Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 184 (380899)
01-29-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Stile
01-29-2007 10:01 AM


Re: Survival is not part of the thought-process
quote:
Anything regarding "survival-chances" does not affect my morality decisions.
Are you sure? "anything" is a mighty all-inclusive word.
In my experience, individual morality is extremely situation-dependent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 10:01 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 11:48 AM nator has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 32 of 184 (380909)
01-29-2007 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ReverendDG
01-29-2007 11:18 AM


Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
ReverendDG writes:
that kind of comes off as circluar reasoning: they don't have morals so they are bad, they are bad because they have no morals, just pointing this out, since thats a common argument from the otherside for why you must have morals.
Yes, you are right. I took the lazy way out there.
ReverendDG writes:
the reason people should have morals is because they are useally about peoples lives, safty and property. those without morals tend to eather be dangerous to themselves or to others, or both. also those without morals tend to not fit into society and are distrusted by others, thus living a short unhappy life. morals allow a frame work to base a society on, which if we didn't have some form of morals or ethics would lead to socal self destruction.
Thank-you for describing that better than I could have. I think there was 2 ways to deal with this question. Your answer being the long and probably more-correct answer here. I was attempting to answer the lesser-more simplistic question. As in, "what do I think of someone who's a bad tipper?" I think they are a bad tipper, and I move on. Not every moral action I deem as bad needs to be reprimanded nor will they all have a deep impact on my life. Some are just "a different way of doing things that I think is less than great". And with these, I simply move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ReverendDG, posted 01-29-2007 11:18 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 33 of 184 (380914)
01-29-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by nator
01-29-2007 11:18 AM


I didn't want to be wishy-washy :]
nator writes:
Are you sure? "anything" is a mighty all-inclusive word.
In my experience, individual morality is extremely situation-dependent.
Agreed. And no, I'm not sure I wanted to make a stand at that point in my post. I didn't want to say "I cannot currently think of a situation where survival-chances would affect my morality decisions". Although, that is what I meant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by nator, posted 01-29-2007 11:18 AM nator has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 34 of 184 (380915)
01-29-2007 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Stile
01-29-2007 8:55 AM


Re: Some more agreement
stile writes:
Because my decision that killing is wrong doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's actually physically affecting me
Still incorrect.
Your perception of the consquences of your action will induce biochemical changes within you.
As long as your brain works well enough to give you voluntary control of you actions, your choices will have a very real effect on your biology.
This is the physical effect of which you speak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 8:55 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 12:59 PM Larni has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 35 of 184 (380930)
01-29-2007 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Larni
01-29-2007 8:52 AM


Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
Larni writes:
Some people DO see no wrong in it. People who do see wrong, do so because of socialization (with a few exceptions).
Some see no wrong in selfish actions which originate in their brain.
Some DO see wrong in the action, and therefore admit that they have no trust in their emotions and brains. They are trusting in something unseen, which I have dubbed, a moral compass. In your idea, we do not trust our brains because the world around us also does not when it comes to selfishness, correct? What is the world around us, into which we have been socialized, trust in? I assume that it is the moral compass as well.
Where did we get that? You can not use 'socialization' again. That is out the door.
And I DO have a question; with repeated ignoring of our brain and all of its bio-chemicals, can we cause our brain to stop putting out these chemicals? Can we make ourselves stop feeling selfish?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Larni, posted 01-29-2007 8:52 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Larni, posted 01-29-2007 5:11 PM anastasia has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 36 of 184 (380936)
01-29-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Larni
01-29-2007 11:54 AM


Any more semantics?
Larni writes:
This is the physical effect of which you speak.
Ha! This time I get to say you're incorrect!
You are correct, actually, that I did screw it up again, and I do understand what you are saying.
This is not the physical effect of which I speak. I was using "physical" in the layman's-speak. As if there really is a difference between mental (kind of... internal-body physical) and physical (kind of... external-body physical).
I admit, again, that I still have not excruciatingly accurately described what I want to say yet. But just because I used a word that does not mean what I wanted it to mean, can you say what it is that I'm trying to talk about.
"Because my decision that killing is wrong doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I could be killed".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Larni, posted 01-29-2007 11:54 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 1:14 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 45 by Larni, posted 01-29-2007 5:29 PM Stile has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 37 of 184 (380938)
01-29-2007 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stile
01-29-2007 9:22 AM


Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
Stile writes:
I admit that I do not understand, then, your God-based moral system. My understanding was that the moral system is based on what God says: God says it is good, so it is good. God says it is bad, so it is bad. Could you please explain the system to me if this is incorrect, or perhaps even just incomplete?
I do not have a God-based moral system as you might imagine it to be. It is not 'God said no!'. It is more of lloking at good and bad things in the world, and saying 'God is the good of the worlc' and therefore doing more good to be more like Him. It is a system which believes in Good as something which is more than a human brain function which chnages willy-nilly from day to day. Our ideas of good certainly do change, as we do not know very much of God to begin with, and many of them do have to do with survival, but not because survival is so important.
When I do things because of empathy for another, it is empathy and respect for the soul. I feel for the soul, and I care for the body as it is the home of the soul and it is not my right to end a life before God has done His work with it.
I use my intellect when deciding what is right for the situation. If the Bible says 'thou shalt not bear false witness' I must decide if lying will save someone, or hurt someone. I do this intellectually and empathically, but again not simply because I feel sorry for that person and I would not want to be hurt, but because I know that I have no right to cause them harm.
God-based morality does not deny evolved empathy or use of intellect. It just considers these as part of the arsenal and tools which God gave us to survive, not as physical creatures alone, but as spiritual and immortal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 9:22 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 1:24 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 42 by nator, posted 01-29-2007 4:50 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 38 of 184 (380945)
01-29-2007 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Stile
01-29-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Any more semantics?
Stile writes:
Because my decision that killing is wrong doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I could be killed".
Correct. And nothing to do with whether you could be the one doing the killing. It is an un-emotional, objective thought which is triggered by nothing and no chemical until the moment you are put in that position of being killed or killing. Most of us see crime on tv and feel empathy...we walk away and quite calmly know that the person is no longer suffering, but that the action was wrong. Not because the person suffered; often they do not. Not because we feel death is bad; it is inevitable. It is because we know that we have no right to take life as we have no ability to give it. We subconsciously know we are messing on God's ground. At least that is how I feel about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 12:59 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 39 of 184 (380949)
01-29-2007 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by anastasia
01-29-2007 1:03 PM


The same but different?
I want to try a bit of a comparison between your view and my view, please bear with me. I hope you do not find any of this insulting, that is not my intention. I've used "A" to represent "anastasia", and it's just a copy of what you've said in your post. And "S" to represent "Stile" and how I would alter your wording to fit my own thoughts on morality.
A->It is more of looking at good and bad things in the world, and saying 'God is the good of the world' and therefore doing more good to be more like Him.
S->It is more of looking at good and bad things in the world, and saying 'I think this world would be better if there was more good' and therefore doing more good.
A->It is a system which believes in Good as something which is more than a human brain function which changes willy-nilly from day to day.
S->It is a system which believes in Good as something which is more than a human brain function which changes willy-nilly from day to day.
A->Our ideas of good certainly do change, as we do not know very much of God to begin with, and many of them do have to do with survival, but not because survival is so important.
S->Our ideas of good certainly do change, as we do not know very much of what will work "perfectly" or "have the most good" for this world, and many of them do have to do with survival, but not because survival is so important.
A->When I do things because of empathy for another, it is empathy and respect for the soul. I feel for the soul, and I care for the body as it is the home of the soul and it is not my right to end a life before God has done His work with it.
S->When I do things because of empathy for another, it is empathy and respect for the person. I feel for the person, and I care for the body as it is the home of the person and it is not my right to end a life.
A->I use my intellect when deciding what is right for the situation. If the Bible says 'thou shalt not bear false witness' I must decide if lying will save someone, or hurt someone. I do this intellectually and empathically, but again not simply because I feel sorry for that person and I would not want to be hurt, but because I know that I have no right to cause them harm.
S->I use my intellect when deciding what is right for the situation. If the Bible says 'thou shalt not bear false witness' I must decide if lying will save someone, or hurt someone. I do this intellectually and empathically, but again not simply because I feel sorry for that person and I would not want to be hurt, but because I know that I have no right to cause them harm.
A->God-based morality does not deny evolved empathy or use of intellect. It just considers these as part of the arsenal and tools which God gave us to survive, not as physical creatures alone, but as spiritual and immortal.
S->Morality does not deny evolved empathy or use of intellect. It just considers these as part of the arsenal and tools which we have to survive, not as physical creatures alone, but as spiritual and (possibly) immortal.
As far as I can tell, our two methods of understanding morality are essentially equal, differing only in semantics. If you see a larger difference, or think I'm not understanding something, please let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 1:03 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 2:55 PM Stile has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 40 of 184 (380990)
01-29-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stile
01-29-2007 1:24 PM


Re: The same but different?
Stile writes:
S->It is more of looking at good and bad things in the world, and saying 'I think this world would be better if there was more good' and therefore doing more good.
S->Our ideas of good certainly do change, as we do not know very much of what will work "perfectly" or "have the most good" for this world, and many of them do have to do with survival, but not because survival is so important.
I have written to you because I think you have been dissatisfied as I am with some of the reasons people have given for morality. It is hard to explain, but I feel there is more to it. Making it all survival instinct is making us back into natural animals, and even if I believe in evolution, I believe we have evolved to realize that there is more to life than our body or the visible universe. We have evolved detectors; emotions, spiritual awareness, etc. If there is no God, most of these evolved skills have gained us nothing in terms of survival that animals without emotion or free-will, intelligence or awareness have not gained.
You are thining on your feet and in reality, the best way I can explain my position is by looking at your above two lines.
In each, you speak about 'good'. You say; the world would be better with more good, but then you say; good changes. This is a problem for me. If good changes, how can the world be better with more of it? What IS good? We do not know, we are only guessing, you and me and everyone. I just believe that 'good' is really out there somewhere waiting for us to catch it, and that God has given us the ability to recognize it. This is different than saying 'good' is a product of men, and changes all of the time. Good does not change. We just do not always see it clearly.
The

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 1:24 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 4:00 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 01-29-2007 5:01 PM anastasia has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 41 of 184 (381012)
01-29-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by anastasia
01-29-2007 2:55 PM


And now I'll be thoroughly confusing... :]
anastasia writes:
In each, you speak about 'good'. You say; the world would be better with more good, but then you say; good changes. This is a problem for me. If good changes, how can the world be better with more of it? What IS good? We do not know, we are only guessing, you and me and everyone.
I think you are right. I am using the word good to talk about two different things. This is confusing to me, and when I talk about it, confusing to anyone I'm trying to explain something to. Let me try to clear this up.
1. GOOD -> a world state that contains the most happiness for the most people possible. Perhaps this is a Perfect world with unlimited good for all people. Perhaps a world of Perfection is impossible, and GOOD is a world state that only limits the amount of bad to a necessary minimum.
2. good -> specific acts of generosity or altruism or anything that brings us closer to GOOD without compromising anyone's individual rights or priveledges.
GOOD does not change. It is always the same. On the other hand, good does change, in fact, it almost needs to change as our understanding on how to reach GOOD develops and grows and we are made more aware of how to reach that goal.
As a simple example: A part of GOOD is to treat people in a polite manner. Years ago, it was always good to open the door for a lady. She would expect it, want it, and be appreciative after someone did it for her. Now, it is not always good to open the door for a lady. Some ladies do not want doors opened for them, they may think it demeans them as a person, they may think it demeans the person holding the door, they may just simply not like it.
You see, GOOD never changed. The part of GOOD dealt with here is to treat others in a respectful manner, to increase the amount of happiness, albeit probably minor, in this world. However the good here did change. It used to be good to always open a door for a lady. Now it is good to open a door for a lady, if the lady would like a door opened for her, and you are available to open that door.
So, with respect to these two new specific definitions, my statements become:
S->It is more of looking at good and bad things in the world, and saying 'I think this world would be better if we could achieve a world state that contains the most happiness for the most people possible' (GOOD) and therefore doing more good.
S->Our ideas of good certainly do change, as we do not know very much of how exactly to achieve a world state that contains the most happiness for the most people possible (GOOD), and many of them do have to do with survival, but not because survival is so important.
So, yes. I do think our ideas of good need to change, as we learn what brings us closer to GOOD. I do believe in a higher GOOD that we do not fully understand yet, and possibly may never understand. One that we must work hard and try hard in order to understand as best we can. GOOD does not change, we just do not always see it clearly.
I'd like to thank-you for helping me come to this clear-distinction in my head. I had never thought about this specific aspect, and I am glad that you gave me what I needed in order to spell it out for myself. I feel like I really learned something about myself today

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 2:55 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:34 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 184 (381037)
01-29-2007 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by anastasia
01-29-2007 1:03 PM


Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
quote:
It is a system which believes in Good as something which is more than a human brain function which chnages willy-nilly from day to day.
It does?
Please explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 1:03 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:46 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 184 (381044)
01-29-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by anastasia
01-29-2007 2:55 PM


Re: The same but different?
quote:
Making it all survival instinct is making us back into natural animals, and even if I believe in evolution, I believe we have evolved to realize that there is more to life than our body or the visible universe.
We have also evolved the ability to realize that we are going to die someday.
Thus, religion was born in order to explain what happens after we die.
quote:
We have evolved detectors; emotions, spiritual awareness, etc.
No kidding?
Where is the "spiritual awareness detector" in humans?
quote:
If there is no God, most of these evolved skills have gained us nothing in terms of survival that animals without emotion or free-will, intelligence or awareness have not gained.
Most higher animals do, indeed, have emotions. Some of the most complex animal emotional lives can be seen, not surprisingly, in our closest relatives, the great apes.
Chimps, not surprisingly as they are our very closest relatives, are also self-aware, just as humans are.
Remember, ana, that the ability to imagine a God may easily be an artifact of having such large, complex brains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 2:55 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Doddy, posted 01-29-2007 6:32 PM nator has not replied
 Message 52 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:55 PM nator has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 44 of 184 (381050)
01-29-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by anastasia
01-29-2007 12:34 PM


Re: Ability and Usage are two different things
ana writes:
Some DO see wrong in the action, and therefore admit that they have no trust in their emotions and brains. They are trusting in something unseen,
My bolding.
People see wrong after the action. At this point the drivers for behaviour have changed.
When we are angry we think angry thoughts, we do angry things. We later re-appraise our actions and conclude:
"I should not have acted that way (because of the internal external repercussions), I feel (insert socialized emotion here)"
ana writes:
What is the world around us, into which we have been socialized, trust in?
What does this mean?
ana writes:
with repeated ignoring of our brain and all of its bio-chemicals, can we cause our brain to stop putting out these chemicals? Can we make ourselves stop feeling selfish?
Yes.
Welcome to cognitive behavioural psychology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 12:34 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by anastasia, posted 01-29-2007 10:10 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 45 of 184 (381064)
01-29-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Stile
01-29-2007 12:59 PM


Re: Any more semantics?
Stile writes:
But just because I used a word that does not mean what I wanted it to mean, can you say what it is that I'm trying to talk about.
Dude, is this a question? If so, I can't honestly say I know what you are trying to say.
Stile writes:
"Because my decision that killing is wrong doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I could be killed".
We have covered this already.
Through your socialization vis a vis the use of murder as an effective behaviour (for attaining your personal goals) you will feel a negative emotion (which you can predict) if you commit such an act.
Just as you would not put your hand into a fire because of the future consequence to your physical and emotional well being you would not commit murder because of the future consequence to your physical and emotional well being.
You have learnt that murder is bad for you and react accordingly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 12:59 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 01-29-2007 6:47 PM Larni has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024