Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Moral Philosophy
Thread: Moral Philosophy This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · NEXT»
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted June 23, 2008 05:29 PM bonus applied by pandora on 05 Jul 2008.
Edited by Corribus at 19:56, 23 Jun 2008.

Moral Philosophy

In this thread I'd like to discuss morals from a philosphical point of view.  I would like to divide this discussion into four parts to start out.

I. Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism

Quoting Minion from the "Canadian 'Human Rights Commissions'" thread:

Quote:
This SO needs a topic of it's own. So you see morals as completely subjective?


Some time ago, I started a thread entitled "Moral Philosophy" over at CH and some of the discussion was fascinating.  Given Minion's statement above, it might be interesting to discuss it here as well.  The thread opened with a poll.  Unfortunately, I don't seem to be able to do a poll here.  The poll's question was simple:

Are you a Moral Relativist or Absolutist?

Possible answers:

(1) Morals are absolute, and transcend an individual's independent beliefs.  There is a universal code of morals.

(2) Morals are relative, and vary from individual.  There is no univseral code of morals.

(3) Neither.  I believe something else.


So, I'm wondering, which are you?

Before the discussion begins, let's make one thing clear.  You have to distinguish between the actual moral ideal (i.e., the code itself) and adherence to it.  For instance, it is tempting to point out the fact that people behave in very different ways, and, because of this diversity in action, conclude that therefore there is a range of morals that people follow, and hence call yourself a moral relativist.  This is a flawed conclusion, however, because people do not always act morally; they may also believe they are also acting morally when in fact their code of morals is not the "true" code of morals.  I would venture that most Christians believe (or are supposed to believe) in an absolute morality, a code of ethics handed down by God to Moses, a code which is absolute even if other people believe in a different, "flawed" code. [Correct me if that's not the correct Christian moral philosophy.] Of course in application many people choose not to follow that absolute code. In other words, just because two people act differently does not mean that morality is relative - there may still be a single code of morality that different people follow to different degrees.  Also, it's possible to be a moral absolutist while at the same time recognizing that people hold different moral codes.  For instance, I can recognize that some obscure tribe in South America believes that rape is not immoral, whereas most people believe that rape IS immoral; this would seem to make me a moral relativist, but I can still be a moral absolutist by pointing out that the what one BELIEVES to be moral is not the same as what IS, in an absolute sense, moral.

(I wonder, is it possible to be a moral absolutist AND an atheist?)

II. What is the purpose of morals?

This is pretty self-explanatory, really.  Why do we, as a society, have morals and ethics?  I don't really mean "what is the function?".  That's pretty obvious (or is it?).  What I am getting at is: how/why did they arise?  This question can be looked at from an individual or societal level.  From the individual level: how did you develop your own moral code?  Did you learn it from your parents?  Did you form it through your own experiences?  On a societal level, which I feel is the more interesting question: how and why did human societies develop a code of ethics and morals?  Clearly, your religious leanings will play a role in your thoughts on this one as well.  Were morals simply handed to us, or did we develop them gradually through the necessity of survival?  Perhaps it is best if we define "morality" first.

To my mind, morality is a code (an ideal) by which one should lead one's life. The ideal code is one that benefits the self and society as much as possible.  That means that your actions - guided by these rules - would not impinge on anyone else's ability to live their life freely.  In the ideal sense, you could define a utopia as a society in which everyone followed the same set of morals all the time.

Another interesting question along these lines is: are morals a product of (or related to) evolution?  I don't mean this necessarily on a genetic level.  Nevertheless, on the surface, they would seem to be tied to evolution.  Morals seem to exist for the most part to the benefit of society.  usually, what's good for society is good for the individual.  However, some aspects of a moral code are NOT to the physical benefit of the species.  For instance, the murder of weak or infirmed individuals would seem to benefit society, and yet we would consider that to be immoral.  We keep our elderly and cripples alive, which is a drain on resources and puts other members of species at risk.   That's clearly against "survival of the fittest", so Why do we do it?  What's the purpose of it?  

Perhaps a better way of asking this question is the following.  Morally, most of us would agree that every human has the same value.  But is this really true?  From a biological standpoint, it's clear that some humans have more importance to the welfare of the species than others. Sociologically, are some humans more important than others?  I'm not sure I accept it as an axiom that every human is as important to "humans" as every other human, even on a nonbiological level. {Edit: I hope that's not taken the wrong way.} That's different from the moral question, of course, but the reason I bring it up is that if a moral code treats every human as equal, that is completely against the physical interests of the species, so it would appear that morals cannot be linked to evolutionary principles.

This does tie again back to the relativist/absolutist problem.  Consider a hive-mentality, which would seem to have a very different set of morals than a modern human society.  A good approximation of a "hive" is a closed system like, perhaps, England in the middle ages. In a way, the feudal system shared a number of sociological (not biological, of course) factors with a bee hive. One guy on the top (the king), a breeding pool (nobles) and a crap load of expendable workers (serfs). In this system, certainly not every human is as valuable to the medieval society as the next guy. When the king dies, for example, the whole system is thrown into chaos, as other people scramble for the crown. A serf dies, and what? Nothing! A king dies and the welfare of society is threatened (civil war). A serf dies and humanity barely blinks an eyebrow. Obviously in the middle ages the crime of murder was graded by the importance of who you killed.  Killing a king was (punished) much worse than killing a peasant.  Assuming this was a reflection of the moral code, this type of moral code seems to be a much better compliment to "evolution" than our code today, which, as mentioned above, treats humans as equals even if it isn't always to the benefit of the species.  Beyond that, because serfs were clearly expendable, in the medieval society, murder of serfs is different, morally speaking, from murder of a modern human. Why did our code of morals change, and granting that it did, does that imply a moral relativism?  Some might argue, of course, that the code of morality did not change; what changed was systems of government which incorporated new laws which approached the absolute code of morals - that is, medieval society was run by people who intentionally violated the true code of morals for their own personal benefit, which of course introduces the question of the relationship between THE LAW and MORALS (see #4).  

One problem with the hive-system example is that the affect of actions on (hive) SOCIETY is considered but not that of INDIVIDUALS.  A serf who is killed may be judged as inconsequential to society, but does that mean, necessarily, that it is a morally OK thing to do?  The murder of the peasant, though forgotten by society, clearly makes an impact on his immediate family, leaves his child fatherless/motherless, etc.  So, perhaps morality is not tied to society at all, but is more concerned with individuals.  Which goes back to the definition of course.  To what degree to morals exist to benefit society as a whole, versus the individual and the individual's local sphere of interest.

A final aspect of this part of the discussion I will throw out there for Christians and other religious people is: is it possible to be moral WITHOUT believing in God?

III. Why do people act immorally?
Whether there is a universal moral or not, it is clear that many people choose to do things that seem to be morally wrong.  While you take the extreme position that this is just a reflection of moral relativism (i.e., all murderers are acting morally according to their moral code), I find this to be a bit of a stretch.  The more acceptible answer is that people who, for instance, murder, do it with the full knowledge that it violates a code of morals, but they just don't care. So why do some people follow an accepted code of morals and others do not?  What leads to this contrast in human willingness to follow a code of morals, even a relativist one?  We can point out factors that cause a person to be more likely to do "immoral things": economic background, childhood experiences, even maybe genetics.  But on a more philosophical level, if we agree for a second that morals exist for the benefit of society (which may or may not be the case; see question II), why do some people clearly do things that are NOT for the benefit of society?  This is not something that happens in the "wild", is it?  What makes humans special?

One thing I'll say to get this part of the discussion going is that, as I illuminated in part 2, in human society - in possible contrast to what occurs in nonhuman animal societies - there is a constant conflict between what is best for the individual and what is best for society.  This may have an evolutionary counterpart as well.  For instance, let's assume that actions are (evolutionarily speaking) made for the benefit of the species.  Actions can either benefit the individual or they can benefit society, and often not both at the same time.  There's a conundrum here and that is: what is better for the species: benefit of the self, or benefit of society?  this may illuminate the reason WHY some people opt to benefit themselves and others opt to benefit society - because the answer to the previous question is unclear - but it doesn't explain why some people choose one direction or the other.  Let's frame that problem as a practical example: a well known philanthropist walking down the street carrying a big wad of cash.  I have a knife, and nobody is around.  What do I do?  I can go up and take his money, which benefits me but hurts society; or I can let him go, which benefits society (and him, the individual) but hurts me.  According to the common moral code, society trumps individual, so most people would not rob the man, which would be perceived to be immoral by society.  But many people DO rob other people, which clearly means they value themselves over society.  Is one route a better one to improve the species, and why does modern society judge that benefitting society is more moral than benefitting the self, particularly if that isn't the best way to improve the species?  Another wrench in that scenario is: what if the (potential) thief is starving and needs food?  At what point does personal need trump societal need, and does that change the morality of the action?  What is the philosophical explanation for this variation in the degree of adherence to the commonly accepted moral code?

IV. What is the relationship between THE LAW and MORALS?
I'm just going to leave that as a question.  Is there a difference?

Anyway, I know that's a lot of stuff in one post, but it's a topic I've always found very interesting.  Feel free to only respond to parts of it and let the thread go where it wants to.  One thing I'd like to avoid, however, is getting into another religious debate on whether God exists or doesn't exist.  Certainly, religion plays a big role in morality; but I'm sure the topic of morality, even the religious aspect of it, can be discussed without devolving into "God exists, No he doesn't!".
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 23, 2008 07:51 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 19:51, 23 Jun 2008.

First of all, I'd like to say that this is an excellent, excellent topic.

Quote:
I. Moral Relativism vs. Moral Absolutism
Am I a moral relativist or a moral absolutist? It depends on which way you look at it. On one hand, I don't think that there is any divine power or anything like that out there that says, "This is absolutely right and this is absolutely wrong." I don't think that there are actions that are inherently good or inherently evil. On the other hand, I see that in the vast majority of societies, many of the same actions are considered to be right, and many of the same actions are considered to be wrong. For example, it is the rare culture that does not say that murder is wrong.

Quote:
II. What is the purpose of morals?
Hence my view on the matter: morals can be both absolute and relative. Initially, society (which is comprised of many individuals) agrees among itself that none of them would like to be murdered or stolen from, so they say, "OK, murder is harmful. But that is too nuanced, and someone might say, 'Who gives a **** about what society thinks? I'm a nonconformist!' Therefore, we must teach our children that murder is not merely harmful but 'wrong'." (Of course, this didn't happen all at once, and they didn't sit and conspire about it.) So it became ingrained into the vast majority of societies that murder is wrong. Thus arose what I will call the First Round of Morals, or the non-aggression principle: thou shalt not harm thy fellow man. But the First Round was also largely innate.

Then people realized that this is working quite well, so it might be good to expand it. "Hey, I wish people helped me when I need help. But what benefit would they get from it? I know, let's teach our children that it's 'good' to help others." So they did, and there became an emotional benefit to helping others. Thus came the Second Round of Morals, or the mutual aid principle: help thy fellow man. This too was largely innate. The First and Second Round of Morals could be combined as the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

So far, there is no real reason for morals not to be absolute (as in applying to the vast majority of societies). But then came the Twisting of the Morals. Partly this came from religion. Tribal shamans came to power, and said, "The gods will strike you down if you disobey my commmandments!" And so as religions developed, different morals were added and some morals were changed. For example, "thou shalt not harm thy fellow man" sometimes became "thou shalt not harm thy fellow man, unless he followeth a different God, in which case strike him down." Some morals, though, got reinforced. Instead of "thou shalt not harm thy fellow man because then he shall harm thee", it became "thou shalt not harm thy fellow man or Zeus will throw a lightning bolt on thy head." Later came nationalism, which sometimes said, "Thou shalt not harm thy fellow Russian/Serb/German/Israeli, but shalt strike down or run off all of the foreign barbarians that live on thy lands." Since in different cultures all of this developed differently, morals often became somewhat different.

Thus, as you can see, it is the rare culture in which people kill others spontaneously. But it is also the rare culture in which they do not kill at all. (Punishment for violating "thou shalt not harm thy fellow man" is an exception, but transgressing new morals is not.) Also, with things like abortion, cloning, and even, for some, meat-eating, present a challenge as to how to apply morals.

Quote:
(I wonder, is it possible to be a moral absolutist AND an atheist?)
Yes, sort of. If you're an atheist, you can't say that morals are divinely inspired, but you can say that the Golden Rule can be applied universally.

Quote:
I'm not sure I accept it as an axiom that every human is as important to "humans" as every other human, even on a nonbiological level.
This is true, but the non-aggression principle applies to all living humans equally. One may choose to associate with those who matter more, but one does not usually go out and kill beggars. And the mutual aid principle applies equally as well. When morals first developed, there was not such a huge gap between those who mattered and those who didn't. Except for those deformed to the point of uselessness or extremely old, it was worth their time to help their fellow tribesman. If a hunter broke his arm, it would be to the tribe's advantage to set it.

Quote:
is it possible to be moral WITHOUT believing in God?
That depends on what is meant by "moral". If we take the Ten Commandments as the basis of Judeo-Christian morality, atheists don't abide by the first, third, and fourth Commandments, but would have no problem with abiding by the other six. When it comes to the non-aggression and mutual aid principles, some religious people might well fall short.

Quote:
III. Why do people act immorally?
Why indeed? And what is meant by the word "immoral"? Sometimes the term "immoral" is used by followers of one set of morals to describe followers of another set of morals, when, from their respective reference frame, they are acting morally.

But let us say that we are talking about when people violate what they call their own morals. It could be that they are violating the twisted morals to adhere to the fundamental morals, or they could be violating the fundamental morals because of societal pressure to adhere to whatever twisted morals it has. Or a person may simply not derive pleasure from helping others, and thus may not really see much point in the mutual aid principle, or may even think that he or she might be able to avoid punishment and violate the non-aggression principle for self-interest. Or, most commonly, they may simply be acting irrationally.

Quote:
there is a constant conflict between what is best for the individual and what is best for society
I wouldn't say that there is a constant conflict. It depends on the way that society is set up. Indeed, self-interest may often be beneficial for society.

Quote:
Let's frame that problem as a practical example: a well known philanthropist walking down the street carrying a big wad of cash.  I have a knife, and nobody is around.  What do I do?  I can go up and take his money, which benefits me but hurts society; or I can let him go, which benefits society (and him, the individual) but hurts me.
Several things to mention here. Let us say that you attacked him and took his money. Then you were walking along with it, and then another thief saw the bag of money, ran up to you, killed you, and took the bag. Hence, the purpose of morals is to prevent such things from happpening. Also, morals are not always ingrained very deeply.

Quote:
But many people DO rob other people, which clearly means they value themselves over society.
I doubt that they think of it that way inside their heads. For them, it's usually an attitude of "me vs. the guy with the money", rather than "my need vs. everyone going around and stealing or me being punished". And sometimes self-interest goes against common interest. That's when such actions should be reviled and taught that they are "bad", so the negative emotional impact may outweigh the monetary benefit.

Quote:
At what point does personal need trump societal need, and does that change the morality of the action?
Personal need should always trumps societal need, and should align with societal need anyway. Not murdering should be more personally beneficial than murdering, either through punishment or emotional harm or both. And helping others should be personally beneficial through emotional benefit.

Quote:
IV. What is the relationship between THE LAW and MORALS?
There are two things here, what the law should be and what the law is. The law should first enforce the non-aggression principle, and may occasionally slightly modify the economic system to ensure that self-interest is also societal interest. What the law is is sometimes this, but often it also includes the twisted morals as well.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted June 23, 2008 08:59 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 21:01, 23 Jun 2008.

Quote:
Are you a Moral Relativist or Absolutist?
I think, to a certain extent, that I am absolutist. Why? The purpose of morals is to teach you how to make the distinction between 'good' actions and 'evil' actions. Before you start claiming that good and evil are subjective, let me tell you up front they are very precisely defined, no ambiguity, and I will explain below. Morals do not necessarily mean good or evil, they are only related and take it from a perspective. Obviously, just because someone does not follow morals (i.e is immoral) does not mean that morals are not absolute; he just does not follow them. Morals by purest definition are based on compassion and dignity, and as well as outer views, not for pursuing self interests; and teaches how to live with integrity with all beings (IMO) not just people.

What does good mean? Good by the purest of definitions, implies that you need not seek any kind of personal gain over others'. That does not mean that you won't feel any kind of gain, it only means that the respective feeling should not be the one deciding your inherent altruistic action. Therefore, if you are altruistic, and you pursuit that goal instead of any kind of reward (material, spiritual or emotional), then you are good, regardless of the actual reward that is yet to come. Here is an example to illustrate this better.

Good: You go help someone because you are kind. What's the cause of this? Your kindness/good heart/whatever. Does a reward come thereafter? Doesn't matter and shouldn't impact any thought.

Not Good: You go help someone because you know you are going to get a reward (whether that is material, or emotional).

Please note I am not claiming that in the former case the reward does not come -- merely pointing out that the reward has no impact over your actions. To be good means, to do something 'good' without thinking about the reward. Regardless of whether you are rewarded thereafter. Regardless.

So what are morals? A tool for making the distinction between the two good and evil. This distinction does obviously not come black & white, but with a continuous shade. In this way, the 'universal code' is apparent, since the definitions above do not form any opinion, but are precise and not at all present any ambiguity (the 'good' definition). What does that mean? For me, morals do not represent a "force" that you need to brainwash a given person. Morals are understanding -- making the difference between what's wrong and what's right.

What does wrong mean? For me, it means something that is evil or 'bad'. This does not mean, however, that people are forced not to choose that path. All people can be evil, even if they do not show it. We use force to punish them. But they on the inside, even if don't admit it, still would want that. Morals are for me the tools for your thoughts, not your actions.

Let's break this to an example. Suppose you receive a necklace that has the power to turn you invisible. With this tool, you can easily break into homes and steal whatever you want, and what's interesting is that you won't be able to get caught. Does force (police & law) apply here? I mean, what prevents you from just pursuing your own good? (in case mvass talks about society, this is one very good example that 'harms' society as a whole).

What have morals to do with the above example? For one, they present you the distinction between thinking of breaking in, or not (i.e harming others or not). That is not subjective at all, the definition of 'good' has been given above (objective definition), evil is similar. So what are you going to do? here's where you choice comes in. People can't be programmed to act based on morals, they can only be given the choice. So given these possibilities, morals present you the choices, and you are going to take a thought about it yourself. If you break in, you are immoral, unless you have very specific reasons (not pursuing your own pleasures). This is not debatable. Evil people can't be 'good' from their perspective, because good does not mean what you "think" is the right thing to do. Good has just a normal definition just like any other word. People usually don't like to be labeled evil even though they choose that way. It's not like 'evil' is 'da bastard' it just represents a certain thought for goals above all (pursuing self interests mainly).

What is 'wrong' or 'right' for me is not because of fear of punishment (from law or from God). If you do good only because you fear the punishment, you are not pure good, in fact, like in the above example, if you would have that invisible necklace and you could not get punished, would you do it? The answer to this question marks you good or evil for no/yes respectively.

You see, in a way, doing good things because you fear punishment is just the contradictory explanation I gave above about good -- you are actually seeking a reward first, and that's what makes you do good. The reward is obviously: the fact that you will not get punished. Now suppose that you do not know about this 'reward'. Would you still do good? If yes, then you are good, because the reward does not influence your thoughts. If no, then you are not, simply because it contradicts the definition. If you want a different definition, make up your own word. (actually I have to admit, the definition found in dictionaries is strange but I meant more like the philosophical/religious definition of good/evil).

One person can as well not even know about punishment and still do good. That is the true definition of a good person. And it is why I find silly remarks such as "If you are not good you Go to Hell; this is why people do good". Doing good automatically implies that you don't think about any reward (regardless of whether you will receive it or not). So if you fear Hell or punishment (even the law punishment) and it is the reason that you do good, then I'm sorry to say you are not good in your thoughts, in your heart.

So where do we place morals? At the translation circle, so to speak. Morals are used to make up the distinction between the 'good' and the 'evil'. When you are presented these, you are not forced to take any one path. People don't just 'stop doing immoral' stuff because it sounds bad (immoral). They do it if they are that way. Some people just want it that way, to be immoral; this does not mean, however, that they have different morals (it's like they have different good and evil). Just because you are immoral does not mean that the action is forbidden in the laws of the Universe. Like I pointed out, good and evil are not subjective, so please take a look again if you don't understand.

What bothers me however is when people use morals to justify 'the good of the majority' -- this in itself is a kind of rewardish goal. Not self-interested however, but expect a reward nonetheless. And it's why some people still have a subjective definition of morality. You need to be not only tolerant, but provide charity and love to every being, not only people. It is what makes the distinction between the different stages of morality. Morals do not force anyone to act a certain way, they are only a dictionary for the consequences of your thoughts and actions.

Quote:
IV. What is the relationship between THE LAW and MORALS?
They are not related. Like I said previously, morals do not force anyone to act a certain way. They only present you the possibilities. The law is the one that employs force whenever needed. Is the law based on morality? That is hard to answer. While some of it is indeed, the rest is also simply based on the 'reward' that the society is better off -- and is usually set up by a majority's agreement. Are laws flawed? Yes. Are laws subjective? Obviously. Laws can even encourage immoral things (I don't know of any one yet, but I'm only pointing out that they "can").

Morals on the other hand are simply some form of dictionary for your understanding -- not English or other languages, but the emotional, spiritual, and thoughtful language. The one that makes you feel 'full' of harmony, in general, it's the one that applies from an absolute point of view, for the distinction between what's good/right and what's evil/wrong. The example I gave above with the necklace perfectly illustrates this. Whether you are given the chance to pursue your pleasure or not (because you fear punishment) you are still morally the same. Just because a criminal is caught and put in chains does not mean he is 'good' or peaceful, in his mind, I doubt that. And it does certainly not mean he is moral because he does not commit any immoralities because he can't, not because he doesn't want. The latter (do you want? instead of can you do it?) applies to morals. Laws are usually there on an agreement to benefit the majority. Of course, breaking the law is not necessarily immoral, depending on said law or purpose (not all 'stealings' are evil by nature, if you are actually pursuing an altruistic non-selfish goal, such as Robin Hood for example).

@mvassilev:
Quote:
I wouldn't say that there is a constant conflict. It depends on the way that society is set up. Indeed, self-interest may often be beneficial for society.
Yes there is, overall the 'good' for society is the good of majority. When one individual does not 'split' what is best for him, the society on the large scale does not have the best that it can -- because the society is not made up of quality but of quantity, so to speak.

Quote:
Several things to mention here. Let us say that you attacked him and took his money. Then you were walking along with it, and then another thief saw the bag of money, ran up to you, killed you, and took the bag. Hence, the purpose of morals is to prevent such things from happpening. Also, morals are not always ingrained very deeply.
Seriously, where did you get the idea that thieves have the morals 'ingrained' deeply into their minds? They don't think that way, you are too idealistic, you can't program them like you do a certain software.

Ultimately in the above example, it does not matter whether you would end up robbed later because you don't even think about it, and even if so, what makes you think that the other possible thief attacking YOU will follow the same principles? Morals are not necessarily for your own benefit, you see, they are ingrained in our hearts rather than profit.

The purpose of morals is by far to prevent that thing from happening -- what you are suggesting is completely ridiculous from reality perspective, it is as if you think humans can be programmed that way, but even more, that the possible thieves will 'care about it' if you do. That's much like saying "If I can't see him, he can't see me either". But you apply it "If I don't rob him, people won't rob me either" which is extremely naive.

So to answer the question Corribus put, it is much more deep than that. Morals are a completely different story from 'personal gains' or 'society gains'. I do not know honestly where you got that image but it is out of context. If you are interested in what I have to say about this, read above on my 'invisible-granting' necklace.


I hope I have expressed my opinion, and really I never thought I would waste so much time writing this

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 23, 2008 10:05 PM

As usual, I must disagree.

Quote:
Good by the purest of definitions, implies that you need not seek any kind of personal gain over others'.
Wrong. Good actions should be those that benefit society. But how to motivate people to do good actions if the action does not benefit them physically? Then impress upon them that those actions are "good", and that they will feel good doing them. Thus, they would have an incentive to do them.

Quote:
Does a reward come thereafter?
Yes, an emotional one. If you are kind, that simply means that you derive an emotional benefit from helping others.

Quote:
Not Good: You go help someone because you know you are going to get a reward (whether that is material, or emotional).
A couple of things here. Why is getting a reward "not good"? And humans don't perform actions without rewards, whether material or emotional. At all. Whether they do so consciously or subconsciously is another matter. Let us say that you are walking down the street with a friend, and there is a beggar. You give him your money. Why? There are three possible reasons:
1. You'd feel good for having done it. Thus, there is an emotional benefit.
2. Because you do it all of the time, and it's easier to give him some money than to think for a few moments and say, "Hey, I'm not getting any rewards from this." Thus, you save effort, which is a benefit.
3. You might not have wanted to give money, but you were there with your friend, whose opinion of you might have been negatively affected had you not given the beggar money. So if one wants to be well-regarded by society, this is another benefit.

Quote:
Suppose you receive a necklace that has the power to turn you invisible. With this tool, you can easily break into homes and steal whatever you want, and what's interesting is that you won't be able to get caught. Does force (police & law) apply here? I mean, what prevents you from just pursuing your own good?
By what you mean by "pursuing your own good", do you mean "breaking in"? Because that is not necessarily so. You might pursue your own good by not breaking in more so than by breaking in. Why, if the police can't punish you? Because the monetary benefit from stealing could well be outweighed by the emmotional harm you might feel for having performed an action that for all your life you have been taught is bad. Whenever you think of breaking into someone's house, this is immediately weighed in your mind: the monetary benefit vs. the emotional harm.

Let us say that my neighbor's door is unlocked, and he is not there, and he has no dogs or any kind of security system. What stops me from breaking into his house? It is that I know that I will feel bad having done so.

Quote:
Evil people can't be 'good' from their perspective, because good does not mean what you "think" is the right thing to do.
OK, let's look at it this way. Let us say that there are two religions in the world, Aism and Bism. Aism says that killing Bists is good, and Bism states that killing Aists is good. Thus, Aists may think that killing Bists is good, and vice versa.

Quote:
if you would have that invisible necklace and you could not get punished, would you do it?
There can be an emotional deterrent without there being a physical one.

Quote:
Now suppose that you do not know about this 'reward'. Would you still do good?
There is more than the reward of not being punished. There is also the reward of the pleasure of having done a good thing.

Quote:
One person can as well not even know about punishment and still do good.
There are many different kinds of punishments. A person may not have any idea of police or Hell, but may still not perform a bad action because he doesn't want to think of himself as having performed a bad action, and the negative emotional impact that comes with it.

Quote:
People don't just 'stop doing immoral' stuff because it sounds bad (immoral).
The thing is, they often do.

Quote:
Some people just want it that way, to be immoral; this does not mean, however, that they have different morals (it's like they have different good and evil).
Let's briefly mention the abortion debate again. You might think that I'm immoral for wanting to keep abortion legal, and I might think that you're immoral for wanting to restrict choices. We have different morals. So morals can be quite subjective.

Quote:
You need to be not only tolerant, but provide charity and love to every being, not only people.
Why do we "need" to?

Quote:
Yes there is, overall the 'good' for society is the good of majority.
What I'm saying is that self-interest is also good for the majority. In fact, it is so most of the time. All living things are inherently self-interested. But thanks to the mutual aid principle and the emotional benefit that comes from it, your interest in the emotional benefit causes you to do something that is beneficial for society. Capitalism is another example of this: that you create goods for which there is a demand, thus deriving a profit, and the people that want the good benefit from the goods.

Quote:
Seriously, where did you get the idea that thieves have the morals 'ingrained' deeply into their minds?
They don't, and that's what I said the problem is.

Quote:
Ultimately in the above example, it does not matter whether you would end up robbed later because you don't even think about it, and even if so, what makes you think that the other possible thief attacking YOU will follow the same principles?
I'm not talking specifically about that situation. I mean that that's what morals are for - to prevent such things from happening in general. Society realizes that while it may be beneficial for one individual to steal from others, the harm to the majority outweighs the benefit to one person, and it would be harmful if everyone started stealing. So stealing is considered bad (as it should be).
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Asheera
Asheera


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
posted June 23, 2008 10:12 PM

@mvass: But what about those that sacrifice for others? They won't feel any emotional benefit (or any kind of reward for that matter), will they?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted June 23, 2008 10:24 PM

Quote:
Wrong. Good actions should be those that benefit society.
That is selfish because you think only about the group called the society (selfish for the group). You have the illusion that society is better than any other group. it isn't. I hope you don't mean that sub groups such as a given company (i.e for the good of the company) or specific sports team decide what's moral and what's not. Society is still a group, a much larger one, but still a group. Not any better.

Quote:
But how to motivate people to do good actions if the action does not benefit them physically?
You don't motivate people. You only present them choices. See, it's you who is authoritarian. What I was saying was to present them the ideas of what morality is about -- like a language. They can then swear, etc.. but that doesn't mean they will feel good about it.

Quote:
Yes, an emotional one. If you are kind, that simply means that you derive an emotional benefit from helping others.
You did not get me and frankly I am not going to repeat myself except this. It does not matter whether there is a reward after or not. It only matters that the reward is not the 'thing' that motivates you. The LATTER matters.

Quote:
A couple of things here. Why is getting a reward "not good"?
Getting the reward has absolutely no impact on that. Seeking the reward has. Being motivated by the reward has.

Quote:
Let us say that my neighbor's door is unlocked, and he is not there, and he has no dogs or any kind of security system. What stops me from breaking into his house? It is that I know that I will feel bad having done so.
Perhaps you might consider that a reward, but most people have things like loyalty in their subconscious. In short, being good is not supposed to be a duty. It should be seamless.

Quote:
OK, let's look at it this way. Let us say that there are two religions in the world, Aism and Bism. Aism says that killing Bists is good, and Bism states that killing Aists is good. Thus, Aists may think that killing Bists is good, and vice versa.
Who said that those religions are good anyway?

Really I am not interested in a quote war here too, but most of what you said was already answered in my previous post. When I have time I'll detail it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 23, 2008 10:25 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 22:35, 23 Jun 2008.

Asheera:
Life sacrifice works similarly, with the difference that the person won't be around to enjoy the emotional benefit. But it's important to remember that often these kinds of costs and benefits are evaluated subconsciously and irrationally, and also that since such an action is considered good, they are still driven to do it.

TheDeath:
Quote:
That is selfish because you think only about the group called the society (selfish for the group).
But society is what creates morals in the first place, so... And selfishness isn't necessarily bad.

Quote:
You have the illusion that society is better than any other group.
What do you mean by "better"?

Quote:
I hope you don't mean that sub groups such as a given company (i.e for the good of the company) or specific sports team decide what's moral and what's not.
Subgroups such as religions often do. And not everyone is brought up within a sports team or a company, but almost everybody is brought up within society.

Quote:
You don't motivate people. You only present them choices.
I'm not saying that I'm forcing them to be moral (except to abide by the non-aggression principle, since I don't want to be harmed). But it's one thing to force them and another thing to encourage them to do something. Good, beneficial actions should be encouraged. Bad, harmful actions should be discouraged (and, if the action violates the non-aggression principle, should also be punishable). What you're doing is saying, "OK, murdering is bad, k?", and they might just as well say, "Whatever, that's bull****." With emotional incentives, on the other hand, it's more like this:
Society: Helping others is good. You'll feel good doing it.
Person: *helps beggar* You're right, it is! [Since some of it is innate.]

Quote:
It does not matter whether there is a reward after or not. It only matters that the reward is not the 'thing' that motivates you.
Every action is motivated by some sort of reward.

Quote:
Perhaps you might consider that a reward, but most people have things like loyalty in their subconscious.
Okay, then, then stealing would violate loyalty, and that would be a negative consequence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Asheera
Asheera


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
posted June 23, 2008 10:45 PM

Quote:
Life sacrifice works similarly, with the difference that the person won't be around to enjoy the emotional benefit. But it's important to remember that often these kinds of costs and benefits are evaluated subconsciously and irrationally, and also that since such an action is considered good, they are still driven to do it.

So you think that those that sacrifice for others do it because they think irrationally?
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 23, 2008 10:57 PM

Quote:
So you think that those that sacrifice for others do it because they think irrationally?
That may be part of it. And another part is the motivation to do a thing that is considered to be "good", even though the person wouldn't be around to enjoy the benefits (emotional or otherwise) of the action.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted June 24, 2008 01:11 AM
Edited by Corribus at 01:13, 24 Jun 2008.

One way to possibly look at the Moral Relativism/Absolutism question, if you leave a moral authority (like god) out of it, is to ask: is there a moral code which is perfect?  Such a code would be the absolute morality that would lead to utopia.  Of course, the codes of most societies are different and do none of them live up to this standard.  Then you could say that morals change over time as societies try to attain that perfect ideal.  That's just a thought.

@mvass

Regarding your description of how morals arose - if that's the case, why did different societies evolve very different moral systems?  Actually, it is interesting that the moral systems of cutures share many similarities (as you pointed out, murder is almost universally disapproved of) but also some things are very different from culture to culture.  For instance, the morality of sex.

Quote:
That depends on what is meant by "moral". If we take the Ten Commandments as the basis of Judeo-Christian morality, atheists don't abide by the first, third, and fourth Commandments, but would have no problem with abiding by the other six. When it comes to the non-aggression and mutual aid principles, some religious people might well fall short.

I'm not convinced that the 10 Commandments form the basis of a moral code.  What does believing in God have to do with moral action?

Quote:
Indeed, self-interest may often be beneficial for society.

Of course.  But I'd say most of the time it is not.  If everyone acted only in their own self interest, there'd be complete anarchy.  Organized government (and laws) pretty much exists to prevent people from only acting in their self-interest.

@theDeath

Hmmm, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I really understand your position.  And furthermore, if we take your definition of "good" at face value, I find it hard to believe that any person would qualify.  Most people who give money to charity, for instance, do so at least partially because it gives them a feeling of satisfaction.  I feel good about myself when I do something "good", and that's part of the reason I do the good deed in the first place.  By your definition, that would mean that my good deed wasn't actually good to begin with, which is sort of a catch-22.  It also implies that every good deed that is done at least partially because it brings satisfaction to the person doing the deed is tainted by "evil".  Additionally, some good deeds are done because they benefit other people AND yourself - for instance, if I donate money to build a new park in my neighborhood.  It's true I do that for society's benefit, but because I live there, I also do it for myself.  The end result is that your definition of "good" undermines the very value of positive moral action, at least as far as I can tell.

@mvass

Quote:
Every action is motivated by some sort of reward.

Really?  I'm not sure.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 24, 2008 01:27 AM

Quote:
if that's the case, why did different societies evolve very different moral systems?
The fundamentals are very similar, but sometimes distorted by the Twisting of the Morals, as I have described earlier. The non-aggression principle got exceptions because of nationalism or religion, and a similar thing happened to the mutual aid principle. But most cultures abide by some form of the two. It's just that they present them differently (and they are twisted differently).

Quote:
For instance, the morality of sex.
That's because sex itself is such a complicated thing. It can be peaceful or violent. It can produce children. It can spread diseases. It is pleasurable. And people have different preferences. Plus, with the addition of limited sexual relations (limited to spouse(s)), matters are further complicated.

Quote:
I'm not convinced that the 10 Commandments form the basis of a moral code.
It depends on how one defines "moral code".

Quote:
What does believing in God have to do with moral action?
That the belief in God can prod people into acting in a moral manner even if they wouldn't otherwise. One Christian fundamentalist said, "I know if I didn't fear God's judgement I would have killed many many times."

Quote:
But I'd say most of the time it is not.  If everyone acted only in their own self interest, there'd be complete anarchy.  Organized government (and laws) pretty much exists to prevent people from only acting in their self-interest.
Well, I meant self-interest in the framework of the non-aggression and mutual aid principles, the former being enforced by the government. Indeed, the vast majority of actions are driven by self-interest. But capitalism is one example of self-interest being able to serve both the individual and society.

Quote:
Really?  I'm not sure.
Name one that isn't.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Asheera
Asheera


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
posted June 24, 2008 01:27 PM

Quote:
Name one that isn't.

How about mine about the sacrifice for others?
And don't start that they think irrational when they do it, because you can't know that, can you?
Well, at least I named one
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted June 24, 2008 01:43 PM

Since I don't want to get into a quote war debate, I'll comment on more than one quote at a time

Quote:
But society is what creates morals in the first place, so... And selfishness isn't necessarily bad.
That is your view of subjective morals though. As for selfishness, depends what you mean by bad. Of course some people feel offended when they are called evil, or simply don't take it seriously for some sort. It's just a definition, nothing to be scared of. We are all selfish in a way, nobody is perfect. That doesn't mean, however, that it is good or moral. Of course just because you fail in one of the morals does not mean you are 100% immoral, it's not just that simply black and white. Nobody's 100% moral or 100% immoral, they are in between.

Quote:
What do you mean by "better"?
The fact that it can define 'morals', and that it has such an opinion that for some seems absolute. I will comment on this below.

Quote:
Every action is motivated by some sort of reward.
If you are talking about conscious rewards, then not necessarily -- subconscious I really don't know. However you have to understand that I am not claiming anyone has ever reached the 'good' status, except perhaps only one person (Jesus). I'm only stating a definition, much like Pi in mathematics, even though we will never be able to reach it's true precision since it's irrational (i.e we never reach the definition).

But the problem that we disagree is that we have different definitions of morality and the things that it is built upon. Your definition is only merely subjective, from the society's point of view -- this is your opinion of morality, and it is why I see you can grasp the idea of it being relativist. However, my definition is something strict, something that is even 'measurable' to a certain extent (as far as common sense goes obviously). My definition is absolute simply for the fact that it applies to the world as a whole, not restricted to a certain society's perspective of what's harmful or not. And most of all, it has definitions and your actions can contradict them -- yours on the other hand has subjective definitions that vary usually from the person considering what's good for the society.

Let me give you an example to make this clearer: Suppose that you are an alien, with incredible powers, and you can completely wipe out the Earth, for example. Now most certainly, the society in which you live (alien society) would not benefit from such an action, but neither harm. Let's suppose humans have absolutely no impact whatsoever to the alien society. Now you also have the power to cure e.g cancer. The question is the following: What would you do?

And most importantly, how will your actions be classified (as in moral, immoral, evil, good, etc)? Can we classify them with your model of 'society' morals? I doubt, but even if we could, we would need to take the alien society's perspective, that does not apply to human society, hence it is subjective. It is where your relativist idea of morals fails.

But remember that humans will never have any impact whatsoever on the alien society. Your actions (the alien, remember) will, consequently, have no impact on your society, since whatever you do to the humans, will not even get the attention of your society. Is it moral to destroy the Earth? Is it moral to torture the humans? Your society does not get influenced by this in any way.

This is where my absolute idea of morals come along: as long as you destroy the Earth, torture, or do similar things, you are immoral, selfish to put it in a better way. We can apply the same morals to alien society as well. And in fact, we can apply them to any scenario, it is an Universal definition.

So what if you decide to cure human cancer? What does the alien profit from this? Does the society of the aliens get anything out of this? Not at all, like I said, they are not influenced by the humans in any way. So why do this? Because it is morally right thing to do, and because maybe the aliens are good -- there is a very strict definition of being good and since I hopefully described how it can be used universally for ALL beings, you will not think anymore they are subjective.

Of course the alien can be selfish and not cure cancer (leave the humans alone) -- or he can be evil and torture humans.. The latter has a reward in mind, the pleasure of seeing others suffer (if the alien is that way). Obviously there is a difference between being neutral and evil, and much more between being good and evil. Not everything is black and white either, but suffice to say that these have universal definitions.

No matter what the alien chooses to do (cure, ignore, torture), the morals are still there, floating around in their definitions. Sure, you can write any symbols for it, in any language (you can write Pi with whatever symbol you need), but the 'value', the 'definition' is still the same, absolute one.

If the aliens call good evil and evil good, there is really no difference -- in this way, torture would be good and helping others would be evil, but the value of what is good and evil is still the same (i.e torture is selfish and cure is altruistic).

There is a very balanced definition of these terms. Whether you actually think the alien would be foolish for curing something that will never affect him DOES NOT MATTER. It only matters that he is truly good in this respect. Frankly speaking there's not much to be said about humans, but at least I hope I proved my point.

@Corribus: You are most certainly right, nobody as far as I know, qualifies as good, except perhaps Jesus (if you believe he existed). I'm not saying that being any less than good will mean you're evil -- you are a shade approximately to good. Of course, just because you are not 100% white does not mean that you are black. The more closer to white, the more 'good' you are. That does mean nobody is ever 100% truly moral, but that doesn't make them 100% immoral, and as far as humans are concerned, it is usually good enough compared to others.

As for the fact that helping the society will help you later as well, this is also a reward. Like I said, even if helping others will make them help you, that does not mean you are selfish -- you become selfish when the reward motivates you. The reward, whether it comes later or not, has no impact on the situation. But if it's the only thing that makes you do something moral (or good, whatever), then that's where it is bad.

So again, the reward in itself (e.g: helping the society helps you as well) is not 'bad' -- when it motivates you, it's usually closer to selfishness. Of course, depends how much it motivates you too -- that doesn't mean it's again, 100% either black or white. Some people feel motivated by a reward much less than others -- since nobody's ever perfect in the first place.


I really don't know if I have anything to add to this discussion anymore since I already spoke out everything that was in my mind for the subject. I only hope that you don't make me repeat myself

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Minion
Minion


Legendary Hero
posted June 24, 2008 02:09 PM

Well, maybe the aliens are an entire planet, with a conscience, and look at Earth as a one big fellow companion. As it is a moral being, it decides to cure the planet of its cancer, which are the humans.

____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted June 24, 2008 02:11 PM

Does not matter since I said in the example that they will not get anything in return (or at least they are NOT MOTIVATED by getting something in return), or if you imply about emotional benefit, I didn't look it that way because I didn't use a aliens = planet example.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Minion
Minion


Legendary Hero
posted June 24, 2008 02:32 PM
Edited by Minion at 14:35, 24 Jun 2008.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear enough again... hehe. I was not talking about if the planet/alien gets any emotional satisfaction, or any satisfaction for that matter, for what it does, even though the discussion conserning that is interesting. I was thinking is it moral or not to cure the planet of the humans. What do you think You earlier stated that curing is Universally good. On another note, is it moral to find cure to natural aging of humans, like to extend the average life of a humans by 5 years? 50 years? 10 000 years?

____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted June 24, 2008 02:56 PM

Quote:
I was thinking is it moral or not to cure the planet of the humans. What do you think
Are you saying to kill humans because they destroy the planet? Most certainly, if they are stubborn. But I do not consider force the means to peace, it should be the last option. You don't go around 'killing' someone else immediately they've done something wrong. You can help them achieve peace by understanding (yea I know I'm too idealistic christian with all the forgiveness and stuff... ).

Quote:
You earlier stated that curing is Universally good. On another note, is it moral to find cure to natural aging of humans, like to extend the average life of a humans by 5 years? 50 years? 10 000 years?
Depends and I don't know if I'm ready to discuss something like death. Maybe death has a purpose. But for me it seems that everyone should die at a certain age -- cancer makes some people live a lot lesser. If we will not ever die, we might not have children because then we'll spread too much like a virus -- and I don't know if that's a good thing, but I do know things like 'viruses' are harmful in the sense that they offense other creatures and feast on them. Cancer is not a 'individual' creature because it's only made up of your own cells. As for death, I don't know if it's necessary or not, but (don't shoot me please) I think it has a place and will ultimately come anyway, as God wanted us. It is important not to fear death, but to not fear life. Beside 'helping' others (not only physically) inner peace is what you should one seek -- I don't know if living 10000 is a solution, for if we are going to keep that way, we'll still have a life of suffering, war, crimes, etc..

So to be honest I really don't know much about death and the 'normal' healthy human average living. Of course, I'm only saying that, as long as helping others does not assign any harm (not to them but to others), it is usually morally right. I think it ultimately leads to "seek harmony with others" and that you should not hold any kind of pre-ingrained ideas about how they are and if they are less worth. I also think that force is not the first step you need to take to make them understand (but unfortunately for flawed as we are, we need it as a last resort).

Whether extending the average life of humans is beneficial -- i don't think I know that well. But I do know people are afraid of death, when they usually take normal 'suffering' as better. Maybe there's no reason to be afraid, I don't know. I do think however that the goal in this life (so to speak) is not to be in a constant fear of what's to come. Maybe ultimately, after we enlighten ourselves or understand compassion and harmony and learn to live with integrity with all beings, maybe we will find no reason to fear death, as we have already achieved our goal (at least in this world, if you believe in other worlds). Maybe all we have to be is to seed our kindness on this world, either through our children or through people that accept and understand this.

Or maybe, if you believe in God, after we achieved this we return to a new plane, maybe in Heaven of some sort, where our understanding of living in harmony 'without any self interests' would keep on lighting forever...

This subject makes me wonder too much

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted June 24, 2008 04:11 PM

Quote:
How about mine about the sacrifice for others?
I already explained about that.

Quote:
That is your view of subjective morals though.
And that is your view of subjective morals. Why is yours any better than mine?

Quote:
That doesn't mean, however, that it is good or moral.
But self-interest can cause people to act in a way that is good or moral.

Quote:
Suppose that you are an alien, with incredible powers, and you can completely wipe out the Earth, for example. Now most certainly, the society in which you live (alien society) would not benefit from such an action, but neither harm. Let's suppose humans have absolutely no impact whatsoever to the alien society. Now you also have the power to cure e.g cancer. The question is the following: What would you do?
I would cure cancer, since it would give me a greater emotional benefit than destroying the Eearth.

Quote:
Can we classify them with your model of 'society' morals?
Yes, because these aliens have society as well.

Quote:
Your actions (the alien, remember) will, consequently, have no impact on your society, since whatever you do to the humans, will not even get the attention of your society.
See, you confused two different things: the origin of morality and the everyday application of morals. Though morality originated from the needs of society, its application may not necessarily be that way. For example, it's like creating a hammer to knock nails in, but then using it to break rocks. The idea that helping others is good originated from the needs of society, but now it exists independently of what spawned it.

Quote:
torture is selfish and cure is altruistic
Torture is selfishness at the expense of others. Cure is selfishness while benefitting others.

Quote:
Are you saying to kill humans because they destroy the planet? Most certainly, if they are stubborn.
No, that would be immoral, since it would be the destruction of a reasoning creature in favor of a non-reasoning thing. That definitely violates the non-aggression principle.

Quote:
Depends and I don't know if I'm ready to discuss something like death.
What, not willing to talk about yourself?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted June 24, 2008 04:19 PM

Quote:
And that is your view of subjective morals. Why is yours any better than mine?
Because mine is not subjective and applies on an absolute scale, on any being, not just a 'society'.

Quote:
But self-interest can cause people to act in a way that is good or moral.
Are you listening? A guy that does good things but does so only because of the reward is inherently not 100% good

Quote:
I would cure cancer, since it would give me a greater emotional benefit than destroying the Eearth.
Not necessarily because aliens don't have such an 'emotional' attraction to humans, and it's precisely why I have chosen such an example.

Quote:
Yes, because these aliens have society as well.
But that society has absolutely nothing to do with your actions, and in fact, like I said, humans have absolutely NO IMPACT on that society (in the example). So your actions are not defined by the alien society.

Or think up a different example: you are the only one alien in the world, you don't have a society, and you DO NOT feel bored if you are alone like humans do.

No society -> but still morals.

Quote:
See, you confused two different things: the origin of morality and the everyday application of morals. Though morality originated from the needs of society, its application may not necessarily be that way. For example, it's like creating a hammer to knock nails in, but then using it to break rocks. The idea that helping others is good originated from the needs of society, but now it exists independently of what spawned it.
We are talking about current morals. The 'origin' of them is not important and in fact, there are different 'theories' (not scientific theories) about it. Some say God gave morals, you say they arose from the needs of society, etc.. let's just ignore their origin

Quote:
Cure is selfishness while benefitting others.
I don't get it.

Quote:
No, that would be immoral, since it would be the destruction of a reasoning creature in favor of a non-reasoning thing. That definitely violates the non-aggression principle.
Certainly if the Earth was lifeless like Mars, but not only that, but you have to understand that there is a balance in the world, we disturb it.

It's like saying you shouldn't kill a terrorist that destroys if there's no other choice (again I am not pro-force but as a last resort it's often necessary). You call them 'economical' impacts -- but do you think our buildings are more important than, e.g: nature rocks or whatever that we destroy? They are both inanimate matter, doesn't matter which one is more useful to us. Maybe for aliens it's the other way around.

Quote:
What, not willing to talk about yourself?
And give away my secrets? No way

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Asheera
Asheera


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
posted June 24, 2008 04:25 PM

Quote:
I already explained about that.

I'm sorry, I'm not in the mood for quote wars.

Why you answered only a part of my post? This is getting nowhere except in useless pages full of quote wars. You can't just read one phrase and answer to it when there were more phrases linked to that one.

I said that you can't know if the people that sacrifice for others do it because they think irrational. You can't know. I named one action that is NOT motivated by some sort of reward (at least, you don't know if it is) and thus I answered your post. However, whatever I say you'll continue with your "reward-motivated actions" idea. For example (a fictional example), suppose I'll tell you that there is person I know that doesn't feel good nor does he benefit in any way when he helps a beggar, but he still does it (again, this is a fictional example, I don't know someone like this). You'll almost sure answer with "he does it because he's stupid/doesn't think rational", but how do you know this?.

This is getting nowhere.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2750 seconds