Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 331 of 438 (742728)
11-23-2014 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Dogmafood
11-22-2014 9:41 PM


ProtoTypical writes:
Is this not an objective base for morality? What 'works' can be seen in hindsight.
I personally wouldn't call it objective if it can only be observed in hindsight. That's like saying Columbus was objectively searching for America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Dogmafood, posted 11-22-2014 9:41 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Dogmafood, posted 12-02-2014 6:21 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 332 of 438 (742729)
11-23-2014 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by Colbard
11-22-2014 10:16 PM


Colbard writes:
The intelligent species has developed a means of enforcing its ideals onto others by rules, and the one with the most power makes the rules, right?
I'm not talking about rules at all. I'm talking about individual morals. Our society teaches us moral values which we internalize. As Paul put it:
quote:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
Evolution explains quite nicely how morals are "written on our hearts" - i.e. in our consciences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 10:16 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 6:38 AM ringo has replied

  
Astrophile
Member (Idle past 128 days)
Posts: 92
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


(1)
Message 333 of 438 (742734)
11-23-2014 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 309 by Colbard
11-22-2014 9:34 PM


So if you are in a country where they are about to burn alive a former wife because they want a new model, then that's good, because the majority consent to it, and have made it their rule or morality?
First, I should have said, 'a country where a man is about to burn alive a former wife because he wants a new model'.
Second, in my opinion the best person to decide whether this is right or wrong is the former wife, because she will be the person most affected by the decision.
Third, what would you think of a country where people are stoned to death for working on the sabbath day; is that right because the majority consent to it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 9:34 PM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 6:57 AM Astrophile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 334 of 438 (742736)
11-23-2014 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by Colbard
11-22-2014 7:06 AM


You're an idiot.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Colbard, posted 11-22-2014 7:06 AM Colbard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Colbard, posted 11-24-2014 7:05 AM Larni has not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 335 of 438 (742751)
11-24-2014 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by ringo
11-23-2014 1:55 PM


Ringo writes:
I'm not talking about rules at all. I'm talking about individual morals. Our society teaches us moral values which we internalize. As Paul put it:
quote:
Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
Evolution explains quite nicely how morals are "written on our hearts" - i.e. in our consciences.
You've just wowed me. I am stuck for words. I would like to know more about the last sentence - how those morals came in through evolution. The question speaks for itself, but I was just wondering, when, at which stage of evolution did it became evident?
Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by ringo, posted 11-23-2014 1:55 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by ringo, posted 11-25-2014 10:50 AM Colbard has replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 336 of 438 (742752)
11-24-2014 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by Astrophile
11-23-2014 3:50 PM


Astrophile writes:
First, I should have said, 'a country where a man is about to burn alive a former wife because he wants a new model'.
Second, in my opinion the best person to decide whether this is right or wrong is the former wife, because she will be the person most affected by the decision.
Third, what would you think of a country where people are stoned to death for working on the sabbath day; is that right because the majority consent to it?
The first instance is a vote by the majority, in this case of misogynists. Unfair.
The second example comes from the Jewish theocracy, which did not work on majority votes but on a direct individual relation to God.
Breaking the Sabbath was a deliberate denial of that direct relationship. It was sticking the middle finger up at the King of Israel as well as the universe.
After the Jewish nation apostatized, they lost their direct Kingship of God and had judicial ideas similar to the other nations. With corruption in the leadership, stoning was often a heinous crime, and not a fitting punishment at all.
If there is any moral law, either from evolution or revelation, it has to be very fair, as you said in consideration of the condemned as well. It has to strive for perfection in balancing justice and mercy.
What we all find appalling is when those in authority are not doing it fairly or honestly. Our world is a history of battles between the upright and the lowlifes, in judicial systems. And I believe that is so because of damage to the human psych.
In the case of evolution an underdevelopment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Astrophile, posted 11-23-2014 3:50 PM Astrophile has seen this message but not replied

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 3391 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 337 of 438 (742753)
11-24-2014 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 334 by Larni
11-23-2014 4:34 PM


Larni writes:
You're an idiot.
If it did not take you so long to figure that out, I would have believed you, but I am glad you thought long and hard to come up with that conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 334 by Larni, posted 11-23-2014 4:34 PM Larni has not replied

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


Message 338 of 438 (742759)
11-24-2014 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by New Cat's Eye
11-21-2014 4:13 PM


Re: Good and Bad
Cat Sci writes:
I'm actually leaning towards the "following orders" side as being more foundational. Analogy time!
I think we're using the word foundational differently. My fault, though, pretty sure I'm the one using it a bit strangely.
You're saying the instinctual stuff is 'more foundational' because it's natural and inherent to the person?
In this way, I agree.
I'm saying the thinking-about-it/learned-stuff is more foundational to a "good" moral system.
That is, I agree that the using-our-intelligence aspect is more abstract, but I think that being more abstract like that is more important for a good moral system (as opposed to not using our intelligence at all).
Person 1's immediate thoughts/instinct is to make sure the woman is okay and to help in any way they can.
Person 2's immediate thoughts/instinct is to capitalize on the situation and take her purse from her and steal her money.
Then they both think about it for a bit, and they both decide that they should help her.
Wouldn't you say that Person 1 is a more moral person than Person 2?
No, I would not.
I would say that Person 1 is "better" than Person 2 in a general sense, though (that is... I see your point).
However, I don't see how we can say Person 1 is "more moral" than Person 2 when they are not responsible for the aspect of themselves that you're saying makes them more moral.
In this scenario, you seem to be saying that Person 1 is more moral due to their instincts... due to the "luck of the draw." Person 1 had no control over that. And Person 2 had no control over their instincts.
This is why I cannot say that Person 1 is more moral.
"Moral," to me, carries a certain amount of personal-responsibility with it.
If it wasn't you making the decision, then it's not you being moral.
I agree that we should use our intellect to form moral decisions, but we all also have that inner voice, or instinct, that drives our initial reactions to situations.
I agree that we have both, as well.
And I think that inner voice is the more foundational part of your morality, and that the intellectual assessment of that actually overrides our instinct and allows us to do something else.
In the sense that "foundational" is talking about basic-instinct-natural-order sorts of things, I agree.
In the sense that "foundational" is talking about a sense of being more-moral... I disagree.
So the intellectual part, to me, seems to be more ancillary than foundational, and the "following orders" is actually the foundational part.
I think my choice of the word "foundational" was not very good and only introduced confusion. This is basically what I meant:
To me, the intellectual part is more important to being a moral person (good person) than any amount of following orders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-21-2014 4:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2014 10:53 AM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 339 of 438 (742760)
11-24-2014 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Stile
11-24-2014 10:14 AM


Re: Good and Bad
I think we're using the word foundational differently. My fault, though, pretty sure I'm the one using it a bit strangely.
You're saying the instinctual stuff is 'more foundational' because it's natural and inherent to the person?
In this way, I agree.
I'm saying the thinking-about-it/learned-stuff is more foundational to a "good" moral system.
That is, I agree that the using-our-intelligence aspect is more abstract, but I think that being more abstract like that is more important for a good moral system (as opposed to not using our intelligence at all).
Oh, I see. Yeah, I can't disagree with that.
No, I would not.
I would say that Person 1 is "better" than Person 2 in a general sense, though (that is... I see your point).
However, I don't see how we can say Person 1 is "more moral" than Person 2 when they are not responsible for the aspect of themselves that you're saying makes them more moral.
Because of the whole free-will or predestination dichotomy?
Don't we judge your morality on what you do, and not whether or not you are ultimately culpable for it?
That is, if you are having those bad thoughts, then you are immoral for actually having them, not because you're ultimately responsible for having them.
In this scenario, you seem to be saying that Person 1 is more moral due to their instincts... due to the "luck of the draw." Person 1 had no control over that. And Person 2 had no control over their instincts.
This is why I cannot say that Person 1 is more moral.
But a person programmed to do bad things is still doing bad things even though they are not ultimately responsible for it, and they can still be considered immoral for doing bad things, regardless of the fact that they were programmed that way.
"Moral," to me, carries a certain amount of personal-responsibility with it.
If it wasn't you making the decision, then it's not you being moral.
Considering that you are your mind, and your mind did do those bad things, then you are technically still responsible for the bad things that you did even if it wasn't ultimately your decisions to do those bad things. Your mind, i.e. "you", still made those bad choices.
Otherwise, you're on a slippery slope towards nobody being accountable for anything. "It wasn't my fault, I was programmed to run that red light, I shouldn't get a ticket"
Well, you still did run the red light and that is what the ticket is for, regardless of whether you were programmed to do it or not.
To me, the intellectual part is more important to being a moral person (good person) than any amount of following orders.
That is assuming that you have both the opportunity and capability of the intellectual assessment.
I contend that many times we do just "follow orders" without really thinking about it.
Don't accidentally remove those situations from the moral consideration by focusing on the times that we can intellectually assess the situations.
But I agree that the intellectual assessment allows us to pursue a better moral consideration than without.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Stile, posted 11-24-2014 10:14 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Stile, posted 11-24-2014 1:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 340 of 438 (742764)
11-24-2014 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Colbard
11-23-2014 7:34 AM


Re: Good and Bad
But while many sleep and dream, their lives are drawing to a close, and the battle between good and evil is coming to a sudden unexpected climax on this earth, and we need to be informed how it takes place and make a wise decision about it.
People have been saying that for 2000 years.
Meanwhile, science has been making all kinds of advancements that have improved the lives of countless numbers of people.
I'll keep my bet on science, thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Colbard, posted 11-23-2014 7:34 AM Colbard has not replied

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


Message 341 of 438 (742765)
11-24-2014 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by New Cat's Eye
11-24-2014 10:53 AM


Re: Good and Bad
Cat Sci writes:
Stile writes:
No, I would not.
I would say that Person 1 is "better" than Person 2 in a general sense, though (that is... I see your point).
However, I don't see how we can say Person 1 is "more moral" than Person 2 when they are not responsible for the aspect of themselves that you're saying makes them more moral.
Because of the whole free-will or predestination dichotomy?
Maybe. I don't really understand that dichotomy, so I try to stay away from it
Regardless of whether or not actual free-will exists, can we agree that using our intelligence to derive a decision is "deeper" than following an instinct without thinking? Maybe free-will doesn't exist and both are robotic... but at least while using our intelligence, we're doing everything we can do about it, right?
That's why I think intelligence > instincts in a moral context.
Don't we judge your morality on what you do, and not whether or not you are ultimately culpable for it?
Yes. Well, almost. I judge morality on how the-person-affected-by-your-actions judges your actions.
So, yes, I agree that it is decided on "what you do." It's just that you and I may not be the ones doing the deciding...
That is, if you are having those bad thoughts, then you are immoral for actually having them, not because you're ultimately responsible for having them.
I actually don't consider thoughts to be good or bad.
I don't have a problem with someone having what others would consider "bad thoughts" all day long.
It's what they decide to do that makes them moral or not.
In fact, if Person 1 had no bad thoughts, and is a good person... and Person 2 has bad thoughts all day and is still a good person despite that... I find Person 2 to be a stronger/more-honorable person. After all, Person 2 is overcoming adversity to be a good person. Person 1 is just doing what feels natural (closer to robotic-following-orders).
Think of it like Person 2 has actual evidence that they are a good person, where Person 1 has never actually been tested.
Maybe they're both the same level of good-ness? Maybe not... but we do have evidence for Person 2.
But a person programmed to do bad things is still doing bad things even though they are not ultimately responsible for it, and they can still be considered immoral for doing bad things, regardless of the fact that they were programmed that way.
If such a thing existed, I wouldn't consider it a person.
If it's simply programmed... then I'd consider it a robot. Robot's can't be good or bad, only their programmer's can be such.
I suppose "some level of intelligence" is required for me to consider the entity being moral or not as a baseline.
Otherwise, you're on a slippery slope towards nobody being accountable for anything. "It wasn't my fault, I was programmed to run that red light, I shouldn't get a ticket"
I agree.
Um... I think there's some confusion here about "us just talking about some interesting aspects of morality" and "what I think morality is about."
I think morality is about:
How the-person-your-actions-affect judges your actions.
This does not require you to have intelligence.
This does not require you to have free-will.
This is very cut-and-dry, depending on your actions.
Some interesting side-issues I think are cool to talk about:
Do we actually have intelligence? Or are we robots?
-To me, whatever way it goes, we're all in the same boat.
Maybe humans have intelligence (free will). Maybe they don't (sophisticated robots).
If we have free will, then I still use my actions-based moral system to decide if something is good or bad.
This just has a deeper-meaning, personal-responsibility-ness to it.
If we are simply sophisticated robots, then I still use my actions-based moral system to decide if something is good or bad.
This seems a bit sad to me, and a waste some good free-will... in that sense I see it as "lesser"... but it doesn't really change anything.
Cat Sci writes:
Stile writes:
To me, the intellectual part is more important to being a moral person (good person) than any amount of following orders.
That is assuming that you have both the opportunity and capability of the intellectual assessment.
No. This is a valid point for both systems (if we are intelligent or if we're just robots).
It's just that if we're robots, we don't get to have the more-important part
I contend that many times we do just "follow orders" without really thinking about it.
I agree.
To me, this makes it honourable to strive for the intelligent-part as much as we can.
Maybe we already have it? Great, keep trying to do better.
Maybe we don't. Sucks... but maybe we can get it at some point in the future if we strive for it.
Maybe we can never have it.. Again, sucks. But trying for it anyway has a certain even-more-honourable sense to it
Don't accidentally remove those situations from the moral consideration by focusing on the times that we can intellectually assess the situations.
But I agree that the intellectual assessment allows us to pursue a better moral consideration than without.
I agree.
We should always judge our moral system based on the actions (or, as far as I'm concerned... let those-affected judge our actions). Regardless of if we can use our intelligence, or if we're just robots.
It's also always best to strive for using that intelligence, regardless of whether or not it's within our reach.
This really is a vast subject with many nuances

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2014 10:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2014 2:46 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 342 of 438 (742767)
11-24-2014 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Stile
11-24-2014 1:54 PM


Re: Good and Bad
I don't really understand that dichotomy, so I try to stay away from it
If everything was predestined, and you don't have any free will, then you have no culpability for your behavior and we cannot say that anything you do is immoral.
I see your response to that is:
quote:
If such a thing existed, I wouldn't consider it a person.
If it's simply programmed... then I'd consider it a robot. Robot's can't be good or bad, only their programmer's can be such.
And that's fair enough.
Regardless of whether or not actual free-will exists, can we agree that using our intelligence to derive a decision is "deeper" than following an instinct without thinking? Maybe free-will doesn't exist and both are robotic... but at least while using our intelligence, we're doing everything we can do about it, right?
That's why I think intelligence > instincts in a moral context.
Understood. That's agreeable.
I actually don't consider thoughts to be good or bad.
I don't have a problem with someone having what others would consider "bad thoughts" all day long.
It's what they decide to do that makes them moral or not.
I dunno. A guy sitting around all day sulking over the fact that he really want to kills all the spics is a less moral person, to me, than one who sits around all day dreaming about feeding poor hungry people. Even if they both don't ever actually do anything. The second person is more moral at heart, imho.
In fact, if Person 1 had no bad thoughts, and is a good person... and Person 2 has bad thoughts all day and is still a good person despite that... I find Person 2 to be a stronger/more-honorable person. After all, Person 2 is overcoming adversity to be a good person. Person 1 is just doing what feels natural (closer to robotic-following-orders).
Think of it like Person 2 has actual evidence that they are a good person, where Person 1 has never actually been tested.
Maybe they're both the same level of good-ness? Maybe not... but we do have evidence for Person 2.
I may be more honorable to overcome your immorality and do good things, as opposed to following your morality and doing good things, but I still feel like the person who has those bad thoughts is a less moral person, even if they don't ever act on them.
I've known some bad people in my life, and some of them are just bad people at heart. If if they never actually commit crimes, I still think they are bad people.
Cat Sci writes:
Stile writes:
To me, the intellectual part is more important to being a moral person (good person) than any amount of following orders.
That is assuming that you have both the opportunity and capability of the intellectual assessment.
No. This is a valid point for both systems (if we are intelligent or if we're just robots).
It's just that if we're robots, we don't get to have the more-important part
I was actually thinking along the lines of having the time to do the assessment.
A lot of times we just react to situations and don't have time to think about them. In those cases, there's still a moral choice but we do not intellectually assess them.
That's where your instict plays a bigger role in the equation. Take this gif for example (its totally fake but that doesn't matter):
That guys reaction could have been to dive out of the way. But instead he saved the reporter.
That, to me, makes you a more moral person at heart. When you do the right thing even when you don't have time to think about it...
And there's something to that, that has a value that I don't see you really appreciating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Stile, posted 11-24-2014 1:54 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Stile, posted 11-24-2014 3:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 343 of 438 (742772)
11-24-2014 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by New Cat's Eye
11-24-2014 2:46 PM


Re: Good and Bad
Cat Sci writes:
I dunno. A guy sitting around all day sulking over the fact that he really want to kills all the spics is a less moral person, to me, than one who sits around all day dreaming about feeding poor hungry people. Even if they both don't ever actually do anything. The second person is more moral at heart, imho.
Yeah, I get the point, and I think it's a valid point.
I'm just not sure how important it is.
That is... we just have 2 guys both sitting around doing nothing.
What's worse?
Sitting around having bad thoughts, but making sure you don't act on them?
or
Sitting around having good thoughts, but not doing anything to act them out?
My point isn't to say that you're wrong... I do think you have a point.
My point is to say that this idea isn't all that important. It can be written this way or that way to put a spin on it to seem good or bad.
We don't really have anything objective to look at until we have a physical action with someone being affected.
I've known some bad people in my life, and some of them are just bad people at heart. If they never actually commit crimes, I still think they are bad people.
I agree with this statement.
I may not have a direct argument against it...
A lot of times we just react to situations and don't have time to think about them. In those cases, there's still a moral choice but we do not intellectually assess them.
That's where your instincts plays a bigger role in the equation. Take this gif for example (its totally fake but that doesn't matter)
I agree.
I would just like to add that we also have the ability to train our instincts.
Let's say it's a different guy in the gif... this guy is scared and dives out of the way.
Then we take him and teach him how to protect women by catching baseballs. He wants to do this, so he accepts the training and gets better. His instinct is actually to dive, but his training can override that and become his new 'instinctual movement.'
(That's what a lot of high-level sports actually is... muscle memory... training your muscles into new instinctual movements that you don't have to think about so that you can be better without even thinking about it when the time comes).
Now this different guy happens to get into the same situation again... and he saves the girl.
Is he a good guy now?
Better than before?
What if his basic-instinct is still to dive away, but his trained reflexes are just overriding that due to his intellectual choice to train so much?
Better or worse?
I find this sort of himming and hawing to be... tedious.
I don't think it matters until there's an action.
Then you can talk to the person affected to see if they were hurt or helped.
Hurt = it was a bad action.
Helped = it was a good action.
Good person -> Will take the information into account and make efforts (do actions) to duplicate/multiply the good actions in the future.
Bad person -> Does not care enough to make an effort (do any actions) to be better in the future.
Note a few things here:
-Very easy for a good person to do bad things (accidents, didn't know...) This is simply reality. What matters is what you do next time (not necessarily with the same person or exactly the same scenario... did you try to learn from it or not?)
-Being a "good person" or "bad person" is not something that is static, it varies on how much effort you put in all the time. You can be a good person, but get tired of putting in effort... and become a bad person. Start trying again... become a good person again.
That, to me, makes you a more moral person at heart. When you do the right thing even when you don't have time to think about it...
And there's something to that, that has a value that I don't see you really appreciating.
I do appreciate it, and in a way I agree. But what if I re-word it like this:
Is the guy who already has good-instincts (that he just has from luck-of-the-evolutionary-draw...) but doesn't try to improve at all a "better" person than the guy who has bad-instincts but tries very hard and succeeds at getting over them?
I find that hard to swallow.
So where's the line?
How do we deal with it in reality?
Do we line everyone up and test them and see? Or do we have to monitor real-world situations as they come?
If we're monitoring real-world situations as them come... what system should we use for that?
Shouldn't that system be the one already described anyway (based on actions)?
How long do we use that system until we "monitor enough" to change the system?
What would we change the system to?
I just find this information (that someone who has good instincts is better than someone who has bad instincts) to be not-very-important and kinda useless.
To me, good/bad only really matters depending on actions and the results of those actions.
Everything else can be interesting, but it pales in comparison for real-world applications and usefulness. Pales so much that it's hardly worth contemplating unless we can identify a manner to incorporate it into practical applications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2014 2:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2014 4:33 PM Stile has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 344 of 438 (742780)
11-24-2014 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Stile
11-24-2014 3:34 PM


Re: Good and Bad
Yeah, I get the point, and I think it's a valid point.
I'm just not sure how important it is.
That is... we just have 2 guys both sitting around doing nothing.
Okay, so if you had to pick between the two of them, which would you rather spend your day hanging out with?
Would it bother you to know that the guy sitting next to you all day was filled with murderous thoughts? Even though he isn't actually acting on them...
We don't really have anything objective to look at until we have a physical action with someone being affected.
That's true. And that's a practical constraint. I think I'm deviating from what you intended to achieve.
I would just like to add that we also have the ability to train our instincts.
Sure, but training muscle memory is stretching the analogy farther than I care to discuss.
I find this sort of himming and hawing to be... tedious.
I don't think it matters until there's an action.
I get it. And action is required for it to matter in any objective, and probably even any useful, sense.
But I contend that is still actually matters to you, you personally, what your peers are thinking, and/or how they feel in their heart, even if they aren't acting on it.
Not that it matters to an objective analysis of morality, but that it does matter.
Is the guy who already has good-instincts (that he just has from luck-of-the-evolutionary-draw...) but doesn't try to improve at all a "better" person than the guy who has bad-instincts but tries very hard and succeeds at getting over them?
I find that hard to swallow.
I wouldn't say they are necessarily better as a quality of a person. But I would say that they are more moral. Specifically, more moral at heart.
And honestly, I prefer to surround myself with people who are more moral at heart. Even if they don't do a lot of action.
So where's the line?
How do we deal with it in reality?
Do we line everyone up and test them and see? Or do we have to monitor real-world situations as they come?
If we're monitoring real-world situations as them come... what system should we use for that?
Shouldn't that system be the one already described anyway (based on actions)?
Don't get me wrong: we should still use the system based on action.
I just thought you were failing to appreciate the more impractical side of things.
I just find this information (that someone who has good instincts is better than someone who has bad instincts) to be not-very-important and kinda useless.
Heh: "I appreciate it, it just isn't important and doesn't matter"
To me, good/bad only really matters depending on actions and the results of those actions.
Everything else can be interesting, but it pales in comparison for real-world applications and usefulness. Pales so much that it's hardly worth contemplating unless we can identify a manner to incorporate it into practical applications.
Even without a practical application, I still feel a certain level of importance.
Like I asked: Who would you be more comfortable hanging out with?
Even when nobody is acting, aren't you less comfortable around people who you think are bad at heart?
Why do you think that is?
Perhaps its because you think they are more inclined to act immorally?
If so, then doesn't this impractical side actually do have an effect on you?
Perhaps it should be incorporated into the assessment?
Or maybe its just too impractical to be used, I dunno.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Stile, posted 11-24-2014 3:34 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by Stile, posted 11-25-2014 10:05 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 345 of 438 (742866)
11-25-2014 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by New Cat's Eye
11-24-2014 4:33 PM


Re: Good and Bad
Cat Sci writes:
Like I asked: Who would you be more comfortable hanging out with?
Even when nobody is acting, aren't you less comfortable around people who you think are bad at heart?
Why do you think that is?
Well, I'm really not sure.
I mean, it's easy to say "I'd rather be with the guy who's good at heart."
But, well... what does that mean?
When it comes down to it, I think we're concerned with the unknown future.
That is, if we're going to be hanging out with one of these 2 guys, and something happens... we want to know that they have our back and aren't going to try and screw us over, right?
So, if by "good at heart" you actually mean "isn't going to screw you over in the future..."
Then, well, you're giving away the answer in the question, and of course I would like to be with the one that is "good at heart."
But, try this way of me explaining it:
Let's say we don't actually know how either one is going to react in the future.
We have guy 1 - Who is "good at heart" because he doesn't have murderous, bad thoughts all the time.
We have guy 2 - Who does have murderous, bad thoughts all the time, but we know he does not act on them, he restrains himself. Or, at least... so far
Now, just looking at this, it feels natural and easy to me to say "well, I want to hang out with the guy who's good at heart."
But let's give a possible future situation.
Let's say something horrible happens.
Guy 2 is used to horrible things, he deals with such thoughts all the time. It's just another day for him, he restrains himself again and everything's cool.
Guy 1 is not used to horrible things, he snaps. For the first time he's bombarded with horrible ideas and it terrifies him and he does whatever he can to get himself out of the situation... disregarding you and your health entirely.
Doesn't that sound possible, given their two attitudes?
Which one seems better now?
My point is that we can't foresee the future, and that's the only place where any of this really matters.
Sure, if we know the future is going to be a boring, regular day... I can understand wanting to be around Guy 1 because he's not fighting against anything.
But what if the day is filled with terrible shit? Do you want Guy 2 who's already proven he can deal with terrible shit? Or Guy 1 who may or may not snap?
We cannot foresee the future, but we do have evidence that Guy 2 can resist urges and deal with horrible things is a good way. We do not have evidence that Guy 1 can do either of those things.
This makes me feel like I'd rather hang out with Guy 2, he's proven himself.
I'm not trying to say that this is definitive in any way.
I'm just trying to play a bit of devil's advocate to show my point - that this sort of "guessing of the future" can go either way, and depending on the circumstance we may or may not want Guy 1 or Guy 2 around.
All in all, I think that "feeling something out" for yourself has an important role.
If you, personally, feel that you should be with Guy 1, then do that.
If someone else, personally, feels that they should be with Guy 2... then I think they should do that.
I just don't see an objectively right answer here.
Unless, of course, you're going to define Guy 1 as being better for all situations... then yeah, go with Guy 1 for all situations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2014 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024