|
| Thread: Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted October 19, 2014 01:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What human nature is isn't a matter of opinion, any more than gravity is.
If the question on the table is psychopathic murder, that is so. However, when you put aside nihilistic hyperbole and discuss what is moral and not in a more realistic sense, things change. Is intellectual property theft moral or immoral? The technology that allows infinite duplication of intellectual property as in duplicating the mp3 file of a copyrighted song for example, also results in a debate about morality. And then, the answer won't be as simple as "murder free society sucks." What we define as property radically changes, when it changes from a LP that is physical material, to an mp3 file that can be distributed without any cost of raw material. You'll still have different opinions but one of the answers wont be easily made into an analogy of "gravity exists."
Quote:
The one that enjoys murder would beg to differ. He says that he knows better than you what's best for him and he decided that he would pursue happiness no matter what the cost, because that's his ultimate goal in life.
Yes, such people exist. But they are insignificant in a debate about what morality is and how come it exists the way it does.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2014 01:14 AM |
|
Edited by kayna at 01:14, 19 Oct 2014.
|
|
By the gods you people are arguing about infinitely microscopic morals ; the atoms and quarks of what is right and wrong.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2014 01:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The one that enjoys murder would beg to differ. He says that he knows better than you what's best for him and he decided that he would pursue happiness no matter what the cost, because that's his ultimate goal in life.
For this to be the rational choice for him - if this is really what would make him happiest - he would have to get so much out of being able to murder that it has higher value for him than the combination of the possibility of being murdered and the absence of all the other benefits of peaceful society. This strikes me as extremely implausible.Quote:
It doesn't matter what human nature is to our conversation, since it can be established that its source is ultimately human, the individual, which makes it subjective so not fit as a standard.
You might as well say that the source of humans having two hands is also human nature, and therefore subjective and not fit as a standard for anything. But that would be nonsense. The same applies here - just because it comes from humans doesn't mean it's arbitrary.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 19, 2014 03:06 AM |
|
|
|
By being overarithmetical, you miss the a priori social context, which is not about why the calculations that you reduce morality into will result in the optimum, but why we seek the optimum in social encounter. No matter how introverted a human is, he will instinctively try to be relatable. An infamously misanthropic philosopher who sits in his cabin in the woods and writes a journal about how idiotic the rest of humanity is, then locks his journal in the drawer, still writes. That is not a calculation but a tendency, the tendency is what causes morality to evolve, not the calculation. That's why sociopaths are insignificant in search of understanding how morality is existent in the first place, morality is older than deliberate pragmatism and it can not be sorely explained by it.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2014 11:09 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 11:31, 19 Oct 2014.
|
Quote:
For this to be the rational choice for him - if this is really what would make him happiest - he would have to get so much out of being able to murder that it has higher value for him than the combination of the possibility of being murdered and the absence of all the other benefits of peaceful society. This strikes me as extremely implausible.
The individual is sovereign over himself to decide what makes him happy. We do not have the authority within ourselves to decide over him. What we perceive as right or wrong has the same value as what another perceives as right or wrong, even if contradictory.
Also, I do not see why you included "all other benefits if peaceful society" since this does not necessarily follow from murder. An individual can very well enjoy his daily life without restriction, especially if he's wealthy.
Quote:
You might as well say that the source of humans having two hands is also human nature, and therefore subjective and not fit as a standard for anything. But that would be nonsense. The same applies here - just because it comes from humans doesn't mean it's arbitrary.
In which case you switched the meaning of the phrase "human nature" to a biological explanation, so it's a false analogy. Here's what you said about it:
Quote:
But as for human nature, it shapes what would be rational for a human to do. It's not preventing you from doing something, it partially determines what you should do. It's not a hindrance, it's part of who you are.
So if you meant that human nature is biological and if we apply your example, then that sentence would translate into: "But as for human nature, it shapes that growing two hands would be rational for a human to do, It's not preventing you to not grow two hands, it partially determines that you should grow two hands. It's not a hindrance, it's part of who you are.". Would not growing two hands be irrational then? It's obvious that the meaning of the phrase "human nature" that you used was not a biological meaning. So don't bait and switch.
But granted that human nature is indeed biological therefore objective and rational like growing two hands, then all behavior resulting from human nature is as objective and rational, including murder.
And yes, if it comes from human perception of right or wrong, is nothing else but arbitrary. Of course, biology is not arbitrary.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 19, 2014 09:10 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:52, 19 Oct 2014.
|
Quote:
if it comes from human perception of right or wrong
There is no "if" and all you can do is call your ignorance faith.
Even if there was a god, and even if it was the Christian God, his message still goes through human perception. That's why there are zillions of sects and zillions of Christians with different ideas about what is right and wrong.
You are talking page after page only by ignoring an undeniably simple truth, which was the first thing that had been explained to you:
Quote:
As long as a god don't prove himself to everybody on a one on one basis, like we are all prophets who communicate with him directly, you will have subjectivity, interpretation and different outcome about what is moral or not even within the people of the same faith.
You can not by-pass subjectivity by omniscience, as long as you are not omniscient yourself, it's a logical fallacy.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 19, 2014 09:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The individual is sovereign over himself to decide what makes him happy. We do not have the authority within ourselves to decide over him.
That assertion also has to be justified. Though I tend to agree with this principle in general, there are some cases in which someone can act contrary to their interests, and then they'd want to be stopped if they were rational. For example, a heroin addict wants to continue to use more heroin, but what would really make them happy is to stop being a heroin addict. They would rationally endorse being stopped (though they may not actually endorse it, because they're not rational), and so if we were to stop them, we'd be acting in accordance with what they'd want us to do if they were in a rational state.
As for human nature, yes, it is biological. But being capable of choice is part of human nature, and humans can exercise that in a way that is self-harming once other parts of their nature are taken into account. People are capable of making irrational choices.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 12:01 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 00:02, 20 Oct 2014.
|
I think I know what the problem is. Do you think that if you decide that a behavior is irrational, that gives you the authority to ignore someone's free will?
I think a final example might settle this. Do you think that people who commit suicide are irrational? And if you do, do you think that that gives you the right to forcefully prevent their choice to suicide?
About human nature, I think behavior is both determined by biology and uprising. Nature and nurture as they say. Ever heard of warrior gene? There have been a lot of cases of murder lately where people carrying that type of gene have been acquitted from murdering someone. Not in self defense, to make things clear. Just like this fellow killed his wife and her friend and chopped them to pieces - read. Which is why I say it doesn't matter what human nature is. If you value biology, then every action biologically determined is right, even murder. At the same time, if you value choice, then every action determined by free will is right, murder included.
So, as I said, no matter if it's biology or choice you can still motivate murder as being right. Which leaves us with Murder not being intrinsically wrong.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 01:44 AM |
|
|
It does not compute. There are also people who enlist in the military to be able to kill legitimately, nobody denies their existence. Morality is a social construct that some people are willing to ignore but it being a social construct does not make it completely arbitrary. It has sociological, rational, biological and historical foundations. In any modern society, freedom of choice is limited with freedom of others and their legal rights. There will always be people who do not recognize that and boohoo, yes, sometimes they indeed get away with crimes. But they are insignificant when you look at how morality is built as a social structure. They are not insignificant because they are not the majority, they are insignificant because they don't nullify the concept of morality. A psychopath is a clinically sick person, he is not the norm of typical human behavior.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 04:51 AM |
|
|
Stevie said:
I think I know what the problem is. Do you think that if you decide that a behavior is irrational, that gives you the authority to ignore someone's free will?
For us to be sufficiently sure that an action is irrational, it has to clear a high bar of obvious irrationality. It's not enough to merely decide that a behavior is irrational, we have to be really, really sure, especially once you account for self-serving biases and related problems. But if it clears this high bar, then we can indeed act in ways that are more in the interests of the person who's acting. This is something they can't rationally reject, because it's what they'd want if they didn't have whatever issue is preventing them from being rational, e.g. a heroin addiction.
Quote:
I think a final example might settle this. Do you think that people who commit suicide are irrational?
I think there are cases where suicide is rational, such as if you're suffering from some kind of painful condition and don't anticipate recovery. There are also cases in which suicide is irrational. Sometimes forcefully preventing someone's suicide attempts is justified, and at other times it isn't - it depends on the specific conditions.
Quote:
Which is why I say it doesn't matter what human nature is. If you value biology, then every action biologically determined is right, even murder. At the same time, if you value choice, then every action determined by free will is right, murder included..
 Neither of those statements makes sense.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 09:38 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 09:41, 20 Oct 2014.
|
Ok, I see where you stand. It doesn't matter what conditions you invoke if at least some of them allow suicide as the right decision for you. That settles the intrinsically amoral character of suicide.
Quote:
Neither of those statements makes sense.
Let me rephrase then. You said that human nature is biological and determines what is rational for an individual to do. If murder has a biological basis like the warrior gene, then at least that type of murder is right. Which again leaves murder as intrinsically amoral.
I said that human nature is both biological and uprising, nature and nurture determine behavior. The case for biological basis has been made above for you. But someone might argue that to him it's uprising that matters more than biology, then if I grew up being thought that murder is right, then murder is right for me. Hope you got it now.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 11:31 AM |
|
|
|
If you are thought to sacrifice a virgin to stop an epidemic, you will most probably sacrifice a virgin to stop an epidemic. Your actions will be based on the wrong presumption that an epidemic is caused by the wrath of gods, not the spread of micro organisms, though.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 06:49 PM |
|
|
Stevie:
I think I see where the misunderstanding is. I'm not arguing that whatever actions human nature causes are automatically justified. I'm arguing that the actions are justified are those that make the agent happy, and what would make an agent happiest is partially determined by human nature. The key distinction here is that humans' biological nature can cause them to act and have beliefs that don't contribute to their happiness, and when that happens, the act/belief is wrong. Racism is a good example of something that's (at least partially) innate but self-harming, because it's both based on false premises and prevents people of different races from benefitting from mutual interaction.
As for being taught that murder is right making murder right for you, that doesn't follow either. The question is whether murder being right is rational, and that doesn't depend on what you were taught.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 08:24 PM |
|
|
You can still have murder being right.
If it brings me happiness, it's right.
If it's biologically determined, like in the cases of warrior gene, then it's right.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 09:21 PM |
|
|
When criminal behavior, specifically as marginal as murder is the case, you can have
1- Psychological reasons (Anti-social personality murder, psychopathy, sociopathy, passion crimes, going berserk etc.)
2- Environmental reasons (Poverty, living around gangs, being born into the mafia...)
3- Cultural reasons (Honor killings, religious fanaticism, vendetta...)
These are completely unrelated to your existencial comprehension about the universe. Where as most mafia members have a theistic view of life, an overwhelming amount of academics are atheists, and guess who are the killers. Nobody sits under a tree, philosophically concludes that without God murder cant be intrinsically wrong and starts shooting people off. Murder can't be intrinsically right or wrong because nothing in this world can be intrinsically right or wrong without the mind that perceives it, it's a concept that does not correspond to reality, not much different than rectangular circle. Only non-normative things can be intrinsic such as tigers being carnivores or copper being a metal.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 09:38 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
If it's biologically determined, like in the cases of warrior gene, then it's right.
Please reread my previous post. I responded to this point already.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 20, 2014 11:26 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 23:28, 20 Oct 2014.
|
|
I did and I still can't agree with it. If I'm born with a powerful predisposition to murder then how can you say that if I murder I'm wrong? I'm just fulfilling my natural impulses which is also a form of obtaining happiness.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2014 12:02 AM |
|
|
psychopathy and sociopathy are the same thing. sociopathy is the newer term for psychopathy.
and while we're on the subject of murder; is it murder, if you eat the person killed(or even use their bones to make tools/dishes; their skin and sinews to make clothes, etc)? or is that just eating, like an animal would eat? 
if you use the whole person(like american indians used the whole animal), is it still considered murder? or is there a nicer term for it?
just wondering if there is a general consensus for such a thing... 
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted October 21, 2014 12:04 AM |
|
|
fred, are you prepping for a case in court?
____________
none of my business.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 21, 2014 12:28 AM |
|
|
going to court implies that i got caught. so, no. 
|
| |
|
|
