Atheists: does God exist?

[Mock Turtle]

Well, to be honrst being dogmatic is in the broad sense not limited to religion.

Hi there. Did I say it was? But in this context it is about morality and the definitions of good and bad behaviour, and where for many of the religious, evil is some peculiar designation and often just labelling the person over the action. Hence why I mentioned the 'no change' option that such implies and which is hardly useful when it is not true either. Given that people do change, even those who have committed horrific crimes.

 

[EconGuy]

The objectifying of a human.

So we can make for easy reading....

I asked the question, "why is pre-marital sex immoral", and your reply is above.

My response:

Why is objectification or lust immoral? What about it? What's the harm?

Please don't take my questions above as approval of objectifying others, merely, I want to know what you think specifically is wrong about it, I mean, what is "objectification"? What does it look like? How would I know it when I see it? Or is it a thought crime?

My second question is, can't consensual sex can be a way for two people to express healthy emotions and desires for each other? In a healthy relationship sex can be a mutual act of intimacy and exploration, not (always) just a one-sided use of another person's body, can't it?

If not, why?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I think that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and even within the confines of marriage there's a narrow line as to what's respectful and inconsequential.

In my rare forays into history and anthropology, the configuration of the family is related to the sexual division of labor and stuff like that.

Something about a matrilinear social culture within a patrilinear political culture.

This did cause some controversy back in the early 1700s.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm curious, what is it about this act that you believe is morally wrong?

Culture.

Twenty countries still allow rapists to marry their victims to escape criminal prosecution, according to the UN’s annual state of world population report.

Russia, Thailand and Venezuela are among the countries that allow men to have rape convictions overturned if they marry the women or girls they have assaulted.
‘Marry your rapist’ laws in 20 countries still allow perpetrators to escape justice

So you are permitted to rape someone as long as you marry them afterwards.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

The KKK is a Christian organization

Actually, their history strikes me as more interested in promoting divisions between people by falsely posing as part of the group.

Emma Simms used critical thought and the good old fact check.

Too many gullible people take the word of outside agitators as gospel.

The Story of the Ku Klux Klan in America and in Iowa

The Beginnings of the Klan In 1865, after the Civil War, some white people in the South decided to form a group to protect themselves and to terrorize black people. Black people, who had been slaves before and during the war, became free after the...

www.iowapbs.org

There were many other ways that the Klan upset people. One was to stride silently in uniform into a church, and deposit money at the altar. One black congregation in Centerville, a coal-mining town in southeastern Iowa, received $100 this way. Many of the church’s members thought that the Klan was their friend after that.

Friend or Enemy?​

But one woman, Emma Simms, didn’t think so. Emma wrote to the national office of the NAACP about her concerns. Robert Bagnall, an NAACP official, wrote back to her explaining that the Klan tried to gain favor with some groups, in order to separate them from their allies. Specifically, in Centerville, they tried to separate the blacks and the Jews. They planned to isolate first the Jews and later deal with the blacks. So Emma had a letter she could take and read to people who had been fooled by the gift from the Klan.

 

[EconGuy]

Culture.

Culture is what makes pre-marital sex immoral?

Twenty countries still allow rapists to marry their victims to escape criminal prosecution, according to the UN’s annual state of world population report.

That, of course is horrible, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion I was having.

Russia, Thailand and Venezuela are among the countries that allow men to have rape convictions overturned if they marry the women or girls they have assaulted.

Again, truly horrible, but I'm not sure why you've posted this?

So you are permitted to rape someone as long as you marry them afterwards.

Not where I live.

 

[DNB]

Because being dogmatic as to some things being evil is the worst option - often then not allowing for change to occur.

And even children learn to be moral, even if they aren't necessarily initially.

Wisdom defines morality - one either has it, or they don't

 

[DNB]

So we can make for easy reading....

I asked the question, "why is pre-marital sex immoral", and your reply is above.

My response:

Why is objectification or lust immoral? What about it? What's the harm?

Please don't take my questions above as approval of objectifying others, merely, I want to know what you think specifically is wrong about it, I mean, what is "objectification"? What does it look like? How would I know it when I see it? Or is it a thought crime?

My second question is, can't consensual sex can be a way for two people to express healthy emotions and desires for each other? In a healthy relationship sex can be a mutual act of intimacy and exploration, not (always) just a one-sided use of another person's body, can't it?

If not, why?

Both parties objectify each other - you're a piece of meat at that point

 

[Nakosis]

Culture is what makes pre-marital sex immoral?

Yes.

That, of course is horrible, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion I was having.

Culture is what determines our morality.

Again, truly horrible, but I'm not sure why you've posted this?

Because you were asking what makes something immoral.

Not where I live.

Sure, because of the culture you were raised in.

 

[EconGuy]

Both parties objectify each other - you're a piece of meat at that point

So two people the day before they are to be married see meat, but after they are married they see each other?

I'm sorry, but that's more silly religious dogma.

As I said, objectification and a loving relationship can both happen in or out of marriage.

 

[EconGuy]

Yes.

I said: "Culture is what makes pre-marital sex immoral?"

Your answer is above.

That's like saying the law is what makes stealing immoral.

Culture is what determines our morality.

I'd argue that people of different cultures can share the same morals because morals are based on values that people across culture can share. It's just that cultures tend to extend to geographic boundaries beyond which creating consequences for immoral behavior becomes more difficult. Most wester countries share similar values and moral systems despite having different (though similar ) cultures. However, there are many radically different cultures that can share similar values and of course, as you've already pointed out, some that are very different.

Because you were asking what makes something immoral.

That's true, but that was in the context of the conversation I was attempting to have with DNB.

Now, that I understand the context of your reply, I'll say that "culture" certainly contributes to ideas of right and wrong, but those cultures are built, fundamentally on shared value systems. So, conceptually, we can "peel" back something like culture and find something closer to the root, again, that being the fact that we tend to share similar values. Not the same, many people disagree on things and over time we learn how the things we value effect people in the real world. We have the opportunity to change and make things better, sometimes we succeed and other times we fail, that said, despite what many insist is a lawless time in history, is actually quite the opposite. However, the speed of information is faster than it's ever been and people are made much more aware of bad things that happen in our nation and the world.

But generally speaking, people are less violent, women are less oppressed than they've ever been.

 

[Nakosis]

I said: "Culture is what makes pre-marital sex immoral?"

Your answer is above.

That's like saying the law is what makes stealing immoral.

The law is generally based on what people feel is moral. However because of democracy it is a more universal take on morality.

I'd argue that people of different cultures can share the same morals because morals are based on values that people across culture can share. It's just that cultures tend to extend to geographic boundaries beyond which creating consequences for immoral behavior becomes more difficult. Most wester countries share similar values and moral systems despite having different (though similar ) cultures. However, there are many radically different cultures that can share similar values and of course, as you've already pointed out, some that are very different.

That's true, but that was in the context of the conversation I was attempting to have with DNB.

Now, that I understand the context of your reply, I'll say that "culture" certainly contributes to ideas of right and wrong, but those cultures are built, fundamentally on shared value systems. So, conceptually, we can "peel" back something like culture and find something closer to the root, again, that being the fact that we tend to share similar values. Not the same, many people disagree on things and over time we learn how the things we value effect people in the real world. We have the opportunity to change and make things better, sometimes we succeed and other times we fail, that said, despite what many insist is a lawless time in history, is actually quite the opposite. However, the speed of information is faster than it's ever been and people are made much more aware of bad things that happen in our nation and the world.

But generally speaking, people are less violent, women are less oppressed than they've ever been.

The question then would be were do those values come from.

 

[EconGuy]

The law is generally based on what people feel is moral. However because of democracy it is a more universal take on morality.

Respectfully, you missed my point (or I did a poor job explaining), but the point was, it's not the law that makes something right or wrong, the law is an expression of a human value system. Values--->Morality--->Right/laws, in this order.

The question then would be were do those values come from.

Where do systems of measurement come from? We create them. Why? because they are useful. And while measurement isn't a perfect analogy to morality, it is in some ways. It is a system that humans created in order to solve a problem and attempt to realize certain outcomes.

For example, just as every person could benefit from not being moral and instead did whatever they wanted, with respect to measurement, every person would similarly benefit to claim that the 20 gallons of gas they just pumped was not a system they recognized and instead wanted to pay for 1 gallon. So why don't people claim that 20 gallons is really 1 gallon? Because they know society has settled on what a gallon is and endorse a system of enforcement for people who cheat.

So why do people agree on systems of measurement when every person would be better off ignoring the rules? Because enough people have been convinced to learn and support the enforcement of that system to the benefit of society and in turn the people in it.

Like morality, it is simply a social convention that is useful. We created the system of measurement subjectively, meaning that the length in space that we call 1 foot wasn't chosen arbitrarily, it was chosen because it is useful for measuring certain things, but 1 foot isn't something that exists objectively, out there, it is subjective.

This is also true of games. Take baseball, the system was created and agreed upon. Every player would benefit from cheating and yet the overwhelming majority of players follow the rules, despite the fact that cheating can be worth 10's or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

And what happens to players that cheat? When caught, they are punished or banished from the group. It's a made up system and yet it works, and all for a silly game. Imagine what humans could do if the lives and well-being of others was on the line! But, of course, we don't have to imagine, those systems exist!

The question then would be were do those values come from.

Simple, as a result of human experience, processed though reason, wisdom, intelligence and empathy.

Of course we all experience life a little differently, but when it comes to the worst things, pain, suffering, sickness, societal chaos, insecurity, we all very much wish to avoid that which is why the worst things are often universally valued by people of virtually all cultures. We can say that we value avoiding these states wherever possible....This is where we get ideas of freedom and liberty. These ideas say that we can experience life as we want as long as it doesn't harm others or yourself. Now that was a bit overly simplistic, so if you want to break that down more let me know.

Experience--->values--->morals--->rights/laws.

Culture could be said to be the amalgamation or the expression of all of these things together. In retrospect, your answer wasn't wrong, just imprecise.

All created by humans to attempt to realize a particular state of affairs.

Why are things still messed up?

Human greed, inability or unwillingness to enforce rules/ laws, a lack of wisdom, knowledge and understanding that thankfully has become better over time and has consistently lead to a better world when taken as a whole.

-Cheers

 

[Nakosis]

Respectfully, you missed my point (or I did a poor job explaining), but the point was, it's not the law that makes something right or wrong, the law is an expression of a human value system. Values--->Morality--->Right/laws, in this order.

Yes, morality then laws. we agreed there I think.

Where do systems of measurement come from? We create them. Why? because they are useful. And while measurement isn't a perfect analogy to morality, it is in some ways. It is a system that humans created in order to solve a problem and attempt to realize certain outcomes.

Ok, so why are some outcomes valued over others?

For example, just as every person could benefit from not being moral and instead did whatever they wanted, with respect to measurement, every person would similarly benefit to claim that the 20 gallons of gas they just pumped was not a system they recognized and instead wanted to pay for 1 gallon. So why don't people claim that 20 gallons is really 1 gallon? Because they know society has settled on what a gallon is and endorse a system of enforcement for people who cheat.

So why do people agree on systems of measurement when every person would be better off ignoring the rules? Because enough people have been convinced to learn and support the enforcement of that system to the benefit of society and in turn the people in it.

Ok, right the support of certain values.

Like morality, it is simply a social convention that is useful. We created the system of measurement subjectively, meaning that the length in space that we call 1 foot wasn't chosen arbitrarily, it was chosen because it is useful for measuring certain things, but 1 foot isn't something that exists objectively, out there, it is subjective.

This is also true of games. Take baseball, the system was created and agreed upon. Every player would benefit from cheating and yet the overwhelming majority of players follow the rules, despite the fact that cheating can be worth 10's or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

And what happens to players that cheat? When caught, they are punished or banished from the group. It's a made up system and yet it works, and all for a silly game. Imagine what humans could do if the lives and well-being of others was on the line! But, of course, we don't have to imagine, those systems exist!

However, if the rules were different, then anyone not following these other rules would be cheating. So the choice of what is right and wrong in this case is completely arbitrary right. As long as everyone agrees then it doesn't matter what the rules are.

Simple, as a result of human experience, processed though reason, wisdom, intelligence and empathy.

Of course we all experience life a little differently, but when it comes to the worst things, pain, suffering, sickness, societal chaos, insecurity, we all very much wish to avoid that which is why the worst things are often universally valued by people of virtually all cultures. We can say that we value avoiding these states wherever possible....This is where we get ideas of freedom and liberty. These ideas say that we can experience life as we want as long as it doesn't harm others or yourself. Now that was a bit overly simplistic, so if you want to break that down more let me know.

Experience--->values--->morals--->rights/laws.

Ok, we are down to experience. So why should I agree to your rules if my experience is different?
For example, I have had a bad experience with extra-marital sex. Are you saying it is correct for me to seek laws which punish extra-marital sex?

Culture could be said to be the amalgamation or the expression of all of these things together. In retrospect, your answer wasn't wrong, just imprecise.

All created by humans to attempt to realize a particular state of affairs.

What state of affairs? A world free of extra-marital sex?
I mean if our experiences are different then will would want a different state of affairs.
So how do we decide who gets the particular state of affairs they want?

Why are things still messed up?

Human greed, inability or unwillingness to enforce rules/ laws, a lack of wisdom, knowledge and understanding that thankfully has become better over time and has consistently lead to a better world when taken as a whole.

-Cheers

It would seem, different experiences, different values, different morals, a disagreement of rights/laws.

 

[EconGuy]

Ok, so why are some outcomes valued over others?

Take the question of what is better, vanilla or chocolate ice cream. That is a question that is about as opinionated as there is. The question of what is valued here, chocolate or vanilla is very different depending on who you ask, and rightly so.

But what if the choice were between chocolate and bowl of small shards of broken glass?

Now, even if I don't like chocolate ice cream (and I really don't) if given these two options, I'd pick chocolate. In fact, I'd be willing to bet anyone not deathly allergic to chocolate whose mental state is what could be called healthy, would choose chocolate.

Why? Because we know the harm and suffering that eating broken glass would cause. We value being free of these states of experience, and to that end we elevate some values over others.

That said, I want to make it clear, I freely admit it is possible for people to value things that don't lead to better experiences, and for groups to embrace those values. So don't misunderstand. There is nothing written on the universe that says that humans shouldn't suffer and there's nothing to prevent humans from embracing ideas that lead to value systems that cause suffering. All there is between a world full of suffering, pain and chaos are people like me trying to convince others that we should, using our reason, compassion and empathy to advocate for a world where we value experiences that reduce pain, suffering and well-being is a choice.

Take for instance the following question (or some form of it) that is posed in moral debates. Is it wrong to have sex with a person if these are never aware of it? For instance if they are medically sedated or drunk. What's the harm? Intuitively, the answer might seem difficult, but when I ask a person who's having trouble with this question, do you want to live in a world where it's ok to do things to you, like sex, as long as you aren't aware of it? I don't know anyone that wants to live in a world where it's ok to sexually violate someone without their consent as long as they never find out. That sounds more like a nightmare.

However, as I stated it's not impossible to find people who embrace moral codes that cause objective harm, people have to be convinced that certain experiences are bad and make the choice to value actions and beliefs that prevent those negative experiences wherever possible.

Ok, so why are some outcomes valued over others?

I think my answer above covers this?

However, if the rules were different, then anyone not following these other rules would be cheating. So the choice of what is right and wrong in this case is completely arbitrary right. As long as everyone agrees then it doesn't matter what the rules are.

Sure, the rules of baseball could be anything. 500 strikes could be an out, but if the goal of baseball is to create a game that is fun and competitive, would that meet the goal?

If not, then the choice to make it three strikes isn't arbitrary, it's subjective.

Similarly this could be what we call a gallon:

Why don't be call this 1 gallon? I mean it could be, but then this:

Would be .000013824 gallons.

Given that we are more likely to work with liquid sizes in our everyday life the size of the milk container, than it's objectively easier to define a gallon as the container that holds the milk than the one that holds the water above.

The point is, what we call things and how we define them aren't strictly arbitrary. We created the system of measurement to meet a need and the rules we create can meet our goals to very degrees of success.

Similarly, the rules of game are defined to meet certain goals, like competition, fun, challenge, fairness, safety etc....We judge the rules in the context of those experiences which in turn lead us to value certain kinds of rules over others.

Morality is very similar. But just like the rules of a game, we don't know everything there is to know about achieving our goals. Take the NFL. Over time valuing safety and the experience of players matters as society sees the results of, for example, concussions. So, starting this year, kick offs will look wildly different than the past to help prevent injuries while still keeping it fun to both play and watch.

So no, choices like these aren't arbitrary, however, people can arbitrarily choose not to value experiences, but I'm not advocating for a society of arbitrary decisions, rather decisions made based on real world goals and objectives.


Since I hit post to soon, I'll pick up the rest in a new post.

 

[EconGuy]

Ok, we are down to experience. So why should I agree to your rules if my experience is different?

We agree that our experiences are subjective and may not be exactly the same. So we need flexibility in our rules. However, do we really need to quantify suffering in order to know a person is suffering? Even for people who are causing themselves objective harm while experiencing pleasure. If a person cuts themselves (self-harm), they might subjectively be experience pleasure in their mind, but objectively be experiencing physical harm, if the word harm has any meaning at all.

Sam Harris said it like this.

The worst possible misery for everyone really is worse than the greatest possible happiness. Between these two poles, it seems to me, we can talk about moral truth without hedging.

This quote is part of a response to philosopher Derek Parfit's work on moral paradoxes. Harris suggests that while these paradoxes might be intellectually challenging, they don't negate the reality of the two extremes of experience. He argues that acknowledging these extremes allows for meaningful discussion about moral truth and the goal of maximizing well-being.

The point is, we all experience suffering similarly. It's amazing what people will do to avoid even relatively small amounts of suffering. What we don't do is experiencing pleasure the same way, but I'm not advocating for rules about how people experience pleasure rather avoiding harm, which is much more objective and universal, despite what a person might feel about it. I would also argue that on a scale between pleasure and harm, the "center" between these two positions is much closer to the pleasure side. In other words, not experiencing harm or pleasure is not the middle, in fact I would argue that experiencing nothing in a universe where survival is much more difficult than death, that mediocre experiences is extremely positive relative to other states of experience.

What state of affairs? A world free of extra-marital sex?
I mean if our experiences are different then will would want a different state of affairs.
So how do we decide who gets the particular state of affairs they want?

I think I answered this above. Society has to come to an agreement on what states of existence they value. These are generally related to finding solutions, meeting goals etc. But, because we lack all the knowledge and wisdom there is, I think it important that societies take care not to make dogmatic statements about what harm is. And when I say that I'm not pointing fingers at religious traditions, non-theistic groups can dogmatize just as theistic can, though I tend to believe religious dogma can be harder to change, but that's not the point of this post so I will leave it at that.

In other words, perhaps a little suffering might provide long term benefits. For example, the helicopter parenting of the 1990's and 2000's may have produced children that are increasingly unable to cope with the challenges of our society. Just as causing harm (pulling a tooth) can cause severe short term suffering it can in turn prevent much greater harm.

The simple point here is that even defining harm is a process, but we should always be measuring harm against experience in light of the goals that society sets for itself, but also be willing to challenge cultural norms in light of new understanding. I think that we can take a science based approach to these ideas.

However, I acknowledge that science can't tell you what to value (is ought problem)

That said, I think this goes back to what you called culture and the role it plays, to which I'd agree.

I'll also finish by saying that despite what some might want to believe, these questions do not have easy answers and when looking at groups the size of nations (or larger) some of these ideas break down. I think this is because humans have not evolved to the point to think beyond small groups. I think this is why the American experiment is so difficult.

 

[Nakosis]

Take the question of what is better, vanilla or chocolate ice cream. That is a question that is about as opinionated as there is. The question of what is valued here, chocolate or vanilla is very different depending on who you ask, and rightly so.

But what if the choice were between chocolate and bowl of small shards of broken glass?

Now, even if I don't like chocolate ice cream (and I really don't) if given these two options, I'd pick chocolate. In fact, I'd be willing to bet anyone not deathly allergic to chocolate whose mental state is what could be called healthy, would choose chocolate.

Why? Because we know the harm and suffering that eating broken glass would cause. We value being free of these states of experience, and to that end we elevate some values over others.

That said, I want to make it clear, I freely admit it is possible for people to value things that don't lead to better experiences, and for groups to embrace those values. So don't misunderstand. There is nothing written on the universe that says that humans shouldn't suffer and there's nothing to prevent humans from embracing ideas that lead to value systems that cause suffering. All there is between a world full of suffering, pain and chaos are people like me trying to convince others that we should, using our reason, compassion and empathy to advocate for a world where we value experiences that reduce pain, suffering and well-being is a choice.

Take for instance the following question (or some form of it) that is posed in moral debates. Is it wrong to have sex with a person if these are never aware of it? For instance if they are medically sedated or drunk. What's the harm? Intuitively, the answer might seem difficult, but when I ask a person who's having trouble with this question, do you want to live in a world where it's ok to do things to you, like sex, as long as you aren't aware of it? I don't know anyone that wants to live in a world where it's ok to sexually violate someone without their consent as long as they never find out. That sounds more like a nightmare.

However, as I stated it's not impossible to find people who embrace moral codes that cause objective harm, people have to be convinced that certain experiences are bad and make the choice to value actions and beliefs that prevent those negative experiences wherever possible.

I think my answer above covers this?

Yes, you have a point. However I am an amoralist. I tend to think beyond the human experience. I can imagine circumstances were chocolate ice cream could be more deadly than small shard of glass. Morals are circumstantial, being human is one of those circumstance. In that circumstance we can probably find shared values. Being human makes such practical.

Sure, the rules of baseball could be anything. 500 strikes could be an out, but if the goal of baseball is to create a game that is fun and competitive, would that meet the goal?

If not, then the choice to make it three strikes isn't arbitrary, it's subjective.

Similarly this could be what we call a gallon:

View attachment 91572

Why don't be call this 1 gallon? I mean it could be, but then this:

View attachment 91573




Would be .000013824 gallons.

Given that we are more likely to work with liquid sizes in our everyday life the size of the milk container, than it's objectively easier to define a gallon as the container that holds the milk than the one that holds the water above.

The point is, what we call things and how we define them aren't strictly arbitrary. We created the system of measurement to meet a need and the rules we create can meet our goals to very degrees of success.

Neither are they set in stone. Often they are just convenient enough for an agreement.

Similarly, the rules of game are defined to meet certain goals, like competition, fun, challenge, fairness, safety etc....We judge the rules in the context of those experiences which in turn lead us to value certain kinds of rules over others.

Morality is very similar. But just like the rules of a game, we don't know everything there is to know about achieving our goals. Take the NFL. Over time valuing safety and the experience of players matters as society sees the results of, for example, concussions. So, starting this year, kick offs will look wildly different than the past to help prevent injuries while still keeping it fun to both play and watch.

So no, choices like these aren't arbitrary, however, people can arbitrarily choose not to value experiences, but I'm not advocating for a society of arbitrary decisions, rather decisions made based on real world goals and objectives.


Since I hit post to soon, I'll pick up the rest in a new post.

I see morals initially coming from feelings. Feelings coming from cultural experience. Sure, overtime, we can change our ideas about right and wrong as we gain more information from the consequences of our actions. However for many, I think culture remains a main source of experience.

You face a problem of overcoming a lack of experience outside of culture.
I have no problem with your presentation of the ideal development of shared values under the circumstances. Just don't think we are there yet.

It is very hard to nail down all of the contributing factors to the outcome of a choice. Leaves wiggle room to question ideas of shared values of a less extreme situation than chocolate ice cream vs little shards of glass.

 

[EconGuy]

However I am an amoralist.

As in, you recognize moral distinctions, but don't believe there is solid reasons to act on them?

I tend to think beyond the human experience.

Do you believe that moral systems are rooted in human emotions, needs, and social constructs, and therefore have no inherent validity beyond the human realm? Do you think there is an objective perspective on morality that transcends human biases and limitations?

Or is this a more nihilistic position?

I'm asking because I'm trying to understand.

I can imagine circumstances were chocolate ice cream could be more deadly than small shard of glass.

Sure, and so can I, but that wasn't the example I gave and I'm not sure what purpose it serves to change the conditions of my example.

The point was, there are opinions about what people like better and there are other things that people can have an opinion about like the choice between eating a bowl full of broken glass or ice cream, but you'll find that universally, healthy minds capable of understanding the consequences of eating broken glass will always choose to eat ice cream. The fact that you might be able to imagine a situation where eating a bowl of broken glass might be the better choice, 1. doesn't invalidate the point I was making and, 2. anyone that chooses the broken glass is obviously suffering to the extent that choosing to eat the glass, something that would almost certain kill a person, is only the better choice because it limits the suffering a person is already experiencing, knowingly or unknowingly.

Morals are circumstantial

To an extent, that's true. They depend on factors like the life experiences of the people that are contemplating it, the environment and scarcity just to name a few. But this doesn't invalidate morality, rather it shows that morality is pragmatic, capable of adjusting to the situation. But that doesn't make morality any less useful, just as the rules of a game can change based on conditions or changes in the goals that we recognize.

But, as conditions improve, when pulling out to a 10,000ft level (if you will) morality moves in one direction, that being toward limiting pain, suffering, sickness and chaos. Which is why humanity, when taken as a whole, is less violent than it's ever been, historically speaking.

It could move in the other direction if humanity digresses.

Morals are circumstantial, being human is one of those circumstance. In that circumstance we can probably find shared values. Being human makes such practical.

Morality is every bit as practical as a system of measurement. I think we agree.

Neither are they set in stone. Often they are just convenient enough for an agreement.

Quite right, which is why something can be 2.2lbs or 1 kilo. Or be something entirely different that changes over time, but whatever it is, it changes to increase its usefulness. it's not the units that matter, but how useful they are in the context of large groups of people that recognize this.

I see morals initially coming from feelings.

I would agree that feelings are an important part of what we call morals, things like compassion, empathy and guilt are examples are feelings that influence us when determining what we think are moral, but respectfully, I think that leaves out logic and reason. which certainly play a role in our determination of moral sentiments.

Emotion rules our thoughts, but logic should rule our actions.

Feelings coming from cultural experience

So a person isolated from others, from culture doesn't have feelings?

That's not to say these things don't contribute. To the contrary, I think that culture is important in determining the unspoken rules of a society or groups. For example, being polite. There's no requirement to be polite, but if you want to experience this first hand, just go to a friends party. Eat all the chips, be loud and obnoxious, burp, fart don't flush etc. and see if you ever get invited again. That's the effect of culture.

But all of these things lack the gravity of the kinds of rules in society that have the greatest consequences, things that can lead to serious harm or death. Those experiences that give rise to values and the code of morality and laws they give rise to cannot be dismissed as mere feelings as they are grounded in objective realities of human experience.

I have no problem with your presentation of the ideal development of shared values under the circumstances. Just don't think we are there yet.

And I have no problem agreeing with that. I'd go a step farther and say I'm not sure it's possible to ever "get there", but I do think that humans can improve their experiences by embracing a few objective facts about human experiences and creating rules to meet the goals that we set for ourselves.

It is very hard to nail down all of the contributing factors to the outcome of a choice.

I'm reminded of a line from the Matrix I'll adapt to this discussion. People make [moral] choices all the time but cannot see beyond the choices they do not understand.

I think that's very true.

Leaves wiggle room to question ideas of shared values of a less extreme situation than chocolate ice cream vs little shards of glass.

But that's a feature, not a bug. The imperfection in the system means that we have to be vigilant. Morality is not something that happens to us passively it takes effort in the context of our circumstances which are constantly changing, internally in the light of new information and externally in light of our environment.

Good convo,

Cheers

 

[Nakosis]

As in, you recognize moral distinctions, but don't believe there is solid reasons to act on them?


Do you believe that moral systems are rooted in human emotions, needs, and social constructs, and therefore have no inherent validity beyond the human realm? Do you think there is an objective perspective on morality that transcends human biases and limitations?

Or is this a more nihilistic position?

I'm asking because I'm trying to understand.

Mainly that I don't judge someone else's morals base on my circumstances. Under different circumstances I might have a different set of morals myself.

Sure, and so can I, but that wasn't the example I gave and I'm not sure what purpose it serves to change the conditions of my example.

The point was, there are opinions about what people like better and there are other things that people can have an opinion about like the choice between eating a bowl full of broken glass or ice cream, but you'll find that universally, healthy minds capable of understanding the consequences of eating broken glass will always choose to eat ice cream. The fact that you might be able to imagine a situation where eating a bowl of broken glass might be the better choice, 1. doesn't invalidate the point I was making and, 2. anyone that chooses the broken glass is obviously suffering to the extent that choosing to eat the glass, something that would almost certain kill a person, is only the better choice because it limits the suffering a person is already experiencing, knowingly or unknowingly.

Simply that one can always setup the correct answer based on the scenario they create. IOW, the correct in this case is not always the correct answer in every case.

To an extent, that's true. They depend on factors like the life experiences of the people that are contemplating it, the environment and scarcity just to name a few. But this doesn't invalidate morality, rather it shows that morality is pragmatic, capable of adjusting to the situation. But that doesn't make morality any less useful, just as the rules of a game can change based on conditions or changes in the goals that we recognize.

It's not the usefulness of morality I'm arguing against it is the universality of any particular set of morals.

Also I suspect I may define morals differently than you.
Morals I see as feelings about right and wrong. What you personally feel is right or wrong without necessarily knowing why you feel that way.
Ethics is where one uses logic and reason to determine what is right and wrong.

But, as conditions improve, when pulling out to a 10,000ft level (if you will) morality moves in one direction, that being toward limiting pain, suffering, sickness and chaos. Which is why humanity, when taken as a whole, is less violent than it's ever been, historically speaking.

It could move in the other direction if humanity digresses.

To me I don't judge improvement or digression. The world as I see it is constant change. We develop morals/ethics dependent of the state the world happens to be in. We can't assume the morals in any particular state the world happens to be in would be better if the world was in a different state. Basically I don't see a problem changing my morals/ethics to something other than what they are, to something more appropriate to the state of the world.

Morality is every bit as practical as a system of measurement. I think we agree.

Yes, however to be practical, they have to be able to change to be appropriate to the conditions one finds themselves in.

Quite right, which is why something can be 2.2lbs or 1 kilo. Or be something entirely different that changes over time, but whatever it is, it changes to increase its usefulness. it's not the units that matter, but how useful they are in the context of large groups of people that recognize this.

I would agree that feelings are an important part of what we call morals, things like compassion, empathy and guilt are examples are feelings that influence us when determining what we think are moral, but respectfully, I think that leaves out logic and reason. which certainly play a role in our determination of moral sentiments.

Emotion rules our thoughts, but logic should rule our actions.

I find to useful to differentiate this into morals and ethics. Because in some cases people are rule more by feeling and in some cases more by logic and reason. While I would pick logic and reason people can't always decide on that for themselves.

So a person isolated from others, from culture doesn't have feelings?

I should have said the culture is a major factor in the development of our morals, but not the only factor. It would be very difficulty for a person who grew up in isolation to assimilate into a culture which is foreign to them.

That's not to say these things don't contribute. To the contrary, I think that culture is important in determining the unspoken rules of a society or groups. For example, being polite. There's no requirement to be polite, but if you want to experience this first hand, just go to a friends party. Eat all the chips, be loud and obnoxious, burp, fart don't flush etc. and see if you ever get invited again. That's the effect of culture.

But all of these things lack the gravity of the kinds of rules in society that have the greatest consequences, things that can lead to serious harm or death. Those experiences that give rise to values and the code of morality and laws they give rise to cannot be dismissed as mere feelings as they are grounded in objective realities of human experience.

When you lack experience, you will have to fall back on feelings where fear, which causes you to flee may save your life. You can't always assume experience or even the willingness to embrace it. People are simply not always ruled by logic and reason. In fact I think it is more the exception.

I think you see more the ideal whereas I see the reality. Humans are more often ruled by their emotions.

And I have no problem agreeing with that. I'd go a step farther and say I'm not sure it's possible to ever "get there", but I do think that humans can improve their experiences by embracing a few objective facts about human experiences and creating rules to meet the goals that we set for ourselves.

Yes, again the ideal.

I'm reminded of a line from the Matrix I'll adapt to this discussion. People make [moral] choices all the time but cannot see beyond the choices they do not understand.

I think that's very true.

And this the reality of where we are.

But that's a feature, not a bug. The imperfection in the system means that we have to be vigilant. Morality is not something that happens to us passively it takes effort in the context of our circumstances which are constantly changing, internally in the light of new information and externally in light of our environment.

Good convo,

Cheers

Our disagreement I suppose in definition.
Morality, right and wrong based on feelings.
Ethics, right and wrong based on logic and reason.

Ideally logic and reason should rule however more often than not, it's feelings.
When I deal with people, almost always it is their feelings I have to deal with. Not their logic and reason.

 

[EconGuy]

Our disagreement I suppose in definition.

It would seem that way.

We should probably tackle this first....

Morality, right and wrong based on feelings.

Ethics, right and wrong based on logic and reason.

Morals and ethics both attempt to distinguish good from bad or unacceptable behavior. Morals are general principles codifying widely accepted values of the community; they are dependent on and maintained through public approval or sanctions. Ethics are consensual rules or standards that govern a profession or cohesive group; they are enforced by the group, with expulsion as the ultimate penalty. Laws are based on both to define and regulate the duties and obligations of citizens to each other and to the state; they are enforced by the police power of the state and to an extent, culture.

But in reality these terms are interchangeable as the opinion among most moral philosophers I've read.

I think the distinction you are making, if I may, is the difference between morals and morality. Where morals are how an individual considers actions, or lack of action, that are right or wrong, where morality, in a reasonably free society, is the consensus view on right and wrong.

So while a person can have individual morals they adhere to, there is no such thing as "individual morality", just as you can be a teammate, but you cannot be a team. Morality only makes sense in the context of others.

As far as "feelings vs logic and reason", I'm not aware of a definition that specifically states that one is logical and reasonable and the other is not. I think people can use feelings or intuition as a guide vs logic and reason when considering morals or ethics.

When I deal with people, almost always it is their feelings I have to deal with. Not their logic and reason.

Quite right!

Simply that one can always setup the correct answer based on the scenario they create. IOW, the correct in this case is not always the correct answer in every case.

Perfect analogues are difficult to come by, but your argument can't really be to point out that my argument is flawed simply because my premise is consistent with my conclusion?

The point of ice cream vs glass is a simple one. Human decisions about morals/ morality aren't purely arbitrary (despite claims to the contrary), they are grounded in tangible experience and more to the point, we can apply reason and facts about the consequences of some actions over others. So while we can debate actions that have questionable outcomes (are EV's causing more harm than good?) there are other choices that people realize universally as bad if the word bad means anything. So yes, my moral philosophy requires some a priori assumptions (as do all moral philosophies). I happen to ground mine in the very real, objective measurable states of conscious beings. You point out that those states aren't always universal, you might feel differently about chocolate than I do, but I'm willing to bet that you're not willing to eat a bowl of broken glass. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet there isn't a single member of this forum that would choose broken glass over chocolate. I'd bet, I could stand outside the super market in my town for years and never find anyone that would choose broken glass. So while some actions and their consequences are based, as you say, on how people might feel differently about them, there are others that are not and that seems like a good starting point.

Thus, while I would agree that our experiences can be largely subjective, the ones that cause acute harm and suffering, those are universal. As a result, humans define those experiences as bad and we create entire social systems trying to limit them.

The problem is when actions (or lack of) have fewer less tangible consequences. It can be hard to decide what is right or wrong. The moral calculus becomes much more difficult and subjective.

It's not the usefulness of morality I'm arguing against it is the universality of any particular set of morals.

Just as a world with a system of measurement is better than a world without it (is that just my opinion?), the world is better off with systems of right and wrong based on avoiding harm and suffering.

Now I've conceded and I'd be surprised of we didn't agree the devil is in the details. Having a moral system (morality) isn't much good unless people understand it. Just like a person playing soccer who doesn't understand the rules might look at all the idiots kicking the ball and decide to pick it up and run with it.

I don't think that there exists any objective morality independent of beings that might implement a morality to achieve certain social goals based on values derived from experience.

And this the reality of where we are.

Agreed, this is why conversations like this are often so vacuous. We don't study philosophy as part of our up brining and this is the result.

Basically I don't see a problem changing my morals/ethics to something other than what they are, to something more appropriate to the state of the world.

Neither do I. I don't have a set or fixed standard of morality, though I think at any given moment when external factors are what they are, there are tangible better actions over other actions.

But over time these things can changes because the external factors change (I'm defining what is not known as an external factor).