Morality Cannot be Justified

[Logjam]

Quote by: Castle Not at all. I'm saying that the stance "murder is wrong" is logically unjustifiable.

Sure it's okay to consider murder wrong. And do you know why? It's because after thousands of years of human experience it's been deemed that society works best if murder is discouraged.

Societies also work best if rapes are considered wrong, and theft, and vandalism, and (I believe) homosexuality, and lots of other things that harm innocent people.

These truisms morph into a societys culture. Our culture teaches us what we must teach to our children so that they can become successful members of our society.

Using your method humans would not thrive and chaos would reign supreme. Permissiveness does not breed a happy, stable society; rather discipline and adherence to the rules does.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Sappho Might I add that emotions are thoughts also.

I'm not sure that an emotion is a "thought". Rather they are a reaction to circumstances. For example fear is a response to a threat. Fear is not a thought, it happens without thought, it's almost automatic.

We are better people if we learn how to channel and control our emotions. A man who oversomes his fear is considered as brave.

One of the signs of an adult is that he has learned to control his emotions and it's also a sign of childishness when emotion are allowed to run wild.

[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.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Sappho Might I add that emotions are thoughts also.

Depends how you define thoughts.

It is however very important to distinguish between conscious and unconscious thoughts. That is crucial in determining whether morality can be logically justified.

[Gods_Mercenary]

We've come to the same point many, many times, I believe you and me ceded that morality is illogical in like page 2.

[Logjam]

Quote by: 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?

What! Of course we know the source of our thoughts and emotions!

Thoughts are a function of our large brain as it creats solutions to problems. At first we thought very little and as our brain and language grew we thought more and more. Our survival has been predicated by the successes of our thought process. The more effective solutions that we find the better off we are.

Same goes for our emotions. Our emotions have evolved to help us to respond to the trials and tribulations that we encounter every day. Fear and it's associated squirt of adrenaline helps us to respond to danger. Love helps us to bind with those of the opposite sex and thus relationships grow and strengthen, making the clan stronger. Suspicion causes us to look beyond the obvious, so that we are not taken advantage of easily. Joy helps us to relieve the stresses of life and it improves our morale. Give me an emotion and I think that I can give you a reason for it.

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, sexual desire provides for procreation, I wouldn't even define that as an emotion. Love is different and often non-sexual.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary No, sexual desire provides for procreation, I wouldn't even define that as an emotion. Love is different and often non-sexual.

It's a pretty good point. But I think that sexual desire is an emotion. But certainly there are several forms of love. The love between men in a military unit for example. The love for a father of his son, a mother for her child, etc.

And, certainly emotions are very complex. I'm sure books are written on the subject. I do think, however; that I'd do a pretty good job of finding a reason for most emotions.

I don't know how many emotions that there are. I've never thought about it.

Do you suppose other animals have emotions? I suppose chimps do. Seems to me that elephant mothers love their young. Or are they just hard wired to care for them? Kinda complex, eh?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Extremely complex, beyond the current scope of science and still a part of philosophy, in my opinion. And you're right, there are infinite forms of love, as well as all other emotions. I think sexual desire is more like hunger, a desire that comes from your body, not your mind.

[Sappho]

Quote by: Logjam I'm not sure that an emotion is a "thought". Rather they are a reaction to circumstances. For example fear is a response to a threat. Fear is not a thought, it happens without thought, it's almost automatic.

Thought depends of sensory data for it's thinking. Fear is a thought. It is a response to the sensory stimuli bombarding our thinking. It relies on previous experience and/ or uncertainty which thought has previously located/ or not in the related memories that fit the current sensory stimuli. Thought decides that fear is an appropriate ongoing experience in the mind to fuel the further flight/ fight action required. Thought then calls apon the psysiological components to do their thing and increase all functions required for immediate high level action. Thought then uses all sensory data now profoundly enhanced to determine under this umbrella of fear what to do next.

Emotion is thought first, then acted apon. Emotion is a cause. Not a consequence.

Think how the above example of fear would change if fear was not thought first. If all that sensory stimuli did not arrouse fear, when fear was required, what then?

One of the signs of an adult is that he has learned to control his emotions and it's also a sign of childishness when emotion are allowed to run wild.

Agreed. We learn how to control analysis and imagination also - amongst other things.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary We've come to the same point many, many times, I believe you and me ceded that morality is illogical in like page 2.

Indeed we did. I thought sappho was disputing that emotions are illogical and therefore that morality is illogical, but after reading the last post, I'm not entirely sure what point he was making.

Quote by: Logjam What! Of course we know the source of our thoughts and emotions!

The comment I made about not knowing the origins of thoughts and emotions was with respect to a specific point of sappho's regarding the neurological processes behind thought. We can rationalise the existence of thoughts and emotions evolutionarily and anthropologically, but the neurological (the physical) basis is still largely unknown. That was what I meant.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary We've come to the same point many, many times, I believe you and me ceded that morality is illogical in like page 2.

I could not disagree more.

Simply put; if we were to grade a moral society against an immoral society I'll bet that the moral society would be superior in most ways.

That fact alone gives credence for a reason for morality.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Logjam Simply put; if we were to grade a moral society against an immoral society I'll bet that the moral society would be superior in most ways.

Superiority is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?

[Gods_Mercenary]

"Superiority is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?"

Well, I mean that would depend on what the societies looked like. Late imperial amoral Rome was obviously an inferior place compared to the early republic where people held ideals and put personal duty before ambition.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Well, I mean that would depend on what the societies looked like. Late imperial amoral Rome was obviously an inferior place compared to the early republic where people held ideals and put personal duty before ambition.

How so?

[Logjam]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Indeed we did. I thought sappho was disputing that emotions are illogical and therefore that morality is illogical, but after reading the last post, I'm not entirely sure what point he was making. The comment I made about not knowing the origins of thoughts and emotions was with respect to a specific point of sappho's regarding the neurological processes behind thought. We can rationalise the existence of thoughts and emotions evolutionarily and anthropologically, but the neurological (the physical) basis is still largely unknown. That was what I meant.

I got it, and thank you. But one can consider that since we do not know how the brain creates thoughts and emotions as moot. Since we know that they exist. They are real, no matter how they come about.

Sure, it'd be interesting to understand the physiological processes of how the brain hatches thoughts and emotions. But do we need to know how thoughts and emotions are created to be able figure out how effective they are? I don't think so. Nor do we need to know what brings them about to know that they are crucial to the human condition.

The ancient Greeks probably had thoughts and emotions pretty much figured out.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Fornicating with your own mother was less common, for one. and the government was actually trying to better Rome instead of it's leaders.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Logjam I got it, and thank you. But one can consider that since we do not know how the brain creates thoughts and emotions as moot. Since we know that they exist. They are real, no matter how they come about. Sure, it'd be interesting to understand the physiological processes of how the brain hatches thoughts and emotions. But do we need to know how thoughts and emotions are created to be able figure out how effective they are? I don't think so. Nor do we need to know what brings them about to know that they are crucial to the human condition.

Neurological evidence could be useful in determining some characteristics of thought and emotion, but I agree that in this thread, it is not necessary. Especially so, since it is clear from simple observation the characteristics of and differences between thought and emotion.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Fornicating with your own mother was less common, for one. and the government was actually trying to better Rome instead of it's leaders.

In which case it is only superior from the point of view of someone interested in bettering Rome. If the beholder were one of the amoral leaders of late Rome, he would see the late Roman way as superior. It's all down to the individual's emotionally-based priorities.

Edit: Of course, one could argue that what is best for the majority is superior. However, this is a case of argumentum ad populum which, while maybe socially valid, is not logically valid.

[Logjam]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy How so?

During the Republic the Romans elite shared political power with the masses. The Assembly worked like the our House of Representatives (losely). Men felt that they had a hand in the day to day operations of their government, and they would have considered the government "theirs".

During the late Empire the people were locked out of the operation of the government. Men no longer took responsibility for how things worked and they lost interest in government. Rather they spent their time at the games, or at the race track.....or to a lessor degree, at the theatre.

Romans, at least those who lived in Rome were a happier people during the Republic than they were under the Empire. During the Republic the Roman culture was more clearily defined and understood. During the Empire millions of non-Romans became citizens of Rome and many flocked to the city. This dimmed the self image of Romans. As the Empire progressed Romans became more petty and more cruel. Old values, such as loyality and respect for their leaders, that had stood Romans so well in the past were eroded.

Finally they became so weak they they were a relative push over for invaders.