I’m interested in hearing others’ thoughts on morality strictly as a means to an end. More specifically, I’m interested in the idea of morality as simply the chosen method or framework used to accomplish a goal; that goal can be individual or societal and the morality supporting it is not to be strictly adhered to for its own sake. I know, I’m not exactly venturing into uncharted territory here. I’m sure educated philosophy enthusiasts have covered this ad nauseam, but my own experience with classical philosophy is rather generic and limited, and I’m just not really sure where to look for reading material without wading through a bunch of stuff I’m not interested in or have the time to cipher through. But aside from that, you guys are smart and I’d just like to hear your input.
To be honest, I’m not even sure what I’m looking for – perhaps just a clearer overall understanding of the idea, its potential weaknesses or downfalls. It’s existential, obviously – subjective and self-driven; but it’s not purely deductive or inductive. It disregards the idea of objective morality and thus bypasses the need to reconcile contradicting moral truths. It’s not limited to achieving a particular goal such as freedom, survival, preservation, or prosperity, but it’s not necessarily as simple as pure self interest. It is real and exists only in the way free will is real and exists (I love the way Tom described this in a thread some months ago), as a completely fabricated but intrinsically necessary concept that is there only to serve a particular purpose.
Does this even make sense, or am I just rambling here? If it does make sense, what are your thoughts?
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
My thoughts: Oh dear, not again!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Do the right thing. The rest is commentary.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Do no harm.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Why? If morality is simply a means to an end, how do you deal with people who disagree about the end? You basically have to label them as immoral, based on a subjective criterion.
Isn't that what every tyranny and dictatorship in history has done?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's what every society in history has done. There are, at the very least, distinctions made between "good things" and "bad things" to do.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:You basically have to label them as immoral, based on a subjective criterion.
Correct. As Tom said, it's what everyone does. Not just societies, but individuals do it constantly.
No one has a real objective criterion on which to base a morality. So we make do with our subjective ones.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
EDIT: This was meant to come directly after Tom's post. Makes a bit more sense that way.
...Except in America. That distinction between "good things" and "bad things" is quickly changing. The traditional distinction, at least.
Look at it this way: some of my friends torrent large quantities of music and video to their computers daily. To some, piracy is just as disgusting an act as in the old days, even if it's not accompanied by murder, raping, burning and pillaging. To others, digital piracy is perfectly harmless.
For hundreds (thousands!) of years, heterosexual marriage has been in practice, and enforced. California's recent ruling in favor of homosexual marriage is one of the more radical moves in sociological history. The fact that they frame it as a "civil right" is even more disturbing to those who disagree with the practice, as their opponents now have a lot more leverage in their direction.
Murder and abortion. Capital punishment. Every controversial issue that comes to mind.
Things are changing around here...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777: EDIT: This was meant to come directly after Tom's post. Makes a bit more sense that way.
...Except in America. That distinction between "good things" and "bad things" is quickly changing. The traditional distinction, at least.
Those distinctions are always changing, and always have been changing. Saying that they change, however, doesn't necessarily mean that changing is bad.
The way I, a godless liberal , view it is that we're going through the process of learning what real harm is.
With digital piracy, the problem is that there is no apparent harm to what they're doing. Clicking a few buttons online or purchasing a bootleg DVD on a subway doesn't feel like hurting anyone, and so it's easier to do.
With homosexual marriage, there is also no apparent harm to what they're doing. Two people who love each other, want to form a household, possibly adopt children and have all the benefits of a married couple, regardless of their genders, doesn't seem like it's hurting anyone, so many people and states are legalizing it.
The evidence seems to be in that digital piracy does cause harm.
The evidence seems to be in that homosexual marriage does not cause harm.
But we're only learning those things now. Which means, like it or not, morals may need to change.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The evidence seems to be in that digital piracy does cause harm.
The evidence seems to be in that homosexual marriage does not cause harm.
But we're only learning those things now. Which means, like it or not, morals may need to change.
If we accept "Do No Harm" as the objective basis for morality. Which I think is an absurd basis for morality. I would much prefer "Do Good" but any bumper sticker sized statement of morality is almost equally ridiculous.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: The evidence seems to be in that digital piracy does cause harm.
The evidence seems to be in that homosexual marriage does not cause harm.
But we're only learning those things now. Which means, like it or not, morals may need to change.
If we accept "Do No Harm" as the objective basis for morality. Which I think is an absurd basis for morality. I would much prefer "Do Good" but any bumper sticker sized statement of morality is almost equally ridiculous.
I don't see "do not harm" as an objective basis for morality. But it's the best starting point for determining what is good, what is bad and what is neutral that I have ever come across.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I'm interested if someone who believes in objective morality can describe what it means for a moral to be objective. What does it mean for some action to always be bad or always be good? I don't understand what it literally means for, say, murder to be "wrong." Whenever I've tried to press beyond that statement I've only come across circular arguments or curiosity-stoppers. For example, "God says so" is a curiosity-stopper because it provides absolutely no answer to the original question. It doesn't answer why.
On the other hand, evolution and memetics can satisfactorily explain why certain morals are the way they are without invoking concepts like good and evil.
You can even explain most morals in simpler terms using a utility function. The utility function is based off of goals and outputs positive utility for "good" actions and negative utility for "bad" actions. If your moral system is deterministic then it can [theoretically] be represented by a utility function.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: If we accept "Do No Harm" as the objective basis for morality. Which I think is an absurd basis for morality.
Why?
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
"There is good and there is evil, and evil must be punished. Even in the face of Armageddon I shall not compromise in this."
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Whee!
The basis of morality is, "What allows society to function." Otherwise, society doesn't function. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. are all things which allow people to form societies. This is the objective basis for morality. The rest is subjective.
The details and the more subtle issues have all developed from either religious interpretations (IE, it benefits the officers of the local church) or political interpretations (it benefits the local powers that be).
My personal morality is pretty cold. A question arises, I ask myself, "Will society cease functioning if we allow X?" I don't care if people will be happier or healthier or more spiritually fulfilled.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Things are changing around here...
Just like always.
--------
quote:A question arises, I ask myself, "Will society cease functioning if we allow X?" I don't care if people will be happier or healthier or more spiritually fulfilled.
What is the purpose of society but to make people happier, healthy, and more fulfilled? Does it serve any other function?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The basis of morality is, "What allows society to function."
But society can function within a pretty broad set of behaviors. Saudi society functions and US society functions, but the morals of these two societies are dramatically different. Sure, both prohibit murder, but the definitions of murder vary significantly.
So are you just saying that morality is completely dependent on the context of a society, or is society merely an influence on an innate morality?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
If morality is defined by an objective, on what basis do we choose the objective?
If the objective is "That which allows society to function" how can we argue the genocide in Darfur is morally reprehensible, since it allows the society of Sudan, and especially Khartoum, to flourish.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
Purpose of society? Hmm. Hadn't thought about that. I suppose the ultimate purpose of everything that people do is happiness. Let me rephrase. I don't care if the immediate effect of allowing X is to make some people unhappy, as long as society does not fall apart as an additional consequence. If society does fall apart, people will be much more unhappy.
MattP, what I'm saying is only the very basic statement that "indiscriminate killing is wrong" is an objective moral statement. The difference between allowing killing people for theft, or murder, or apostasy is subjective. So, morality is 98% subjective.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
"Do no harm" is a terribly flawed philosophy. Letting others do harm when you have the powers to stop that is just as amoral as doing harm (I believe the newest VeggieTales addresses this). If "do no harm" is your core philosophy, that alleviates all moral responsibility of doing the very opposite of harm; which is to make and to add. In addition, some things might need to be torn down in order to be rebuilt. In many situations, the definition of "harm" is obscure. Is it whatever causes discomfort or unhappiness? Is it what impairs freedom? Is it what discontinues something?
What would someone who does no harm look like? Definitely not a clumsy sort of fellow, but in the grand scheme of things, little offenses are made in every other social interaction, so Mr. Moral would keep to himself a lot. To harm nothing, to do no harm whatsoever, and have that be the core basis of morality, would be to isolate oneself completely, with only the necessities needed to make sure the body does not come to harm. And even then, is the chicken you're eating considered harmed? Okay, become a vegan. Is the asparagus your eating being harmed by your teeth? You'll have to reject this perfect angel by somehow coming up with a very abstract definition of "harm" that will (I give you my 100% guarantee) bring about more problems.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: "Do no harm" is a terribly flawed philosophy.
Incomplete certainly, but not flawed.
I decided to start with "do no harm" as the very basics of where my morality begins. There is more involved than just that.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
i'd hope so. otherwise you'd never be ale to walk on grass because of all the harm you're doing. you probably wouldn't be able to consume anything(food or clothes or electronics, etc...). depending on how you define harm, every action you take throughout your life could fall into that category.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't think Javert is stupid, so why are people responding as if he is. Of course there's going to be more to it than "Do no harm", but that simple phrase neatly encapsulates, I think, many people's basic morality. Of course further principles bust be derived from that sentiment to provide an answer to any given moral dilemma.
It's reasonable to assume, for instance, that if two choices will both result in harm, that one might then weight which choice results in less harm. The philosophy of Utilitarianism is essentially a restatement of "do no harm", with caveats such as this taken into consideration.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I don't think Javert is stupid, so why are people responding as if he is.
It's okay. I am actually quite stupid. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote: don't think Javert is stupid, so why are people responding as if he is
if anything i said implied that, i apologize! i was just pointing out some trouble with a blanket statement like that. my own philosophy is pretty close to that actually. it'd be something along the lines of "maximize happiness(mine and others) while minimizing pain(harm)". obviously that's an oversimplification as well, but it's a base. I think you're smart Javert!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't care if the immediate effect of allowing X is to make some people unhappy, as long as society does not fall apart as an additional consequence. If society does fall apart, people will be much more unhappy.
What if a society falls apart and people are made unhappier in the short term, but ultimately a better society that produces more happiness replaces it?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: The basis of morality is, "What allows society to function." Otherwise, society doesn't function.
So if you're stranded on a desert island by yourself, morality doesn't exist? Ew.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Really, though, morality is most of the time about how we treat each other ... whether we hurt each other, kill each other, stay faithful to each other, lie to each other, steal from each other, etc.
So if you're stranded on a desert island by yourself, many if not most of the rules of morality wouldn't apply.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Purpose of society? Hmm. Hadn't thought about that. I suppose the ultimate purpose of everything that people do is happiness. Let me rephrase. I don't care if the immediate effect of allowing X is to make some people unhappy, as long as society does not fall apart as an additional consequence. If society does fall apart, people will be much more unhappy.
So, and pardon the Godwin thing, but if the Nazis hadn't attacked other countries, and had been left to exterminate their undesirables without attacking other countries, that would have been fine? Because it was still a minority getting killed, and German society was probably stronger for it.
The way you're talking, society doesn't have any moral strictures whatsoever. And individuals don't even exist in their own right, but are merely cells in a larger organism, to be used or discarded for the greater good of that organism.
That's incredibly scary.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: "Do no harm" is a terribly flawed philosophy. Letting others do harm when you have the powers to stop that is just as amoral as doing harm (I believe the newest VeggieTales addresses this).
Morality according to a cartoon. Interesting.
And "do no harm" rocks as the basis of a philosophy. All the people who are willing to do harm in the name of helping are a perfect example of why you can't have an imperative to help people.
It's good to help people. But no one should be forced to help anyone.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: If morality is defined by an objective, on what basis do we choose the objective?
If the objective is "That which allows society to function" how can we argue the genocide in Darfur is morally reprehensible, since it allows the society of Sudan, and especially Khartoum, to flourish.
Why is this being ignored?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The general question is worth asking. The specific question is based on false premises: the society of Sudan is not flourishing. Note that Darfur is part of Sudan, and it is definitely nowhere near flourishing (not that the rest of Sudan particularly flourishes, either).
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:What if a society falls apart and people are made unhappier in the short term, but ultimately a better society that produces more happiness replaces it?
I think that's the wrong kind of question to ask about morality, in that it wonders about certain situations and does not focus on an over-arching philosophy. I think the question we should ask about morality is whether or not it is of the same ontological nature as mathematics. Mathematics is something discoverable, granted it's not under a rock at Joe's house, and we constantly improve our mathematical knowledge through mathematical proof and discover it's absolute nature through rigorous and logical work. If we can do the same with morality or if morality is of the same status as math, then we truly can maintain an objective morality from a rational perspective. If it is not, then morality seems to be completely subjective (or relative depending on perspective) to either society or mankind itself.
By answering that question, we can then answer the questions that wonder about situations themselves, and in that, we can have an answer that is dictated by the very nature of morality itself. If morality is subjective, then it does depend on certain factors, and so there is no clear and absolute answer to Tom's question. If morality is objective, then it is absolute and their is a definite answer to Tom's question. Thus, I think the real question should be about the very nature of morality itself, instead of the situations which would be answered if we had the answer to this question.
And here is the rub, morality seems to be of the same ontological nature as mathematics, though it is clearly more abstract and difficult to determine than mathematics. Why? If we were to deal with one moral situation and consider the moral righteousness of the situation, then that situation cannot be both right and wrong for the same person in the same time because that would create a logical fallacy. Hence, there must be a correct answer in that situation, and thus, morality must have a logically correct answer (I am not saying I would know what the right answer is, I am only saying that there *is* a right answer).
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: The basis of morality is, "What allows society to function." Otherwise, society doesn't function. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. are all things which allow people to form societies. This is the objective basis for morality. The rest is subjective.
It's not an objective basis. The morals which follow from the basis are objective in the context of that basis but not objective in their own right (or if they are, you have not established them as so).
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: If morality is defined by an objective, on what basis do we choose the objective?
If the objective is "That which allows society to function" how can we argue the genocide in Darfur is morally reprehensible, since it allows the society of Sudan, and especially Khartoum, to flourish.
Why does it need to be objectively reprehensible to require intervention?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Mathematics is something discoverable, granted it's not under a rock at Joe's house, and we constantly improve our mathematical knowledge through mathematical proof and discover it's absolute nature through rigorous and logical work. If we can do the same with morality or if morality is of the same status as math, then we truly can maintain an objective morality from a rational perspective. If it is not, then morality seems to be completely subjective (or relative depending on perspective) to either society or mankind itself.
Well, yes, but the discoverable parts of mathematics all take the form "Given A, B, C, then X". It's all working out the consequences of simple statements which are given, not discovered. Now some mathematics, as it happens, has consequences which closely match physics, so it's useful. But I don't see how you are going to test any consequences of morality against the universe, short of dying and seeing if there's an afterlife.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It's good to help people. But no one should be forced to help anyone.
Who said anything about forcing people? This is morality, not legality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Hence, there must be a correct answer in that situation...
That's like saying that there is one correct shirt for me to wear tomorrow.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: And here is the rub, morality seems to be of the same ontological nature as mathematics, though it is clearly more abstract and difficult to determine than mathematics. Why? If we were to deal with one moral situation and consider the moral righteousness of the situation, then that situation cannot be both right and wrong for the same person in the same time because that would create a logical fallacy. Hence, there must be a correct answer in that situation, and thus, morality must have a logically correct answer (I am not saying I would know what the right answer is, I am only saying that there *is* a right answer).
I don't think it's quite that simple. This argument basically boils down to the assertion in your last sentence.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: The basis of morality is, "What allows society to function." Otherwise, society doesn't function. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. are all things which allow people to form societies. This is the objective basis for morality. The rest is subjective.
It's not an objective basis. The morals which follow from the basis are objective in the context of that basis but not objective in their own right (or if they are, you have not established them as so).
It is an objective fact that indiscriminate killing prevents the formation of society. Therefore, indiscriminate killing is morally wrong.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: If morality is defined by an objective, on what basis do we choose the objective?
If the objective is "That which allows society to function" how can we argue the genocide in Darfur is morally reprehensible, since it allows the society of Sudan, and especially Khartoum, to flourish.
Why is this being ignored?
Lisa: Because I just checked back in. Dan_Raven: Those who make this argument disagree with me.
Lisa, as to your earlier points, yes, if you are completely isolated from society, morality is not applicable. And about the Nazis bit, one could argue that the world society was not working, but that's ignoring your point. If the Nazi society were COMPLETELY isolated from their neighbors, then what made their society work is what is moral for them. It would be interesting to see if a society of that sort could function in the long term. However, I think that a society with scapegoatism so centrally and violently would be self-destructive in a very literal way (who do we blame/kill next, once all the Jews are gone? AdInf?)
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief:
quote:Originally posted by Threads:
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: The basis of morality is, "What allows society to function." Otherwise, society doesn't function. Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. are all things which allow people to form societies. This is the objective basis for morality. The rest is subjective.
It's not an objective basis. The morals which follow from the basis are objective in the context of that basis but not objective in their own right (or if they are, you have not established them as so).
It is an objective fact that indiscriminate killing prevents the formation of society. Therefore, indiscriminate killing is morally wrong.
That doesn't follow unless you believe that morality should be structured so as to "allow society to function." That is not an objective assumption.
Posted by Raventhief (Member # 9002) on :
"...morality should be structured..."? Are we talking about what should be or what is? I am saying that the objective basis of our mostly subjective morality is: that which prevents society from functioning is immoral. All else are subjective and conditional.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am saying that the objective basis of our mostly subjective morality is: that which prevents society from functioning is immoral.
I don't necessarily agree.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Whee!
The basis of morality is, "What allows society to function." Otherwise, society doesn't function.
I feel this is a gross oversimplification.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Now some mathematics, as it happens, has consequences which closely match physics, so it's useful. But I don't see how you are going to test any consequences of morality against the universe, short of dying and seeing if there's an afterlife.
Logically, thats not really an argument against what I argue, it is more a pragmatic consideration of both human limitation and logic.
quote:That's like saying that there is one correct shirt for me to wear tomorrow.
How so?
quote:I don't think it's quite that simple. This argument basically boils down to the assertion in your last sentence.
The problem with the law of explosion is that it deals only with the validity or invalidity of my argument, it has nothing to do with it's soundness.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Now some mathematics, as it happens, has consequences which closely match physics, so it's useful. But I don't see how you are going to test any consequences of morality against the universe, short of dying and seeing if there's an afterlife.
Logically, thats not really an argument against what I argue, it is more a pragmatic consideration of both human limitation and logic.
If you can't actually discover any part of your 'discoverable' morality, then just what is the meaning of this word? And in a similar vein, you keep using this word 'logic'. I don't think you understand it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Interesting responses. Not exactly the direction I expected the thread to take, but then I did ask for your thoughts. Anyway, I'm typing this from my cell so I can't really comment more thoroughly at the moment. Hopefully I'll have time tonight when I get home.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"That's like saying that there is one correct shirt for me to wear tomorrow."
How so?
Because the implication is that for any given decision path, there is always an optimal decision in either the long or short run, and that choosing a sub-optimal path is the "wrong" decision.
If all decisions are ultimately ontological, then it should be possible through diligent research to discover the perfect girl for me to marry, or which shirt I should wear tomorrow.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:More specifically, I’m interested in the idea of morality as simply the chosen method or framework used to accomplish a goal; that goal can be individual or societal and the morality supporting it is not to be strictly adhered to for its own sake.
What goal? If my goal is to drive home from work quickly, and I take a wrong turn, then I am not accomplishing my goal - but surely you wouldn't say it is immoral of me to take a wrong turn? When we speak of morality, we aren't just talking about any random goal; we are talking about a very specific sort of goal.
Furthermore, it is not a goal we are free to choose. I can't make murdering my brother moral simply by choosing a goal that is consistent with it. Whatever the "end" of morality is, it is something we are compelled to pursue, even if we'd prefer a different goal.
quote:I'm interested if someone who believes in objective morality can describe what it means for a moral to be objective.
It means that for any given person, in the exact same situation, the right thing to do would always be the same.
The objectivity of morality really has very little to do with "why" morality is what it is. It is possible that there is nothing that makes the right thing to do the right thing to do. It's possible it just is.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It means that for any given person, in the exact same situation, the right thing to do would always be the same.
What does it mean for something to be the "right" thing to do? Why should you do the right thing? I don't know how to answer those questions without having an implicit goal in mind.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Having an implicit goal in mind doesn't solve that problem; it just moves it up one more level. Instead of "why should you do the right thing?" you must ask "why should you pursue that particular goal?"
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
It's not necessarily a "should" question anymore. For example, if I claimed that my goals were ultimately motivated by my desire for a positive mental state then physics takes over. Both my desire and the causes of my mental states can be explained by evolution, game theory, and memetics. Granted our current explanations lack precision but that is a problem with our technology. It's well confirmed that our emotional states are caused by natural processes.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You are talking about what "causes" us to do things now, rather than why we "choose" to do things. If you reject the concept of free will, then morality becomes irrelevant, so one might as well not even discuss it.
But that's a bit absurd pragmatically speaking. You can't go around pretending you don't control the choices you make in life. We do possess free will, and we can choose whether to do one thing or another, so the question is always one of what we "should" choose to do. You can choose to follow a goal, but then you still must answer why you chose that goal rather than some alternative goal.
Posted by memeyou (Member # 11696) on :
Threads:
At what point do these "natural processes" take over from the mind? Is everything I do controlled by some chemical in my brain?
You seem to be saying people don't have free will because of nature, others say people don't have free will because of god. No matter which way you go everyone comes to the same conclusion
__________________________
www.foodbared.com - food good enough to blog about
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is everything I do controlled by some chemical in my brain?
Yes. Remove all the chemicals from your brain, then try to do something. Heck, try to try something. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: You can choose to follow a goal, but then you still must answer why you chose that goal rather than some alternative goal.
I already did but you rejected the notion of using natural processes as an explanation. It's silly to pretend like our wants and desires can be disconnected from our evolutionary history and cultural upbringing.
Again, what does it mean for something to be the "right" thing to do and how can you determine the right thing to do without having an implicit goal in mind?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Tres, good point. I didn't mean to imply the goal itself is chosen. And yes, it is a very specific kind of goal. I would say it is that which one feels ought or ought not to be in universal terms. Where that feeling comes from is a related but separate issue I think.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A discussion of morality is input to the chemicals in your brain, and therefore quite relevant and useful even in the absence of free will.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Because the implication is that for any given decision path, there is always an optimal decision in either the long or short run, and that choosing a sub-optimal path is the "wrong" decision.
Not necessarily. Why does it have to be that either everything or nothing is relative? Whether or not a painting seems good or not seems relative, and yet, when I ask whether a moral action is good or not, what is to keep us from saying that there is an objective answer to the question?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
An objective answer that cannot be discovered doesn't exist in any meaningful sense, any more than the invisible heatless dragon in your garage.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Again, what does it mean for something to be the "right" thing to do and how can you determine the right thing to do without having an implicit goal in mind?
I think you do need implicit goals in order to determine how to act - but the key is figuring out which goals are right to have and which are not. For instance, "Acquiring personal wealth" and "Improving the well-being of others" are both goals one could pursue, but I'd argue the latter takes precedence morally.
How do you determine which goals are best? I think the answer to that is something written into you as a person. They are the actions that are good for your soul, which is just another way of saying they are the actions which make you a good person. You determine them through experience, whether by your own trial and error, or by listening to the collective teaching of others. It doesn't necessarily make you happy, but you nonetheless fulfills a fundamental need to do the right thing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By that argument, any action can be defended as being good for your particular soul. Sure, it wouldn't be good for you to stab someone in the back for a promotion, but - so sorry - my sould requires that I do this to get to my personal goals. Do you mind turning around for a moment?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)