|
| 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 May 22, 2013 11:40 PM |
|
|
|
The thing is while there are certain scientific methods to measure if the earth revolves around the sun or the other way around, the second situation is more of a gray era in comparison. And you're too much of an essentialist when it comes to human nature. Most philosophers who focus on ethics suggest ways to push above human nature, not trusting it completely. That's what Nietzsche's ubermensch is about for instance, that's why Freud (although not a philosopher) says we develop a superego FIGHTING the id. Essentialism on human nature, especially if it's too optimistic, can be very deceiving.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:46 PM |
|
|
I'm not suggesting that one should act as human nature suggests. Certainly there are some aspects of it that may have made sense in the past, for evolutionary reasons, but are no longer good today. What I am suggesting is that there are certain things that make humans happy (or unhappy), due to human nature, and that is the standard of good and bad. Of course, doing so requires rational adaptations and thinking that may go against what is instinctive.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 22, 2013 11:50 PM |
|
|
I wonder: is there a scientific metric for "good"? Can such a thing be quantified? If the choice between two moral alternatives is able to be solved objectively, it would seem to me there must be an objective measurement of the metric that determines the choice. So what is it?
____________
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
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 01:33 AM |
|
|
|
I don't think moral dilemmas are that quantitative. That's why tragedies are written.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 02:35 AM |
|
|
If you can objectively say that "this" exceeds "that", then there has to be a quantitative metric to make this determination. Otherwise whatever evaluations you make are subjective because it's just based on "feeling", "gut", "instinct" or whatever. If morality is objective, there must be a quantitative metric for what is good. It must be measurable. If there isn't, how can morality be objective?
____________
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
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 02:44 AM |
|
|
|
Well, I never said it was objective or universal (as in unconditionally omnipresent), I said it's historicalness (I know, no such word) does not make it less valuable. But maybe you're addressing Mvass with that question. And usually in tragedies the poor b*****ds can't decide what exceeds what and they are ruined, hence it's tragic.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 02:54 AM |
|
|
Corribus:
Before I answer your question, let me ask you to think of something you enjoy. Now determine how much you like it - quantitatively. You can say "I'd rather do X than Y", or "I'd rather have n units of X than m units of Y", but that is barely quantitative. Does that mean that you don't really like anything? Of course not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 03:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Corribus:
Before I answer your question, let me ask you to think of something you enjoy. Now determine how much you like it - quantitatively. You can say "I'd rather do X than Y", or "I'd rather have n units of X than m units of Y", but that is barely quantitative. Does that mean that you don't really like anything? Of course not.
I see where you'll get through there. The thing is, moral principles or rights not being absolute does not mean they can be replaced arbitrarily anytime by any means. The alternative to absolute values is not "oh, so they don't mean anything at all then" That's why I gave the example of language earlier, saying language changes overtime and there is no absolute true grammar does not mean that I can make up something like drasonder guman tor tentaberiadog ardouvarezan and pass it on as a legitimate, meaningful sentence. The worst enemy of good is not bad, it's perfect.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 03:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I wonder: is there a scientific metric for "good"? Can such a thing be quantified? If the choice between two moral alternatives is able to be solved objectively, it would seem to me there must be an objective measurement of the metric that determines the choice. So what is it?
The only real scientific answer is that if you first measure good, you must can measure it in "things that could be avoided by not setting up a dilemma in the first place".
Because if you have the choice of 2 evils, it can not be measured in a single unit. If you had the choice of avoiding to chose the 2 evils, you then have a real metric.
For instance, if there is crime, you get a gun to protect yourself, and end up killing a criminal, and yet at the same time that person might be important to somebody else, so the question is: Why would the chain of reactions happens if there was no crime?
And yes, it is a horrible example.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Corribus:
Before I answer your question, let me ask you to think of something you enjoy. Now determine how much you like it - quantitatively. You can say "I'd rather do X than Y", or "I'd rather have n units of X than m units of Y", but that is barely quantitative. Does that mean that you don't really like anything? Of course not.
Actually, I could think of a potential metric to measure how much I enjoy something - release of endorphins and other neurotransmitters, and I believe there are plenty of studies in support of this - although it would be a rather inconvenient metric to use. The availability of this metric makes a little sense, because feeling pleasure is predominantly (wholly) a biochemical process.
Supposing you could use release of neurotransmitters as a metric for what is enjoyable - I think you'd find that different things are enjoyable to different people. Which is why "what is enjoyable" is relative. You cannot answer that question in any general fashion that would apply to all people... except perhaps that what is enjoyable is that which releases certain neurotransmitters. In that sense, "what is enjoyable" could be considered to have an objective answer - probably far more objective than "what is good" - although the practical result is obviously different for different people.
Even so, "what is pleasurable" is quite a different question than "what is (morally) good". The former is biochemical. The latter is metaphysical. So fundamentally it's a poor analogy anyway. Still, whenever a person makes any kind of judgment, there must be SOME metric that he/she uses to weigh the options, even if it's only qualitative. But if it IS qualitative, as it almost certainly must be for "what is good", then almost by definition - quality vs. quantity - there's a measure of subjectivity involved.
(Also I'd point out that "what is pleasurable" is really only associated with the self; "what is good" is associated with a conflict between the needs/benefits of the self, individuals close to the self, and society as a whole. This fact makes "what is good" far more situational and far more subjective, because various individuals are more or less likely to value the self over others, and these evaluations are likely to change over time.)
____________
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
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:15 AM |
|
|
Corribus:
You can measure neurotransmitters, but they'll only tell you part of the story. If you test yourself, you may be able to figure out how neurotransmitters are correlated with your subjective feeling of enjoyment. But how do you know that this correlation is the same for everyone? You have access to neurotransmitter levels, but not to other people's subjective experiences.
People do have different preferences, but there is an objective human nature that is common to humans, just as there is objective human health that is common to humans. There are certain virtues and ways of acting (in a broad sense) that when applied to humans result in human happiness.
And "quantity vs quality" is a difficult distinction. Suppose you have a lot of something. What does that mean, quantitatively? It could have different meanings, depending on what it is, who's saying it, etc. But however much it is, "a lot" is more than "a little" (of the same thing), and anyone who disputes this is objectively wrong. So if you say "I don't know the value of X-Y, but I know X>Y", is that sufficiently quantitative for you? Something can be objective but not quantifiable (in the normal sense), such as if it's ordinal.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People do have different preferences, but there is an objective human nature that is common to humans, just as there is objective human health that is common to humans. There are certain virtues and ways of acting (in a broad sense) that when applied to humans result in human happiness.
For someone who constantly keeps mentioning an objective human nature and platform of happiness, you are really short of solid examples. All you bring on the table are generalizations in the broadest sense. When people object WITH SOLID EXAMPLES (fictional or historical), you don't say much to falsify that example itself, you again lean on an alleged human nature. How is your platform going to be produced and what exactly is it, in this world we live in?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:55 AM |
|
|
You want some solid examples? Here are some things that objectively affect human happiness:
1. Friendship. Having some level of friendship is conducive to happiness.
2. Aggression. Being aggressive makes people less happy.
3. Rationality. People who can think about themselves and the external world rationally are better able to optimize and become happy.
4. Justice. Acting justly is conducive to happiness, while acting unjustly is corrosive to it.
5. Benevolence. Helping others to the correct degree (more than nothing, but not to the extent that you're depriving yourself) is conducive to one's happiness.
I could go on, but you probably get the picture.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 05:39 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 05:44, 23 May 2013.
|
Quote:
1. Friendship. Having some level of friendship is conducive to happiness.
On the contrary, I find the obligations of social interactions tiresome. I'd far prefer - and am far happier - spending time by myself. Overgeneralization.
Quote:
2. Aggression. Being aggressive makes people less happy.
Then why are people aggressive? Athletes, hunters, soldiers, investment bankers, gamers... I could go on. You telling me none of these people are happy doing what they do? ... Why do we like watching violent movies and playing violent video games? Overgeneralization.
Quote:
3. Rationality. People who can think about themselves and the external world rationally are better able to optimize and become happy.
You clearly never met a woman. 
Quote:
4. Justice. Acting justly is conducive to happiness, while acting unjustly is corrosive to it.
There must be a lot of people who love to be unhappy, then. Either that, or there are just a lot of people who don't care about justice at all. Overgeneralization.
Quote:
5. Benevolence. Helping others to the correct degree (more than nothing, but not to the extent that you're depriving yourself) is conducive to one's happiness.
That's what you call objective? The "correct degree" is rather arbitrary and subjective, no? Who's to say my version of the correct degree is different than yours? Again, seems subjective.
Quote:
I could go on, but you probably get the picture.
The picture I'm getting is that you have a tendency to overgeneralize. Even if I agreed that these examples all positively affect happiness in a general, average sense, the degree to which they do varies quite a bit from person to person depending on their individual preferences, cultural attributes, psychological state, and so forth. Seems to me that's practically the definition of happiness being subjective.
To the crux of it:
Quote:
People do have different preferences, but there is an objective human nature that is common to humans, just as there is objective human health that is common to humans. There are certain virtues and ways of acting (in a broad sense) that when applied to humans result in human happiness.
All I'm seeing from you is broad assertions that fail due to variations uncovered upon close inspection. If there is an objective "human nature" (whatever that means), you are doing a pretty poor job of explaining what it is.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 07:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I wonder: is there a scientific metric for "good"?
As long as "good" is not a term and doesn't have universal, unambiguous meaning, it can't have a scientific metric. "Good" is a general expression of thousands of possible conditions which may be diametrically opposite when compared. In society, there's no universal "good" but only agreed upon "good" which is limited in space and time. And there's zero problem with that. Dynamics and change are an inherent property of the whole world.
Quote:
1. Friendship. Having some level of friendship is conducive to happiness.
2. Aggression. Being aggressive makes people less happy.
3. Rationality. People who can think about themselves and the external world rationally are better able to optimize and become happy.
4. Justice. Acting justly is conducive to happiness, while acting unjustly is corrosive to it.
5. Benevolence. Helping others to the correct degree (more than nothing, but not to the extent that you're depriving yourself) is conducive to one's happiness.
As already mentioned, neither of these is universally true. You should really get over the idea that the human nature has one explanation only.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 08:40 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 08:43, 23 May 2013.
|
@mvass
On a thread focusing on the question of rights and their foundations and especially moral foundations, you came up with quite irrelevant titles... Friendship? Should our first law be One shall not be oversensitive to pranks. Rationality for happiness, what happened to ignorance is bliss, how about neurosis is the price of civilization.* Justice? I've read about some mob bosses dying happy in their bed. Who'll decide what's the right degree of benevolence as you put it? Besides, these are some general concepts again, not rights or moral norms that constitute a solid platform. We are discussing the very foundations of justice here, is it measured by universal or historical principles? To make a point of justice being measured by universal principles you bring in justice as an entry. Again, a tautology.
*Freud
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:49 AM |
|
|
I think, you go at this from the wrong perspective. Society isn't like society. A family is a different kind of society than a clan. A clan is something different than a village, a village is different from a town, a town is different from a city, a city is different from a county and so on, up to the whole world.
The basic "institution" to "learn" (humans learn things) all for this thread relevant things are THE FAMILY (which may later expand to "family and friends"), but all things necessary to have a satisfactory, mutually beneficial, respectful and "moral" society are related to SMALL groups with PERSONAL relations.
The bigger a society gets, the more ABSTRACT a concept cohesion and solidarity within said society become, making it more difficult to have amicable relations overall, leading to a non-aggression situation.
You might say, that there is a critical mass within each society where true non-aggression is possible with a foundation of real feelings, and when it becomes an abstract concept - a mere idea without much reality to support it.
This is the reason, why there are so many small societies within the big one, because there IS a lot of aggression within a bigger society, simple because there is such a wide variety of differences in life situations.
Additionally, a certain aggression is absolutely necessary due to the idea of competition. Competition is an important concept, socially as well as evolutionary, and you need balls for that - a certain kind of aggressiveness. The idea of competition means, that one side will win while another will lose, which has a lot of aggressive potential.
Now, obviously, there IS a lot of aggression, and the main question, socially spoken, is, how a society is VENTING or even CANALIZING aggression. Meaning, it's not enough to make the laws, you have to accept things the way they are ande defuse them, if you want a society to function.
Make no mistake, aggression is part of human nature (just as sexual desire), and mistrust against a separate or different society is just as normal as trying to keep your "main" society small and personal: the thing is to CONTROL the aggression and use it for other purposes, which is where moral comes into play.
However, there is no natural law that says, non-aggression is the only thing that works - remember, there is ALWAYS aggression. In a way, a society that, on the surface, is non-aggressively organized (direct violent aggression between competitors is out), is unfair for those who are physically strong, but mentally weak, because there isn't much to compete - mainly sports (to become rich and famous).
Question: If someone uses his brains to "slap" you - is it wrong, when you can't compete, to use your brawn to get even and slap back?
I'm inclined to say, no, because it makes no sense to compete on a level you are clearly outmatched on. But what, if the personal level is not between two nobodys in some dive, but between Kings? What if the King of France slaps the King of England with an offensive remark? Is it still right to use your brawn to get even and slap back?
The bottom line is, that there is no right to be treated non-aggressively, simply because LIFE as such is aggressive. You are living in a situation of perpetual competition, and you have to be aggressive to succeed.
Moral and laws determine the rules, but how that rules actually look, depends on many things, and whether people keep to the rules depend on how fair the rules are and how much chances to compete they give. Aggression is something that is felt SUBJECTIVELY. If someone feels that society isn't fair to him, they will make their own rules, and if they are clever enough, they will build their own small society with their own rules around them to exist within the bigger one, but playing with slightly altered rules.
Conversely, if people are too successfully competing, there is the danger that they feel superior and play to their own rules as well.
Maybe this might prove an entertaining and quite interesting read:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God%27s_Eye] Niven/Pournelle: The Mote in God's Eye[/url]
when it comes to the relativity of morals.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 10:20 AM |
|
|
Corribus:
Quote:
I find the obligations of social interactions tiresome.
Some people are bad at interacting socially in a way that's good for them. They could be socially awkward, too bound by obligations, not find much of interest to talk about, etc. That does not mean that friendship isn't good for them, it only means that they don't know how to make use of it properly. You wouldn't say that if someone sticks pills in their ears and then doesn't derive any benefit from them, then the pills aren't good for that person. The same is true here - friendship is good, but it is necessary to know what you're looking for, have some idea of what other people are looking for, etc. Depending on one's preferences, it may be a good idea to be selective - because having no friends could be better than spending time with uninteresting (or even malicious) acquaintances. But it is good for anyone to have friends with whom they enjoy interacting - there is no one for whom the optimal number of friends is zero. Also, I know you're married, and therefore in a romantic relationship, which has all of the elements of friendship - and I assume you do enjoy being married.
Quote:
Then why are people aggressive? Athletes, hunters, soldiers, investment bankers, gamers...
Of these, only soldiers are genuinely aggressive (unless the hunters are hunting humans or animals that belong to other people). By "aggressive" I meant "non-defensive and non-corrective use of violence or fraud". And if you notice - soldiers aren't that happy on average, especially if they've been in combat. PTSD, etc.
Quote:
You clearly never met a woman.
Sexist jokes aren't that funny. Also, if you consider the stereotypical irrational woman (which many women aren't), she's not happy - in fact, she's quite unhappy.
Quote:
There must be a lot of people who love to be unhappy, then. Either that, or there are just a lot of people who don't care about justice at all.
It's not that they love being unhappy, it's that they haven't given much thought to what would make them happy, which is the case for many people. Or they're happy, but they don't realize that they could be happier. Those are the normal cases. In the less normal cases, people can have mental problems that prevent normal things from making them happy - either depression, in which the sufferer is less happy than he should be (and should seek treatment) or sociopathy. The existence of depressed people and sociopaths doesn't mean that something isn't objectively good for humans, just like the existence of colds doesn't mean that it's not objectively good to not have a cold.
Quote:
That's what you call objective? The "correct degree" is rather arbitrary and subjective, no?
The correct degree is different from person to person, but within a range, and something outside that range is objectively bad. For example, never helping others is too little, and giving away all your wealth and working 80 hours a week at a high-paying job and giving all your money to charity (beyond what you need to survive to continue working) is too much. It's much like a diet - how many calories you should eat depends on your metabolism, activity level, and other factors, but eating 0 calories a day is definitely too little and eating 20,000 is too much.
artu:
You asked about objective human nature and happiness, and I provided some examples. Some of what I listed, such as justice and rationality, does apply to rights, albeit indirectly. Of course, "What is good for a human?" and "What rights exist, if any?" are separate questions, although the answer to the second depends on the first. In particular, because self-preservation is vitally important for a human, it is good to have non-aggression. There are other things that are good for humans, some of which I listed, but they do not necessarily have anything to do with rights (although some of them do). As far as justice goes, it is conducive to one's happiness to act justly, assuming one is a mentally healthy human. That does not mean that someone who is unjust cannot be happy - someone who smokes can live to an old age, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't bad for your health - but that lack of justice in personal conduct reduces happiness, and the presence of justice increases it. Though you're right in that what is just is determined by principles, what I'm saying by listing justice is that it is a fact about human nature that being just is conducive to happiness.
Quote:
what happened to ignorance is bliss
It's completely false. Ignorance is not bliss, ignorance is bad. Being knowledgeable and rational means you can better deal with the world as it is. If something is bad, you can identify the problem systematically, instead of continuing to suffer from something you don't understand. If something is good, you can figure out how to get more of it. People say "ignorance is bliss" because they were happy and ignorant as children - but they misidentify the cause and think they were happy because they were ignorant, when the reality is that they were happy because they didn't have many serious concerns and adults were taking care of them. "Knowledge is power" is a much truer statement, and "knowledge is happiness" is even truer.
As for benevolence, see my response to Corribus.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 10:29 AM |
|
|
|
No I asked about the platform (which was in bold font) of that happiness in a thread regarding rights and their moral foundations. My exact question was "How is your platform going to be produced and what exactly is it, in this world we live in?" Don't re-produce my question out of your answer.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 10:39 AM |
|
|
artu:
And it is a response to that. It's part of a platform of happiness, and examples of things that are objectively good for human happiness due to human nature.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
