Originally posted by twhiteheadHowever I disagree that the mentioned individuals thought that what they were doing was morally right.
No, I don't. Again, I just have a 'sense' that I should follow my own instincts not theirs.
However I disagree that the mentioned individuals thought that what they were doing was morally right.
You're assuming some objective moral law here. How presumptuous of you to assume knowing what others "sensed".
Originally posted by HalitoseI did not say I am absolutely categorically sure what they 'sensed' but my experience has taught me that people in general do not act entirely according to their morals but exhibit a certain amount of selfish behavior. For example me posting on this forum during working hours is morally wrong by my 'sense' but I still do it.
[b]However I disagree that the mentioned individuals thought that what they were doing was morally right.
You're assuming some objective moral law here. How presumptuous of you to assume knowing what others "sensed".[/b]
After thinking about it some more, I would concede that it is quite possible that Hitler felt that it was morally right to exterminate the jews as vengeance for the perceived wrongs the 'German people' had suffered at their hands. This is probably little different from Bush's 'moral' justification for the war in Iraq even though he would doubtlessly agree that killing innocent civilians is morally wrong.
Stalin may have felt it was morally right to kill some people to the benefit of the majority.
I would actually go as far as saying that it is possible that my sense of morality is no different from Hitlers and Stalins buy that my reading of the situations is different and that I may make a different 'judgment call' than them.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe moral law is equivalent to the law of gravity in that it is a law.
The moral law is equivalent to the law of gravity in that it is a law. I asserted no other equivalence...Still, the moral law has an obviously physical effect, or no actions could be identified as being moral. (Incidentally, my thinking about what I ought to be doing instead of posting on this forum is a physical process...I don't find the distinction ...[text shortened]... taphysical particularly accurate, since "immaterial" thought is not so immaterial after all).
How so? Is it because you assert that all beings are subjected to it?
Still, the moral law has an obviously physical effect, or no actions could be identified as being moral.
True... however one cannot infer a necessary physical cause for this effect. What is this law measured with? How is it empirically tested? Is it falsifiable? If so, how?
(Incidentally, my thinking about what I ought to be doing instead of posting on this forum is a physical process...I don't find the distinction between physical and metaphysical particularly accurate, since "immaterial" thought is not so immaterial after all)
Seeing as neurological science has not yet concluded a full physical reduction of mental and thought processes, is this an "I owe you"-note: the physical process and interaction of this moral law is still to be found?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo moral "right" and "wrong" are meaningless in any objective sense (no pun intended)?
I did not say I am absolutely categorically sure what they 'sensed' but my experience has taught me that people in general do not act entirely according to their morals but exhibit a certain amount of selfish behavior. For example me posting on this forum during working hours is morally wrong by my 'sense' but I still do it.
After thinking about it som he situations is different and that I may make a different 'judgment call' than them.
1 edit
I came across this one in Scientific American I think:
Situation 1.
A train is going to crash into a bus stuck on the tracks killing all 20 passengers in the bus. You can stop the accident by pushing someone else off a bridge onto the tracks thus killing that person and stopping the train.
Situation 2.
A train is going to crash into a bus stuck on the tracks killing all 20 passengers in the bus. You can stop the accident by flipping a switch which will make the train go onto a different track and kill a single person.
Both situations appear morally identical, however most people will say that they would do no 2 but not no 1.
Just thought you would find it interesting when discussing morals.
Originally posted by HalitoseI've already said that I think the overwhelming majority of people (moral sports & freaks aside) are "hard-wired" with a moral sense, a "moral law" if you like. Feel free to take my plain meaning instead of whatever it is you are doing...Had too much coffee?
[b]The moral law is equivalent to the law of gravity in that it is a law.
How so? Is it because you assert that all beings are subjected to it?
Still, the moral law has an obviously physical effect, or no actions could be identified as being moral.
True... however one cannot infer a necessary physical cause for this effect. What i ...[text shortened]... owe you"-note: the physical process and interaction of this moral law is still to be found?[/b]
Question 2, I don't know. Tell me how to measure instinct empirically. Maybe there's a handy brain map somewhere to show where our...Hang on! New Scientist to the rescue...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10239-sense-of-justice-discovered-in-the-brain.html
Finally, yes, of course, nobody's claiming to know everything.
Originally posted by HalitoseI think that most peoples moral 'sense' translates into:
So moral "right" and "wrong" are meaningless in any objective sense (no pun intended)?
Do what benefits my group if its not too much at the expense of me as an individual.
This applies to sub-groups of larger groups too.
I think that we can therefore call it objective. I also think that most peoples differences of opinion of what is or is not morally correct is based on different ways of measuring those benefits and expenses.
Note also that good and bad are not equivalent to morally right and wrong.
Saving someone from a fire is considered good but not doing so would normally not be labeled "morally wrong".
Most importantly remember that selfish behavior is often considered acceptable or 'allowed' even when it is agreed that it is not the best moral option or even downright morally wrong. Hence terms like 'the moral high ground' instead of 'morally correct' implies "we are both selfish but I am taking a less morally wrong path than you"
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou forgot option C... you yourself jumping off the bridge onto the tracks, thus stopping the train. 😉
I came across this one in Scientific American I think:
Situation 1.
A train is going to crash into a bus stuck on the tracks killing all 20 passengers in the bus. You can stop the accident by pushing someone else off a bridge onto the tracks thus killing that person and stopping the train.
Situation 2.
A train is going to crash into a bus stuck on ...[text shortened]... would do no 2 but not no 1.
Just thought you would find it interesting when discussing morals.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFeel free to take my plain meaning instead of whatever it is you are doing...Had too much coffee?
I've already said that I think the overwhelming majority of people (moral sports & freaks aside) are "hard-wired" with a moral sense, a "moral law" if you like. Feel free to take my plain meaning instead of whatever it is you are doing...Had too much coffee?
Question 2, I don't know. Tell me how to measure instinct empirically. Maybe there's a han ...[text shortened]... ered-in-the-brain.html
Finally, yes, of course, nobody's claiming to know everything.
😀 Hme! Perhaps. In my defense, "hard-wired" and "moral-law" are meaningless terms for me, unless substantiated into tangible explanations.
Interesting link... however, the article seems to be supporting my original position that altruism is indeed unnatural in the evolutionary sense with phrases such as:
"This tendency has been hard to explain in evolutionary terms, because it has no obvious reproductive advantage and punishing unfairness can actually lead to the punisher being harmed."
"...the region suppresses our natural tendency to act in our own self interest."
The article then continues to show how a section of our brain overrides this "natural instinct of self-interest".
This was just as an aside.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadJust being slightly pedantic here Twitehead but of those two options...(2) is more preferable simply because the assumption that saving 20 lives (and killing 1) by changing the course of the train with a switch specifically designed to perform that function is way better justified than any quick calculation suggesting that nudging lucky Larry off the train will actually bring this train to a stop!
I came across this one in Scientific American I think:
Situation 1.
A train is going to crash into a bus stuck on the tracks killing all 20 passengers in the bus. You can stop the accident by pushing someone else off a bridge onto the tracks thus killing that person and stopping the train.
Situation 2.
A train is going to crash into a bus stuck on ...[text shortened]... would do no 2 but not no 1.
Just thought you would find it interesting when discussing morals.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTrue. I'd agree that pushing someone into an oncoming train and flipping a switch which would result in the same are equal in their end result. The difference is that with the first, the action of killing is done directly, while in the second it is done by mechanical proxy.
Option C was not in the article I don't think.
However the differences or lack thereof between A and B illustrate some interesting moral questions.
So, on the objective level, the actions are homologous, while on the subjective and experiential level, they differ drastically.