ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ethics , morality

Reply
Old 5th August 2019, 11:02 AM   #81
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,675
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Logic isn't something I should have to "bring up."

It's like asking an engineer for a bridge design and 1/3 of a way into the design process going "What? You never mentioned the bridge would be built in a place with Gravity!"
It is if you want to suggest ethics is based on logic. If that's what you're saying you should be able to show your work. Premise, inference, conclusion. Isn't that what logic is?

"Logic" doesn't mean "something that seems obvious but I'm unable to explain it".
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 11:06 AM   #82
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 50,675
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I guess I'm on ignore or something.
But are people choosing to ignore you or being coerced by outside forces? Apparently at least one person is capable of making a choice against their will, which is a pretty neat trick.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 11:15 AM   #83
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,591
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
So here we encounter some of the manifold problems with psychological egoism--if I claim that I didn't act according to my own desires at all, but in consideration of other people's interests, I'm told that not only do I feel such a desire, but that I must have felt it more strongly. Otherwise, psychological egoism would be false! *wank emoji*
No, not because otherwise psychological egoism would be false, but because otherwise you would have acted differently, as the only thing stopping you from doing so is yourself. Nothing external was limiting you from acting differently. Hence whatever interest it is that is the reason you choose to act such way is one of your interests.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 11:28 AM   #84
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
But are people choosing to ignore you or being coerced by outside forces?
Since apparently even legitimate arguments are solipsism, I'd say that in fact no one makes actual choices.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 11:55 AM   #85
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No, not because otherwise psychological egoism would be false, but because otherwise you would have acted differently, as the only thing stopping you from doing so is yourself. Nothing external was limiting you from acting differently. Hence whatever interest it is that is the reason you choose to act such way is one of your interests.
This would only follow if satisfaction of my own desires was the only possible motivator of my actions, ie, if psychological egoism were true. You're talking in circles.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 12:49 PM   #86
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I guess I'm on ignore or something.
I wasn't ignoring you. I wasn't ready for two discussion of this type and then work stuff hit me like a ton of bricks.

I won't leave you hanging, fair enough?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 03:06 PM   #87
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Morality and ethics are questions of reducing the suffering of conscious beings. The questions are answered like every other question; by weighing the evidence.

These questions are difficult, fiendishly complicated at times, and complicated further by cultural baggage, but they are not magical woo-woo questions that either don't have answers or only have absolute answers handed to us by the burning bush.

Everything else is so much Angels dancing on the head of a pin and can be dismissed as the nonsense it is.
Ah! You have embraced philosophy at last. Your absolutist consequentialist principle underlying actions cannot itself be demonstrated by evidence, but if you accept the principle as axiomatic, then a lot of implications follow from it. Though would you mind explaining what you mean by “conscious”? If I remember rightly you have ridiculed people in the past for even suggesting something called “consciousness” exists.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 03:07 PM   #88
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,636
Not sure it was what the OP was after, but I generally go with the basic idea of:

"Make your actions towards others the same as you wish their actions towards you to be."

Or as the Gospel puts it. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If we use that standard to create our morals and ethics, then these things would be based on how we would expect others to act ethically and morally towards us.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 03:13 PM   #89
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,123
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Since apparently even legitimate arguments are solipsism, I'd say that in fact no one makes actual choices.
Yeah, but is this a manifestation of physical law? Because arguments are solipsism, you are physically constrained to say that no one makes choices?

Or is it a voluntary conclusion from the premise? Because arguments are solipsism, you choose to conclude that no one makes choices?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 03:19 PM   #90
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,123
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Not sure it was what the OP was after, but I generally go with the basic idea of:

"Make your actions towards others the same as you wish their actions towards you to be."

Or as the Gospel puts it. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If we use that standard to create our morals and ethics, then these things would be based on how we would expect others to act ethically and morally towards us.
That's not ethics, that's just optimizing for self-interest in a race for resources against peer competitors.

Josef Stalin only had to apply that rule to a relatively short list of people who were actually in a position to do anything unto him. The vast majority of Russians, Eastern Europeans, etc. he was free to use as pawns without regard to how they might behave if the situation were reversed. Because the situation would never be reversed.*

I would say that true ethics and morality are rules you apply because you believe they are the right thing to do, not because they are the optimal strategy for self-benefit over time.


---
*Yes, it's always possible that he'd be stranded on a deserted stretch of Siberian highway, depending on the nonexistent goodwill of a vengeful kulak his policies had tortured for years. But that's just risk management.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 03:26 PM   #91
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
My own view of philosophy is that it explores questions that are outside the scope of science, but which can in principle be answered through reason. The answer needs to be coherent and should not go against our intuitions unless it can be shown that not violating an intuition would require violating an even more important intuition.

For example, it seems contrary to intuition that killing people could be morally acceptable unless you show that it would defy a deeper intuition to allow the Nazis win World War Two and complete the Holocaust etc...

I think some of the ideas that morality are merely what a group or an individual arbitrarily decides is right violates the intuition that I have that ethics should be coherent if they are to be considered ethics at all.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 04:18 PM   #92
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Common feelings about values. They can't be based on anything else.
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Sure it can. For the Cardassians.

Values are not objective.
The OP is asking what morality and ethics SHOULD be about (i.e. normative ethics), not what ethics happens to be about (i.e. descriptive ethics).
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 09:55 PM   #93
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
The basis of morality is neither reason nor social pressure. The basis of morality is in feelings. There are two basic feelings that guide our social behaviour: aversion to being hurt (self-care) and aversion to suffering of other persons (empathy). The second is the moral feeling. We are more or less moral in that we give more space to empathy in our lives and transform it in action rules.

Science has nothing to do in this first state of morality.

Last edited by David Mo; 5th August 2019 at 09:56 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 12:47 AM   #94
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The basis of morality is neither reason nor social pressure. The basis of morality is in feelings. There are two basic feelings that guide our social behaviour: aversion to being hurt (self-care) and aversion to suffering of other persons (empathy). The second is the moral feeling. We are more or less moral in that we give more space to empathy in our lives and transform it in action rules.

Science has nothing to do in this first state of morality.
I think reason is important. While it is true that we some kind of concern for others born of empathy is necessary for morality, empathy itself is a poor guide for our ethics. The reason for this is that humans generally have greater empathy for people or animals or even machines which are capable of pulling out heartstrings. We can see a large-eyed puppy in a puppy mill and decide we want to donate all our charity to saving the puppy instead of the rather dirty and not at all attractive refugee family for whom we have no empathy. However, if we applied a form of rational compassion and decided that we should act in a utilitarian manner that doesn’t take into account morally irrelevant facts such as attractiveness or furriness, then we may end up satisfying the greater intuition about what morality ought to be.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 01:38 AM   #95
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think reason is important. While it is true that we some kind of concern for others born of empathy is necessary for morality, empathy itself is a poor guide for our ethics. The reason for this is that humans generally have greater empathy for people or animals or even machines which are capable of pulling out heartstrings. We can see a large-eyed puppy in a puppy mill and decide we want to donate all our charity to saving the puppy instead of the rather dirty and not at all attractive refugee family for whom we have no empathy. However, if we applied a form of rational compassion and decided that we should act in a utilitarian manner that doesn’t take into account morally irrelevant facts such as attractiveness or furriness, then we may end up satisfying the greater intuition about what morality ought to be.
Of course. Empathy is the basis of morality. ("First state" I said). But human relationships are complex, mediated by cultural entanglement. Reason is necessary to put order and balance self-care with empathy.Either utilitarian or not.

Last edited by David Mo; 6th August 2019 at 01:39 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 01:53 AM   #96
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Of course. Empathy is the basis of morality. ("First state" I said). But human relationships are complex, mediated by cultural entanglement. Reason is necessary to put order and balance self-care with empathy.Either utilitarian or not.
I will broadly accept that. Maybe there are some details I disagree with.

However, whatever the basis for morality, the point of the thread is what morality and ethics SHOULD be. I am assuming then that empathy is an insufficient guide to morality and ethics.

The problem we have to grapple with most of the time is that even if we come up with first principles (such as utilitarianism) our judgments are very often clouded with moray irrelevant details.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 02:01 AM   #97
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,019
Morality must be a function of utility in order to be sustainable: high ideals don't last long against reality.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 02:38 AM   #98
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,276
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
However, whatever the basis for morality, the point of the thread is what morality and ethics SHOULD be. I am assuming then that empathy is an insufficient guide to morality and ethics.

The problem we have to grapple with most of the time is that even if we come up with first principles (such as utilitarianism) our judgments are very often clouded with moray irrelevant details.
I agree with the first paragraph.

About the second: If what I have read -not much- is true our moral decisions are not taken in strict logical order: axioms, postulates and rules. We take many particular moral decisions in an intuitive mood and we try to rationalize them after. This sounds well.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 02:40 AM   #99
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I wasn't ignoring you. I wasn't ready for two discussion of this type and then work stuff hit me like a ton of bricks.

I won't leave you hanging, fair enough?
Aw, now I'm shivering with anticipation!

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Yeah, but is this a manifestation of physical law?
In the end, yes. At the macroscopic level everything is deterministic, so it's not like you could or would've ever made another choice. At the local, quantum level, you can have random events, but their outcome don't make a difference in the larger scheme of things. So, no choice.... unless we define choice as exactly that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 02:43 AM   #100
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
The OP is asking what morality and ethics SHOULD be about (i.e. normative ethics), not what ethics happens to be about (i.e. descriptive ethics).
Well my implied answer is that they should be about whatever each individual and group makes them about. Aside from giving you my own set of moral values there's not much I can say about how things "should be" that they will never be like.

Quote:
I think reason is important.
Yeah but in the end it's in the service of our feelings and needs. We use reason more to rationalise our decisions and mistakes, and to reach our goals than we do for crafting a rational value system.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 03:17 AM   #101
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I agree with the first paragraph.

About the second: If what I have read -not much- is true our moral decisions are not taken in strict logical order: axioms, postulates and rules. We take many particular moral decisions in an intuitive mood and we try to rationalize them after. This sounds well.
That’s the problem I am alluding to. It’s definitely true that this happens often and can be demonstrated that much of our moral decisions are post-hoc rationalizations - or at least many controlled experiments show that humans will do this. And yet, what they often also show is that there is a rational answer them against which the rationalization can be shown (maybe I am not explaining this well). It seems to me that it only underscores the need to learn how to deal with cognitive biases and to train ourselves to be more rational.

Maybe a good example is someone who says “I realize I rationalize eating meat when I know that it follows from any reasonable principle that I shouldn’t eat it.”
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 04:23 AM   #102
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,591
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
This would only follow if satisfaction of my own desires was the only possible motivator of my actions, ie, if psychological egoism were true. You're talking in circles.
What other motivator of your actions would there be? You presented a situation with two conflicting desires, the desire for good WiFi access and the desire to act ethically, and you choose to follow the latter.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 04:25 AM   #103
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well my implied answer is that they should be about whatever each individual and group makes them about. Aside from giving you my own set of moral values there's not much I can say about how things "should be" that they will never be like.
I’m not sure I follow you. I am pretty sure you spend a lot of time trying to reason with people to explain why, say, what Donald Trump says about immigration is wrong. I don’t think you would do that if you didn’t think there was a right answer to what people should do and that some people are persuadable.


Also, historically we have examples of suttee and more recently of female circumcision. I think when we say “you should not throw widows on funeral pyres” that the meaning behind the sentence is more than “I disagree with it for arbitrary reasons; you agree with it for arbitrary reasons; you say potato I say potato...”


Quote:
Yeah but in the end it's in the service of our feelings and needs. We use reason more to rationalise our decisions and mistakes, and to reach our goals than we do for crafting a rational value system.
Yeah, we have cognitive biases. No doubt. But where does that leave us? Some people conclude it is rationalizations all the way down. I disagree. I think the fact that we make lots of mistakes in our reasoning only means we make lots of mistakes in our reasoning. But the fact we can talk about mistakes in reasoning implies there is also correct reasoning.

__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 05:07 AM   #104
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I’m not sure I follow you. I am pretty sure you spend a lot of time trying to reason with people to explain why, say, what Donald Trump says about immigration is wrong. I don’t think you would do that if you didn’t think there was a right answer to what people should do and that some people are persuadable.
I don't see how that's mutually-exclusive with what you quoted. That people have different values and feelings doesn't mean you can't change those. Sometimes you can do it with reason, and sometimes not. But at some level it usually involves some sort of feeling. That's just how humans roll.

Quote:
Yeah, we have cognitive biases. No doubt. But where does that leave us? Some people conclude it is rationalizations all the way down. I disagree. I think the fact that we make lots of mistakes in our reasoning only means we make lots of mistakes in our reasoning. But the fact we can talk about mistakes in reasoning implies there is also correct reasoning.
Ok so how do we determine what reasoning is correct? And the problem with answering that question is that "correct" also varies from one person to the next.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 05:09 AM   #105
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,323
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Another cop-out.
A cop-out how?

Am I supposed to pretend to believe in some Platonic Realm of transcendent Goodness?

There really is no fact of the matter about what we ought to do.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:02 AM   #106
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It is if you want to suggest ethics is based on logic. If that's what you're saying you should be able to show your work. Premise, inference, conclusion. Isn't that what logic is?
Of course ethics is going to be based on logic. Everything is based on logic or it's... well not logical.

There's nothing illogical about not wanting to suffer, and not wanting others to suffer unless one isn't arguing against logic but straw Vulcanism.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But that WASN'T your claim. Your claim wasn't that suffering is bad. It's that ethics are about suffering.
And I think it is. Again if we aren't trying to reduce suffering what are we doing that isn't so much pure mental masturbation?

Ethics is about the mental condition being better or worse. True we might not have anything resembling a full picture of all the variables of the human condition in every possible combination, but that doesn't lend us to "Morality/ethics aren't logical/rational/scientific/insert whatever intellectual scare word here."

Again like I said over in the philosophy thread ignoring the terms since people get hung up on them if you're trying to do anything if what you're doing doesn't include concepts like looking at the evidence what are you even doing?

Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Ah! You have embraced philosophy at last. Your absolutist consequentialist principle underlying actions cannot itself be demonstrated by evidence, but if you accept the principle as axiomatic, then a lot of implications follow from it. Though would you mind explaining what you mean by “conscious”? If I remember rightly you have ridiculed people in the past for even suggesting something called “consciousness” exists.
Do please grow up and debate honestly. I wish people's "ethics" would say more about sad attempts at "gotchas." Maybe if I phrase it in the form of a trolley problem.

I "ridicule" people as you call it for using "conscious" as the new code word for "soul" or presenting it as this magical woo-woo thing that "Science just can't understand." It's a perfectly acceptable word to describe a functioning neurological system.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:07 AM   #107
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
And I think it is. Again if we aren't trying to reduce suffering what are we doing that isn't so much pure mental masturbation?
I don't know. What are your values? What are those of someone else? Or some other society? If the definition of ethics I posted is correct, then it could be anything. As another poster noted we accept suffering for various reasons; sometimes we subject ourselves or others to it because it furthers our goals. It's not that simple.

Quote:
Ethics is about the mental condition being better or worse.
I think that's a good summary. Unfortunately then it goes right back to the fundamental question: is there a way to objectively determine what is good? I say no.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:20 AM   #108
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't know. What are your values? What are those of someone else? Or some other society? If the definition of ethics I posted is correct, then it could be anything. As another poster noted we accept suffering for various reasons; sometimes we subject ourselves or others to it because it furthers our goals. It's not that simple.
I don't know. Again when it comes down to "Well why care about suffering" I don't have an answer. I get this is a point of disagreement but I sort of feel that "suffering is bad and we shouldn't want it in ourself or others" is a reasonable place to just... start the discussion.

And if you start at that point the discussion by no means becomes easy, but the goal is at least simple. "Reduce the suffering." And the things that cause suffering aren't unknown variables and then the mental process of the hows and ways can advance like everything else; collect data, analyze it, etc.

But people (not necessarily you) so often seem to be hesistant to outright dismissive of the idea that morality/ethics is something we as a species can just... figure out the same way we figured out how to built bridges and make airplanes fly.

Morality/ethics is one of those discussions where everything is an eggshell because of the mixture of people who don't think certain questions have answers and people who put an odd moral (ironic I know) value on the questions not having answers.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:50 AM   #109
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,123
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well my implied answer is that they should be about whatever each individual and group makes them about. Aside from giving you my own set of moral values there's not much I can say about how things "should be" that they will never be like.







Yeah but in the end it's in the service of our feelings and needs. We use reason more to rationalise our decisions and mistakes, and to reach our goals than we do for crafting a rational value system.
Once we understand that everything is deterministic, and that choice is an illusion, doesn't that make any system of crime and punishment Immoral? After all, we're blaming people for phenomena they have no control over.

Over which they have no control.

I guess it can't really be Immoral, since the people declaring the crime and inflicting the punishment also have no choice in the matter.

I wonder what this means for the death penalty.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:56 AM   #110
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Do please grow up and debate honestly. I wish people's "ethics" would say more about sad attempts at "gotchas." Maybe if I phrase it in the form of a trolley problem.
"Grow up and debate honestly"? Is like, "Be civil, you moron!"?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I "ridicule" people as you call it for using "conscious" as the new code word for "soul" or presenting it as this magical woo-woo thing that "Science just can't understand." It's a perfectly acceptable word to describe a functioning neurological system.
I don't think you actually read what people say before you start telling them they are talking about a soul or start waffling on in your "grown-up" way about pianos and old men's monocles falling out.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 06:58 AM   #111
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Once we understand that everything is deterministic, and that choice is an illusion, doesn't that make any system of crime and punishment Immoral?
No, it just happens, remember? Can't do anything about it!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:02 AM   #112
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
If "everything is deterministic" then our reaction to things are as predetermined as our actions, so moral questions of as to what changes seem rather meaningless to me.

"Well it's not his fault he axe murdered the entire old lady bridge group because it was determined" and "Well it's not our fault we're going to hang him from the gallows at dawn for it" have to sort of be on one level, if determinism means one can't be changed neither can the other.

That's why I've always found the determinism debate pointless. There's no possible functional difference between a deterministic universe and a non-deterministic universe.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:08 AM   #113
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't see how that's mutually-exclusive with what you quoted. That people have different values and feelings doesn't mean you can't change those.
The problem here is that now you are not saying anything meaningful.

You point out that different individuals and different groups have different values, which is a very commonplace observation of descriptive ethics, but then you say that they ought to be about "whatever each and group makes them about".

This is making explicit an idea of normative moral relativism:

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Well my implied answer is that they should be about whatever each individual and group makes them about.
This is incoherent in the sense that you give free reign to any and all kinds of "morality".

The Nazis think they should gas the Jews - they should gas the Jews.
The Confederate States think they should have slavery - they should have slavery.
Hindus and Sikhs found it right to commit suttee - they should commit suttee.

To tell them otherwise is to violate the principle that their morality should be about whatever each individual and group makes them about.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:08 AM   #114
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If "everything is deterministic" then our reaction to things are as predetermined as our actions, so moral questions of as to what changes seem rather meaningless to me.
Indeed. Sorry, the determinism thing was just a facetious, pointlessly reductionist response to another post for fun. It wasn't meant to stimulate actual discussion. Of course, everything being deterministic changes nothing about morality in the real world, because we're not able to determine what's going to happen anyway. Our ignorance of the variables and factors involved is what preserves the idea of choice.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 6th August 2019 at 07:11 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:09 AM   #115
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's why I've always found the determinism debate pointless.
No matter how much it is debated, you can't change anything.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:10 AM   #116
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 84,457
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
The problem here is that now you are not saying anything meaningful.
You don't think "what's moral or ethical depends on the individual" is meaningful? I think it's a very important thing to know and acknowledge.

Quote:
This is incoherent in the sense that you give free reign to any and all kinds of "morality".
How is that incoherent? It's true. That doesn't mean that I can't disagree with someone's morality. It just means that there's no objectively correct one, and that looking for one through reason is futile. Each society and individual has their value system and that's how those ethical rules are set.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:16 AM   #117
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 25,454
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You don't think "what's moral or ethical depends on the individual" is meaningful? I think it's a very important thing to know and acknowledge.



How is that incoherent? It's true. That doesn't mean that I can't disagree with someone's morality. It just means that there's no objectively correct one, and that looking for one through reason is futile. Each society and individual has their value system and that's how those ethical rules are set.
The issue I have is your claim that because of the incontestable fact that different people and different groups have different ideas of what is moral, that it follows from that that each individual and group ought to follow those moral values.

And it becomes incoherent when you say that they should follow those moral values and that people should simultaneously try to dissuade them from those moral values.

I don't see the normative rules you are implying as either justified or coherent.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:21 AM   #118
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,851
The idea that morality/ethics is variable doesn't mean it is arbitrary, nor does it mean that all moral/ethical systems work, either at all or as good as other systems.

Again people get way to hung up on some variation on asking "Are ethics subjective or objective" and think that's a bad question.

We have river we need to get cars across.

Person A: Builds a suspension bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person B: Builds a Truss bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person C: Builds a cantilever bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person D: Builds a bridge out of cardboard and old chewing gum. It collapses on the first car.

The fact that we have multiple viable options doesn't mean we don't also have wrong answers. It doesn't mean the bridge building is subjective, just complex.

It is possible for moral systems to fail, or to work better or worse in certain scenarios. That makes it more complex, nothing more.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:25 AM   #119
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,123
Belz..., how would you adjust the following to better reflect your position?

---

Should the Nazis murder Jews?

No.

Why not? They believe they should murder Jews. Why isn't that sufficient?

Because their victims might disagree.

Then we have two moralities in conflict with each other. Which one should prevail?

Whichever one does prevail, should prevail.

Then the Nazis should murder Jews, at least up until the moment someone stops them.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:27 AM   #120
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,123
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The idea that morality/ethics is variable doesn't mean it is arbitrary, nor does it mean that all moral/ethical systems work, either at all or as good as other systems.

Again people get way to hung up on some variation on asking "Are ethics subjective or objective" and think that's a bad question.

We have river we need to get cars across.

Person A: Builds a suspension bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person B: Builds a Truss bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person C: Builds a cantilever bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person D: Builds a bridge out of cardboard and old chewing gum. It collapses on the first car.

The fact that we have multiple viable options doesn't mean we don't also have wrong answers. It doesn't mean the bridge building is subjective, just complex.

It is possible for moral systems to fail, or to work better or worse in certain scenarios. That makes it more complex, nothing more.
Begs the question that there should be a bridge in the first place. This isn't complex, it's fundamentally unanswerable.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.