicine be used to keep someone alive, even if they will be in pain?

The point being, when making judgements about medicine, you have to start by defining medicine. You are arguing from a perceived accepted position--you start with a definition. And when you bring up the obvious counterpoint--that I could say "medicine should make us fat", you dismiss it being assuming the definition you started with.



But just to be sure you don't miss my point. I'm not saying that there is no right and wrong. Unlike me choosing my defintion of medicine, we cannot choose what we believe to be right or wrong, just as we cannot choose to believe in God or atheism. We express our inner belief of what is 'right' and 'wrong' by modelling this belief with some objective rules or laws, but we cannot judge other people's beliefs other than by our own beliefs, and the laws that come from them. There is no 'scientific' way of picking apart another person's moral axioms. There is no reasonable way other than by judging these axioms according to our own.

I think there can be. Let's say these are my moral axioms:

1) contradiction is bad
2) killing is good
3) killing is bad

Don't you think you could pick apart my axioms? I have to drop one of them, surely.


Because let's face it, many things seem naturally wrong to us all. We rationalise these things afterwards, but at the time they just feel wrong. We might rationalise them by saying "That action caused unhappiness, and my morals are to maximise happiness" or we might say "That action would never be condoned by a benevolant person, let alone a benvolant flawless God", but these thoughts are added after the initial reaction to rationalise it.

We do start with instincts, and a lot more is taught, but our rationalizations affect our feelings. If your beliefs change, you can feel differently "at the time". You can take twin brothers, and teach one that a certain thing is moral and another that it is immoral, and they will believe it.



You could argue that my moral system is itself 'bad' but how could you do so with reason? You could suggest alternative definitions which I feel are 'better', but nothing more scientific than that.

Perhaps I'm equivocating on reason again. But if I argue for reasonable alternatives, and you feel they are better, isn't that using reason to decide between axioms?

[Myrddraal]

I think there can be. Let's say these are my moral axioms:

1) contradiction is bad
2) killing is good
3) killing is bad

Don't you think you could pick apart my axioms? I have to drop one of them, surely.
I agree, but I do so by arguing within the framework of your own morals. I can point out that your morals are not internally consistent, but I can't tell you which of these morals to drop other than by judging them by my own morals, i.e. I think you should drop no. 2 because I think killing is bad.


Perhaps I'm equivocating on reason again. But if I argue for reasonable alternatives, and you feel they are better, isn't that using reason to decide between axioms?
Well if you mean reasonable in the sense: reasonable = it feels right to me, sure,
but if you mean reasonable in the sense: reasonable = logical, I'm not sure that's possible.

Basically I disagree with the implied conclusion of the OP; that scientific method and logic can be used to determine the 'correct' moral axioms. If you want to use 'reason' in a broader sense, then I can probably agree with that :smile:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah, I don't really see reason as synonymous with logic. It seems crucially different to me. Science and logic are considered authoritative, so when you have something that can't be solved using them, you must use reason. Which as Reenk pointed out, I'm not defining well. It's not quite "feels right to me" though. That's how we'd decide between two propositions that couldn't be answered by science or logic if we liked one of them more. But what if we aren't sure? I'm thinking of reasoning partly as the kind of things you would do in that case: contemplating the issue, seeking new perspectives, turning it over in your mind, exploring why logic and science fail, considering all the implications of the two propositions. And I would say that a lot of the time we shouldn't be as sure as we are.


I agree, but I do so by arguing within the framework of your own morals. I can point out that your morals are not internally consistent, but I can't tell you which of these morals to drop other than by judging them by my own morals, i.e. I think you should drop no. 2 because I think killing is bad.

Sure, I was just arguing against the pure subjectivity. As you say, we come with a lot of things naturally. We all start within the same sort of framework. So I think we generally all argue within the same framework.

[ajaxfetish]

I think there can be. Let's say these are my moral axioms:

1) contradiction is bad
2) killing is good
3) killing is bad

Don't you think you could pick apart my axioms? I have to drop one of them, surely.
I think you should drop number 1.

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

I find that those who like to tell you about morals are those most likely to abuse or discard them.

[Megas Methuselah]

I find that those who like to tell you about morals are those most likely to abuse or discard them.

You has morals?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You has morals?

Not in the bedroom.

EDIT: Which is where my computer is located presently.

[al Roumi]

Not in the bedroom.

EDIT: Which is where my computer is located presently.

That...is...disgusting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality

:wink:

[The Stranger]

ahahaha that is so funny... guess many of them are married to their toothbrush!

[Viking]

Why do you define medicine as being about curing people? You are assuming that as a starting point. I say it's supposed to kill people. And you are presuming objective reality as you say :yes:

Just because it isn't objective doesn't mean that reasoning is not important.


Now you're just playing with words; it doesn't matter what we call it. The starting point is the objective reality for which we define words like "medicine" to describe in our subjective ways. We lack an objective moral reality where we may start. If there was no objective reality, reason and testing wouldn't work for "medicine", either.


no. religion has nothing to do with subjectivism. both christianity and science (which is as much as secular christianity often) are about objectivism. they believe in an absolute truth outside reality which can be known by finite creatures. it is total arrogance.

The subjective interpretations are for the most part not perceived as subjective, but as an interpretation of an objective underlying truth.

You talk about "total arrogance", but this assumes that there actually is an absolute truth from which we can deduce arrogance. That's an effective contradiction of your post.

[The Stranger]

it assumes nothing but that i think it is total arrogance.

other people believe that looking at people in a way or not greeting some one you occasionally great as arrogance...

[Reenk Roink]

Sam Harris is going to be putting out a book The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values this fall.

I don't think it will be of much value except maybe to the choir, because I think he'll be coming at it with they typical entrenched naturalistic and scientific worldview, but it might lead to some valuable discussion with more promising cases by those sympathetic to his thesis.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'll be buying that book. So I can rub it in other parents face 15 years from now when my kid is more behaved then theirs without having to believe in fear mongering nonsense.

[Vladimir]

I'll be buying that book. So I can rub it in other parents face 15 years from now when my kid is more behaved then theirs without having to believe in fear mongering nonsense.

What will you do if they're not?

[rory_20_uk]

Surely if they're in any way behaved that is enough. If religion rises us above feral animals you're trying to prove non-inferiority not superiority.

~:smoking:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Basically on topic...

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/jfb/huckfinn.pdf

A nice essay I read today about huck finn, himmler, and the conflict between principles and sympathies.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What will you do if they're not?

Scrap the experiment and start with a new batch.

[Vladimir]

Scrap the experiment and start with a new batch.

:laugh4: Good answer. :bow: