discussing morality: What is right or wrong. An example taken from before was throwing babies off a building, can it be defined as "wrong"
please no religious debates, and try to keep things TLDR
Morality thread YAY (continued from b4)
Débuté par
Mecha Tengu
, août 13 2010 04:22
#1
Posté 13 août 2010 - 04:22
Mecha Tengu
-
- Members
- 1 823 messages
continued from the question if bioware was going to include a morality system
discussing morality: What is right or wrong. An example taken from before was throwing babies off a building, can it be defined as "wrong"
please no religious debates, and try to keep things TLDR
discussing morality: What is right or wrong. An example taken from before was throwing babies off a building, can it be defined as "wrong"
please no religious debates, and try to keep things TLDR
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 13 août 2010 - 04:32
Loerwyn
-
- Members
- 5 576 messages
Right or Wrong is subjective. There is no correct "Right" just as there is no correct "Wrong". Some people see war as completely wrong, whereas others see it as either a "right" thing to do or to be an unavoidable necessity. It also depends which side you're on, too.
You might see, say, testing on animals as being wrong, but someone else (Hello *waves*) would see it as being the right thing to do - Or perhaps the "lesser of two evils". There was a case in the UK not long ago where two people died during a pharmaceutical trial and there was a fairly big uproar about it, but if two animals died no one would give a monkey's uncle.
Right and Wrong don't exist as such. But for the sake of argument, "Right" consists of actions that improve situations and "Wrong" consists of actions that cause the opposite.
You might see, say, testing on animals as being wrong, but someone else (Hello *waves*) would see it as being the right thing to do - Or perhaps the "lesser of two evils". There was a case in the UK not long ago where two people died during a pharmaceutical trial and there was a fairly big uproar about it, but if two animals died no one would give a monkey's uncle.
Right and Wrong don't exist as such. But for the sake of argument, "Right" consists of actions that improve situations and "Wrong" consists of actions that cause the opposite.
Modifié par OnlyShallow89, 13 août 2010 - 04:32 .
#3
Posté 13 août 2010 - 04:54
Swordfishtrombone
-
- Members
- 4 108 messages
I would not say that right and wrong are totally subjective - there is certainly leeway there for cultural differences and personal preferences, but at core, there are similarities that go across cultures. I don't remember who said it, but "There's never been a people among whom cowardace was a virtue and courage a vice".
Certain things, say - killing people in your group randomly, for fun - is universally viewed upon as wrong. And the reason for that is very simple: any group in which this sort of thing was not frowned upon would self-destruct. Any group which fails to punish actions that risk the security and success of the group will not last long.
As a consequence, basic human psychology includes morality that can adapt to cultural specifics, but has a "hard-wired" framework from which moral systems don't, in practice, deviate. Psychological experiments using moral dillemmas, presented to people of different cultures and backgrounds, tend to yield more or less consistent results.
For example, take this classic scenario:
You are at a railroad juncture. You see a train approaching from one direction, and see that if it is to continue on it's current path, it'll go through a narrow pass, with high, steep walls on both sides. In this pass, on the tracks, a group of five people are walking. They have no way to get out of the way of the train.
You can pull a lever to direct the train to a side-track, but on that sidetrack, likewise unable to get out of the way, is a single person. If you pull the lever, that person will die.
What do you do?
Most people, across cultures, say that it's permissible to pull the lever.
But now let's modify the situation - this time you're on a bridge going over a railway, and see a runaway train carriage approaching. Again past the bridge on the other side, on the tracks there are five people who can't get out of the way. Next to you on the bridge is a very fat man, and you know that his weight would stop the carriage before it hit the 5 people.
Is it ok for you to push the fat man over the bridge onto the tracks?
Most people, again, across cultures, say that it isn't permissible.
These sorts of tests show that there is an underlying framework of morality upon and around which individual cultural moral systems and rules are built.
As for moral theories, there are a multitude - I myself would consider the moral theory that I find most functional to be rule utilitarianism. Which essentially means that you judge the rightness or wrongness of actions by the consequences of those actions, and try to find general rules that work to do this, that you can follow when it's too difficult or impossible to work out all the possible consequences of an action.
If you find the subject interesting, I'd recommend the book "Moral Minds" by Mark Hauser.
Certain things, say - killing people in your group randomly, for fun - is universally viewed upon as wrong. And the reason for that is very simple: any group in which this sort of thing was not frowned upon would self-destruct. Any group which fails to punish actions that risk the security and success of the group will not last long.
As a consequence, basic human psychology includes morality that can adapt to cultural specifics, but has a "hard-wired" framework from which moral systems don't, in practice, deviate. Psychological experiments using moral dillemmas, presented to people of different cultures and backgrounds, tend to yield more or less consistent results.
For example, take this classic scenario:
You are at a railroad juncture. You see a train approaching from one direction, and see that if it is to continue on it's current path, it'll go through a narrow pass, with high, steep walls on both sides. In this pass, on the tracks, a group of five people are walking. They have no way to get out of the way of the train.
You can pull a lever to direct the train to a side-track, but on that sidetrack, likewise unable to get out of the way, is a single person. If you pull the lever, that person will die.
What do you do?
Most people, across cultures, say that it's permissible to pull the lever.
But now let's modify the situation - this time you're on a bridge going over a railway, and see a runaway train carriage approaching. Again past the bridge on the other side, on the tracks there are five people who can't get out of the way. Next to you on the bridge is a very fat man, and you know that his weight would stop the carriage before it hit the 5 people.
Is it ok for you to push the fat man over the bridge onto the tracks?
Most people, again, across cultures, say that it isn't permissible.
These sorts of tests show that there is an underlying framework of morality upon and around which individual cultural moral systems and rules are built.
As for moral theories, there are a multitude - I myself would consider the moral theory that I find most functional to be rule utilitarianism. Which essentially means that you judge the rightness or wrongness of actions by the consequences of those actions, and try to find general rules that work to do this, that you can follow when it's too difficult or impossible to work out all the possible consequences of an action.
If you find the subject interesting, I'd recommend the book "Moral Minds" by Mark Hauser.
Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 13 août 2010 - 04:55 .
#4
Posté 13 août 2010 - 05:00
xxSylphxx
-
- Members
- 867 messages
The problem with a morality system is inheirantly whose morality? Even if you live in a judeo-christian ethics society your view of what is or is not ethical is likely to vary wildly from even your neighbor's view. So, uhhh, this can only lead to debate to try and decide a morality code. Unless that's the point?
#5
Posté 13 août 2010 - 05:07
Swordfishtrombone
-
- Members
- 4 108 messages
xxSylphxx wrote...
The problem with a morality system is inheirantly whose morality? Even if you live in a judeo-christian ethics society your view of what is or is not ethical is likely to vary wildly from even your neighbor's view. So, uhhh, this can only lead to debate to try and decide a morality code. Unless that's the point?
I'd suggest reading my post above. Regardless of where people believe they get their morality from, there are some moral basics that are hard coded in human nature - and indeed are common even across social species. These are aspects of behavior without which a social species would not survive; they are adaptive features as much a part of of human beings as hands and feet are.
#6
Posté 13 août 2010 - 05:09
Mecha Tengu
-
- Members
- 1 823 messages
morality doesn't exist, just like human rights. It's all made up
#7
Posté 13 août 2010 - 05:13
xxSylphxx
-
- Members
- 867 messages
Swordfishtrombone wrote...
I'd suggest reading my post above. Regardless of where people believe they get their morality from, there are some moral basics that are hard coded in human nature - and indeed are common even across social species. These are aspects of behavior without which a social species would not survive; they are adaptive features as much a part of of human beings as hands and feet are.
I don't disagree that there are some common elements to both our species and others, but when you get down to trying to define a morality code to address any or all situations individuality will always create a level of discord.
#8
Posté 13 août 2010 - 05:32
Swordfishtrombone
-
- Members
- 4 108 messages
xxSylphxx wrote...
I don't disagree that there are some common elements to both our species and others, but when you get down to trying to define a morality code to address any or all situations individuality will always create a level of discord.
There are two ways of discussing morality - one concentrates on the scientific study of morality as a phenomenon in humans, which is what I was focussing on in my earlier post. The other is to discuss various moral theories, which goes into the question of what you should and should not do, and on what you base those ideas.
The latter tends to be more voletile than the former, as a subject, though I think people should be able to discuss even the latter reasonably and calmly.
#9
Posté 13 août 2010 - 05:36
Swordfishtrombone
-
- Members
- 4 108 messages
Mecha Tengu wrote...
morality doesn't exist, just like human rights. It's all made up
Do you think then, that it's just pure luck that no human societies have made up a system of morality where, say, kicking pragnant women in the stomach was a praise-worthy passtime?
If morality is just made up, wouldn't you expect that there are no commonalities between moral systems across the world? Yet there are consistent commonalities, and as I explained in my first post in this thread, people answer moral dillemmas in similar ways, regardless of culture. If you actually read the literature on the scientific study of human morality, you'll find this "all made up" idea hard to hold on to.
#10
Guest_Seagloom_*
Posté 13 août 2010 - 05:56
Guest_Seagloom_*
Guest_Seagloom_*
-
- Guests
-War is neutral, Attacking for power and lust is Bad, Defense is Good in all situations (but defending an evil purpose) and attacking to hinder an evil power to become strong is good.
End of the line for 'Morality & War'
-Testing on not Intelligent Animals is good for the best of all.
And there is Right & Wrong. no one can Call Lie, Jealousy or Rape a good thing but If he is up to something like ruining Morality and expanding Anarchy. I'm not talking about cultural damn things, there is true moral based on the Philosophy of many great philosophers that I don't like to mention them.
Inflammatory comment removed. Politics are forbidden here as are personal attacks. I suggest you take a step back, cool down, and come back to this discussion when you are capable of contributing to it without attacks and heated absolutist commentary.
End of the line for 'Morality & War'
-Testing on not Intelligent Animals is good for the best of all.
And there is Right & Wrong. no one can Call Lie, Jealousy or Rape a good thing but If he is up to something like ruining Morality and expanding Anarchy. I'm not talking about cultural damn things, there is true moral based on the Philosophy of many great philosophers that I don't like to mention them.
Inflammatory comment removed. Politics are forbidden here as are personal attacks. I suggest you take a step back, cool down, and come back to this discussion when you are capable of contributing to it without attacks and heated absolutist commentary.
Modifié par Seagloom, 13 août 2010 - 06:34 .
#11
Guest_Adriano87_*
Posté 13 août 2010 - 06:09
Guest_Adriano87_*
Guest_Adriano87_*
-
- Guests
@Swordfishtrombone, good. at least you understand better than others.
and others please read the translation of this book before you talk about morality:
'Eine Vorlesung über Ethik' by Immanuel Kant
and others please read the translation of this book before you talk about morality:
'Eine Vorlesung über Ethik' by Immanuel Kant
#12
Posté 13 août 2010 - 06:12
Loerwyn
-
- Members
- 5 576 messages
Adriano87 wrote...
Inflammatory comment removed.
You have no right to call it BS, Adriano. No right at all.
Modifié par Seagloom, 13 août 2010 - 06:35 .
#13
Posté 13 août 2010 - 06:17
AntiChri5
-
- Members
- 7 965 messages
Mecha Tengu wrote...
morality doesn't exist, just like human rights. It's all made up
So there is nothing wrong with rape?
Adriano87 wrote...
@Swordfishtrombone, good. at least you understand better than others.
and others please read the translation of this book before you talk about morality:
'Eine Vorlesung über Ethik' by Immanuel Kant
No.
Modifié par AntiChri5, 13 août 2010 - 06:17 .
#14
Guest_Seagloom_*
Posté 13 août 2010 - 06:21
Guest_Seagloom_*
Guest_Seagloom_*
-
- Guests
Post removed as it crosses into territory that is verboten. Keep the discussion on topic and within the rules. Thanks.
Modifié par Seagloom, 13 août 2010 - 06:40 .
#15
Posté 13 août 2010 - 06:23
AntiChri5
-
- Members
- 7 965 messages
Dude, history and politics are off limits.
Too many people too emotionally invested in too many different ideologies.
Too many people too emotionally invested in too many different ideologies.
#16
Guest_Adriano87_*
Posté 13 août 2010 - 06:27
Guest_Adriano87_*
Guest_Adriano87_*
-
- Guests
I can bring balance to Morality, History, Economics and Politics and whatever you can imagine by Creating my own ideology that is from philosophy of China to Greece and England and Germany. I'm just too lazy to begin my work.
#17
Posté 13 août 2010 - 06:40
Swordfishtrombone
-
- Members
- 4 108 messages
Adriano87 - you might want to tone down you rhetoric a bit, especially when it comes to condemning a group of people wholesale.
You recommend reading Kant, so I'm sure you are aware of the categorical imperative - by the longic of the categorical imperative, surely you can see that you should not call a whole nation immoral and savage, but judge individuals on their own merrits. After all, we cannot reasonably will that judging people by the cultural group from which they come from become a universal law, can we?
Also, comments that inflamatory will inevitably lead this thread - that's already walking a fine line on the edges of forum rules - to be locked down.
You recommend reading Kant, so I'm sure you are aware of the categorical imperative - by the longic of the categorical imperative, surely you can see that you should not call a whole nation immoral and savage, but judge individuals on their own merrits. After all, we cannot reasonably will that judging people by the cultural group from which they come from become a universal law, can we?
Also, comments that inflamatory will inevitably lead this thread - that's already walking a fine line on the edges of forum rules - to be locked down.
#18
Posté 13 août 2010 - 11:22
B3taMaxxx
-
- Members
- 1 864 messages
Mecha Tengu wrote...
morality doesn't exist, just like human rights. It's all made up
Morality exist just as much as law, in that when practiced it can take a form. Religion exist, though many would say it's made up, however by being in practice it manifest itself.
Can morality be argued, in what is or what isn't moral? Yes.
Though, and this is just myself, I do think the "tossing of babies out of tall buildings" is immoral (otherwise wrong). I'll go as far as to say it even transends subjectivity, in that the act is only perpetrated from malice, when said baby hasn't any connection to the assailant. The act is being commited with malice because it is one in which harm occurs, and thereafter left to it's demise. Now, if you were to eat said baby after tossing it from the very high ledge, I could argue that you were commiting such act in a survival mentality.
BTW, this is how this argument began, in the tossing of random infants from very high ledges
Good luck with your arguments.
Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 13 août 2010 - 11:30 .
#19
Posté 13 août 2010 - 11:28
B3taMaxxx
-
- Members
- 1 864 messages
Swordfishtrombone wrote...
Also, comments that inflamatory will inevitably lead this thread - that's already walking a fine line on the edges of forum rules - to be locked down.
Darn, we've already been locked once...............
This after devs posted humorous jabs at the subject matter.
Please people, try not to take yourselves to seriously, and try to understand that in life, your view points and understandings of reality will shift.
#20
Posté 13 août 2010 - 11:53
TheMufflon
-
- Members
- 2 265 messages
Swordfishtrombone wrote...
I would not say that right and wrong are totally subjective - there is certainly leeway there for cultural differences and personal preferences, but at core, there are similarities that go across cultures. I don't remember who said it, but "There's never been a people among whom cowardace was a virtue and courage a vice".
Firstly, morally speaking I have always found cowardice to be far more virtuous than courage. Secondly, the existance of a consensus does not disprove relativity.
Mecha Tengu wrote
morality doesn't exist, just like human rights. It's all made up
One does not perclude the other.
#21
Posté 14 août 2010 - 12:05
B3taMaxxx
-
- Members
- 1 864 messages
TheMufflon wrote...
Firstly, morally speaking I have always found cowardice to be far more virtuous than courage.
Surely you say this in jest? Though I won't completely agree with the moral black and whites described by the answered poster, I do have to say this is a very perplexing ideology.
#22
Posté 14 août 2010 - 12:08
TheMufflon
-
- Members
- 2 265 messages
B3taMaxxx wrote...
Surely you say this in jest?
No.
Modifié par TheMufflon, 14 août 2010 - 12:14 .
#23
Posté 14 août 2010 - 01:36
Wicked 702
-
- Members
- 2 247 messages
Darn you brainy smart smarts and your big words...
Actually, I'm going to have to agree with those that say good and evil don’t exist. For the many reasons already enumerated here I would have to argue that they are constructs created to help us put order into a chaotic world. Ask yourself if the universe cares about right and wrong and you'll plainly see that these things only exist in our minds (unless of course you believe in Karma, but that's another discussion). However, there are clearly some common agreements between cultures in how this illusion should be fashioned. Even though it's rather cliche, I personally think that the golden rule is an excellent place to start if you want to find commonality.
Actually, I'm going to have to agree with those that say good and evil don’t exist. For the many reasons already enumerated here I would have to argue that they are constructs created to help us put order into a chaotic world. Ask yourself if the universe cares about right and wrong and you'll plainly see that these things only exist in our minds (unless of course you believe in Karma, but that's another discussion). However, there are clearly some common agreements between cultures in how this illusion should be fashioned. Even though it's rather cliche, I personally think that the golden rule is an excellent place to start if you want to find commonality.
#24
Posté 14 août 2010 - 02:08
B3taMaxxx
-
- Members
- 1 864 messages
Wicked 702 wrote...
Darn you brainy smart smarts and your big words...
Actually, I'm going to have to agree with those that say good and evil don’t exist. For the many reasons already enumerated here I would have to argue that they are constructs created to help us put order into a chaotic world. Ask yourself if the universe cares about right and wrong and you'll plainly see that these things only exist in our minds (unless of course you believe in Karma, but that's another discussion). However, there are clearly some common agreements between cultures in how this illusion should be fashioned. Even though it's rather cliche, I personally think that the golden rule is an excellent place to start if you want to find commonality.
Cultural fascinations aside, there is a 'universal' right and wrong. If not existence wouldn't, erm, well exist.
The Universe is governed by laws, of which have to exist in order for it to play out. Are these morals? No, but they are with in the realm of what works and what doesn't.
And to go completely out of bounds, how much is it that you know of the universe (or for that matter anyone on planet Earth)?
#25
Posté 14 août 2010 - 02:21
Wicked 702
-
- Members
- 2 247 messages
Fixing my double post. Can't do that on my phone...
Modifié par Wicked 702, 14 août 2010 - 04:01 .
