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 10/16/09 - 11:35 PM:	#21
123savethewhales wrote: 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? What I "like" is that we do what is exactly the most rational thing to ensure eternal joy. But if this moral has been deduced properly from logic, it applies to any and all living things. To what degree machines particupate is up to the logic to determine. How many of which other life types can be included is also up to the logic to determine. My understanding of the actual end rationale, is that we, as humans, use only the machines necessary to acomplish the final goal and that would end up including all humans and almost all other animal life as well. Once a large number of people are actually aiming at that one moral, they acquire other morals based upon that one highest and more importantly, by being a group, they inherently make the task easier, more global, and more forgiving for those who couldn't quite measure up to the normal standard of performance. In the long run, nothing born has to ever die (except perhaps insects, germs, and such).

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 10/17/09 - 12:05 AM:	#22
I think I have a better understanding on your definition of morality. However I do see a few problems in the implementing (non technology related ones). The most immediate one would be conflict in desires, which I will address below. Suppose there are "immoral" people out there, people who get a kick out of seeing other people suffer. Or suppose there are simply people who are against "joy by any mean necessary", such as those who simply believe drugs and any artificial forms of joy are evil. They don't want anything to do with your utopia, or perhaps they might even actively sabotage your plan. What would be the moral way to treat those people? Just out of curiosity, are you a vegan by any chance? Edited by 123savethewhales on 10/17/09 - 12:16 AM
Keep it simple.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/17/09 - 12:54 AM:	#23
123savethewhales wrote: Suppose there are "immoral" people out there, people who get a kick out of seeing other people suffer. Or suppose there are simply people who are against "joy by any mean necessary", such as those who simply believe drugs and any artificial forms of joy are evil. They don't want anything to do with your utopia, or perhaps they might even actively sabotage your plan. What would be the moral way to treat those people? Just out of curiosity, are you a vegan by any chance? So far you are tracking the question list perfectly. Note that the single sentence moral begins with "Clarify and Verify the Hope and Threat..". This is not merely something to do for yourself, but to do for others as well (for logic not yet discussed). This means that to "handle" the world of diverse others, in each case, do what it takes to clarify and verify to them what their best hope and greatest danger actually is concerning their own harmony in life. In reality, every parent already tries to do that very thing. They just don't realize that is what they are doing. Every police officer who is only doing his duty, is also meagerly doing that same thing. They each are really saying, "If you do this thing, then 'this' is the threat you face." Of course, they don't make the hope very clear at all nor the actual goal of harmony. They just presume that you will figure it all out. They never really figured it out themselves, but they instinctively assume that you will. The moral is really only iterating what everyone already has driving them within. It is that "hidden spirit within" that keeps them alive despite their confusions. But being consciously aware of it in detail makes a big difference. So to more directly answer your question; 1) Take each case individually 2) State what it is that you are doing and why 3) Clarify and verify your intentions, your reasoning, the threats involved, and the hopes (usually left out completely - bad mistake), and the end goal being sought. 4) Exercise your influence in exactly the direction of that moral. It won't really matter what the other person thinks of your plan. You do what actually works. If you do it well, he will learn and probably begin doing the same, but if not, just consider that next time you have to deal with him, but never stop doing that exact moral. The more of you doing that, the easier it becomes and the harder for anyone to do otherwise. The goal becomes too easy to miss. </a>

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/17/09 - 01:02 AM:	#24
123savethewhales wrote: Just out of curiosity, are you a vegan by any chance? I am a NotA

Yahadreas
YHDRS

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

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 10/17/09 - 01:58 AM:	#25
James S Saint wrote: 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). I think you are still misunderstanding me. So I'll try a simple question: What is the difference between "X promotes joy" and "X is moral"?
I am awesome.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/17/09 - 08:43 AM:	#26
Yahadreas wrote: I think you are still misunderstanding me. So I'll try a simple question: What is the difference between "X promotes joy" and "X is moral"? If "X" truly ensures ETERNAL joy, then X really IS moral. You keep leaving out the "eternal" aspect. It is not true that anything promoting joy would be moral by the provided reasoning. As the commentary states, the "joy" aspect is the easy part. The "eternalness" is the difficulty and restricts the joy to be only that which causes eternalness.

Yahadreas
YHDRS

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

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 10/17/09 - 09:16 AM:	#27
James S Saint wrote: If "X" truly ensures ETERNAL joy, then X really IS moral. You keep leaving out the "eternal" aspect. It is not true that anything promoting joy would be moral by the provided reasoning. As the commentary states, the "joy" aspect is the easy part. The "eternalness" is the difficulty and restricts the joy to be only that which causes eternalness. Okay, then what is the difference between "X promotes eternal joy" and "X is moral"?
I am awesome.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/17/09 - 09:36 AM:	#28
Yahadreas wrote: Okay, then what is the difference between "X promotes eternal joy" and "X is moral"? That would depend on what you really mean by "promotes". If something promotes in the general direction of eternalness, but leads to a trap, then no, such promotion would not be moral. This would be much like trying to find your way through a maze in that often one must head in the opposite direction in order to get to the goal. I stated it as "ensures eternal joy". In effect, the moral says that one must enjoy doing whatever causes their eternal life. At times, that can be misleading, just as with all strategies. One must learn what really works and what doesn't. But if the actual goal is not kept in mind and the reality is not observed, then any thought will lead to failure. Even in the case of Christianity, if one worships Jesus, but fails to truly understand Jesus, then despite his efforts to do what is moral and right, he fails anyway because he did not observe that he was not actually doing what he thought he was doing. Every person must "clarify and verify" what they think, do, and say else they accomplish something other than their aim (which is the definition of "sin").

Yahadreas
YHDRS

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

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 10/17/09 - 10:26 AM:	#29
Okay, then what is the difference between "X ensures eternal joy" and "X is moral"?
I am awesome.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/17/09 - 10:45 AM:	#30
Yahadreas wrote: Okay, then what is the difference between "X ensures eternal joy" and "X is moral"? No difference as per this reasoning.

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.