Chitchat Any Philosophical Questions? (Pass the time... WITH YOUR MIND!)

[Retro109]

Hai!

<p><a href="<fileStore.core_Attachment>/monthly_2015_12/57a8c651d8c9f____arecoolfactsabouttheuniversethatmightmakeyourbrainhurt.jpg.60312473a55e8963581eeb85c36120cd.jpg" class="ipsAttachLink ipsAttachLink_image"><img data-fileid="91724" src="<fileStore.core_Attachment>/monthly_2015_12/57a8c651d8c9f____arecoolfactsabouttheuniversethatmightmakeyourbrainhurt.jpg.60312473a55e8963581eeb85c36120cd.jpg" class="ipsImage ipsImage_thumbnailed" alt=""></a></p>


So, you know sometimes you wonder about stuff, and you want to go talk about it, but no-one you really know wants to? Plz do that here! I'll start:


What is the best moral system?

Essentially, we'll never truly be able to tell the difference "right" and "wrong" actions, since one person may see robbing a bank as good and another bad. Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like universal morals or an absolute ethics.

 

[LegoLad659]

What is the best moral system?Essentially, we'll never truly be able to tell the difference "right" and "wrong" actions, since one person may see robbing a bank as good and another bad. Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like universal morals or an absolute ethics.

In my opinion, the morality of a subject is highly dependent on two things. First is the person themselves. You know, everyone has different views on life, and some things will be viewed as okay by one person while another may think it's abhorrent. So there's that to consider. A lot of people seem to agree on a few things that are most definitely immoral, though, such as rape or murder.


Second is the situation itself. In any normal situation, robbing a bank or something might seem like an immoral action, right? Well, what if you're given a choice between that and something far worse? (I dunno what, use your imagination guys xD And while we're at it, say we're being forced to choose between one or the other, at gunpoint or something) Suddenly the action of robbing a bank seems much more forgivable in comparison.


Situations and people are so incredibly varied that there's no way every single person could agree on a single system for morality, that's just not possible. That's just my theory, anyway. If there's one thing I'm good at it's theorizing about things I don't know a whole lot about at the time xD


...I hope I'm doing this right and not completely messing anything up.

 

[Retro109]

Perfect.

 

[Church418]

If a man talks in a forest, and no women are around to hear him, is he still wrong?

 

[Martyin]

Terrible 'feminists' would say men are wrong as long as they exist.


Yay I'm gonna try ranting a little tiny bit of a lot and more.


I like how 'robbing a bank' is one of the first general examples that come to mind, as the act of robbing a bank can easily not be considered immoral, but there is no doubt that it is illegal no matter what real context. Actually, exploring idea's as to what's illegal and not legal can be just as interesting as exploring the difference between what's immoral and moral. When it comes to law, you can be incredibly objective and detached, whereas when you're exploring morality you cannot necessarily be emotionally detached, as some could argue that your emotions can help dictate what's moral and immoral. In law, you have to ask yourself, why is robbing a bank illegal? Well, the very first charge that comes to mind is theft and vandalism. There is no doubt that these two things are illegal, you cannot simply steal from a bank and wreck their property in the act of getting their money. But in the area of morality, this could be viewed differently with all the context in the world.


Say a person who 'robs a bank' turns out to be a little 11 year old homeless child sneaking through a window, somehow stealing an envelope of money from the staff room in order to secure food for his sick, angelic mother. Was it right for the boy to steal? Well, no, but how many of us would feel okay with punishing someone in this particular situation?


On the flip side, a greedy group of men that simply don't know how to hold down a real job decide to rob a bank in broad daylight, regardless of the fact that there are dozens of innocent pedestrians that get dragged in as hostages. The more violent actions toward robbing a bank during the day, with guns-a-blazin' and all the good ole TV crap, can be pretty much immediately deemed as utterly immoral for the endangering of innocent lives.


It also makes me wonder, do any of you think certain things can be 'more moral' or 'more immoral' than others? If stealing is immoral, is it more immoral to steal from an old, struggling elderly person rather than a well-off millionaire, or is it all just immoral and one in the same?

 

[Idea]

In my opinion, the morality of a subject is highly dependent on two things. First is the person themselves. You know, everyone has different views on life, and some things will be viewed as okay by one person while another may think it's abhorrent. So there's that to consider. A lot of people seem to agree on a few things that are most definitely immoral, though, such as rape or murder.
Second is the situation itself. In any normal situation, robbing a bank or something might seem like an immoral action, right? Well, what if you're given a choice between that and something far worse? (I dunno what, use your imagination guys xD And while we're at it, say we're being forced to choose between one or the other, at gunpoint or something) Suddenly the action of robbing a bank seems much more forgivable in comparison.


Situations and people are so incredibly varied that there's no way every single person could agree on a single system for morality, that's just not possible. That's just my theory, anyway. If there's one thing I'm good at it's theorizing about things I don't know a whole lot about at the time xD


...I hope I'm doing this right and not completely messing anything up.

[QUOTE="Ethan Unken]Terrible 'feminists' would say men are wrong as long as they exist.
Yay I'm gonna try ranting a little tiny bit of a lot and more.


I like how 'robbing a bank' is one of the first general examples that come to mind, as the act of robbing a bank can easily not be considered immoral, but there is no doubt that it is illegal no matter what real context. Actually, exploring idea's as to what's illegal and not legal can be just as interesting as exploring the difference between what's immoral and moral. When it comes to law, you can be incredibly objective and detached, whereas when you're exploring morality you cannot necessarily be emotionally detached, as some could argue that your emotions can help dictate what's moral and immoral. In law, you have to ask yourself, why is robbing a bank illegal? Well, the very first charge that comes to mind is theft and vandalism. There is no doubt that these two things are illegal, you cannot simply steal from a bank and wreck their property in the act of getting their money. But in the area of morality, this could be viewed differently with all the context in the world.


Say a person who 'robs a bank' turns out to be a little 11 year old homeless child sneaking through a window, somehow stealing an envelope of money from the staff room in order to secure food for his sick, angelic mother. Was it right for the boy to steal? Well, no, but how many of us would feel okay with punishing someone in this particular situation?


On the flip side, a greedy group of men that simply don't know how to hold down a real job decide to rob a bank in broad daylight, regardless of the fact that there are dozens of innocent pedestrians that get dragged in as hostages. The more violent actions toward robbing a bank during the day, with guns-a-blazin' and all the good ole TV crap, can be pretty much immediately deemed as utterly immoral for the endangering of innocent lives.


It also makes me wonder, do any of you think certain things can be 'more moral' or 'more immoral' than others? If stealing is immoral, is it more immoral to steal from an old, struggling elderly person rather than a well-off millionaire, or is it all just immoral and one in the same?

[/QUOTE]

Hai!View attachment 204930


So, you know sometimes you wonder about stuff, and you want to go talk about it, but no-one you really know wants to? Plz do that here! I'll start:


What is the best moral system?

Essentially, we'll never truly be able to tell the difference "right" and "wrong" actions, since one person may see robbing a bank as good and another bad. Life is far too messy and complicated for there to be anything like universal morals or an absolute ethics.

Whether or not something is morale, has firstly to do with our values. Values such as life and all forms of freedom. Values such as cultural tolerance. And many , many others.


The first theory presented on this thread, is the currently popular "subjectivism". It states that what is right or wrong depends on the beliefs of oneself and on the circumstances presented.


I disagreeee with this idea. In my opinion, some values must be objective. An action is right or wrong, regardless of who did it. Why it was dome and under what circumstances, though, are still factors to consider.


One cannot, speaking in a non-poetic manner, be free AND dead. You can be alive, but not free and you can be alive and free. But once you cease to live, you can't be free anymore. So, naturally, life must be more important than freedom. Freedom is, in a sense,part of life.


To me, this is the important distinction of what is right or wrong. The more values are preserved, the better , more moral an action is. A character is immoral if it seeks to preserve values without preserving the values that are more important or if another action of equal, lesser or slightly higher effort and equal or greater odds of sucess could be done to respect more values.


In the given examples, a little girl robbing a bank to save her mother is moral. She is inflicting upon other people's right to personall property, but preserving a more important thing, someone's life. The guy who is bankropt and ends up assaulting the bank and taking hostages is both violating the other's right to property and their right to life all in order to preserve his own right to property.


As per the topic of legality versus morality, they have little to do with one another, in practice. In theory, legality is the formal writen expression of morality. In practice, it is a set of regulations created to insure the power and wealth of those who made it, and of those in power after them. Even if something may appear that is not beneficial to those people, one thing to remember is that order and prosperity of a country also benedict the rulers. On the contrary, morale befits people as people and takes no interests of ant given person in special account. That is the first rule of any reasonable morale: it is impartial.

 

[A L M O S]

I love Philosophy - I read it as an amateur - I think that there is no absolute morality as in things that can objectively be determined to be "wrong". Very much playing the devils advocate here, but this does not mean that there can not be "right" or "wrong" - there seems to be a bit of break between how we establish value in society - we think that because things are "objective or eternal" they have greater value, while things manufactured are never valid enough to justify morality. I think we really need to give our capacity for social order and our manufactured reason a chance - yes we might measure two things against one another, and establish that neither can have a greater value because neither stem eternally - but that still would not stop us from having to choose one, and we will need to create a reasoned set of parameters that measure these thing not on their supposed innate value, but rather their appropriateness considering what we know from a naturalistic view, looking first for obvious contradictions, and then moving on to greater subjects come into play - where we establish first that killing is not "wrong" - but rather why do we not want people to kill? In a world where i would condone murder, would i be content with dying by the hand of another? There is this beautiful Mental Exercise done by john RAWLS called the Veil of Ignorance - it tells one a lot about what basic needs a human wants. How quickly things like aspirations towards universal food, shelter, warmth, education - can be justified with pure reason, selfishness and a thought bubble.


I am sorry if nothing here makes sense, I am deathly tired, but I have to finish this because this website wont take away my "10 post" limiter, so i thought i might get it done before i go to bed, but now i find interesting forums everywhere!!! I will return to this i think, and probably edit most of it.

 

[Runin]

What is the impact of cleanliness on the human mind?

 

[Idea]

I love Philosophy - I read it as an amateur - I think that there is no absolute morality as in things that can objectively be determined to be "wrong". Very much playing the devils advocate here, but this does not mean that there can not be "right" or "wrong" - there seems to be a bit of break between how we establish value in society - we think that because things are "objective or eternal" they have greater value, while things manufactured are never valid enough to justify morality. I think we really need to give our capacity for social order and our manufactured reason a chance - yes we might measure two things against one another, and establish that neither can have a greater value because neither stem eternally - but that still would not stop us from having to choose one, and we will need to create a reasoned set of parameters that measure these thing not on their supposed innate value, but rather their appropriateness considering what we know from a naturalistic view, looking first for obvious contradictions, and then moving on to greater subjects come into play - where we establish first that killing is not "wrong" - but rather why do we not want people to kill? In a world where i would condone murder, would i be content with dying by the hand of another? There is this beautiful Mental Exercise done by john RAWLS called the Veil of Ignorance - it tells one a lot about what basic needs a human wants. How quickly things like aspirations towards universal food, shelter, warmth, education - can be justified with pure reason, selfishness and a thought bubble.
I am sorry if nothing here makes sense, I am deathly tired, but I have to finish this because this website wont take away my "10 post" limiter, so i thought i might get it done before i go to bed, but now i find interesting forums everywhere!!! I will return to this i think, and probably edit most of it.

The position you raised there is called cultural relativism- the belief that the values are subjective to the culture they belong in, rather than objective, concise with reality.


John Rawls began the exercise of the veil of ignorance in search for social justice: objectively speaking, what is the fairest way to distribute wealth? He came to the conclusion that, if everyone could be born as anything, at random, everyone would first make sure they were safe: The distribution of wealth would allow differences as long as it favored the less favored in life.


Now, for my beliefs. On the topic of values, specifically moral values, I beg this question: Can you be dead AND free? Dead and wealthy? No. There may be metaphors and the like with such statements, but pragmatically speaking, freedom requires you to be alive, as does owning things, etc... If you consider this, it becomes obvious that, in an objective manner, life is more important than any of those other values. I believe in a hierarchy of values, where values that are strictly dependent on another are beneath that value, creating several "layers" of values. The more important ones are those that morally should be given priority. Within those in the same layer, the utilitarian principle ("the one that produces the most happiness") is the criteria for any given decision. On the top layer are life and religious freedom.


In regards to social justice, I mostly agree with Rawls, however, I believe he suffers from the same flaw as many other forms of wealth distribution: He sees distribution as necessarily done by a singular method. Rather, I would suggest dividing it: The state should provide a subside that would allow people their basic necessities. Apart from that, people would use the money they earn for themselves for investing as they desire. Wealth differences might arise, but nobody would be deprived from the opportunity to grow should they wish to and have capacity for it.

 

[Idea]

What is the impact of cleanliness on the human mind?

what?

 

[Cavil]

What is the impact of cleanliness on the human mind?

You mean:


What is the impact of a tidy room on the human mind?


or


What is the impact of good hygiene on the human mind?

 

[Runin]

what?

You mean:
What is the impact of a tidy room on the human mind?


or


What is the impact of good hygiene on the human mind?

I was wondering about how cleanliness and architecture are able to affect the human mind.. Fractal patterns can help improve our imaginations is the way that I am understanding just the introduction of Poetics of Space.. and I was wondering if cleanliness might also help something like that.. ( )


I'm not able to comprehend this text all at once, so I feel more comfortable discussing it and taking it in bit by bit.. lol.


That wasn't going to be my question originally, though.. I was sort of afraid of asking something controversial and ended up asking something really vague..

 

[kibou]

Sadly for all of my love of psychology, I don't know anything about cleanliness beyond the fact that mild messes don't bother me but bugs being in close proximity make me intensely uncomfortable.


If a train was approaching a group of people, and you could pull a lever to switch the tracks and save them at the expense of one persons life, would you stream it on twitch?


As for a system, I'd agree that morality is subjective and you wouldn't be able to find a system that everyone agreed 100% to. Would you even be able to realistically gather 3 people and have them create a moral system that they all 100% agree with, even if they were, say, all a part of the same religious church? I can only imagine that at least one of them would find one thing to disagree on. Especially since there's so many different scenarios involved in something like considering every different aspect of a morality system.


Personally I don't believe true altruism exists and that there's no such thing as an 100% unselfish act.


I also kind of compare morals to aesthetics- when you think something is evil, you're thinking it's ugly. Not that comparing it to aesthetics makes immoral acts carry any less weight. We all have our own opinions on what's bad and good, and we all judge acts and their severity differently. Two people might agree that they're both bad, but one might prefer freedom over death and another death over freedom.


I also kind of consider morals as an important and understandable part of human evolution, and I don't think I'm very good at putting my more abstract thoughts into words but, like, of course some things are seen as bad and good and it all stems from self-interest... Survival is the most important, and having people be nice and interact with you in a "moral" way promotes your own survival. Humans are really social, and you yourself acting in a moral way increases your success in social situations.


I'm trying not to get off on a tangent, so I think my point basically boils down to that 1, morals are subjective and relative 2, just another aspect of our biology and self-interest (but also that their existence makes sense and that edgy people who look down on them are kinda dumb since those types always pop up) 3, there is no best moral system


As for laws and rules, they reflect the morals standard and "normal" to the culture, and are usually made for both morals and to protect people. What protection is considered needed is probably motivated by morals and empathy. I've never really been interested in studying laws though.


Sorry for my really disorganized post lol

 

[A L M O S]

Sadly for all of my love of psychology, I don't know anything about cleanliness beyond the fact that mild messes don't bother me but bugs being in close proximity make me intensely uncomfortable.
If a train was approaching a group of people, and you could pull a lever to switch the tracks and save them at the expense of one persons life, would you stream it on twitch?


As for a system, I'd agree that morality is subjective and you wouldn't be able to find a system that everyone agreed 100% to. Would you even be able to realistically gather 3 people and have them create a moral system that they all 100% agree with, even if they were, say, all a part of the same religious church? I can only imagine that at least one of them would find one thing to disagree on. Especially since there's so many different scenarios involved in something like considering every different aspect of a morality system.


Personally I don't believe true altruism exists and that there's no such thing as an 100% unselfish act.


I also kind of compare morals to aesthetics- when you think something is evil, you're thinking it's ugly. Not that comparing it to aesthetics makes immoral acts carry any less weight. We all have our own opinions on what's bad and good, and we all judge acts and their severity differently. Two people might agree that they're both bad, but one might prefer freedom over death and another death over freedom.


I also kind of consider morals as an important and understandable part of human evolution, and I don't think I'm very good at putting my more abstract thoughts into words but, like, of course some things are seen as bad and good and it all stems from self-interest... Survival is the most important, and having people be nice and interact with you in a "moral" way promotes your own survival. Humans are really social, and you yourself acting in a moral way increases your success in social situations.


I'm trying not to get off on a tangent, so I think my point basically boils down to that 1, morals are subjective and relative 2, just another aspect of our biology and self-interest (but also that their existence makes sense and that edgy people who look down on them are kinda dumb since those types always pop up) 3, there is no best moral system


As for laws and rules, they reflect the morals standard and "normal" to the culture, and are usually made for both morals and to protect people. What protection is considered needed is probably motivated by morals and empathy. I've never really been interested in studying laws though.


Sorry for my really disorganized post lol

A few very nice ideas, thanks for sharing. It does kind of always seem to boil down to survival doesn't it? It is most likely the closest thing we will ever have that could be considered an "inherent" goal - and even then we've established a plethora of situation where reason alone make blind survival seem not only stupid, but trivial. Perhaps that is the break here- we have come to expect that the correct thing is nosy likely the smart thing, when in nature often "correct is not smart" but rather "correct is effective". (^U^)

 

[Idea]

Sadly for all of my love of psychology, I don't know anything about cleanliness beyond the fact that mild messes don't bother me but bugs being in close proximity make me intensely uncomfortable.
If a train was approaching a group of people, and you could pull a lever to switch the tracks and save them at the expense of one persons life, would you stream it on twitch?


As for a system, I'd agree that morality is subjective and you wouldn't be able to find a system that everyone agreed 100% to. Would you even be able to realistically gather 3 people and have them create a moral system that they all 100% agree with, even if they were, say, all a part of the same religious church? I can only imagine that at least one of them would find one thing to disagree on. Especially since there's so many different scenarios involved in something like considering every different aspect of a morality system.


Personally I don't believe true altruism exists and that there's no such thing as an 100% unselfish act.


I also kind of compare morals to aesthetics- when you think something is evil, you're thinking it's ugly. Not that comparing it to aesthetics makes immoral acts carry any less weight. We all have our own opinions on what's bad and good, and we all judge acts and their severity differently. Two people might agree that they're both bad, but one might prefer freedom over death and another death over freedom.


I also kind of consider morals as an important and understandable part of human evolution, and I don't think I'm very good at putting my more abstract thoughts into words but, like, of course some things are seen as bad and good and it all stems from self-interest... Survival is the most important, and having people be nice and interact with you in a "moral" way promotes your own survival. Humans are really social, and you yourself acting in a moral way increases your success in social situations.


I'm trying not to get off on a tangent, so I think my point basically boils down to that 1, morals are subjective and relative 2, just another aspect of our biology and self-interest (but also that their existence makes sense and that edgy people who look down on them are kinda dumb since those types always pop up) 3, there is no best moral system


As for laws and rules, they reflect the morals standard and "normal" to the culture, and are usually made for both morals and to protect people. What protection is considered needed is probably motivated by morals and empathy. I've never really been interested in studying laws though.


Sorry for my really disorganized post lol

I would like to deeply disagree with you there. As I see it, you begin by making a basic pragmatic mistake: that if an objective moral system exists, then someone has to aknowledge it. That, I'm afraid, is rather a wrong assumption.


Karl Popper, in his work, did point out that we are not objective even in our observations. Many others, such as Descartes and Hume, had also pointed out how our entire perception of reality is questionable. Is it far fetched to conclude that we are not in observing things as they are? Say you have some grass. Is it green? No. The only color taht isn't on the actual plant, is green, it's the one that isn't absorbed, but reflected.


The point is this: if we can't be objective even in how we view and observe the actual world around us, how are we suppose to ever grasp objectively something like a moral code? We can't, not because it is not there, but because we force interpretations on it.


You might ask "but even if there is an objective moral code, and we can't grasp it, then what difference is there between that and there not being one?"


The difference, there, is that there IS right and wrong and we CAN get closer to it. We may even be able to actually find it.


If you ask me, the whole problem with moral discussion begins when people assume their hutch feelings and the like are in any way objective criteria.

 

[kibou]

I would like to deeply disagree with you there. As I see it, you begin by making a basic pragmatic mistake: that if an objective moral system exists, then someone has to aknowledge it. That, I'm afraid, is rather a wrong assumption.
Karl Popper, in his work, did point out that we are not objective even in our observations. Many others, such as Descartes and Hume, had also pointed out how our entire perception of reality is questionable. Is it far fetched to conclude that we are not in observing things as they are? Say you have some grass. Is it green? No. The only color taht isn't on the actual plant, is green, it's the one that isn't absorbed, but reflected.


The point is this: if we can't be objective even in how we view and observe the actual world around us, how are we suppose to ever grasp objectively something like a moral code? We can't, not because it is not there, but because we force interpretations on it.


You might ask "but even if there is an objective moral code, and we can't grasp it, then what difference is there between that and there not being one?"


The difference, there, is that there IS right and wrong and we CAN get closer to it. We may even be able to actually find it.


If you ask me, the whole problem with moral discussion begins when people assume their hutch feelings and the like are in any way objective criteria.

I'm not saying my ideas are objectively right, and I'm not sure why you'd think that since I never said so. I'm just providing my personal ideas in response to a thread that was made and I'm aware that I could be wrong and that lots of people will disagree with me. I did just say that I don't think everyone would ever be able to agree on a "perfect moral system." So I'm fine with you disagreeing but I don't appreciate whatever you're implying in the last sentence.


I'm really tired right now since it's late, so my response will be short.


I do agree that our perception as humans is flawed. But how would we even be able to work towards an objective moral system? If we can't see things objectively, we wouldn't be able to know for sure if what we're working towards is the possible objective moral system or if it's a different system that isn't objectively the best, right?


Do you consider morals to be like math, similar to how numbers are an abstract concept but they don't come from humans?

 

[Idea]

I'm not saying my ideas are objectively right, and I'm not sure why you'd think that since I never said so. I'm just providing my personal ideas in response to a thread that was made and I'm aware that I could be wrong and that lots of people will disagree with me. I did just say that I don't think everyone would ever be able to agree on a "perfect moral system." So I'm fine with you disagreeing but I don't appreciate whatever you're implying in the last sentence.
I'm really tired right now since it's late, so my response will be short.


I do agree that our perception as humans is flawed. But how would we even be able to work towards an objective moral system? If we can't see things objectively, we wouldn't be able to know for sure if what we're working towards is the possible objective moral system or if it's a different system that isn't objectively the best, right?


Do you consider morals to be like math, similar to how numbers are an abstract concept but they don't come from humans?

I apologize if I offended you, I did not mean to. The last sentence was meant to be a note, just a small addition where I attempted to give a bit on my thoughts as to one of the big reasons why morale isn't really seen objectively.


It is true that it would not be easy to know whether or not we'd be walking towards an objective moral system, or rather, the correct one. As I believe, the first barrier to overcome in order for us to be able to tell though, is the one I previously mentioned: we need the capacity to distinguish between our reason and how we feel about things.


In a sense, I suppose, it's pretty much like maths, yeah. It's abstract and yet also concrete, if that makes any sense to you, and by the time it is actually found and people learn about it, it should be so simple and intuitive we may wonder how on Earth people didn't find it sooner. It's a matter of time.

 

[kibou]

I apologize if I offended you, I did not mean to. The last sentence was meant to be a note, just a small addition where I attempted to give a bit on my thoughts as to one of the big reasons why morale isn't really seen objectively.
It is true that it would not be easy to know whether or not we'd be walking towards an objective moral system, or rather, the correct one. As I believe, the first barrier to overcome in order for us to be able to tell though, is the one I previously mentioned: we need the capacity to distinguish between our reason and how we feel about things.


In a sense, I suppose, it's pretty much like maths, yeah. It's abstract and yet also concrete, if that makes any sense to you, and by the time it is actually found and people learn about it, it should be so simple and intuitive we may wonder how on Earth people didn't find it sooner. It's a matter of time.

If it was a misunderstanding it's fine.


I think we fundamentally disagree on where morals come from: instead of an abstract concrete thing like math, I see our perceptions of morality more as a by-product of empathy and other human emotions.


And that a moral system derives from a person's morals.


I think people think it's wrong to say, kill, because it upsets them. If we had no emotions, would we need or even have a moral system? It's found in a lot of people with mental disorders that include low to no affective (emotional) empathy as a symptom, that their morals are generally much looser than people who have high empathy.


Our ideas about morals could also come from me being interested in psychology vs you being into philosophy. I've researched psychology much more than philosophy, in which actual research has been fairly minimal.

 

[Idea]

If it was a misunderstanding it's fine.
I think we fundamentally disagree on where morals come from: instead of an abstract concrete thing like math, I see our perceptions of morality more as a by-product of empathy and other human emotions.


And that a moral system derives from a person's morals.


I think people think it's wrong to say, kill, because it upsets them. If we had no emotions, would we need or even have a moral system? It's found in a lot of people with mental disorders that include low to no affective (emotional) empathy as a symptom, that their morals are generally much looser than people who have high empathy.


Our ideas about morals could also come from me being interested in psychology vs you being into philosophy. I've researched psychology much more than philosophy, in which actual research has been fairly minimal.

You may be just correct on that aspect of our disagreement.


I would say that yes, we'd still have morales without emotions, in fact, we'd probably have them even more accurate.


But as you said, we have that fundamental difference. I'll have to think about it more.


I suggest we end the discussion here. Thank you for being polite and civilized during it. Not everyone provides a satisfactory argument like the one we just had.

 

[Grey]

Morality is relative, driven largely by sentiment and tradition. Ethics are better but not perfect since they can be quite malleable, though they're at least evidence-based. Speaking of evidence, we might well be deterministic biological machines so why worry, eh?


I've studied both psychology and philosophy, and there's a remarkable degree of overlap in the fields (although anyone taking Freud seriously can fuck off, in either discipline).

 

[Idea]

Morality is relative, driven largely by sentiment and tradition. Ethics are better but not perfect since they can be quite malleable, though they're at least evidence-based. Speaking of evidence, we might well be deterministic biological machines so why worry, eh?
I've studied both psychology and philosophy, and there's a remarkable degree of overlap in the fields (although anyone taking Freud seriously can fuck off, in either discipline).

What makes you say morality is relative?

 

[Grey]

Because it's rooted primarily in cultural values and no one culture is universal? It's typically derived from emotional responses and traditions, particularly traditional power structures like religious institutions. Not to mention it's typically concerned with abstract notions of goodness instead of something evidence-based. This isn't to say a code of ethical conduct can't also be moral (broadly speaking murder is both immoral and unethical, for example), but that ethical behaviour remains correct without public approval whereas morality is arbitrated by social groups.


For example: Three individuals elect to engage in a sexual, romantic relationship honestly and compassionately with all proper observances legally and with regard to physical health. A worrisome number of people would call that behaviour immoral because it offends their traditional moral perceptions of love, family, and sexuality, whereas for people who do not share those perceptions the relationship seems harmless. In either case, there's no inherent lack of ethical integrity in conducting such a relationship because


1. The participants are fully cognizant of their boundaries through honest dialogue, promoting mental wellbeing.


2. The participants are abiding by legal requirements (which may themselves be flawed but you work with the world you have).


3. The participants are taking care of their physical health, reducing harm to themselves and others.


4. The participants do not directly or indirectly cause significant harm to anyone else.


But I'm a nihilist and find utilitarianism an effective framework with that understanding.

 

[Idea]

Because it's rooted primarily in cultural values and no one culture is universal? It's typically derived from emotional responses and traditions, particularly traditional power structures like religious institutions. Not to mention it's typically concerned with abstract notions of goodness instead of something evidence-based. This isn't to say a code of ethical conduct can't also be moral (broadly speaking murder is both immoral and unethical, for example), but that ethical behaviour remains correct without public approval whereas morality is arbitrated by social groups.
For example: Three individuals elect to engage in a sexual, romantic relationship honestly and compassionately with all proper observances legally and with regard to physical health. A worrisome number of people would call that behaviour immoral because it offends their traditional moral perceptions of love, family, and sexuality, whereas for people who do not share those perceptions the relationship seems harmless. In either case, there's no inherent lack of ethical integrity in conducting such a relationship because


1. The participants are fully cognizant of their boundaries through honest dialogue, promoting mental wellbeing.


2. The participants are abiding by legal requirements (which may themselves be flawed but you work with the world you have).


3. The participants are taking care of their physical health, reducing harm to themselves and others.


4. The participants do not directly or indirectly cause significant harm to anyone else.


But I'm a nihilist and find utilitarianism an effective framework with that understanding.

I see. So it's a matter of definitions then? If I'm understanding correctly, what you're saying is that there isn't even a debate, because by definition moral is subject to cultural values?

 

[Grey]

Philosophy rapidly devolves into semantic arguments if you let it go on long enough, but definitions are important.


Formally speaking, morals are principles which guide correct behaviour and ethics are the study of morality, but resulting from that we've hit up on a division which can be summed up as 'morals are societally reinforced standards of correct behaviour, ethics are logically derived standards of correct behaviour'.


So yes, I'm saying debating moral relativism is kind of a non-starter in the modern day just as Platonic metaphysics are provably false. Though I may hunt around for compelling arguments to the contrary because it's not a perspective I've had challenged in a while, which isn't useful.

 

[Idea]

Philosophy rapidly devolves into semantic arguments if you let it go on long enough, but definitions are important.
Formally speaking, morals are principles which guide correct behaviour and ethics are the study of morality, but resulting from that we've hit up on a division which can be summed up as 'morals are societally reinforced standards of correct behaviour, ethics are logically derived standards of correct behaviour'.


So yes, I'm saying debating moral relativism is kind of a non-starter in the modern day just as Platonic metaphysics are provably false. Though I may hunt around for compelling arguments to the contrary because it's not a perspective I've had challenged in a while, which isn't useful.

I don't see how you go from those formal definitions to those second ones. Logically speaking.