Determining what is “moral”

Originally posted by whodey
Lets cut to the chase, this "feeling" you describe is called love. So in your world love does not exist in and of itself. After all, you can't measure it nor observe it so it must not exist yet it consumes our lives and we are miserable and our lives are meaningless without it. In fact, animals even seem to obey its nonexistent voice.

Just so we understand each other. 😉

Where on earth did you get the idea that I don’t believe love exists?
Love exists.

“…So in your world love does not exist….”

Of course love exists in my world;
–to deny one’s own emotions is illogical.

“…After all, you can't measure it nor observe it…”

Ok, grant you I don’t know how to “measure” it, but I CAN and DO observe it!
If we feel it then that feeling is an empirical fact!
Any feeling we are aware of is an empirical fact –right?
Or, putting it another way, if you are aware of a feeling inside you then that awareness is an observation –right?
So I don’t know where you got the idea that you cannot observe love.

“…so it must not exist yet it consumes our lives and…”

But it DOES exist! If you feel it then it is self-evident that that feeling exists!

Originally posted by twhitehead
And the best explanation for these feelings and the delicate balance between selfishness, love for those related to us (in order of closeness, or likelihood to pass on our genes) and morals, are all explained by the Theory of Evolution. They are very difficult to explain without it. Religions don't explain them. They treat them as brute facts.
If anythin d would apparently endow us with one set of desires then tell us to follow a different rule.

Why is that the best way to explain these feelings? After all, life forms could exist in a parasitic form, and some do. In addition, Christ said that he layed down his life for his friends, none of which had his DNA to pass down. How then do you explain this sacrifice?

Again, saying that the Golden Rule exists is simply stating the facts. So your explanation must be that mankind invented religion to explain a phenomenon that has no origin, it simply "evolved", or you say that religion is simply following the power that implanted the Golden Rule in our hearts.

As for my religion, it states that God is love. In fact, this alterable and constantly changing world is fleeting as where love is eternal and never changing. You might even say that the material world is nonexistant in comparison to love in that regard. If true, wouldn't that be ironic?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Where on earth did you get the idea that I don’t believe love exists?
Love exists.

“…So in your world love does not exist….”

Of course love exists in my world;
–to deny one’s own emotions is illogical.

“…After all, you can't measure it nor observe it…”

Ok, grant you I don’t know how to “measure” it, but I CAN and DO observe it!
If we f ...[text shortened]... es and…”

But it DOES exist! If you feel it then it is self-evident that that feeling exists!

No, love by and of itself does not exist. The only way to describe it then would be a complex set of chemical reactions. If so, the chemicals may exist, but not love.

As for feelings, I have felt as though I have experienced the presense of God. In fact, organized religion is evidence of this phenomenon. How is love any different in this regard? In fact, religion is just a study of love.

But you are correct about one thing. Something that is undeniable real, on the one hand, yet also immaterial does leave you scratching your head.

Originally posted by bbarr
What do you think the difference is between an emotional reason and a moral reason?

I may have an emotional reason to want to kill somebody ( for example, out of hatred ) , but that doesn’t make it a “moral” reason to kill him.

If I believe it is moral to pay my taxes, that doesn’t necessarily mean I have an emotional reason to pay my taxes. I may have no emotions for or against paying my taxes or I may hate paying my taxes in which case I would have an emotional reason to NOT pay my taxes even though I have a “moral” reason to pay my taxes thus my “moral reason” would be in conflict with my “emotional reason”.

-I hope these examples would show there is a difference.

Originally posted by whodey
No, love by and of itself does not exist. The only way to describe it then would be a complex set of chemical reactions. If so, the chemicals may exist, but not love.

As for feelings, I have felt as though I have experienced the presense of God. In fact, organized religion is evidence of this phenomenon. How is love any different in this regard? In fa ...[text shortened]... at is undeniable real, on the one hand, yet also immaterial does leave you scratching your head.

“…As for feelings, I have felt as though I have experienced the presense of God. In fact, organized religion is evidence of this phenomenon. How is love any different in this regard? In fact, religion is just a study of love….”

I don’t understand what you mean. In what way is religion “evidence” for love?
you don’t need religion to show the existence of love –you just have to feel it, that is all!
The existence of love is an empirical fact with or without religion.

Also, are you implying it is impossible to have love in the absence of religion? If so, that would be absurd.

Originally posted by whodey
Why is that the best way to explain these feelings? After all, life forms could exist in a parasitic form, and some do. In addition, Christ said that he layed down his life for his friends, none of which had his DNA to pass down. How then do you explain this sacrifice?

Again, saying that the Golden Rule exists is simply stating the facts. So your expla world is nonexistant in comparison to love in that regard. If true, wouldn't that be ironic?

“…Christ said that he layed down his life for his friends, none of which had his DNA to pass down. How then do you explain this sacrifice?...”

this is how:

Evolution is an unintelligent process and so it makes a design that is not necessarily the one that maximises the chances of passing down your genes or DNA. An example of this is the design of the human retina being back-to-front –this may decrease the chances of you passing on your genes albeit by a very very tiny amount. Another example of this is the sloppy way we evolved to be altruistic: without altruism, you would be less likely to help your children and relatives pass on your genes but how would evolution design that altruism so that it discriminates between these people that have your genes and those that do not? The answer is there is no simple design solution here and it just so happens that evolution has not come up with a reliable method.
The effect of this is that having altruism and the willingness to sacrifice your life for others has the side-effect of making some people sacrifice themselves for complete strangers. This is just how evolution typically works –it often selects for a characteristic ( such as altruism ) despite it, in SOME circumstances, decreasing your chances of you passing on your genes because in MOST circumstances it overall has the net effect of increasing your chances of passing on your genes.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I may have an emotional reason to want to kill somebody ( for example, out of hatred ) , but that doesn’t make it a “moral” reason to kill him.

If I believe it is moral to pay my taxes, that doesn’t necessarily mean I have an emotional reason to pay my taxes. I may have no emotions for or against paying my taxes or I may hate paying my taxes in wh ...[text shortened]... conflict with my “emotional reason”.

-I hope these examples would show there is a difference.

In philosophy, the term 'reason' is used in a variety of ways. Here are some uses, phrased with regard to action. (and these are just typical uses; different philosophers use even these refined notions differently):

Theoretical Reason: Considerations that relate to what one believes or should believe.

Practical Reason: Considerations that relate to what one does or should do.

Explanatory Reason: Considerations that explain why an agent acted as he did.

Motivating Reason: Considerations that motivate an agent to act as he did, or that an agent took to be his motivation.

Justificatory Reason: Considerations that justify an agent in acting as he did, or justify his action. 'Justify' here means something like 'shows to be reasonable, good, right, etc. [often this is context dependent]'.

Instrumental Reason: Considerations that broadly support some action or the realization of some state of affairs, where that action or state of affairs is reasonable because it is instrumentally related to some other action or state of affairs that is good or right.

Non-instrumental Reason: Considerations that broadly support some action or the realization of some state of affairs, where that action or state of affairs is good or right ultimately, or in and of itself.

Internal Reason: Considerations of which an agent typically has cognitive access and that motivate him by virtue of being connected to his other motivational states (goals, projects, desires, etc.)

External Reason: Considerations of which an agent typically does not have cognitive access, but that may justify his action.

So, you see, when you talk of emotional reasons and moral reasons, I have no idea what you're talking about. Your examples here do not help much.

Tonight I am going to make dinner for the girlfriend. One reason is that I love her. Certainly, my love motivates me. Certainly, my love explains a lot of what I do. But my love also justifies my actions. My making dinner for the girlfriend is reasonable because I love her. There are instrumental reasons for me to make dinner; it contributes to her happiness, and I take her happiness to be good in and of itself. There are also non-instrumental reasons to make dinner; dinners and activities of this sort are constitutive of loving relationships, and I take these relationships to be at least partly constitutive of the good life. It is not just that love, and what follows from it, helps to bring about a good life. Rather, it is that love, and what follows from it, is part of what it means to live a good life.

Now, I have not even mentioned 'moral' in the example above. But it certainly seems to me as though reasons broadly related to emotional states; love, charity, compassion, loyalty, etc. [and, conversely, anger, cruelty, greed, etc] can and do overlap with those reasons that we typically give and take as moral or ethical justifications for our actions. So, again, I am unsure of what your distinction is all about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have done that before (on this forum) and it was quite simple as I recall. If you'd like to go through it, then why don't we start a thread on the matter? Start by listing the things you consider components of the eye that must work together.

Okay
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
In philosophy, the term 'reason' is used in a variety of ways. Here are some uses, phrased with regard to action. (and these are just typical uses; different philosophers use even these refined notions differently):

Theoretical Reason: Considerations that relate to what one believes or should believe.

Practical Reason: Considerations that relate to wh ...[text shortened]... cations for our actions. So, again, I am unsure of what your distinction is all about.

Reason still has to deal with measuring what is on the table and come up with
what is the right thing to do balancing all things; however, there has to be some
means to which to look at things that takes it all into account properly. May as
well not have a conversation about what is "up" if we don't have reference point,
to view all things so with morals if we don't have a foundation to build upon we are
not building upon anything so anything can be called right or wrong that suits us
at the moment.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Reason still has to deal with measuring what is on the table and come up with
what is the right thing to do balancing all things; however, there has to be some
means to which to look at things that takes it all into account properly. May as
well not have a conversation about what is "up" if we don't have reference point,
to view all things so with moral ...[text shortened]... upon anything so anything can be called right or wrong that suits us
at the moment.
Kelly

Right. One religious tradition says "You must do this!". Another religious tradition says "You must not do this!". One Christian says "God wants us to do this!". Another Christian says "God does not want us to do this!". How can anybody build on that as a foundation?

Originally posted by bbarr
Right. One religious tradition says "You must do this!". Another religious tradition says "You must not do this!". One Christian says "God wants us to do this!". Another Christian says "God does not want us to do this!". How can anybody build on that as a foundation?

I'd say you need something bigger than man, otherwise all you have is another
differing opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd say you need something bigger than man, otherwise all you have is another
differing opinion.
Kelly

Your normal Bible is substantially smaller than a man.

Originally posted by bbarr
Your normal Bible is substantially smaller than a man.

In your opinion there a "right" way to behave or live a "should" that we are bound
too that when we move away from it convicts us or causes us guilt, or is it all just
whatever we make up as we go?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What rational criteria ( if any ) do any of you use to determine what is “moral” and what is “immoral”?

And if there is no such rational criteria you could use, wouldn’t that mean that all moral claims and beliefs are baseless and totally arbitrary?

Exactly what determines whether or not you agree that something is “moral”?

But, overwhelmin ...[text shortened]... whole mental process that goes from the premise to the conclusion that "X is moral"?
Anyone?

I believe what someone says about the word moral is an opinion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
In your opinion there a "right" way to behave or live a "should" that we are bound
too that when we move away from it convicts us or causes us guilt, or is it all just
whatever we make up as we go?
Kelly

I rather man try and fail rather than just be a slave to an outdated, misleading history book.
Do you really think that following the bible, without question, will fix the problems that we face today?