Morality is Irrational: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Morality is Irrational » Morality is Irrational

Morality is Irrational

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Morality is Irrational

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 07/04/09 - 09:41 AM:	#31
Abusing someone far weaker than you for your own gain is inherently weak and pitiful, pedophilia as a whole follows this particular mentality, that's why I find it disgusting. On top of this, I am somewhat empathetic towards the victims of abuse, these factors combined gives me reason to find Fritzl's actions to be something negative. That's pretty simple isn't it? Yes we have the desire to avoid discomfort, yet at the same time we also have the desire to seek it. Something about particular instances of discomfort brings meaning to life, makes it more fun, more thrilling, more badass. Why else would some of us like living dangerously? Why else would some people constantly challenge themselves?
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

slap
User of Mental Cosmetics

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 100

Posted 07/04/09 - 10:33 AM:	#32
Time to make my first post on here. Hey everyone! Concerning Relativism: Here I will conduct a thought experiment: In a possible world with only two people Joe and Bob only Joe makes moral judgments. Joe decides to torture Bob horribly. Joe also makes the moral judgment that it is good for Joe to torture Bob horribly. Bob feels all the pain one normally feels from torture, yet still does not make a moral judgment. If relativism is the case we must accept Joe's actions as right in the only available sense. The relativist can now either bite the bullet and say "So much the worse for our intuitions, Joe is acting rightly in the only available sense", or try to make a claim that we the though experiment readers can make a judgment, and so relative to us Joe is acting immorally. If they choose the latter they seem to be making a strange commitment. They are making a judgment across "possible worlds". This seems very strange indeed. I do not deny that ethics are relative, I do however think that there is a fundamental principle that overlaps all ethical judgments. As I am a sort of utilitarian I believe it is "The action which promotes average happiness" is the right action. As what brings different people happiness is different in all situations morality is relative as a result. However they are relative to what makes individuals happy, and not relative to the judgments others make. Of course I haven't given an argument for this, and expect to be nailed hard.
Harm(For a person)= 1-Happiness/% or relevant knowledge known

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 07/05/09 - 03:28 AM:	#33
slap wrote: Time to make my first post on here. Hey everyone! Concerning Relativism: Here I will conduct a thought experiment: In a possible world with only two people Joe and Bob only Joe makes moral judgments. Joe decides to torture Bob horribly. Joe also makes the moral judgment that it is good for Joe to torture Bob horribly. Bob feels all the pain one normally feels from torture, yet still does not make a moral judgment. If relativism is the case we must accept Joe's actions as right in the only available sense. The relativist can now either bite the bullet and say "So much the worse for our intuitions, Joe is acting rightly in the only available sense", or try to make a claim that we the though experiment readers can make a judgment, and so relative to us Joe is acting immorally. If they choose the latter they seem to be making a strange commitment. They are making a judgment across "possible worlds". This seems very strange indeed. I do not deny that ethics are relative, I do however think that there is a fundamental principle that overlaps all ethical judgments. As I am a sort of utilitarian I believe it is "The action which promotes average happiness" is the right action. As what brings different people happiness is different in all situations morality is relative as a result. However they are relative to what makes individuals happy, and not relative to the judgments others make. Of course I haven't given an argument for this, and expect to be nailed hard. You are making the assumption that "The action which promotes average happiness" is the right action. What is the basis for this? I could quite easily say "The action which promotes average <insert emotion here>" is the right action, and be equally as correct as you.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

slap
User of Mental Cosmetics

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 100

Posted 07/05/09 - 07:13 PM:

#34

I don't think I have to be assuming the greatest happiness principle for the though experiment to work. Virtue Ethicists and Deontologists could also make a similar example. I am assuming that we have an intuition which tells us this situation is wrong, why we think this situation is wrong I tried to stay away from.

You are correct in questioning my utilitarianism, and I thank you for nailing it. I wish I had a good metaethical support for my utilitarianism. I only have pragmatic arguments that consequentialism is our best hope for a measurable empirical ethics. I am in this sense an intrumentalist.

Harm(For a person)= 1-Happiness/% or relevant knowledge known

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 840

Posted 07/06/09 - 08:17 AM:	#35
Greg, I am the one obligating bears to eat berries. Explain to me why I can’t do that. And yes, I am morally obligating the bears to eat berries. You say, MOS wrote: I was not aware that we left the real world. No arragment of atoms are prefereftial to another. All arrangments are what they are and that is what it is. Good so? Bad so? Perspective and local moral valuation. If you are arguing that we are what we are and that is all, why bother? However the OP turns out at the end of this conversation due to your participation is no less good/bad, right/wrong, better/worse, or any other judgment than if you had simply sat on the sidelines. What, precisely, are you contributing besides remaining off topic and not addressing the issue of whether there moral is a rational reason for the continuation of morality? Perhaps you are restricting yourself to the idea that it makes no difference whether we do one thing or another? I’ve re-read your post several times, and I can’t help but see it as a bunch of “I don’t like it” whining. As much as you think I lack a sense of irony, I think you lack a sense of dramatic effect. You can “Sieg heil” from now till you turn blue in the face, but that doesn’t add whatsoever to your argument. In fact, it supports the idea that you are just arguing both sides at once to no particular end. You seem to be saying, “It doesn’t matter what we do, but in no case should we be like the Nazis.” The baggage that you come to the argument with is precisely that you assume what answers might satisfy the OP. As you might have noticed, he has never elected to respond to your ideas despite your investment in being correct. (He has ignored me as well.) You have not yet asked for clarification from the OP nor have you shown any indication that you might even consider the world in a way other than the way you believe it to be. For one who asserts relativism, you seem awfully absolutist. I would urge you to consider that “moral” and “good” do not have to be related. I provided a series of links that discuss the issue and may give you a fresh perspective on the difference between morality as duties/obligations vs. concern for the “good” consequences. You keep wanting to focus on the value assessment of the consequence of action, but there are hosts of philosophies that simply do not care about the values of the consequence. Most critically, that something is “relative” does not mean that it is illogical. If I want to live, I should not move 15 to my left. (There is a several hundred foot drop in store for me if I do.) Just because you might live if you moved 15 to your left doesn’t mean that I am illogical for believing that I should not move 15 to my left. Why don’t you lay out what you believe is logical basis to hold a position and then we can discuss whether what you believe are morals satisfy that basis. When we are done with that analysis, we can move on to different views of morality and see if they cause our analysis to come to a different result.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515

Posted 07/06/09 - 08:43 AM:	#36
"I am the one obligating bears to eat berries. Explain to me why I can’t do that. And yes, I am morally obligating the bears to eat berries". Then god really exists and lives in New Jersey. This "dialogue" is going nowhere. I guess you have proven to me with your posts that morality is indeed irrational. You do not understand anything I am trying to say nor seem to be open to suggestion. I don't care to change your mind. I feel this would not be possible even if I tried. The truth is, nothing I am saying is that difficult to grasp. Then again, nothing I am saying here is so damned important. I leave it too you to make of it what you will.
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 840

Posted 07/06/09 - 08:56 AM:	#37
mayor of simpleton wrote: "I am the one obligating bears to eat berries. Explain to me why I can’t do that. And yes, I am morally obligating the bears to eat berries". Then god really exists and lives in New Jersey. This "dialogue" is going nowhere. I guess you have proven to me with your posts that morality is indeed irrational. You do not understand anything I am trying to say nor seem to be open to suggestion. I don't care to change your mind. I feel this would not be prossible even if I tried. The truth is, nothing I am saying is that difficult to grasp. Then again, nothing I am saying here is so damned important. I leave it too you to make of it what you will. I have proven to you that morality exists in a context of rationality and until you establish what that context is, this conversation is going no where. Outside of repeating sieg heil and saying you don't like it, you have yet to address the simple issue of why "Because god says so" is an irrational response to why someone should do something. You have also failed to address why "because you are obligated to do so" is an inadequate response to why someone should do something moral. Logic flows from premises to conclusion. The big premises are called axioms. If someone accepts "I am obligated" as one of their axioms, then it is perfectly straight forward how it is rational to believe they are obligated and should fulfill their obligations. So the question has been (and remains to be) what are the OP's premises/axioms? If you look at the OP's other threads, you will see that he believes in a materialist universe that exists as a function of atoms in some relationship to one another. He doesn't seem to believe that it matters at all whether they (the atoms) are in one relationship or another. Your efforts at invoking Hitler fall on deaf ears when responding to an OP who would say that Hitler wasn't evil and that he (the OP) could care less if there were another Hitler. For all of your "should"s and "need"s and other preferential language, you have failed to leave the context of your own paradigm and actually try to analyze whether some other person could rationally believe that it matters what happens or that certain conduct is proscribed/encouraged.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 07/06/09 - 04:17 PM:	#38
The OP was intended to find out what basis other posters on this forum have for their morality, and whether or not this basis was in fact rational. I think everyone in this thread would agree that morality is relative. If this is true, then we can conclude that your idea of 'right' and 'wrong' for example is somewhat different to everyone elses. This shows obviously that each human has their own moral axioms. To me this problem becomes an infinite regression. Can anyone find legitimate (rational) axioms? Currently I am embracing the lack of free will, and "riding" life. If a decision is to be made, I weigh up the options and somehow they all weigh the same. Choice is becoming more seemingly random every day, but not much has changed. I haven't murdered anyone yet, but maybe the right situation is yet to present itself. In conclusion, I wasn't intending on the usual argumentative tennis with this thread. If morality truly is relative, then rationally I have to conclude that all moral axioms are invention. If this is true, then I can only sustain my rationality by accepting the lack of free will. This is because if we truly had freedom of choice, then moral relativity would render every choice irrational.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 07/06/09 - 05:13 PM:	#39
Arguably there can be a set of universal moral axioms for the human race as a whole in order to maximize the well being of all human beings. Whether it's the Nash Equilibrium, Kant's categorical imperative, or just the golden rule, the idea is all the same. The bottom basis of this moral axiom is essentially emotionally based, but that does not take away the fact that it's a rational tool used to maximize emotional desires. Also considering that the only relevant perspective IS the human perspective, we could for most intended purposes consider this moral axiom to be universal. I wouldn't say that it's necessarily an obligation, but I can say that it is morally positive to follow this axiom. The definition of something morally positive can be reduced to maximizing the personal benefits of all players in the game. The motivational basis is once again emotional, irrational, but the axiom itself is rational.
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

slap
User of Mental Cosmetics

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 100

Posted 07/06/09 - 05:17 PM:

#40

Morality is relative but is not a human invention. Are you willing to accept that Joe's torturing of Bob is moral? The only available relative sense(if it is a human invention) in the Joe-Bob world is Joe's moral decision that Joe's torturing of Bob is not moral. As a relativist you can bite the bullet and say "So much the worse for our intuitions, Joe's tortuing of Bob is moral in the only available sense" or you can say "Perhaps morality is an actual property.

Simlarly even if morality is relative this does not mean that all moral axioms are invention. Space and time are both also relative, yet we don't seem to believe they are also inventions. Rather Morality's relativity is compatible with Morality's objectivity.

Harm(For a person)= 1-Happiness/% or relevant knowledge known

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

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