[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Sappho Absolutely correct. And because you add thoughts to the list, one could form the same arguement of that which is deemed logical/ valid.

Perhaps, if that argument was one based on neurological evidence. However, it is not based on this, it is based on simple observation.

Quote by: Sappho But that the processing of thoughts and emotions occur in the same parts of the brain, would suggest that both are having the same rules of the brain applied. And it is the rules of the brain that determine logical contructs as we express them.

Not at all. The mechanisms for water regulation and nitrogenous waste disposal overlap, but this does not mean that the processes are the same or even similar. We simply don’t know enough about the brain to cite neurological evidence for something as complex as thought and emotion.

Quote by: Sappho Quote by: forgot the name, but this contributer from page three So, the only time killing would be justified (moral) is when one could show that by killing the individual, the society has benefitted. This is utilitarianism at it's most basic - the greatest good for the greatest number. It's our reflex thought process. We act this way without ever needing to justify it in the written logical form. A prime example of this would be from 9/11 and the passagers that managed to reclaim the plane and avert even more deaths than there own. I might add that emotions were entailed also. Feelings of the needs for the greater good to be done far exceeded the feelings of self preservation. In all of this no conscious logical thought process occured. They acted on a thought from which they knew not where it came, and then proceeded to justify it and persuade others of it's merits because it felt like the right thing to do. And it felt like the right thing to do because our emotions and utility reflex told us so and not the logical constructs of language.

Which was precisely the point of this thread. The decision arose from the moral of doing the greatest good for the greatest number, which itself arose from emotion and instinct. Emotion and instinct are illogical, therefore morality cannot be logically justified.

Quote by: Sappho Moral behaviour is aimed at appeasing the emotions. It's a behavioural response to emotional needs. Much of what we do is for emotional reasons. Emotions are our life blood: our language of preference. Without emotion, we are like Deep Blue - a complex objective machine only. Our emotions connect with our sense of individuality and automony. Our emotions connect with our intellectual persuits. Our emotions connect with every thing we do. We are emotional beings. I believe..... I think...... I disagree...... all come with, equal parts, an emotional response. The passion of political and religous debates is a prime example of this.

That was also the point of the thread: morality is based on emotion.

Quote by: Sappho Problems arrise when we deny the emotional needs of the human in our logical language. Indeed it is counter productive to the human existance to exlude the needs of emotions in logical language as though it somehow doesn't fit.

What do you mean by “logical language”?

Quote by: Sappho Do you think then that emotions justify morality?

Nothing justifies morality: It is arbitrary and subjective. However, it is necessary and totally unavoidable. The point of this thread was simply to prove that morality is not absolute, something which I think has been achieved.