Philosophy Forums


Morality is Irrational

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Morality is Irrational
kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire
Avatar

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

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526
Posted 07/06/09 - 05:38 PM:
quote post
#41
I think what you're trying to get at is that morality is simply a feature of the human condition, that it is based on certain emotional dispositions that came pre-packaged with our minds.

These dispositions are open to changes, but the core dispositions are quite universal. Of course this does not imply that we somehow consciously created morality, but that moral codes are a manifestation of our emotional dispositions.

For example, we humans simply biologically like things that benefit our base functional requirements such as food and shelter. Thus if by cooperating we can more successfully meet these requirements, it is morally positive to cooperate. On top of this evolution has given us empathy which often casts cooperation in a naturally positive light with no rational reason at all, this only aids the moral positiveness of cooperation.

Note of none of the above motivational factors for the moral positiveness of cooperation were man made, they were all essentially based on biological dispositions. Of course man do create moral codes based on biological dispositions, but those are not really creations but manifestations.

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.
mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509
Posted 07/06/09 - 11:12 PM:
quote post
#42
slap wrote:
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.

Good point, I should have elaborated. Space is relative, and as such it has no coordinate system. According to Hawking, you can look at space, not as a 'thing' itself, but simply the comparative relationships between objects. I am using the word invention to basically describe the static definition of morals within morality space (the same as how labelling the position of an object is an invention).

I still don't believe in universal moral axioms. If they existed then ALL humans would hold them (and they would have to be objectively and subjectively identical). Relativity implies an unnecessary prerequisite for static axioms.

Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.
Heterotheist
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 79
Posted 07/07/09 - 04:24 PM:
quote post
#43
mway wrote:

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.
If morality is relative, then so is the value of an abeyance of belief in objective morality. So is the conclusion derived from this that we ought to be more timid in our proclamations of righteousness - that the proper way to respond to finding oneself upon a frictionless surface is to freeze in place instead of thrashing about, as it were. But if we're not objectively right, then we're not objectively wrong either.

So allow yourself to thrash about. Even if the equilibrium of your beliefs inculcated by our pessimistic, scientific culture requires you to think of it as a "guilty pleasure" or that you're only doing it ironically. It's still healthier than the bind you're in right now.

(I used to think a sentence like that last one was platitudinous junk - but that's what it comes down to, doesn't it? Health and vitality, or decay and degeneration. It sounds platitudinous because I framed it as a philosophical choice, when it's really an artistic or poetic one. See: "Hamlet")
slap
User of Mental Cosmetics
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 04, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 100
Posted 07/08/09 - 12:08 AM:
quote post
#44

Morality isn't something held by all humans but we can explain the desire for it in terms of evolutionary behavior, empathy, etc.  Just because there are sociopaths/moral skeptics/those who have different moral axioms does not mean there isn't some static first principle.  This static first principle would have to predict the realtivity of morality.  I believe such a principle is utilitarian in form, something along the lines of "a good action is an action which promotes average happiness".  Happinees must not be understand in the hedonistic sense, but rather in a sense that allows all beings to have different forms of happiness.  This would explain why different cultures have different moral codes, namely because different cultures have different people with different happinesses.


My proposal for happiness:


Person S is completely happy iff:


1) At time T Person S is in mental state M


2) Mental state M is the preferred mental state of S at time T.




We could then imagine humans and an alien species.  Our alien species may be closer to happiness at a concert if there is absolute silence, thus relative to our aliens it is morally proper to make the concert silent.  For our Humans they may be made closer to happiness at a concert if there is punk music playing, thus relative to our humans it is morally proper to make the concert have punk music.  Any mixing of these two groups will yield different results of morality for the action "playing punk music" in this circumstance.


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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5



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