Morality Cannot be Justified

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Exactly, According to Castle he doesn't believe in anything unrational, when at least half of his "being" (emotions) is unrational.

As far as I know, this wasn't his stance. The point was that morality is emotional, emotion is subjective, and therefore morality is subjective. Hence, it cannot be valid in an absolute sense.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Chaossaber Survival Instinct while partially unconscious to a point is hardly absolute. I fully realize on a conscious and logical level that if I go do random dangerous idea X that I'm going to die and choose not to engage in X because of this in some cases. Others are just things I choose not to do because I have no interest in them, but that's beside the point.

Acting on your survival instincts may or may not be logical. This is beside the point. The point is that the instincts themselves are not logically founded. Hence, morality derived from instinct is not logically valid.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Castle Umm...no. I don't, as it happens, accept anything without reason.

Here's the quote.

[Occam]

First, I suggest that there are two kinds of animals: solitary and social. Social animals form those societies so they have a greater chance of surviving, passing on their genes, etc. This is the case for a number of reasons, some of which are:

Working together animals can usually accomplish more than they could individually.

Working as a team they are more able to fend off outside agressors.

Mutual agreement to help each other when practical and to avoid hurting each other increases each individual's safety and liklihood of passing on its genes.

I suggest that this last point is the logical social definition of morality.

If each member is allowed to damage each other member of the society, the society will fail.

So, the only time killing would be justified (moral) is when one could show that by killing the individual, the society has benefitted.

Occam

[Gods_Mercenary]

Interesting... pretty nice observation.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Quote by: Castle Umm...no. I don't, as it happens, accept anything without reason. Here's the quote.

He doesn't accept anything as valid without reason. What's wrong with that?

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Interesting... pretty nice observation.

Only if morality is defined as a means of ensuring survival and development of the species in question.

[Gods_Mercenary]

You just said that all humans have emotion, emotion is unrational. Therefore he doesn't accept emotion, a part of him.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You just said that all humans have emotion, emotion is unrational. Therefore he doesn't accept emotion, a part of him.

No, he doesn't accept emotion as logically valid, and therefore doesn't accept any morality as valid in an absolute sense. It's a relativism thing.

At least I think that's where he was going with this...

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'm not even gonna bother delving into his mind.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I'm not even gonna bother delving into his mind.

Why not?

Just because people happen to have morals doesn't mean that morals are valid as logic. People also have opinions, and of course you know opinions don't constitute logic, either.

Of course, it is his morals which tell him that morals are not valid as evidence, so there is a paradox.

[Castle]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Hmm, I don't see many regulars of this forum attempting to argue that unmotivated murder is justified.

I'm somewhat distressed that after this many posts you're still uncertain of what's being argued. I'm claiming that unmotivated murder is not unjustified, which is subtly (but importantly) different.

And while I'm certainly not a regular of the forum, I am somebody, and I am arguing against the general intention of your point above. Thus, I am a counterexample.

Quote by: Patrick Henry If you don't wanna be hung, don't murder. Eminently logical.

This does not, of course, imply "don't murder" should we not accept "you don't wanna be hung". Still got axioms. Nothing comes from nothing.

Quote by: Occam So, the only time killing would be justified (moral) is when one could show that by killing the individual, the society has benefitted.

Achievement/Society Benefiting is good because...?

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You just said that all humans have emotion, emotion is unrational. Therefore he doesn't accept emotion, a part of him.

Perhaps I should have amended that to "I don't accept anything as true without reason". Sound better now?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Castle I'm somewhat distressed that after this many posts you're still uncertain of what's being argued. I'm claiming that unmotivated murder is not unjustified, which is subtly (but importantly) different.

I was arguing the point about how "people accept logic to be true."

And while I'm certainly not a regular of the forum, I am somebody, and I am arguing against the general intention of your point above. Thus, I am a counterexample.

My statement is not one that can be disproved with one counterexample, logically.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Why not? Just because people happen to have morals doesn't mean that morals are valid as logic. People also have opinions, and of course you know opinions don't constitute logic, either. Of course, it is his morals which tell him that morals are not valid as evidence, so there is a paradox.

I've already admitted that Morals are not logically valid. I just think that doesn't make them any less valid.

[Sappho]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary You just said that all humans have emotion, emotion is unrational.

Could you please explain to me why, in a cognitively healthy mind, emotion becomes irrational and therefore not a consideration in moral foundations.

Emotion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

[Gods_Mercenary]

How is love, hate, or happiness logical? You don't reason to come to these emotions, they just pop up and you follow them, often irrationally. While they are controled by scientific responses in the brain, you can't call them logical, they're different for every person.

[Sappho]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary How is love, hate, or happiness logical? You don't reason to come to these emotions, they just pop up and you follow them, often irrationally. While they are controled by scientific responses in the brain, you can't call them logical, they're different for every person.

Quote by: wiki In its broadest sense, cognition refers to all mental processes. However, the study of cognition has historically excluded emotion and focused on non-emotional processes (e.g. memory, attention, perception, action, problem solving and mental imagery). As a result, the study of the neural basis of non-emotional and emotional processes emerged as two separate fields: cognitive neuroscience and affective neuroscience. The distinction between non-emotional and emotional processes is now thought to be largely artificial, as the two types of processes often involve overlapping neural and mental mechanisms. Thus, when cognition is taken at its broadest definition, affective neuroscience could also be called the cognitive neuroscience of emotion.

You are obviously behind the times then. For it is now the case in nueroscience that thinking and emotion result from the same cognitive processes.

Our emotions don't just appear full pelt from the blue. Our emotions are a fine tuned thing that have, just as our thinking, been socialised. Our emotions before being expressed are determined by our mind as to their appropriateness and then altered accordingly.

Our emotions are affected by the same factors affecting thinking such as alcohol and drugs.

Our emotions are valid and logical responses to the external world. Our emotions, I would say, should play a part in moral behaviour.

We should feel loathing when faced with a murderer.
We should temper that loathing when it is learned that the murderer was a victim of DV etc.......

And so it goes for all human actions. We are emotional beings also and this fact needs reflection in our codes of moral conduct.

[The Bacon Guy]

Nobody knows precisely how our thoughts and emotions come about, so citing neurological evidence won't help your case.

I think the main problem here is that you are working from a different definition of logic. When we say that emotions are illogical, we mean that they are not the result of conscious thought processes. Even though the same neural mechanisms are used, there is a distinction between logical (conscious) processes and illogical (unconscious) processes.

For example, the decision to post in this thread was a conscious decision made to satisfy my interest in the topic. It was logical. However, my interest in this thread was not a conscious decision, that is, I did not choose to be interested in the topic. It was illogical.

And who said emotions should have no place in determining morality?

[Sappho]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Nobody knows precisely how our thoughts and emotions come about, so citing neurological evidence won't help your case.

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

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.

I think the main problem here is that you are working from a different definition of logic.

No... I don't think so....

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.

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.

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.

And who said emotions should have no place in determining morality?

Do you think then that emotions justify morality?

[Sappho]

Might I add that emotions are thoughts also.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Emotions are tools that allow us to get around a logical thoguht process, if you spent a couple minutes debating with yourself on whether you should hit the guy who just insulted you, he'd have left by then, but instead you immediately become angry and sock the guy whether he deserved it or not.

At least this is one function of emotion, it just sort of came to me.