Morality Cannot be Justified

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy 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.

Got me again, but without all this viewpoint stuff, while it is important, he still had a point.

[The Bacon Guy]

Thanks, Logjam. Ancient Rome is one of the biggest gaps in my historical knowledge. It sounds pretty interesting, so maybe I'll delve into it when I can find the time.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Oh, I love Rome. It's my favorite period, along with Napoleon, of course.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercanary Got me again, but without all this viewpoint stuff, while it is important, he still had a point.

Socially, it is an entirely valid point, but philosophically, it is questionable.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Oh, I love Rome. It's my favorite period, along with Napoleon, of course.

I'm more of a Medieval England man myself. That and World War II.

[Sappho]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy 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.

They are not illogical. Here is what I wrote on the previous page that you may miss.

Quote by: 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?

In answer to the retorical question. The outcome, without fear, would be illogical actions on the part of the human who does not repond to the rather profound emotional thought!

This example is human logic in action. You are trying to separate the expression of logic from logic itself. I say that humans are bound by our ability for logic in all things. Logic permiates emotions, imagination, critical thinking, play etc..... You are trying to make it a stand alone tool used for the inteligencia in the creation of new theories.

If we use a world view of logic, then we must accept that humans are entities controlled by logic. There are rules of thought, some of us can express in written and oral form, and that is our logic. We can even find the tricks and mishaps of logic, through other logical rules. And like language, it is built into the brains wiring, to be realised through trial and error and the appropriate external stimuli. Emotion is controlled by our natural ability for logic as is every thought.

If we used a restricted view of logic, then again, we must acknowledge the impact of anylitical thinking on our emotional output. Cause and Effect, must allow for the emotion to occur before the physiological response to it. Emotion, must be acknowledged for the mystery it continues to be. And therefore must always play a confounding role in the objectification of morality. And since emotion accompanies so much of our living, permiating even our dreams, logically, it deserves a standing in the codification of ethical considerations. The rules of living need an emotional imput. The rules of living can only be justified by its emotional input.

What do you mean by “logical language”?

Both the actual logic in codified terms and the natural logic as expressed in language.

Thought does not necessarily require our conscious languages to think. Thought thinks at a rate much faster than its consciousness can, and therefore uses a language or construct of rules we are still looking to discover.

Nothing justifies morality: It is arbitrary and subjective. However, it is necessary and totally unavoidable.

How can something be both necessary yet unjustifiable? Surely it is the cause of necessity that makes morality justifiable.

The point of this thread was simply to prove that morality is not absolute, something which I think has been achieved.

What do you mean by this?

We will always need morality to live in social groups. Therefore morality is absolute to our social living. Morality is a necessity.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well, we history guys all have our preferences. We should start debating history more, I've had enough of this philosophy stuff for a while. It's too hard to debate when people are coming from every different viewpoint at once.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Sappho way to get on the point again, although I think we're pretty much tired of this subject, we're musing about our history preferences, for God's sake!

And I think Bacon guy meant that Morality is unjustifiable in the strict lines of logic we spent the entire thread defining. Certainly most people would argue that morality is necessary and helpful for society, that's really all the justification I need.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: sappho In answer to the retorical question. The outcome, without fear, would be illogical actions on the part of the human who does not repond to the rather profound emotional thought! This example is human logic in action. You are trying to separate the expression of logic from logic itself. I say that humans are bound by our ability for logic in all things. Logic permiates emotions, imagination, critical thinking, play etc..... You are trying to make it a stand alone tool used for the inteligencia in the creation of new theories.

It’s true that emotion is a cause.

Also, it should be noted that logic is a process and must therefore have a starting point or axiom. In the case of morality, the axiom is always emotional or instinctive. Actions which we take may or may not be a result of a logical process, but the axiom for this logical process is always emotionally or instinctively based. Emotion is the axiom and it therefore cannot be logical.

Even in the case of emotion being a logical (though unconscious) response to stimuli, the axiom for this logical response is still emotion, that is, the emotional will to survive.

Quote by: Sappho If we used a restricted view of logic, then again, we must acknowledge the impact of anylitical thinking on our emotional output. Cause and Effect, must allow for the emotion to occur before the physiological response to it. Emotion, must be acknowledged for the mystery it continues to be. And therefore must always play a confounding role in the objectification of morality. And since emotion accompanies so much of our living, permiating even our dreams, logically, it deserves a standing in the codification of ethical considerations. The rules of living need an emotional imput. The rules of living can only be justified by its emotional input.

Of course emotion needs to be considered in any social situation. That was never disputed.

Quote by: Sappho How can something be both necessary yet unjustifiable? Surely it is the cause of necessity that makes morality justifiable.

Necessity makes morality it socially valid, but not logically.

Quote by: Sappho What do you mean by this?

Moral absolutism states that one set of morals is right in an absolute sense, that is that morality is more than a social construct, and that anyone deviating from these morals is wrong. The conclusions from this thread would suggest that moral absolutism is false.

[Cadre]

The fact is, we act based on emotion and thought, which intrinsically affect our morality and problem solving/reasoning abilities.

This entire concept is just an irrefutable construct that has no practical application or context in our reality.

Asking the wrong questions people...

[Sappho]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Sappho way to get on the point again, although I think we're pretty much tired of this subject, we're musing about our history preferences, for God's sake! And I think Bacon guy meant that Morality is unjustifiable in the strict lines of logic we spent the entire thread defining. Certainly most people would argue that morality is necessary and helpful for society, that's really all the justification I need.

Ok then. What about the ancient greeks and Hedonism.

I like Hedonism. I think it is an excellent morality to follow. Just imagine if we all acted on the desire to seek pleasure with the protection of modern day Autonomy and our natural inclination for Utility? Hmmm...... I like that world. Doesn't exist in history though.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Cadre This entire concept is just an irrefutable construct that has no practical application or context in our reality.

*opens envelope*

Definition of philosophy!

[littlebear]

I believe logic is derived from motivation. Why would you kill someone? Because you don't like the way they look. Because you were having a bad day. Because they offended you? Each of these motivations are logically incorrect because the severity of the act (murder) is far greater than the motivation warrants. We as a society feel one is justified in killing another in self defense, because the motivation (preservation of one's life) is sufficient. We feel one is justified in punching someone who is harming one of our children. Logically, the action is justified by the offense. To split someone's skull open with an axe because they slapped your child is not logical because the action is too severe for the offense.

Morals are defined by society. Society often changes its view of what is offensive from time to time. Esther, in the Bible was seen as God's means of preserving her people by becoming the wife of the king. What? God condoned marriage and sex for ulterior reasons? Who would think it? God told the Israelites to borrow jewelry and other objects of worth from the Egyptians knowing fair well they were to begin the exodus. Isn't that stealing? Borrowing something that you never intend to return? Killing in some cultures and in some times was not what it is today. A sheriff shot John Wesly Hardin in the back of the head. Hardin at that time was not even wanted for any crimes. No one condemned the sherrif. We bombed innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki including women and children. Most feel that was justified. We put a bounty on native Americans heads and we condemn Saddam for gassing his people? Morality is relative.

[Castle]

You're all way off-topic. I don't particularly care, because the original point appears to have been universally agreed upon. Just noting it.

Quote by: Logjam 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.

To repeat myself for the hundreth time (I think this was actually covered in the OP), why is it good for "society to work best"? Oh, yes, that's a moral axiom. An unjustified moral axiom.

[agustine]

To Castle. With respect to your comment

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

I think you are absolutely wrong. How then is murder wrong not logically justifiable when the very assertion itself is expressed within an analytic a priori proposition. Murder is essentially wrong by definition. Therefore we find within the subject concept "murder" the predicate concept "wrong" or "wrongness" and thus we recognize the proposition as being logically analytic. With respect to how we know murder to be wrong, I think the principle is properly a priori. I am speaking of the principle and not the particulars which are known a posteriori and are occasionally arguable. Because the principle is known a priori, the proposition: "murder is wrong" is metaphysically necessary. That is, most necessary truths are generally known a priori. How then do you assert that the proposition murder is wrong is logically unjustifiable?

Augustine

[agustine]

To my Bacon friend. With respect to your comment

Also, it should be noted that logic is a process and must therefore have a starting point or axiom. In the case of morality, the axiom is always emotional or instinctive.

Axioms are self-evident truths, metaphysically necessary and known a priori, and generally analytic logically. How then is an emotion axiomatic when it is known through sense experience and thus properly a posteriori?

Augustine

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Sappho Ok then. What about the ancient greeks and Hedonism. I like Hedonism. I think it is an excellent morality to follow. Just imagine if we all acted on the desire to seek pleasure with the protection of modern day Autonomy and our natural inclination for Utility? Hmmm...... I like that world. Doesn't exist in history though.

What if i take pleasure in killing people?

[Athena]

Quote by: Castle There is, I submit, no particular reason why we say things like "murder is wrong", when we get down to the base of it. The libertarian would tell us that murder is wrong because it infringes on property rights. The utilitarianist would say that murder is wrong because it hurts people. The Christain would declare that murder is wrong because God said so. But so what? Why do we care about property rights, or happiness, or what God says? Each of these is simply another moral claim, another unsupportable statement that something or another is right. And if we ask for support for these, what do we get? "Liberty is paramount", "happiness is the greatest good", or perhaps "God defines good". Or perhaps one might get something like "it preserves society", which falls into the same category. If we accept no moral axioms, we can build no moral structure; nothing comes from nothing. Ultimately, we must have a starting point for morality, a statement that has no justification, that must be accepted without proof. From each axiom comes a moral system: From "one has the right not to have one's property interfered with" comes libertarianism, from "the greatest good for the greatest number" comes utilitarianism, from "the bible is the word of a God whose moral system is optimal" comes Christianity (well OK, I'm a little uncertain about that last). But each is an axiom, unjustified and unjustifiable. As is, ultimately, all morality.

How about this, if it is okay to kill people, how about we just put a bullet in your head and end your suffering. Are you okay with that?

[agustine]

To littlebear. With respect to your comment

believe logic is derived from motivation.

The laws of logic are known by us a priori, or in other words part of our rational intuition in the Kantian dialect. That is we appear to be imbued with an innate knowledge of certain concepts that are properly termed noumena, which are objects of thought independent of sensation that provide a framework for our capacity to interpret and comprehend external sensations or phenomena.

Augustine

[Athena]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary What if i take pleasure in killing people?

Good choice. There are always reasons for killing people so I am sure we can accommendate your desire to kill. It would of course be easier if you are also open to killing animals. Then we can find you a position in a slaughter house or dog pound.

May be we should narrow this down and determine under what conditions you enjoy killing? What is it about killing that gives you pleasure?