From Reasoning to Morals?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » From Reasoning to Morals? » From Reasoning to Morals?

From Reasoning to Morals?
Proposal that reasoning can produce new and rational morals for society

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

From Reasoning to Morals?

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/15/09 - 07:57 PM:	#11
Odin wrote: Read about Zeno's paradoxes. It is impossible to traverse a real, material infinity because we could never reach the present moment. That is one reason we conclude that time had a beginning. It is a little off topic, but I'm curious what reasoning you believe concerning that issue..?

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 10/16/09 - 01:32 AM:	#12
James S Saint wrote: Then you are a "faithful follower". My question in this thread refers to a follower of logic and rationale (if there are any such). You misunderstand my point. Let us assume that you use the word "chair" to mean the thing upon which you sit. Let us assume that I use the word "chaise" to mean the thing upon which I sit. Who is using the correct word to mean the thing upon which we sit? My previous post was a simple turn-over of the above. Instead of using two different words to mean the same thing, I am giving the example of the same word being used to mean different things. You use the word "moral" to mean "an action which promotes joy" and I use the word "moral" to mean "an action which God condones". Thus, If you were to say "X is moral" then you would be saying "X promotes joy" and if I were to say "X is moral" then I would be saying "God condones X". These two statements are not mutually exclusive (unless X does not promote joy and it has been established that God does not condone things which do not promote joy, but this is just complicating the issue). The point is that you can use words to mean anything you like. If people understand what you are trying to say by "X is Y" then all is fine. To say "morals are [to be] based on the effort to accomplish ones highest goal." is to simply define a word. I could just as well say "morals are [to be] based on the effort to make money". I'm just defining it as such. Unless you consider there to be a "real" definition of the word "moral". Which is slightly strange, because words are defined by their use, no? The "real" definition is however one uses it, and different people use it in different ways; some to mean actions which promote happiness and some to mean actions which God condones.
I am awesome.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/16/09 - 08:18 AM:	#13
Yahadreas wrote: You misunderstand my point. Let us assume that you use the word "chair" to mean the thing upon which you sit. Let us assume that I use the word "chaise" to mean the thing upon which I sit. Who is using the correct word to mean the thing upon which we sit?... Unless you consider there to be a "real" definition of the word "moral". Which is slightly strange, because words are defined by their use, no? The "real" definition is however one uses it, and different people use it in different ways; some to mean actions which promote happiness and some to mean actions which God condones. You are assuming that the definition is arbitrary. This topic involves logic, rationale, and reasoning. Why don't we say, "morals are the fruit that grows on apple trees"? We don't because that definition is too far from any relevent use. This topic is not about common religious perspective, but specifically about reasoning, thus the definition provided is one concerning conceptual rationale. "In concept" and regardless of religion, morals are as stated, the rules not to be offended, that lead to the accomplishment of the chosen task and that task is of the nature of the highest goal chosen. To offend the morals is to defeat the goal (by rationale definition). So accepting the definition provided, are the proposed morals logically rational?

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 10/16/09 - 03:17 PM:	#14
James S Saint wrote: You are assuming that the definition is arbitrary. This topic involves logic, rationale, and reasoning. It's not arbitrary; it's vague. Some words are very precise in their meaning; "chair", for example. Others are less so; "God", for example. The explanation for this is that there is pretty much only one common use for the word "chair" in English-speaking populations, but more than one for the word "God". This is why people discuss what it means for a thing to be moral but not what it means for a thing to be a chair. This, however, is a non-issue, really. Because we are used to words having just one precise meaning, we imagine there to be just one precise meaning for those words which actually have many vague meanings. "God" might mean "Yahweh" or "Allah" (or any number of similar things). The same with morals. However, to possibly argue against my own view, it can be claimed that the general meaning of the word "moral" is "acceptable behaviour". It then being the case that different people mean different things by "acceptable". For some, things are acceptable if Yahweh condones them (where the Bible is the trustworthy account of Yahweh either condoning or condemning actions), for others, things are acceptable if they promote joy. But, again, this is just simply different definitions. Personally, I think that in situations like this it is better to just do away with the vague definitions and stick to the precise ones. So, instead of saying "God", say "Yahweh", or "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, personal creator". Instead of saying "moral", say "an action which promotes joy", or "an action which God condones". Why bring up (needlessly) contested terms when the "base" definition will suffice?
I am awesome.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/16/09 - 05:30 PM:	#15
I used the word "moral" so as to associate reasoning with morals. Of course finding people who actually use reasoning online is pretty unlikely, so I have gotten pretty much what I expected. I could have used the term, "code of ethics" instead of "morals" if I was merely promoting the ethics discussed. But that would have left the misconceptions of morals still unresolved until a later time when I could then show how the word "morals" has always really meant that same thing. But I am not in the mode of preaching the ethics regardless of prior irrationalities (yet). When it comes to the word "God", the relevence is not what that word might mean to you, but what it meant to those who wrote the Scriptures. YHWH == the One who/that is the Whole Yahway == the agreeable way Elohim == the sum of all spirit Allah == the sum total that is All spirit. Je-hov-ah == "The-Whole-Spirit" Holy Spirit == the spirit represented by the whole. They all mean the same thing but each brings with it the connotations used by those who coined the terms and thus each religion still argues. The masses are not the ones with understanding and not the ones to learn from. Edited by James S Saint on 10/16/09 - 05:38 PM

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 10/16/09 - 09:33 PM:	#16
I got a question. Does your definition of "joy" include those you get through the use of drugs? Like if I am stone all day I will probably find a lot more joy out of the ordinary than when I am sober. After all, if joy is the highest purpose to life and the definition of moral, there should be no reason not to artificially manipulate your brain either chemically (use of drugs) or electrically (direct stimulation with electrodes in the reward area of the brain). Edited by 123savethewhales on 10/16/09 - 09:51 PM
Keep it simple.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/16/09 - 09:59 PM:	#17
123savethewhales wrote: I got a question. Does your definition of "joy" include those you get through the use of drugs? Like if I am stone all day I will probably find a lot more joy out of the ordinary than when I am sober. After all, if joy is the highest purpose to life and the definition of moral, there should be no reason not to artificially manipulate your brain either chemically (use of drugs) or electrically (direct stimulation with electrodes in the reward area of the brain). That was my first thought too. But if you look, the highest moral is stated as "eternal joy", not merely "joy". If a drug could manage to cause your bliss as well as cause your eternal health forever and there was no better guarantee of its success, then I'm afraid that I couldn't argue against everyone using it. After all, we all use oxygen, don't we? I'm sue everyone would feel much less joyful without it.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 10/16/09 - 10:12 PM:	#18
James S Saint wrote: 123savethewhales wrote: I got a question. Does your definition of "joy" include those you get through the use of drugs? Like if I am stone all day I will probably find a lot more joy out of the ordinary than when I am sober. After all, if joy is the highest purpose to life and the definition of moral, there should be no reason not to artificially manipulate your brain either chemically (use of drugs) or electrically (direct stimulation with electrodes in the reward area of the brain). That was my first thought too. But if you look, the highest moral is stated as "eternal joy", not merely "joy". If a drug could manage to cause your bliss as well as cause your eternal health forever and there was no better guarantee of its success, then I'm afraid that I couldn't argue against everyone using it. After all, we all use oxygen, don't we? I'm sue everyone would feel much less joyful without it. So let's say hypothetically, if we reach the technology where we can take out a person's brain, put it in a machine that will keep he/she alive for as long as the machine functions, and blast the reward system with the maximum amount of stimulation a brain can handle 24/7. Now assuming that this machine is the best chance of keeping your brain alive for eternality, would that be enough to satisfy as the ultimate moral thing to do? Would our physical body, or the physical world in general, have any value at all in the face of eternal joy?
Keep it simple.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/16/09 - 10:52 PM:	#19
123savethewhales wrote: So let's say hypothetically, if we reach the technology where we can take out a person's brain, put it in a machine that will keep he/she alive for as long as the machine functions, and blast the reward system with the maximum amount of stimulation a brain can handle 24/7. Now assuming that this machine is the best chance of keeping your brain alive for eternality, would that be enough to satisfy as the ultimate moral thing to do? Would our physical body, or the physical world in general, have any value at all in the face of eternal joy? So far, good questions and glad to see someone thinking. The issue in this question is mostly about what it is that would keep that machine functioning forever. The most successful strategy for survival so far has been life itself. Unless that machine is alive, it is not likely to capable of enduring. But also, the spread of life in number is another important part of the strategy of surviving, thus merely one person even having a living dedicated machine keeping that one person healthy and happy, would still not do it. That machine and you within, would have to be helping to cause other life similar to yours to be able to do as you do. But in reality, it would be little different than a dentist providing dentures for all people, not just himself. That way, everyone can smile.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 10/16/09 - 11:17 PM:	#20
So my guess is you wouldn't like the idea that robots and AI doing all the work for us, and all we do is sit and demand. If AI can self build, self function a meet our demands (sounds like a bad science fiction I know, but let's assume nothing goes wrong), then technically speaking even if we don't help each other gain happiness the universal happiness can still be maintained. AI should be consider as a possibility if our technology is as far as eternal life. The next obvious step would be, how board is this moral. Is it exclusive to humans? Should chimps and dolphins? Or should the AI also get this (though one can argue that they can be build to be happy for serving us). How do we determine what deserves the same moral standards?
Keep it simple.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.