Trends in Morality

[The6thMessenger]

Okay, i see.

I think i should stop right here.

After a bit more thinking, i realize that this forum is largely philosophical. And i think i don't have a place here if so.

Granted, Philosophically Morality is objective, i guess that's it. I think i understand why would people say that Morality is Objective, because it must be to be meaningful, the practitioner must believe and practice Morality as Objective for it to work and to be meaningful, just as science we must assume the position and practice it objectively to get any meaningful result.
'
I guess i understand why would it be "prescripitvely" objective. This forum is not for deliberation of facts, but discussion of what we "should".

If im still wrong, eh -- i tried. I don't think i'll ever get philosophy because it lacks data and measurement to work with.

I'm not arrogant, it's not about my ego, it's about clarity, and i guess now it's clarified. I'm stopping right here. I get it now, i'm sorry for being an inconvenience.

[brimstoneSalad]

Morality is Objective, because it must be to be meaningful, the practitioner must believe and practice Morality as Objective for it to work and to be meaningful, just as science we must assume the position and practice it objectively to get any meaningful result.

Something like that. Yes. There's more to it, but you have an idea of one argument.

It's also very important to understand how much of an insult it is, coming from a place of ignorance, to claim that morality is subjective.

Just as it would be an insult to claim Science or Medicine are subjective, because different cultures have different views on these things.

You might be able to understand my reaction better if you imagine yourself arguing with somebody who claimed very loudly and insistently that science is subjective because sociology says so.

This forum is not for deliberation of facts, but discussion of what we "should".

This is absolutely a place for talking about facts.

If you want to talk about the facts of a primitive culture's pseudo-morality, or pseudo-medicine, or pseudo-science, that's great.
Just don't confuse these primitive cultural perceptions to be indications that the thing of which they are a parody is itself subjective.

The problem is the misattribution of what these cultures believe as being legitimate morality, as it would be a comparable mistake to believe their woo practice are a legitimate and equal branch of science, and conclude from that science is subjective and none are better than any others.

There is only one legitimate field of science, medicine, morality -- through the gradual and often painful process of cultural evolution, we grow closer to realizing these, and discard the superstitions and pseudosciences of our youths.

I don't think i'll ever get philosophy because it lacks data and measurement to work with.

How long did it take you to get science? Do you get math (Math and philosophy are almost identical; Math is just more abstracted)?

Philosophy is important; you shouldn't give up. You're certainly capable of understanding it if you give it some time and have some patience.

You are much wiser today than you were yesterday. Now you realize that you don't understand it, which is the first step to learning how to understand it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_th ... ow_nothing

It is essentially the question that begins "post-Socratic" Western philosophy. Socrates begins all wisdom with wondering, thus one must begin with admitting one's ignorance.

If you value anything in life, and want to express or advocate that value, philosophy is essential.

For example, your poor arguments about why science is right. You have probably experienced them falling on deaf ears. You have probably been accused by Christians of just having another faith, or science being just another religion.

And they were right to accuse you of that.

Science is true because science works, as proven by science.

Might as well be:

The bible is true because god wrote it and he's perfect, as the bible says so.

Your beliefs about science, because they are held in ignorance of the true philosophical underpinnings, really are just a dogma founded on faith and personal experience, or appeal to authority.

Science is not the same as Religion, but the way you practice it, it might as well be, because you're not coming at it from a philosophical direction that substantiates it.
I can and do convince theists that their beliefs are wrong, and that science is right -- I don't do it with science, but with philosophical arguments.

That is what makes science different -- once you understand the philosophy, you'll find it's easy to support science (which relies on philosophy, and even morality) -- but that the same logical philosophy absolutely demolishes religion from the fundamental (scientifically unfalsifiable) metaphysical foundation on up.


Long story short: Philosophy is important. Don't give up on it, it's more useful than you can imagine right now. You just need some time to learn.

[The6thMessenger]

It's also very important to understand how much of an insult it is, coming from a place of ignorance, to claim that morality is subjective.

Eh, it's just i based my arguments on known data on Sociology, Psychology and Anthropology. It doesn't work on philosophy maybe because it's about internalization of values or something.

You might be able to understand my reaction better if you imagine yourself arguing with somebody who claimed very loudly and insistently that science is subjective because sociology says so.

It's not that whether Science is subjective, but because people are subjective. The results of Sociology, and Psychology is a damn mess and have a short half-life precisely because humans change. Like Sheldon Cooper said; "Psychology is the doofus of Sciences", and i agree. Science is objective, but humans are subjective. I said Morality (descriptively) is Subjective because humans are subjective.

This is absolutely a place for talking about facts.

I'll be honest, i don't think it is. The thing is that many real world data is left out.

How long did it take you to get science? Do you get math (Math and philosophy are almost identical; Math is just more abstracted)?

All my life, and next year i'm graduating from college Psychology. I suck at math -- i hate math. Although i still love science. I guess why we would never see eye to eye is that coming from a psychological perspective, Morality is the act of distinction of right and wrong, whereas as you put it here is the art of distinguishing right from wrong, defining right and wrong.

Philosophy is important; you shouldn't give up. You're certainly capable of understanding it if you give it some time and have some patience.

Honestly, It really won't cut for me. I'm somewhat autistic, and for me without real world data, statistics and stuffs, it's a confusing mess to me. As how i see it, i think philosophy is about internalization, it's like creating principles to live by. It's not really my place.

You are much wiser today than you were yesterday. Now you realize that you don't understand it, which is the first step to learning how to understand it.

Kind of, yeah. I don't get philosophy, if it were Psychology, Astronomy etc. I would.

If you value anything in life, and want to express or advocate that value, philosophy is essential.

So that is it then, it's about values.

Long story short: Philosophy is important. Don't give up on it, it's more useful than you can imagine right now. You just need some time to learn.

I really will never get it. I know my own limitations.

[knot]

Do you believe in a human soul or free will?

I could potentially see this being the problem

Regardless you should go watch all Sam Harris videos on Youtube immediately

[The6thMessenger]

Do you believe in a human soul or free will?

Soul no? Freewill, hard to say.

We are free in terms of ability to choose, but how we choose is still modified by biases as how we psychologically develop, our brains' tendency which is rooted within our evolution.

Now supposed that there is 2 choices; one is eternal bliss, the other is eternal torment. Frequently the choice would be eternal bliss, and there is an overwhelming chance that the answer will always be eternal bliss. Now what kind of choices were those? Is there any choice at all? Smartasses might answer yes because there are two choices.

Life is like that, even if there are choices present, and we can just choose something else, circumstances, how we are grown, how we are biologically developed leads us to always pick a certain choice.

At least that's how i understand it. For me, freewill somewhat exists, at least within a certain range of choices, but there are times that our freewill is irrelevant because of necessity in which case our choices narrows down and eventually singles out a single choice.

[knot]

ok, so unless I'm mistaking you're a solipsist of some kind

http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

If you're autistic then all of this makes a lot more sense to me, since autists don't have what's called a "theory of mind". I dont know if anything can really be done about that though

[The6thMessenger]

ok, so unless I'm mistaking you're a solipsist of some kind

http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

If you're autistic then all of this makes a lot more sense to me, since autists don't have what's called a "theory of mind". I dont know if anything can really be done about that though

Wait, how does that make me a solpsist? I don't deny the possibility of the other minds existing, i don't have this idea that everything else is just a mindless robot but me..

But what i understand is that thought is a process in the brain by chemical reaction, that which can be influenced, and is ultimately controlled by the brain and it's chemical reactions. This is why certain drugs affect our thinking, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoactive_drug, when you have clinically depressed, you can't help yourself feeling depressed. When you have manic-depressive disorder, you can't help to become excessively happy one time, and to be depressed at the other. It's like you don't have a choice. You can choose to seek help and get meds, but really that just shows how the mind can be manipulated, on it's own by external means.

Just as well, how our minds think can be programmed externally by the immediate environment, or deeply rooted in our evolution.

"Sexy" as we generally define it, is basically what it is; curvy body, large breasts, symmetrical shape -- etc. Because we are programmed like that by our evolution. Granted, we can believe otherwise as the real "sexy", but still generally we see "sexy" as the same, like the examples above.

Our minds are like that, we have tendencies, habits that is hard to get out of, almost like we don't have a choice. We have to eat else we'll die, while we can choose to die, generally we choose to eat to live. And it's like there is no choice at all, because we will certainly pick eat to live.

In the Philippines, poop jokes are generally hilarious, and in the USA poop jokes are generally gross and unwarranted. While people can choose how they act, they can be influenced with the culture they are born with and most likely assimilate it without their choice.

In Religion, children are indoctrinated to blindly follow their religion, that they are taught to believe that they will go to their religion's version of hell if they do not obey the religion. Because they are indoctrinated to their religion, they could not see their religion other than it's true and would reject any notion that it is false, do you think that they have a choice in the matter? Circumstances may also control your life.

Free Will as in "we can choose among a set of choices", i agree with that. But sometimes the choices are just too bad or to small that it's like we don't have any free will at all.

[brimstoneSalad]

For humans, will comes down more to choosing how to choose; to a matter of deciding what things we value, and what kinds of people we want to be. After that, it's an internal battle of trying to be who we want to be, and fighting those primitive urges and rationalizations.

Simplifying things in terms of pleasure and pain isn't always accurate.
Think of a person who will willingly die for a cause; this person is receiving pain, will never experience any pleasure again, but will do it. Why? Because there is something that person values more than his or her life.

Will is more of a contest of values than of experiences. Do you value your life more, or the political cause you are being called to die for? What kind of person are you, and what do you value?

Values are much harder to predict than experience, and they make up what amounts to the existential self.

"Free will", though; what has it to be free from?
We are products of our environments and happenstance.

Believing in determinism (or random non-determinism) isn't solipsism.
Solipsism is believing that YOU are a mind and have subjective experiences that you deny to others (or are distinctly skeptical of).

I don't deny the possibility of the other minds existing, i don't have this idea that everything else is just a mindless robot but me..

You should accept the fact, rather than just consider it a possibility; if you're particularly skeptical of it, that's leaning that way.

Solipsism may be more of a spectrum than a binary platform though.

Just as well, how our minds think can be programmed externally by the immediate environment, or deeply rooted in our evolution.

Be careful about jumping from an is to an aught here. Remember, in morality we're talking about philosophical prescriptions; the concept of aught, which is a logical conceptual framework of rationally minimizing harm.

We could have evolved to all be psychopathic cold blooded killers, and yet it would still be the moral thing to do to eschew those tendencies.
However, if we were like that, we just may have never discovered the concept of morality. Like if we were congenitally incapable of counting, we never would have discovered mathematics.

"Sexy" as we generally define it, is basically what it is; curvy body, large breasts, symmetrical shape -- etc. Because we are programmed like that by our evolution. Granted, we can believe otherwise as the real "sexy", but still generally we see "sexy" as the same, like the examples above.

"Sexy" is a bad example, because, like taste, it has no meaning as an abstract concept, and it varies from subject to subject.

To ME, Paul is sexy because he (Paul) has big boobies.
To Bob, Paul is absolutely not sexy because he (Paul) has big boobies.

Remember, morality is defined in terms of the "object" being acted upon, not the subject acting.

For ME, it is immoral to stab Paul in the face with a knife because Paul doesn't like that.
For Bob, it is also immoral to stab Paul in the face with a knife, because Paul still doesn't like it.

But for Me or Paul, it may be moral to stab Bob in the face with a knife, because Bob likes that kind of thing.


The morality for the subject doing to acting, depends on the subjective experience of the object -- which become an objective fact because they are put into context.

My subjective feelings define whether I find Paul sexy or not, or Chocolate delicious or not.
Paul's subjective feelings about what I'm doing to him define whether I am behaving morally or not.

If I don't know if Paul likes being stabbed in the face with a knife or not, I need to ask. I can't ask the chocolate if it's delicious -- that's for me to decide, if it's delicious to me.

Does that help?

Free Will as in "we can choose among a set of choices", i agree with that. But sometimes the choices are just too bad or to small that it's like we don't have any free will at all.

Usually what people mean by a lack of free will is that you were "forced" or compelled (positively or negatively, although the two are functionally different and I can explain that later if you want) from the outside to do something. It's rather a fuzzy line, as to where that compulsion becomes so strong it's irresistible to any ordinary person -- that's usually the metric used.

If somebody says "Kill your family or I will say mean words to you", it's not a very strong compulsion, and most people would say that yes, that person killed his or her family of his or her own free will, because he or she didn't "have to" go along with it. Although it is a small compulsion.
On the other end, if somebody says "Kill your family, or I will kill them in front of you, and then kill you", that's a much stronger compulsion, and most people would agree that the person had no free will there.

This becomes a question of judgement and justification.
Justification in the face of compulsion IS a matter of degree. When to consider a wrong action justified is a very difficult problem for many people in morality.
It's easy to say "It's wrong to kill somebody" when there is absolutely no compulsion there, and it makes no difference at all to you.
Any degree of conflict starts to create a sense of moral grey.

However, I'd caution again not to confuse this with true subjectivity -- it isn't. I think that's what you're doing here.
It's more like temperature. It's a question of normalization.

If it's 22 degrees, that's not a matter of opinion. Nor is the statement "22 degrees is colder than 89 degrees."
It IS less meaningful to say "22 degrees is cold" or "89 degrees is hot", because it hasn't been compared to anything.
Because some people make ambiguous claims, this doesn't mean temperature is subjective.

When we talk about justification, we have to think of it in the same way as temperature, and we have to look for ways to normalize that in society.

Please let me know if you're following me so far.


Here's a thought experiment for you, to see if you get it (this is using carrot and stick together, for simplicity).

Subject A and Subject B are functionally identical in terms of external duress. Neither are rich nor poor. Neither are starving. Neither has a dying mother who needs medication. Neither likes being beaten up. They are largely "normal" aside from some of their internal values and motivations -- which are considered part of "free will", or part of the self rather than the situation (given that they are electing to actualize them).

Case 1:
Subject A and subject B are both offered $1 to kill an "innocent" child (who doesn't want to die), and if they refuse, they will be gently hit with a clean pillow.
Subject A accepts, subject B refuses.

Case2:
Subject A and subject B are both offered $1,000,000 to kill an "innocent" child (who doesn't want to die), and if they refuse, they will be beaten within an inch of their lives with a steel baseball bat.
Both subjects accept.


Based on this, you should be able to make certain objective evaluations of those subjects -- their "free wills" or selves.

Is Case1 or Case2 stronger compulsion?
Is Subject A accepting in case one more justified than Subject B accepting in Case2, or the other way around?

[The6thMessenger]

I don't deny the possibility of the other minds existing, i don't have this idea that everything else is just a mindless robot but me..

You should accept the fact, rather than just consider it a possibility; if you're particularly skeptical of it, that's leaning that way.

Solipsism may be more of a spectrum than a binary platform though.

It's just the matter of my wording. I do accept that fact.

Just as well, how our minds think can be programmed externally by the immediate environment, or deeply rooted in our evolution.

Be careful about jumping from an is to an aught here. Remember, in morality we're talking about philosophical prescriptions; the concept of aught, which is a logical conceptual framework of rationally minimizing harm.

Yes, but we're talking about free will right?

I'm not telling what we ought, I'm just simply saying that we have biases and compulsions, that makes our "freewill" at a certain range questionable.

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, i'm simply saying that it exists, but there are many situations that it doesn't because even if other choices exists, we are a bit compelled to choose a specific choice, due to many factors, such as biases.

"Sexy" as we generally define it, is basically what it is; curvy body, large breasts, symmetrical shape -- etc. Because we are programmed like that by our evolution. Granted, we can believe otherwise as the real "sexy", but still generally we see "sexy" as the same, like the examples above.

"Sexy" is a bad example, because, like taste, it has no meaning as an abstract concept, and it varies from subject to subject.

Yes, but still generally we have an idea of what sexy is, because it's rooted in our evolutionary roots, that allows us to tell the "Fertility" of a woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYUtVsA-wi4

While, yes we can choose to have different standards of beauty. Still it's a nagging compulsion for many of us.

Please let me know if you're following me so far.

Honestly, you lost me. We were talking about Free Will since Knot asked me about it. Then you jumped to Morality once more. I admit that we've gone a bit off topic. But i just fail to see the connection of "Do you believe in Free Will" "Solipism" and stuffs.

--

Case 2 has the stronger compulsion.
The Subject A accepting the offer in case one is not justified, while on the second case is a bit more justified.

Okay, taking in the context of what you are telling me about. Are you saying that for someone to be Moral, they need to be able to make moral choices on their own volition? And so with the Objective Morality necessitates the existence of Free Will?

So basically when he asked me "Do i believe in Free Will", it's rooted on Morality than all on it's own?

[brimstoneSalad]

Case 2 has the stronger compulsion.
The Subject A accepting the offer in case one is not justified, while on the second case is a bit more justified.

Right

Okay, taking in the context of what you are telling me about. Are you saying that for someone to be Moral, they need to be able to make moral choices on their own volition? And so with the Objective Morality necessitates the existence of Free Will?

Practical moral judgement of people's actions necessitates a sort of concept of free will.

That is, this man killed somebody, and that man killed somebody, all things being equal they're both bad people because they did a bad thing. But this man did it for the lolz, and that man did it because the was under duress.

We look at justification to determine not whether what they did was bad or good, but rather if it's proper to blame them for it.

If somebody is being compelled, we can't blame him or her for those actions.

This gets into the logic of crime and punishment, and particularly as a deterrent.

If somebody has your children hostage and will kill them if you don't rob a bank for them, there's no rational reason to blame you for robbing the bank, because almost anybody put in that position would do the same. It was a bit of bad luck.
This is also why we have the concept of entrapment in law.

So basically when he asked me "Do i believe in Free Will", it's rooted on Morality than all on it's own?

I'm not entirely sure why he asked that, but that is how it's related, so that's where I took it. He may have asked that for an entirely different reason that I didn't follow.

I'm not telling what we ought, I'm just simply saying that we have biases and compulsions, that makes our "freewill" at a certain range questionable.

Right, but the important thing here is to distinguish between internal, existential factors, and 'external' duress, compulsions or impositions. You're questioning degree, when it's actually type that's most important, and then degree is important only if it's of the right type.

Internal factors are essentially part of the will (particularly if they are owned and identified with). External factors are environmental, bad luck, etc. Not part of who you are (or who you consider yourself to be).

When a factor is a matter of bad luck or environment, or other people forcing something on you, actions it causes may be forgiven or excused, as it is an imposition upon your free will.
When a factor is part of who you are, by essential definition is is your fault -- it's a fault of character, and it's yours (you own it).

This gets murky in some cases, like a brain tumor that 'made' somebody go psychopathic.
Is that part of who the person is, or is that environment?
It's a question courts struggle with -- one of the grey areas of law, and culpability.

One of the major things we ask is if everybody with that sort of tumor (or a vast majority) end up becoming uncontrollably violent and commit violent crimes, and if removing it solves the matter completely -- or if it was just the straw that broke the camel's back, and the person was already inclined to violence and ill will, this tumor just being an encouragement that a normal person would fight, or go to a doctor about to complain about the difficult-to-control-rage he or she was experiencing.

Science is helping us get better about drawing the line between the two, but ultimately it comes down to what is fair based on our current state of knowledge, and thus what is effective.

I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, i'm simply saying that it exists, but there are many situations that it doesn't matter because even if other choices exists, we are a bit compelled to choose a specific choice, due to many factors, such as biases.

I kind of would. "Free" will as it stands is a sort of incoherent term, which has been mangled by theistic tradition. Yes, maybe it can be reclaimed as Dennett argues (and Sam Harris doesn't seem to completely understand), but it may be more useful just to define it more specifically and rigorously.

I would prefer to talk about an existential will, or actualized will; the will we will to have. A sort of meta-will. Free not from our natures, which are ultimately environmental and random as well, but free from impositions upon our preferred natures that we will not.

I'm not sure if that was helpful, or just confused you more.

Yes, but still generally we have an idea of what sexy is, because it's rooted in our evolutionary roots, that allows us to tell the "Fertility" of a woman.

Sure, and we can say that about anything, but I don't think it's relevant. Things have causes; that doesn't negate the notion that somebody may want to embody them, or reject them, and doesn't make one right or one wrong.
We can reject the biological suggestion, or accept it, and that it had a biological source doesn't make either right or wrong.

While, yes we can choose to have different standards of beauty. Still it's a nagging compulsion for many of us.

Just that it's a compulsion is all that matters, not so much where it came from.

The questions we have to ask ourselves, in terms of morality, is if it's a generally good compulsion, or a bad one.
The questions we have to ask ourselves in terms of free will and culpability, is if we fought it, or embraced it (such as, when it threatened to be harmful), and how hard we fought if we did.

There's a huge moral difference between a pedophile who embraces his identity as a pedosexual, makes excuses about it being his nature, and rationalizes his harm to others or just doesn't care, and a pedophile who considers his urges a curse, and fights them, and seeks help to fight them. Even if they both end up doing the same things, one of these people was just rotten to the core, living out his dreams, and the other was essentially good, trapped in a nightmare and driven by uncontrollable compulsion.