1. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    16 Aug '10 10:16
    I have made the observation that people very often seem to be unable to disentangle the emotions in their thought processes from the moral beliefs in their thought processes.

    It has just occurred to me that this is a very common human flaw!

    I personally have no such difficulty but I remember a time when I did and I remember that, because I knew the existence of my emotions is a fact and because my brain somehow equated “emotions” with “moral beliefs”, this made be erroneously think that what is “moral” is “fact” and there are such things as “moral facts”. I think it also somehow made me confuse “it is a FACT that I have a moral belief” ( which can be undeniable ) with “it is a FACT that there exists moral FACTS” ( which is simply false )

    I have decided to give this phenomenon a rather unimaginative name of “moral-emotion confusion”.

    moral-emotion confusion is almost ( not quite ) a universal human flaw because we nearly all have this flaw and that flaw could well be seen as one of the “evolution’s blunders” as a result of evolution giving us imperfect brains.
  2. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    16 Aug '10 10:34
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I have made the observation that people very often seem to be unable to disentangle the emotions in their thought processes from the moral beliefs in their thought processes.

    It has just occurred to me that this is a very common human flaw!

    I personally have no such difficulty but I remember a time when I did and I remember that, because I knew ...[text shortened]... e seen as one of the “evolution’s blunders” as a result of evolution giving us imperfect brains.
    The human emotional complex... designed to appreciate and devoid of capacity for rational thought.


    .................................................
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    16 Aug '10 15:46
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I have made the observation that people very often seem to be unable to disentangle the emotions in their thought processes from the moral beliefs in their thought processes.

    It has just occurred to me that this is a very common human flaw!

    I personally have no such difficulty but I remember a time when I did and I remember that, because I knew ...[text shortened]... e seen as one of the “evolution’s blunders” as a result of evolution giving us imperfect brains.
    In some of your posts your appeals to the evils done by Christianity seem to be an appeal to emotions, mainly.

    "Argument by Outrage"
  4. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    28126
    16 Aug '10 15:48
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I have made the observation that people very often seem to be unable to disentangle the emotions in their thought processes from the moral beliefs in their thought processes.

    It has just occurred to me that this is a very common human flaw!

    I personally have no such difficulty but I remember a time when I did and I remember that, because I knew ...[text shortened]... e seen as one of the “evolution’s blunders” as a result of evolution giving us imperfect brains.
    As far as disentangling emotions from moral beliefs I think this neither possible nor desirable as I don't think morality would survive the surgery, not for complete separation anyway. I'm all in favour of making distinctions between different reasons and the role emotion plays in them, so if that's what you mean I agree.

    Do people very often fail to make this distinction? I'm not convinced, what are the symptoms?

    Whether moral facts exist or not might depend how you define them, although minimally we might agree that moral propositions are assigned truth values in reference to these. You seem to be an error theorist in this regard, equating moral talk with discourse on phlogiston.
  5. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    16 Aug '10 17:091 edit
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    As far as disentangling emotions from moral beliefs I think this neither possible nor desirable as I don't think morality would survive the surgery, not for complete separation anyway. I'm all in favour of making distinctions between different reasons and the role emotion plays in them, so if that's what you mean I agree.

    Do people very often fail to m em to be an error theorist in this regard, equating moral talk with discourse on phlogiston.
    “…As far as disentangling emotions from moral beliefs I think this neither possible…”

    But I know it is possible because I have done it within my own mind.

    “…nor desirable as I don't think morality would survive the surgery,…”

    Do you believe that how “desirable” a belief is has bearing on whether the belief reflects reality?

    “…Do people very often fail to make this distinction? I'm not convinced, what are the symptoms?...”

    The symptoms include making posts which imply emotional reasons are moral reasons.

    “…Whether moral facts exist or not might depend how you define them, although minimally we might agree that moral propositions are assigned truth values in reference to these….”

    There are no such things as true “moral propositions” because any so-called “moral” proposition is not a real proposition but rather at best a command in deep disguise rather than a true proposition.
    There are no “moral facts” because stating a command ( even if it is in deep disguise ) is not stating a fact.
  6. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    28126
    16 Aug '10 17:36
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    “…As far as disentangling emotions from moral beliefs I think this neither possible…”

    But I know it is possible because I have done it within my own mind.

    “…nor desirable as I don't think morality would survive the surgery,…”

    Do you believe that how “desirable” a belief is has bearing on whether the belief reflects reality?

    “…Do people ve ...[text shortened]... ral facts” because stating a command ( even if it is in deep disguise ) is not stating a fact.
    But I know it is possible because I have done it within my own mind.
    I think this is problematic for a number of reasons but this is a complicated area and I wouldn't want to get off on the wrong foot. I'm all in favour of introspection to disambiguate emotional and cognitive content, so we can agree on that.

    Do you believe that how “desirable” a belief is has bearing on whether the belief reflects reality?
    No, but without emotional linkage to motivation, we would neither bother to find beliefs or act upon them, let alone check carefully whether they were true. So be careful how untangled you become.

    The symptoms include making posts which imply emotional reasons are moral reasons.
    Can you give an example?

    There are no such things as true “moral propositions” because any so-called “moral” proposition is not a real proposition but rather at best a command in deep disguise rather than a true proposition.
    There are no “moral facts” because stating a command ( even if it is in deep disguise ) is not stating a fact.

    Ah, it sounds like you are a prescriptivist noncognitivist, is that fair? Nice bold assertive style with it too..
  7. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    16 Aug '10 18:051 edit
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    [b]But I know it is possible because I have done it within my own mind.
    I think this is problematic for a number of reasons but this is a complicated area and I wouldn't want to get off on the wrong foot. I'm all in favour of introspection to disambiguate emotional and cognitive content, so we can agree on that.

    Do you believe that how “desirab ...[text shortened]... are a prescriptivist noncognitivist, is that fair? Nice bold assertive style with it too..[/b]
    My question was:

    Do you believe that how “desirable” a belief is has bearing on whether the belief reflects reality?

    And you answered:

    “…No, but without emotional linkage to motivation, we would neither bother to find beliefs or act upon them, let alone check carefully whether they were true. So be careful how untangled you become….”

    But that is a reason WHY we reason RATHER than whether that reason is sound.

    But your original statement was:

    “…nor desirable as I don't think morality would survive the surgery,…”

    Which implies you strive to conclude that morality is meaningful not on the bases of sound reason but rather on the bases on how desirable it would be if it is true. If so, this not a motivation to FIND the “truth” but rather it is a motivation to BELIEVE the most “desirable belief”.

    “..The symptoms include making posts which imply emotional reasons are moral reasons.
    Can you give an example?...”

    Yes: take a look at bbarr ‘s rather large post ( which was in response to my post ) in my “Determining what is “moral” “ thread on page 5
    You will have to read my post that he responded to here as well as my counter-response on page 6 to see what I mean.
  8. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    28126
    16 Aug '10 18:40
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    My question was:

    Do you believe that how “desirable” a belief is has bearing on whether the belief reflects reality?

    And you answered:

    “…No, but without emotional linkage to motivation, we would neither bother to find beliefs or act upon them, let alone check carefully whether they were true. So be careful how untangled you become….”

    But ...[text shortened]... my post that he responded to here as well as my counter-response on page 6 to see what I mean.
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton

    But that is a reason WHY we reason RATHER than whether that reason is sound.
    Yes, I know that, otherwise I wouldn't have answered 'no'.

    Which implies you strive to conclude that morality is meaningful not on the bases of sound reason but rather on the bases on how desirable it would be if it is true.
    Nope. The implication is yours. I can see that you're trying to pin a fallacy of adverse consequences on me there, but I'm not wearing it. As I keep saying, if by 'untangling' you just mean being clear about the emotional and cognitive components of moral judgements then that's fine, but neither is any use without the other really.

    Yes: take a look at bbarr ‘s rather large post ( which was in response to my post ) in my “Determining what is “moral” “ thread on page 5
    You will have to read my post that he responded to here as well as my counter-response on page 6 to see what I mean.

    Ok, thanks.
  9. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    28126
    16 Aug '10 22:241 edit
    Now that bbarr has responded to that post I think it superfluous to add much. As he does this for a living (teaches ethics) and you had just cited his post as an example of a rather naive confusion, I think he was very tactful and informative, in the circumstances.
Back to Top