Wheel of morality...

Tetsujin

Spirituality

21 Mar '06 00:51

knightmeister
knightmeister
Uk
Joined
21 Jan '06
Moves
443
21 Mar '06 18:46
Originally posted by Tetsujin
[b]...turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn.

So I gather a lot of you are wondering about where we get our morals and stuff, right?

I was looking at a couple other threads, and let's just say I was a bit disappointed.

Does anyone here even know what philosophy is? Seriously now... I can't believe what passes for good arguments here ...[text shortened]...
Thank you , thank you Tetsujin. I found that rivetting. It's precisely the point CS Lewis makes in Mere Christianity about how when we make moral judgements we are really appealing to something we feel must be a moral law , but we can't prove it rationally. I've asked some Atheists what love,meaning and morality mean to them if they ultimately know that it can only ever be a subjective emotion for them but they don't seem to understand the question. This story puts it really well ...where's it from again?
whodey
Joined
02 Jan '06
Moves
12857
21 Mar '06 19:101 edit
Originally posted by Tetsujin
[b]...turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn.

So I gather a lot of you are wondering about where we get our morals and stuff, right?

I was looking at a couple other threads, and let's just say I was a bit disappointed.

Does anyone here even know what philosophy is? Seriously now... I can't believe what passes for good arguments here ...[text shortened]...
DoctorScribbles
BWA Soldier
Tha Brotha Hood
Joined
13 Dec '04
Moves
49088
21 Mar '06 19:231 edit
Originally posted by Tetsujin
Seriously now... I can't believe what passes for good arguments here.
I couldn't either when I first joined.

My advice to you --- Just believe. Open your heart, and the rest will follow. On occasion I still lose faith and doubt that people can actually be so dense, but each time that happens, I am eventually moved to accept what I see before me.
Tetsujin
Mississauga, Ontario
Joined
28 Oct '05
Moves
668
21 Mar '06 19:521 edit
Originally posted by bbarr
Subjectivism is a view about the source of value, not about moral rightness.
At most, views about what is valuable only give us prima facie, defeasible reasons to pursue what is valuable. It is only in combination with some other premise (e.g., that one is obligated to maximize value) that this view of value entails anything at all about moral rightness.

Intersubjectivism is also a view about value.

Intersubjectivism claims that values arise from human interests and desires, but that there are rational constraints on what humans can value given their nature, and rational requirements to value particular things based upon principles of practical rationality. Kantians as well as many Aristotelians will be intersubjectivists about value.[/b]

What I said:

------
Subjectivism: To say something is wrong is to claim that you personally disapprove of it. Similarly, to claim something is right is to claim that you approve.

Intersubjecivism: To say something is wrong is to claim that your community disapproves of it. Similarly, to claim something is right is to claim that your community approves.
------

I'm sure you know that various philosophies apply to many different areas, social nets, human ventures, etc... etc...

Did I say I'm defining subjectivism or intersubjectivism? No. I simply presented a view of the subject in light of a frame of reference.

Granted that may have not been apparent, but to anyone who knows anything about the terms, that would have been a logical conclusion.

So are we done splitting hairs, or should I go get something to eat?
scottishinnz
Kichigai!
Osaka
Joined
27 Apr '05
Moves
8592
21 Mar '06 21:03
Originally posted by knightmeister
Thank you , thank you Tetsujin. I found that rivetting. It's precisely the point CS Lewis makes in Mere Christianity about how when we make moral judgements we are really appealing to something we feel must be a moral law , but we can't prove it rationally. I've asked some Atheists what love,meaning and morality mean to them if they ultimately know tha ...[text shortened]... t seem to understand the question. This story puts it really well ...where's it from again?
Most of these things have evolutionary explanations. I'll explain it for everyone later, I'm busy this morning; I doubt you'll listen.
vistesd
Hmmm . . .
Joined
19 Jan '04
Moves
22131
21 Mar '06 23:041 edit
It seems to me that human beings have some sense of right and wrong built into their consciousness. Collectively, this seems to me to be a statistical phenomenon, in that there is a broad “area of agreement” around the mean about things such as rape, torture, murder. There are certainly individuals and perhaps cultures that reflect the tails of the distribution.* This seems to be the source of “natural law” hypotheses. The shape of the distribution may or may not reflect “evolutionary” trends.

Most behavior people tend to deem immoral seems also to be anti-social, which may give rise to social theories of morality/ethics. In fact, I have difficulty assigning the word “immoral” to anything but behaviors that are also anti-social—rape, torture, murder, etc. Some people, however would apply the term to strictly self-destructive behaviors.

For some people (such as C.S. Lewis) such a “natural law” conclusion provides evidence of a creator-god. For me, that is an unnecessary leap.

It strikes me that my viewpoint may be somewhat Kantian, but my friend Bennett can correct me on that... 🙂 I’m just trying to put it in very general terms.

* For simplicity, I am assuming a normal distribution, though for all I know, it could be skewed or bimodal.

EDIT: By "built into" in my first sentence, I am not implying any builder; it was just an expression. Try "a naturally occurring aspect of."
~~Removed~~
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
22 Mar '06 02:41
Originally posted by Tetsujin

Pray tell, who's right? It's still unclear to me how you decide what is right/wrong.
To me morality is just a type of economy. Your question is equivalent to: how do you decide which economical policy is right/wrong?

We can tell which is best economically through observation and by making predictions.
Tetsujin
Mississauga, Ontario
Joined
28 Oct '05
Moves
668
24 Mar '06 20:242 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K
To me morality is just a type of economy. Your question is equivalent to: how do you decide which economical policy is right/wrong?

We can tell which is best economically through observation and by making predictions.
Fair enough, but there are as many cases supporting any one type of economy as there are against it.

You really haven't said anything. I also don't get this evolutionary approach to morality.

Even if we acquired a trait over millions of years, that still doesn't say it's right or wrong, It just means that we have such and such trait.

What about sea turtles? They leave their children on a beach and swim away. To moral relativists, that's the right thing for them to do.

So where does that leave us? I mean, if morality is measured relatively, is there any one fixed point we can use?
nomind
Joined
10 Mar '06
Moves
206
24 Mar '06 22:27
Originally posted by Tetsujin
Fair enough, but there are as many cases supporting any one type of economy as there are against it.

You really haven't said anything. I also don't get this evolutionary approach to morality.

Even if we acquired a trait over millions of years, that still doesn't say it's right or wrong, It just means that we have such and such trait.

What about sea ...[text shortened]... ve us? I mean, if morality is measured relatively, is there any one fixed point we can use?
utilitarianism makes morality relative yet still offers a fixed point - typically, the greatest overall happiness. if one takes creating the greatest amount of happiness to be the definition of moral goodness, then one has a complete system that is testable and workable. if it so happens that happiness and morality have no connection then utilitarianism would still work for creating the most amount of happiness, but would not necessarily do anything for promoting moral goodness. any theory in normative ethics will more or less do what it is supposed to. the real controversy is in meta-ethics. what are we talking about when discussing morality anyway? is it a real property of something in the world, or is it the product of the human imagination. j.l. mackie has an interesting theory on it. his is a non-realist theory, it is in fact an error theory. he claims that we make moral claims as though morality was a real property. he also claims that we are mistaken to do so. he presents a couple of arguments as to why. firstly, the argument from relativity: this is one we're all familiar with. if morality were a real property then why do so many different cultures have different and even opposing moral systems? the most likely answer is that there is no "real" morality that we alll tap into. his second argument is the argument from queerness. in this he questions what moral properties would be like, and how we could come into contact with them. i find that and another non-realist theory most convincing. that theory is emotivism. this basically says that when we make moral claims we are expressing an attitude and nothing more. so me saying that i think adultery is wrong is like me saying, "boo! adultery, boo!" in other words, the moral claim adds nothing to the semantic value of the sentance. there is no proposition to test.
~~Removed~~
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
24 Mar '06 22:38
Originally posted by Tetsujin
Fair enough, but there are as many cases supporting any one type of economy as there are against it.

You really haven't said anything. I also don't get this evolutionary approach to morality.

Even if we acquired a trait over millions of years, that still doesn't say it's right or wrong, It just means that we have such and such trait.

What about sea ...[text shortened]... ve us? I mean, if morality is measured relatively, is there any one fixed point we can use?
I guess right and wrong dont actually exist. Ill explain:
Say the world was plunged into nihilism and anarchy. Inevitably people would pillage and seek their own gratification. But then what? What happens when I have nothing to pillage? How do i continue my hedonistic life?
The first thing you would have to do is begin farming your own food. You dont want to do thisbut you must in order to survive and continue you hedonistic life.

But then I would also have to make shoes, and make other things as well. Should i then devote my day: one quarter to farming, one quarter to shoe making etc. etc?

In fact it wouldn't. Society functions on a way of cost-benefit anaylsis. This is because we are all making compromises to keep our "hedonistic life".
This is a type of economics. It can also be seen how evolution would incorporate this economics. On a basis of cost benefit analysis evolution "chooses" certain traits. This is how morality emerges. Certain moralities will benefit society while some wont. Because its in the interest of an organism to maintain society (as explained above), these moralities are abided by (generally).

This also explains why most immorality can be asscoiated with poor economic circumstances. Why revolutions happen during recessions. Cost and benefit is the basis of morality (even religious). Obviously its in your interest to abide by Gods laws if it means you go to heaven.
nomind
Joined
10 Mar '06
Moves
206
24 Mar '06 22:44
Originally posted by Conrau K
I guess right and wrong dont actually exist. Ill explain:
Say the world was plunged into nihilism and anarchy. Inevitably people would pillage and seek their own gratification. But then what? What happens when I have nothing to pillage? How do i continue my hedonistic life?
The first thing you would have to do is begin farming your own food. You dont wan ...[text shortened]... igious). Obviously its in your interest to abide by Gods laws if it means you go to heaven.
this is hobbesian social contract theory to a tee. we are all egoists concerned with gratifying desires so we use social contracts to escape from "the state of nature" which is hobbes' way of describing the anarchy that you described. with these social contracts in place we are free to pursue whatever desires we wish. but this only works with a sovereign. there must be an authority in place to ensure that people fulfill their contracts.
~~Removed~~
Joined
15 Sep '04
Moves
7051
24 Mar '06 23:092 edits
Originally posted by nomind
this is hobbesian social contract theory to a tee. we are all egoists concerned with gratifying desires so we use social contracts to escape from "the state of nature" which is hobbes' way of describing the anarchy that you described. with these social contracts in place we are free to pursue whatever desires we wish. but this only works with a sovereign. there must be an authority in place to ensure that people fulfill their contracts.
What kind of authority though?

I think it interesting to speculate that religion might hav been invented to delude people into believing that all their compromises will eventually lead to hedonistic life style (i.e. heaven).🙄
nomind
Joined
10 Mar '06
Moves
206
24 Mar '06 23:272 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K
What kind of authority though?

I think it interesting to speculate that religion might hav been invented to delude people into believing that all their compromises will eventually lead to hedonistic life style (i.e. heaven).🙄
in the situation hobbes describes, we lay down our universal right to do whatever we need to in order to survive in exchange for others laying down their universal right to do whatever they need to in order to survive. this is what prevents us from stealing and killing - the knowledge that others won't kill us or steal from us. but what stops one from cheating? i have not read all of hobbes' "leviathan" where he lays out his theory, but i think i have a limited understanding of what hobbes was suggesting. the authority is a person or group of people to whom we all give up our right to do whatever we need to in exchange for the authority ensuring that others give up that right as well. the exchange of rights is not between individual citizens but between all individual citizens and the sovereign state. for interesting speculation on the role religion has to play in this read nietzsche's "on the geneology of morality."
knightmeister
knightmeister
Uk
Joined
21 Jan '06
Moves
443
26 Mar '06 18:47
Originally posted by scottishinnz
Most of these things have evolutionary explanations. I'll explain it for everyone later, I'm busy this morning; I doubt you'll listen.
You doubt I'll listen ? I think you are projecting on to me! The fact that you doubt I'll listen is supposed to suggest a lack of open mindedness on my part but if you pick your statement apart it offers more of an insight into your open mindedness (or lack of) about me.
~~Mister Meaner~~
Account suspended
Joined
28 Feb '06
Moves
10868
26 Mar '06 19:05
I think it interesting to speculate that religion might hav been invented to delude people into believing that all their compromises will eventually lead to hedonistic life style (i.e. heaven).🙄[/b]
I thought religion may have been invented to give certain members of the community an easier lifestyle compared to other members of the group. Is it simpler to administer a fertility ritual or do the ploughing? Is it easier to relieve wool barons of their hard earned cash to build nice churches in exchange for favours in the afterlife, or tend the sheep?