The Standard of Morality

[kapnobatai]

YouTube - Jonathan Haidt: The real difference between liberals and con

great video, figured I'd share :stoned:

[Coelho]

Well... i think i arrived at the basic principles of the morality.

For many people, morality is to do not some thing for someone if you wouldnt like it were done for you (or treat people like you would like to be treated, etc). And i think it is the fundamental principle of morality, from what everything else is based or deduced.

This principle comes from the assumption that other people feels the same way that us. So, as i know that being treaded on the toe hurts, i wont tread on other persons toes, cause i will assume that it will hurt them, and as im assuming that they feel the same way i do, if i tread on someones toe, it will increase the "total pain" felt by the mankind, this "total pain" being the sum of all the pain felt by all human beings. (It can be also extended by all living beings). The "total pain" would be increased by the same amount, regardless the toe traded on were mine or not, so i should avoid tread on others toes the same way i would try to avoid be treaded on, cause both would increase the "total pain".
(Of course the amount of pain caused by someone treading on anothers toe depends on the weight of the treader... but im not discussing this )

And the same goes for everything else, so we could talk about the "total happiness", "total well-being", etc...

BUT, the central assumption of the morality, that people feels the same way that us, cannot be proven rationally. There is no rational way to prove this. We can only infer this. If im treaded on the toe, it hurts and i yell. If i witness someone being treaded on the toe and this someone yells, i infer, i assume that this person felt the same pain i felt. But it just CANT be rigorously proven, but only assumed, inferred. We cant (rationally) enter into someone elses mind to feel the way they feel. So we cant know for sure if they actually feels the same way we do. (In fact, we cant be sure, using exclusively the means of the reason and logic, that other persons even exist. For all i know, everybody else could be only a product of my own mind, an illusion or hallucination.)

So, the conclusion is that morality is not a rational thing. In fact, morality cant be justified by pure reason.
Note that im NOT saying that morality doesnt exist, or its false, illusory, or whatever. Im only pointing that morality is not a reason-based thing.




PS. Of course there are the people who had "mystical experiences" and this ones says that we all are one, so maybe they percieved that the "total pain", "total happiness", etc, are the only real feelings, and that "personal pain", "personal happiness", are illusions created by the illusion of a self. But im not one of them, so i cant talk about what i dont know.
Also, i dont know if the logic and reason still are valid during this experiences, as both logic and reason are a product of the humans mind, and nothing ensures that they will remain valid in other consciousness states besides the usual "waking sober" one. So, even if this experiences prove the "realness" of the basic principle of the morality, it still remains an open question if the reason and logic can prove it.

[40oz]

So, the conclusion is that morality is not a rational thing. In fact, morality cant be justified by pure reason.
Note that im NOT saying that morality doesnt exist, or its false, illusory, or whatever. Im only pointing that morality is not a reason-based thing.

Im not so sure about that. If not constructed by reason, it would have to have been created by the passions, it would be a part of human nature. Now think about this...do animals have a sense of morality? I don't know, but my guess would be no, they do not have a sense of morality. That is a strictly human trait.

A person's sense of morality comes from our ability to rationalize and realize that if we look out for the good of the other humans around us, they will in turn look out for and protect us. Our moral code is then constructed surrounding this basic principle, which is a principle that is found in most all life forms. Without teamwork and traveling in packs, herds, schools, colonies, etc. individual organisms would never stand a chance.

So basically what Im saying is I think that a person's sense of morality is constructed by reason from a natural passion found within all life forms.

[Honkin22]

One man's right is other man's wrong, but I do think there are things all people should live by, and I think it is pretty simple, the old proverb "do on to others you wish them to do onto you" If you live you're life by that I think it covers most thing.:thumbsup:

[overgrowthegovt]

My thoughts:

There is the frustrating problem of subjectivity, of different people holding different values, etc. However, I think some value judgements can be deemed more correct than others, when held up to scrutiny. Frankly, many peoples' opinions do not mean shit, since they are merely the result of cultural indoctrination. I know, I know, to a degree everything everybody thinks (including myself) is a result of the same, but there are definite levels of it, and the fact that we are here discussing this shows that we have the ability to think in abstract terms, to transcend tradition, and to develop our own thoughts, a rare gift.

I think it is clear that the infliction of suffering is amoral--suffering is unpleasant to everybody, and only harm comes from it, the only positive result being that the inflictor's goals are achieved, the pleasure of which cannot possibly justify the extreme distress necessary for it. Extended thought reveals kindness, altruism, etc. to be commendable virtues, causing pleasure instead of pain. Most people have a basic concept of this ideal (however often they may break it), and in that they have it right.

Where I believe most people have it wrong is in asceticism, in restraint. Modesty, chastity and sobriety remain prevalent ideals to this day. Even most people who fuck left and right seem to hold the ideal of chastity, the false sense that their behaviour is somehow amoral or destructive. Sustained thinking reveals that there is nothing amoral about promiscuity or drug use, and that modesty is a social fabrication designed to keep people in line.

Loyalty is another bullshit value, probably invented by some emperor so they'd keep kissing his worthless ass. The value of loyalty usually leads to harm--few evils have caused greater suffering than patriotism, and yet nearly every citizen of every country continue to hold their own country or people above all others, never pausing to reflect on what exactly makes them so great. Interpersonally, it is nonsensical to take a friend's side when they are wrong, and in condoning a wrongness, you are doing harm.

I think the highest ideal is Truth, that which satisfies the noble/poetic soul and is unmitigated by deception.

[5thHorseMan]

I attempt to remain objective, while mindful of my own subjectivity. What I do is dictated by a need to do something, and the utility of that something.

If I cut down a tree, I do so because i have determined that removal of the tree will do a minimum of harm, while providing me and possibly others with maximum benefit.

So to me, a preacher or a banker for example are immoral individuals, because they don't do anything that materially benefits others, and don't actually do anything but take up space and consume resources, with no concern over the effect their consumption might be having.

[WeedFairy91]

Good and bad are just perceptions, point of views.
What might be good for you may be bad for another.


Our perceptions of "good" is usualy based around what benefits us, those around us and our values.

My perception of morality is to keep a steady medium between the good of others and myself while guiding my decisions with logic. Having a secular code of morality is tough, but I find "goodness" is so much more valuable when not shoved at the end of a flamming trident, eh?

[GreenDestiny]

I like to sum up the standard of morality with one word:
Compromise.

In any situation when morals are either forced or secretly made into law (even perhaps a political coup), then those morals would be wrong.

To reach a compromise, over 6 billion people's ideas would have to be considered all at once, and then once the votes have been counted, they'd have to all come together again to smooth it out. It would be nearly impossible to do, so that's why we have elected officials. But it doesn't carry over well. So, either way it's never going to work until someone devises an ultimate plan to get all those votes from everyone.

Until that happens, do anything you want. Free for all. All laws of the past and present are inherently unjust and unfair, they are purely arbitrary and irrelevant. Chaos reigns supreme.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

I like to sum up the standard of morality with one word:
Compromise.

In any situation when morals are either forced or secretly made into law (even perhaps a political coup), then those morals would be wrong.

To reach a compromise, over 6 billion people's ideas would have to be considered all at once, and then once the votes have been counted, they'd have to all come together again to smooth it out. It would be nearly impossible to do, so that's why we have elected officials. But it doesn't carry over well. So, either way it's never going to work until someone devises an ultimate plan to get all those votes from everyone.

Until that happens, do anything you want. Free for all. All laws of the past and present are inherently unjust and unfair, they are purely arbitrary and irrelevant. Chaos reigns supreme.

Compromise! That there is the most responsible, respectful, tolerant, and compassionate usage of our Free Will. The only rational model of morality.

[colour]

If I had a time machine I would travel back to the night I started this and smack me in the face.