101 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...

 I made no accusations.

You fail to understand common human characteristics.

Oh, really?

I do not care to discuss this subject any further with you.

Which subject, though? The one we were discussing, or the one you though we were discussing?

Your arrogance overrides any retort.

Of the two of us, you are the only one who has made presumptuous claims about the other, yet you call me arrogant? I believe this discussion would be more fruitful if you didn't resort to ad hominem attacks quite so readily.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 août 2010 - 08:34 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

TheMufflon wrote...

So you're saying that the Enron traders wouldn't have screwed over their colleagues for a promotion? I sincerely doubt that.

No, I'm saying that they wouldn't have boasted about screwing over their collegue to their other collegues. They would have KNOWN that that would have been an act against the ingroup, and thus wrong, and should it be discovered, would result in the very least a loss of trust.

You're missing the point here, or perhaps I'm just not being clear enough. Moral intuitions don't CONTROL your actions, they simply give you a gut feeling of what is right or wrong in a given situation. They are not develloped moral theories either - they are simple instincts, that often yield results that the people having those instincts cannot rationalize. A rational moral theory that goes against those instincts is very, very difficult to adopt in practice.  And in fact, when you look at critisism of various philosophical moral theories by their opponents, the eay they demonstrate that the theory they oppose is insufficient, is by constructing a hypothetical situation where following the moral theory would lead you to action which our gut feeling tells us is wrong. That gut feeling is the moral intuition, that exists, and yields similar gut feelings, across cultures.

Returning to the rail-road moral dillemmas I gave in my first post, people tend reject a case of saving many lives by sacrificing one, when the actual, wilfull killing of that one person is the thing that saves the many lives, AND permit the sacrificing of one when the death of that one person is merely a side-effect of another purposeful action who's main purpose is to save the many lives. This has been worked out through many such tests isolating various possible factors that might trigger the intuition one way rather  than another.

When asked WHY it's ok in one case to sacrifice a life, and in another not, people make up rationalizations, but generally fail to articulate the reason properly - this goes even for educated people.

In addition to this, you DO have sociopaths who lack these moral intuitions.

Are all morals intuitive? Can reason not create morality? Can a sociopath not act and think morally?

No, as I've explained, complex moral ideas are reasoned out, BUT the basis of how we judge a moral idea is ultimately how well it coincides with our moral intuitions - a moral theory that conflicts those intuitions in many situations appears flawed to us.

Can a sociopath not act and think morally? That's a whole other question - I suspect that the answer is no, or at least that they would find it inordinately difficult to motivate themselves to act in accordance to rules that give them no "gut feel" one way or the other. Maybe someone has mastered that inordinately difficult task - I don't know, nor does it in any way invalidate the evidence for moral intuitions.

For example. Take this classic thought experiment:

An injured, bleeding man walks into a hospital - by coincidence, it is discovered that this man's blood type and cell type are well compatible with five patients in the hospital waiting for different organ transplants. Those five will all die if they don't receive the transplant, and time is running out for them. Is it permissible for the doctor to kill this man that came to the hospital, harvest his organs, and thus save the lives of the five dying patients?

Before we even start our reasoning process, we know the "right answer". Of course this would not be ok. That's the moral intuition. (This example has been leveled against simple-minded utilitarianism, as a fatal flaw - why is it a fatal flaw? Because utilitarianism, simply conceived, seems to give us the answer that it would be ok for the doctor to kill the man. Why should that be a fatal flaw? Because it contradicts our intuition.)

Now imagine a sociopath confronted with this dillemma - he wouldn't get the "right answer" immediately, and then reason towards it (if someone asks the reason), like normal people can do. He has to work at the problem without any gut feel. Even if he's consciously decided to be a "good citizen" he might very well say that obviously the doctor should kill the man, since it results in more saved lives, and expect that answer to be inline with what "normal people" would say.

They are not an example against moral intuitions being universal and objectively demonstrable, any more than a blind person would be an exapmle against vision being universal among healthy humans.

That's circular logic. You're proving that intuitive morals are universal among healthy humans by saying that those who lack intuitive morals aren't healthy.

That would be circular logic, IF the above statement was being used as evidence for moral intuitions - which it isn't. I am simply pointing out that singular cases where moral intuitions are "broken" are no more evidence against the existence of universal moral intuitions among humans than cases where eyes don't function as they should would be evidence against the existence of universally similar vision among humans.

The actual evidence for moral intuitions comes in the form of the studies I have been talking about, demonstrating that people of widely varied cultural backgrounds and widely varied educational bacgrounds, respond similarly to moral dillemmas presented to them. 

My question to you would be this - if there are no moral intuitions, then how do you explain this similarity? It seems to me that they can only be explained through a shared system of moral intuitions. And this is exactly what you'd expect to arise through natural selection, in any population of animals that depended on social co-operation for it's survival, is it not?

Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 15 août 2010 - 09:03 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

TheMufflon wrote...

Adriano87 wrote...

have the Potential to Lie, Steal, Abuse, Rape, Fraud, being Selfishness and finally losing of conscience. and not to have sense of Justice and Benevolence.

But what makes those things intrinsically and absolutely bad?

Not arguing for Adriano's case here, but your question reveals possibly a source of talking past each other here.

Having moral intuitions be a universal among humans (and possibly all social species), does not mean that the things those moral intutitions tell us are bad are "intrincically and absolutely bad".

Meaning that there is no morality in absense of moral beings. The universe doesn't care. Beings with moral intuitions do. And those moral intuitions aren't magic, they are as natural as any other biological feature. We have a language center in our brains, primed to adopt the language we grow up around, astonishingly quickly. It's hard-wired to expect grammatical structure and meaning in the patterns we hear or see. This is not particularly contentious - and why should it be? Why should adaptions in the brain affecting psychology and cognitive abilities be any less likely products of biological evolution than eyes, ears, or hands? Moral intuitions are like these - they are simply part of what our brains do; our brains respond to social situations by giving us emotions and "gut feelings" about what is appropriate in a given situation. This does in no way require morals to be some ineffable eternal truth independent of minds with the appropriate tools to produce those intuitions.

[TSamee]

Newcomer; I've TL;DR'd most of it, sorry.
"Morality" is very much a human invention, one that originated because circumstances allowed us to take our minds off survival and other biological imperatives. I accept that there are plenty of shades of grey where the "morality" of an action depends on your own personal judgement, but the fact of the matter is that, if I were to walk up to some random person in the street and kick them in the face, I would be judged, accurately or not, as a "bad" person, or at least a person who had done something "bad". People come to these conclusions because of their upbringing, their experiences and their personal beliefs. The origins of human morality are, I believe, in compassion.

We formed groups and tribes because we felt there was safety in numbers; initially I'm sure that was all our fellow humans were to us: shields from outside threats, or objects with uses. But the second an emotional attachment forms, or the second we start to view our fellow man as an organism and not an object, as something with characteristics and thoughts similar to our own, we are able to feel empathy for them, to feel compassion. As races have mixed with each other and globalisation has taken hold, we've realised that humans, as a race, generally feel and think the same things, we've recognised that people all over the world are our fellow humans. Consequently we are, again, able to empathise with and feel compassion for humans we've never met before. When you turn your mind to the situation in Afghanistan, when you see the infrastructure in the country and truly realise what it means to grow up in a warzone you feel sorry for the people living there, and consequently feel that war and conflict are "wrong".

I'm using the "war" example because it helps with this next part: some things, no matter how "wrong" they seem to us, have their uses. Look at Hegel; his belief was that, without conflict, be it the physcial conflict of war or a conflict of ideas, society and man in general would be unable to advance. Famous line from "The Third Man": "in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

However, I'm not towing the "no morality" line, because, although morality is a human invention it's still a convention that very literally every human being abides by, and consequently it's a force to be reckoned with. So long as something has power over masses of people it's substantial enough to do harm, and consequently it seems like a real concern to me, if not real in itself. We can't argue that there's no such thing as morality if we can't walk into the street, stab someone we've never seen before and say there's nothing wrong about it because right and wrong don't exist.

There're plenty of sides to this discussion, covering them all would require a book of indefinite length. My statement probably isn't that well though out or particularly remarkable, it's just my likely-to-be-misguided opinion.

TL;DR, because much of it is pointless: While morality and moral complexes don't mean a thing to the universe in general, it's come to mean a lot to, and hold power over, prettymuch every human on the planet. Consequently it's a factor that must be taken into consideration in almost every single venture in life, and therefore is "real" in that it directly affects us every day. The idea of it, much like the idea of God, is very, very real, though I doubt a universal perception of morality exists, and it's definitely not an actual, physical force. Whether that applies to God too involves stepping on a lot more toes, so that's an argument for another time.

Modifié par TSamee, 15 août 2010 - 09:22 .

[Swordfishtrombone]

TSamee wrote...

Newcomer; I've TL;DR'd most of it, sorry.
"Morality" is very much a human invention, one that originated because circumstances allowed us to take our minds off survival and other biological imperatives.

I can agree with much of what you said, but this is something I take exception with - morality being a human "invention".

Please read my earlier posts - specifically my first post on this thread (first page) and my latest couple of posts above. If morality were purely an invention, you would expect little similarity across cultures - and moreover, you'd have a hard time explaining why we get "gut feelings" of what is right or wrong before we start reasoning our way out of a moral dillemma. And most of all - why these gut feelings give similar intuitions regardless of culture, and level of education.

Morality is based on an evolutionary adaption, adaption of a system of intuitions that trigger in social situations.  It's not an invention, and not even original to humans - there's evidence that other social animals share basic moral intuitions.  Our reasoned moral systems are judged on how well they correspond with our "gut feel" - in practice.

[B3taMaxxx]

TheMufflon wrote...
Oh, really?

 Nice. The only direct reply to your erroneous question.

Which subject, though? The one we were discussing, or the one you though we were discussing?

 You obviously can't see it, but there's arrogance in that statement. Perhaps you don't intend to come off as being so, but it is there nevertheless.

 The only presumption I made is that you have not worked in a field where male bravado is prominent. Nothing wrong with that, but could lead one to conclude you have trouble recognizing it. It's great that you've taken up such a lofty career, and I applaud you, but it really had no relevance in the sidebar. Just don't ask such irrelevant questions if in the end brings nothing to conversation.


 In the discussing of morals, I thought your original argument was flawed, which led us down this bumpy road.

 While your arguments are compeling, I have to gracefully disagree. I personaly think if not for a basic set of rules, a governance of right and wrong, existence wouldn't exist. There is the reality of self-destructing qualities in all that is, and if all that is decided to self-destruct (which would be wrong) then there wouldn't be.

 I know you disagree, so you win.

 EDIT: In actuality, I am discussing right and wrong, which is where the original poster's argument with myself and others left off. Morality is subjective. This is my fault for not better explaining my position, though I thought I did in my original post. I'm in the worng thread.

Modifié par B3taMaxxx, 15 août 2010 - 09:33 .

[Loerwyn]

Utopian societies don't work. We're human, it's impossible for them to work.

[B3taMaxxx]

Adriano87 wrote...

@Swordfishtrombone
About your Person in the Hospital. If he was a Threat to every human (a Murderer), the Doctor must do the job and save other 5 people and if there is a Document if he or she is Volunteer to be sacrificed in a situation like this, same must happen.
But if there is no bad History about the person, He/She must not be sacrificed. so bad for other 5 people. In a Utopian Society there wouldn't be 5 in demand person in one hospital, because people will willingly give their Body Parts when they're going to their Death.

 Which planet are you trying to achieve this eutopia on?

[Swordfishtrombone]

I don't believe in utopian societies - they tend to go badly wrong, no matter how well intentioned.

In your example, how does the doctor decide that the person coming to the hospital really is a murderer? Even if there's a public warrant showing his face, and telling he's a murderer, how does the doctor know that the man wasn't framed? Or that this man walking to the emergency ward just happens to have an unfortunate likeness to this murderer?

Clearly it isn't the job of a doctor to be the judge, jurry, and executioner.

As to the philosophical discussion around the doctor dillemma, that's a classic and there's interesting discussion between utilitarianists and their opponents. It's not a simple case, but the discussion does center around having your favorite moral system give the "right result".

Modifié par Swordfishtrombone, 15 août 2010 - 09:40 .

[TSamee]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Please read my earlier posts - specifically my first post on this thread (first page) and my latest couple of posts above. If morality were purely an invention, you would expect little similarity across cultures - and moreover, you'd have a hard time explaining why we get "gut feelings" of what is right or wrong before we start reasoning our way out of a moral dillemma. And most of all - why these gut feelings give similar intuitions regardless of culture, and level of education.

I never thought of that. I could argue that, thanks to things like religion, or simply social groups that propagate moral responsibility, people have similar views on morality. However, that would be far-fetched and your theory seems a lot... cleaner, less space for messy exceptions. That doesn't necessarily indicate that it's correct, but I'm inclined to believe it. It is, as the moment, the logical argument. Thanks for enlightening me

[Swordfishtrombone]

You're quite wellcome TSamee - If you are interested in this sort of stuff, I would recommend Mark Hauser's "Moral Minds" - a very good book aimed at the interested general public. Another good one is Pascal Boyer's "modestly" titled "Religion Explained", which goes on to material that is relevant to this discussion, and does a great job at exploring some interesting intuitions humans share, and that shape our behavior.

[Loerwyn]

Adriano87 wrote...
compare the 'Jedi' and 'Sith'
and the question is, Which way is more near to morality?

Eh? They both have their own morals, and their own views. Jedi can be so blinded by their views of the Force and the "light side" that they can cause evil and destruction, and the opposite can go for the Sith, too.

[Shia Luck]

Unfortunately there isn't a universal moral (except possibly selfishness, but that's another story )



Problem 1: Are we looking at the action or the consequence of the action when we talk about "what is good"? If it is the action, then kicking a pregnant woman is wrong, and testing on animals is the same as torturing them. Why? Because we give those beings rights.



If it is the consequence of the action, then the rightness or wrongness depends on who the baby is and what s/he will cause to happen in their life, and likewise, whether enough useful data comes from the testing. Both of the latter require that we know the future when we make the decision to act, which is impossible.



Problem 2: Ok so we can't know, but we can make educated guesses about the future and take the path of least wrong. This still requires that we create an accounting system to balance the suffering against the good produced and compare the results of various systems to see which is best. Let's ignore the fact that such a measuring system is hopelessly inaccurate at best and imagine we do the accounting and the results say: The suffering caused to future generations by our current use of energy far outweighs the good that some of the current world population receive by being able to drive uneconomical cars and fly airplanes. I think a lot of people would now claim they earned the right to drive that car and visit their family by air.



In other words, What is in the common good is often not in your own personal good and will sometimes contravene your rights.



In other words, the problem we have with morality is not only one of measurment of 'the most good' and decision of 'what is good' but is most often caused by the fact that we cannot agree on a single framework in which to discuss it.

[TheMufflon]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Not arguing for Adriano's case here, but your question reveals possibly a source of talking past each other here.

Yes, looking at your latest posts that would seem to be the case. When you used the term moral facts, I assumed the litteral meaning i.e. morals that are known and proven to be objectivly true; And when you talked about moral intuition as universal among humans I took that to mean that all humans have moral intuition (which wouldn't be true, since we both agree that sociopaths are humans that can lack moral intuition), when it appears that what you meant was that human moral intuition share universal components.

[Swordfishtrombone]

TheMufflon wrote...

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

Not arguing for Adriano's case here, but your question reveals possibly a source of talking past each other here.

Yes, looking at your latest posts that would seem to be the case. When you used the term moral facts, I assumed the litteral meaning i.e. morals that are known and proven to be objectivly true; And when you talked about moral intuition as universal among humans I took that to mean that all humans have moral intuition (which wouldn't be true, since we both agree that sociopaths are humans that can lack moral intuition), when it appears that what you meant was that human moral intuition share universal components.

Precisely - now we're on the same page.

These intuitions which are basically the same across healthy humans form the basis of more complex moral reasoning - those feelings are the standard against which the plausibility of a moral theory is judged, in practice.

Though that does not mean that, in principle, if not exactly the same, then at least very closely similar moral ideas could be reasoned out simply from knowing the necessities of survival and thriving of a social species. After all, natural selection favors that which survives, and thus the intuitions we have, including moral intuitions, tend to lead us to actions that are more likely to bring about success than not.

However, it is very difficult to give a "pure reason" argument for why, in the train dillemmas, in one case sacrificing one to save five is ok, while it's not ok in the other. We just feel, very strongly, that this is the case. It is likewise exceedingly difficult to seriously adopt and act in accordance to a moral system that conflicts with those intuitions.

[TheMufflon]

B3taMaxxx wrote...
Just don't ask such irrelevant questions if in the end brings nothing to conversation.

Again, the only one asking irrelevant questions is you. Since you had declared that my argument was faulty and tne only reason you gave was that "I did not understand", in order for me to counter your argument and further the conversation I asked you to elaborate on what you though I didn't understand. I then countered your argument by explaining that my understanding (or lack thereof) was irrelevant to the point I was making.

I personaly think if not for a basic set of rules, a governance of right and wrong, existence wouldn't exist. There is the reality of self-destructing qualities in all that is, and if all that is decided to self-destruct (which would be wrong) then there wouldn't be.

You are begging the question.

[Swordfishtrombone]

Adriano87 wrote...

Just a Question:
Anyone here believes in 'Socrates' Teachings? because if you don't you are out of Humanity.

While I much appreciate the teachings attributed to Socrates, stating that one does not qualify for "humanity" without accepting these teachigns - or ANY particular teachings of ANY particular philosopher, teacher, or religious figure, is itself a statement Socrates would probably be the first to object to.

The assidious questioning and examining is central to Socrates, and he surely would not exempt himself from the very same process. Not only that, but if we take your statement seriously, then the majority of humans alive who actually have not, or have not had the opportunity to, study classic philosophy are not really humans. This is preposterous. Ignorance of particular teachings does not make you sub-human.

Socrates was a dualist - which is not of course surpricing as in his time it wasn't even known that the brain was necessarily the center of thought, much less could it be conceived that the brain produced thought through electro-chemical means, so he spoke of the soul as separate of the body. Were he alive today, he would surely use different language, but I think the central message is valuable even without the dualism.