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

[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

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.

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
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.

[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? " 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

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

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.

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. I especially don't see how morality should be goal orientated (which I have shown an alternative which is both realizable and widely realized).

[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.

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.

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

[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?

[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.

[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

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.

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

[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

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.