Morality Cannot be Justified

[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.

[PatrickHenry]

So you're saying you have no problem with murder?

Would you rather murder or be murdered?

[Castle]

Quote by: PatrickHenry So you're saying you have no problem with murder?

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

[PatrickHenry]

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

Are you a logical person, I mean vis a vis emotional?

If you find murder logical, which one should a logical person do? Murder, if you get a chance or accept being murdered since it's only logical??

[another day]

You chose silly defenses againt murder being wrong.

You are a person capable of empathy. You put yourself in another man's shoes, and see they are the same as you, fundamentally. You would not want someone to rob you of your life, hence you believe it wrong to do the same to another person. That is logical. Empathy, though it is triggered by emotion, is not truly emotion-based. It is rooted in logic and survivalism.

[PatrickHenry]

Heh. The code against murder is to preserve order. If not for the justice system chasing down and punishing murderers, vigilante justice would create turmoil.

You might get me, but my son will get you, then your brothers go after my son, then some third party gets in the way, and a widening circle of corpses causes a big stink.

The logic of murder isn't really logical...

[Kuldeep]

Morality Cannot be Justified

I am with Patrick in this discussion. Morality can be justified when you, your own self put yourself in others shoes. You as a person, always want all others around you, say relatives, friends etc. should love, respect, think good of you, behave in best possible with you and the like. This basic instinct of making your own self happy and peaceful with such treatments from others, makes morality justified.

Morality has derived from this root desire of your ownself that others should be good to you. That is why, all religions tell us, it is moral to be good to others. Murder is one such bad action which nobody likes that others should murder him. So Murder can in no sense be justified.:(

[The Bacon Guy]

Morality, like anything else, cannot be based entirely on logic. Logic is a process by which we reach decisions and values. For any process, there must be a something to start with. Think of it like a chemical reaction; there must be reactants, a process and products. In the case of morality, the reactant must always be emotion, the process may or may not be logical, and the product is the morality.

EMOTION ---------logic---------> DECISIONS/VALUES

When you strip morality down to its root cause, you will always find emotion. Just reading through the responses to Castle's post, it is plain to see that they are all based on emotion:

Quote by: another day You would not want someone to rob you of your life, hence you believe it wrong to do the same to another person.

The wish not to be murdered is based on emotion/survival instinct.

Quote by: PH The code against murder is to preserve order.

Where is the logic in preserving order?

Quote by: Kuldeep relatives, friends etc. should love, respect, think good of you...making your own self happy and peaceful...nobody likes that others should murder him.

Chock full of emotional sentiment.

I don't think it can be argued that morality is based on anything other than emotion. Hence, since emotion is subjective and arbitrary, no morality can be logically justified. I place myself behind Castle in this discussion.

[Castle]

Quote by: PatrickHenry If you find murder logical

Finding "murder is wrong" illogical does not mean that murder should be done. It means that it's objective moral value is neutral (this is, incidentally, because of the notion of "objective moral value" is an absurd one).

Quote by: another day You would not want someone to rob you of your life

Are you sure this applies to everyone? Some do, you know.

Quote by: another day hence you believe it wrong to do the same to another person.

This doesn't follow at all. Why should we follow the Golden Rule? What's wrong with only caring about ourselves (and please don't justify this with another moral value; do it with something that we'll both agree is true). Point being, you've assumed this axiom for no good reason.

Quote by: PatrickHenry The code against murder is to preserve order.

Which is good why?

Kuldeep, same general objections as "another day".

Quote by: The Bacon Guy In the case of morality, the reactant must always be emotion

While I agree with your general point, this is incorrect. We start with axioms to form morality, not emotions (although axioms are frequently derived from emotions).

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy The wish not to be murdered is based on emotion/survival instinct.

Survival instinct is the basis of logical thinking. Organism A will be able to eat me if I don't adjust my lifestyle in some form to a defensive ability such as camouflaging one's self and hiding, getting stronger to be able to combat Organism A, or getting faster to flee Organism A.

Emotion and Survival instinct do not have to be intertwined.

Where is the logic in preserving order?

It increases the likelihood of survival.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: castle While I agree with your general point, this is incorrect. We start with axioms to form morality, not emotions (although axioms are frequently derived from emotions).

I would argue that the axioms from which morality is derived are always based on emotion or instinct, neither of which can be justified logically. Certainly axioms exist, but the root cause is always emotional.

Quote by: chaossaber Survival instinct is the basis of logical thinking.

Exactly. We use logic to satisfy our instinctive/emotional needs.

Quote by: chaossaber Emotion and Survival instinct do not have to be intertwined.

Instinct is an inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. It is subjective and unconscious. Now, given that emotion is defined as "in its most general definition, an intense neural mental state that arises subjectively rather than through conscious effort and evokes either a positive or negative psychological response. (source)", aren't instinctive needs synonymous with emotional needs?

[Praxius]

Quote by: another day You chose silly defenses againt murder being wrong. You are a person capable of empathy. You put yourself in another man's shoes, and see they are the same as you, fundamentally. You would not want someone to rob you of your life, hence you believe it wrong to do the same to another person. That is logical. Empathy, though it is triggered by emotion, is not truly emotion-based. It is rooted in logic and survivalism.

Pretty much what I was gonna say..... things in our society are deemed wrong, like murder, because most of us wouldn't want it happened to us..... you can go down the alley and ask some crack head to take a shovel to you head for a hit if you want...... but I have value for my life, and I plan to survive a bit longer, so I would rather other's look out for me, while I look out for them.

Humanity as one big wolf pack, looking out for one another would be quite strong.

[Praxius]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Exactly. We use logic to satisfy our instinctive/emotional needs.

Ok.... most of us know this though..... well I do.... we're animals..... we're nothing anymore special then anything else on this planet. We just survive differently then other animals. We use our brains more then our instincts, but our instincts are always still there, so therefore survival is still there as well...... without the want to survive, we'd be extinct by now.

[Gods_Mercenary]

From an evolutionary standpoint, murder is only justifiable if it helps your chances to pass on your genes. Killing another member of your species for any other reason is detrimental to your species' survival and therefore wrong.

I would like to think that humans can go beyond that. We have, in a way. All cultures recognize murder for the sake of murder as wrong, because it hurts the community's chance of survival.

[rez]

Quote by: Praxius Ok.... most of us know this though..... well I do.... we're animals..... we're nothing anymore special then anything else on this planet. We just survive differently then other animals. We use our brains more then our instincts, but our instincts are always still there, so therefore survival is still there as well...... without the want to survive, we'd be extinct by now.

humans have more instincts then animals, but that is a different debate.

I would say yes, morality can and can not be justified based on this type of logic. The Universe dictates how social animals interact,therefore a morality exists, however, the word "morality" only exists because of language. Status seekers such as humans, have the instincts to know when and when not to use morality in their favor.

[another day]

Quote by: Castle This doesn't follow at all. Why should we follow the Golden Rule? What's wrong with only caring about ourselves (and please don't justify this with another moral value; do it with something that we'll both agree is true). Point being, you've assumed this axiom for no good reason.).

It IS caring only about ourselves. The empathy is a survivalist defense. By not going around killing people, you are increasing the chances that you yourself will not be killed. Violence breeds violence...if you go around killing people, chances are someone will want to kill you...be it relatives of the people you killed, or society executing you, or someone fighting back in self-defense. If you are peaceful, chances are no one will want to kill you. Get it? It's very logical.

[Castle]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I would argue that the axioms from which morality is derived are always based on emotion or instinct

You would be incorrect. I could, for example, posit the axiom that, say, eating cereal is wrong totally arbitrarily.

The rest of you: Justify, logically, that it is good to be alive.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: castle You would be incorrect. I could, for example, posit the axiom that, say, eating cereal is wrong totally arbitrarily.

If you postulated the axiom arbitrarily fo the sake of this thread, it is not a genuine moral value. Can you give an example of an actual moral value which is not based on emotion?

[Castle]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Can you give an example of an actual moral value which is not based on emotion?

Hmm...the libertarian "property rights are absolute"?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Castle Hmm...the libertarian "property rights are absolute"?

An all-encompassing emotional love of freedom?