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?

Yahadreas
YHDRS

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

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 10/17/09 - 10:49 AM:	#31
Then why bother with the moral language at all? Why not just say "X ensures eternal joy"? To bring in contested terminology only brings about pointless conflict.
I am awesome.

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 10/17/09 - 10:51 AM:	#32
Yahadreas wrote: Then why bother with the moral language at all? Why not just say "X ensures eternal joy"? To bring in contested terminology only brings about pointless conflict.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 10/17/09 - 12:26 PM:	#33
Yahadreas wrote: Then why bother with the moral language at all? Why not just say "X ensures eternal joy"? To bring in contested terminology only brings about pointless conflict. I think to put it as simply "X ensures eternal joy", my question would be, why should I care about other people's eternal joy? Or that of other animals? Sure I care about my own eternal joy, or that of my own social group. But in a world with limited resources the most obvious conclusion would be to "exploit others when the payoff is the greatest through exploitation, thereby maximizing my joy". By using the word moral, there's a social obligation for everyone to follow. Not only do we have to care about our own eternal joy, but that of others as well. As for rather or not eternal joy --> moral, I guess you would have to be the judge.
Keep it simple.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/17/09 - 02:25 PM:	#34
Yahadreas wrote: Then why bother with the moral language at all? Why not just say "X ensures eternal joy"? To bring in contested terminology only brings about pointless conflict. Why state the rules of mathematics? Why not just state that 2+2=4? Why do you fear "the moral language"? A moral is a fundamental rule to not break at risk of the natural consequence of death. By merely stating, "X ensures eternal joy", I would hardly point out the consequence of NOT X. It would be more appropriate to say that "X prevents death and misery". But regardless, what X is, is a moral. So why call it "X"? Why not call it what it is, a "moral", such as to say; "This moral ensures eternal joy" rather than "X ensures eternal joy"? But then I would have to point out what moral I am talking about and thus say; "The moral of "Clarify and Verify the Hopes and Threats Concerning Greater Influence toward the Harmony of Eternal Joyous Life", will ensure eternal joy. But then of course, I would have to explain why and thus state exactly what the OP states. So why don't you figure out why you fear the word "moral".

Yahadreas
YHDRS

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

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 10/17/09 - 05:51 PM:	#35
James S Saint wrote: A moral is a fundamental rule to not break at risk of the natural consequence of death. So not only does X ensure eternal joy, but it also prevents death and misery. And again, why not just say this? Why use the word "moral". Nobody debates whether or not murder causes death and misery, but some people debate whether or not murder is ("really") immoral. Bringing in moral terminology just complicates the issue.
I am awesome.

James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227

Posted 10/17/09 - 11:10 PM:	#36
Yahadreas wrote: So not only does X ensure eternal joy, but it also prevents death and misery. And again, why not just say this? Why use the word "moral". Nobody debates whether or not murder causes death and misery, but some people debate whether or not murder is ("really") immoral. Bringing in moral terminology just complicates the issue. Because this is a discussion of REASONING (look it up), not simple minded presumptuous assertions of absolute truths to be taken on faith.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/18/09 - 01:10 AM:	#37
Yahadreas wrote: Then why bother with the moral language at all? Why not just say "X ensures eternal joy"? To bring in contested terminology only brings about pointless conflict. Not that I neccessarily agree with him completely, but because saying "X ensures eternal joy" is a non-obligatory statement. So it is only half of the equation. Just because "X ensures eternal joy" doesn't mean that you must act on X. What good is it to declare that "X ensures eternal joy" compared to saying "X is moral"? And he is right, there is an absolute dilemma for a human between the maxims of life and death. I would agree, to a certain extent, that the actions that rationally follow from the maxim of life could be considered moral.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/18/09 - 01:41 AM:	#38
James S Saint wrote: It is a little off topic, but I'm curious what reasoning you believe concerning that issue..? A material infinity cannot exist. Why? Because a material infinity cannot be crossed in reality. I'll explain in a sec, but I'll just say that yours and everyone's intuitions regarding infinity - not being able to comprehend a past infinity or a an infinite universe of matter - is absolutely correct. If you think about the race between the tortoise and the hair, but imagine that the tortoise has a 100 meter head start. Imagine the tortoise is moving 1 m/s and the rabbit is moving 10 m/s. The rabbit runs to catch up with the 100 meter point that the tortoise started at, and the tortoise has moved 10 meters. The rabbit moves 10 meters to get to where the tortoise is, but the tortoise has moved another meter. The rabbit moves a meter, but the tortoise has moved .1 meters. The rabbit moves .1 meters to catch up, but the tortoise is still ahead .01 meters. And on and on. If a material infinity exists, the rabbit can never pass the tortoise, because no matter how far a distance it moves to meet the tortoise's previous point, the tortoise has always moved marginally ahead. Time would come to a stop before the rabbit could ever get to the same point as the tortoise. And since of course we know in real life that the rabbit would move ahead of the tortoise very quickly, we know that a material infinity cannot exist because it would make that impossible. In the same manner, if time existed infinitely in the past, the present moment could never have been reached. Because there would always be a time between the past and the present that exists no matter what. Except in the case of time being infinite in the past, the example becomes even more obvious, because the infinity is not confined between two points. If time was eternal in the past, the present would always be infinitely far ahead of itself, and thus could never be reached. The present moment we exist in would always be an infinity ahead. Of course, we know we exist in the present, so we know that the past had to be finite. Is it possible that the amount of matter in the universe could be infinite? I don't think so - matter is only a part of the universe, the rest of it is total nothingness (empty space). If the universe itself is infinite, which is possible since empty space is not material, how can a small part of what consists of the universe be equal to the universe itself? It obviously can't. So if the matter in the universe is smaller than the universe itself, which it has to be, can you have a smaller infinity? Science has somewhat recently come to the same conclusions. The big bang created time, and matter as we know it. How the universe was before the big bang, if we can even call it a 'universe' at all, is something that none of us can ever really comprehend. <div id="refHTML"> </div> <input type="hidden" id="gwProxy"><!--Session data--></input><input type="hidden" id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" /> <div id="refHTML"> </div>

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214

Posted 10/18/09 - 02:13 AM:	#39
But still, you never answered my points. Why is it that nearly any parents would unquestionably sacrifice their own life for the lives of their children, despite any desire for 'eternal joy' they might have? Is their action of self-sacrifice irrational? It must be if we're talking about their own interest - unless they sense some greater, absolute obligation that requires it. Is it not true that every intuitively moral action serves the purpose of propagating the life we create? And isn't it true that while humans do not have the ability to seek 'eternal joy' due to universal death, the next closest thing is to propagate our 'image' through our children, teaching them our values and our wisdom? Doesn't every intuition and instinct we have serve that purpose? If morality is based on the maxim of life, then don't we have to find the absolute in life that exists - its purpose? If life was never propagated, then it could not have existed, and what does not exist cannot have a purpose. So isn't the only truly discernable purpose of life (life that dies) to reproduce? If that's true, doesn't it have to be the absolute postulate upon which all principles of morality and freedom are based, just as the purposes I am free to assign to my own life become the principles of my own personal system of ethics? If that's true, doesn't the purpose of life and absolute postulate of morality neccessitate the most powerful obligations that can exist among humans - the obligations we use to restrict our absolute freedom to create a peaceful, free, and just society?

Yahadreas
YHDRS

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

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 10/18/09 - 02:27 AM:	#40
James S Saint wrote: Because this is a discussion of REASONING (look it up), not simple minded presumptuous assertions of absolute truths to be taken on faith. This is quite simple. If all you mean by "X is moral" is "X ensures eternal joy and prevents death and misery" then you don't need to say "X is moral"; you can just say "X ensures eternal joy and prevents death and misery". Unless the word "moral" contains connotations not included in "ensures eternal joy and prevents death and misery". If this latter is the case, then can you explain to me what these connotations are. I'll offer this example. By "X is a bachelor", I mean "X is an unmarried man". If, for example, I was talking to someone who, for whatever reason, considered "bachelor" to mean something else, then I would not talk of X being a bachelor but of X being an unmarried man. Although this other person will not deny this latter claim, he will deny the former, because he uses "bachelor" to mean something else. Now, replace "a bachelor" with "moral" and replace "is an unmarried man" with "ensures eternal joy and prevents death and misery". Do you see what I am trying to say? There's nothing special about the word "bachelor" that makes it the needed way of describing X when its definition will suffice and garners no opposition. Unless, of course, "moral" does not equate with "ensures eternal joy and prevents death and misery". Instead, something which ensures eternal joy and prevents death and misery is an example of something which is moral, just as a bachelor is an example of a man. So, is "moral" to "ensures eternal joy and prevents death and misery" as "bachelor" is to "unmarried man", or is "moral" to "ensures eternal joy and prevents death and misery" as "bachelor" is to "man" (the former being an equivocal identity and the latter being an example).
I am awesome.

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.