Poll: Logic or morality?
- Thread starter Mcupobob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
just because you call it logic dosn't mean your right. Humans don't know everything, so their logic can be faulty. Morals on the other hand are passed down by generations as things you should do or else things might go bad. Essentially, morals are logic; logic that has been perfected through out history.
I'll trust my morals before my logic (unless I am unusually certain of something) because I know I'm not the smartest person on Earth.
I'll trust my morals before my logic (unless I am unusually certain of something) because I know I'm not the smartest person on Earth.
Which means your morality follows the logic of self-benefit.Dulcinea said:
Actually, scratch that, that's amorality. But; you probably don't follow it as solidly as you might think. Stealing lying and piracy all work out best for you at the cost of others, but something will stop you from such extreme egotism.
Morality based on the logic of reason works best to me, there's no exclusivity between the two.
Xixikal said:I would say, rather than have Logic vs. Morality, you should have Logic vs. Compassion. Logic, as others have said, is the basis of morality.
And I vote Logic!!
I agree that this would be a better question.
But even still I have found that compassion, or acting with the intent of good will, is always the logical decision, because anything else is self destructive.
although you can still be a hardass when you need to be
Hypothetical - 0% chance of getting caught or even acknowledged by anyone else for the actionDulcinea said:
Steal a homeless man's lunch
Trying to isolate the part where you only consider your own benefit, with coincidentally "good" actions derived from an ulterior motive.
There needs to be a balance of both. I believe that rationality is more important. Cold hard logic is simply that, cold, while having a moral compass allows for one to differentiate right from wrong. In certain cases, logic could actually condemn someone, while morality could obscure ones perspective.
I actually had a thought regarding this. Is it possible to be truly selfless? Meaning can you do something, without getting anything in return? To me, a selfless act gains no reward in any shape or form. For example: A man sacrifices his life to save the life of another. Is this truly "Selfless"? You could argue yes, but if you take into account that he will be revered as someone who saved the day, he has indeed received something. Though not intentionally.Baneat said:
Please, hypothetical analogies don't have to be airtight provided the issue is understood.Dulcinea said:
For this we'll consider the time and effort to have zero value, you make identical time and effort either side of your decision - not a practical scenario, I can't translate that to a real-world application, but the kind of crazy shit I put in normative ethics essays.
Parodied nicely in the Friends episode where Phoebe tries to make a selfless act, then accidentally feels good about it.WaaghPowa said:
In the realm of the hypothetical, you have to ask if you'd do it if you go in knowing that you will gain absolutely nothing.
The problem is that it is impossible to factor out personal gain beforehand, I even consider "fulfilling the (Kantian)Will" to be of some self-service.
You can try as hard as you can, I donated blood, refused the cookies, refused the drink, refused the sticker and, at the time, told no-one. I didn't know it would be useful to mention this later..
Then I realised I was trying to gain from it, I was trying to assess the possibility of selflessness, and as a result, went against the concept >.>
Dulci- come into the realm of the hypothetical. The only difference between the stealing of the lunch and the not-stealing is that you gain five cents and he loses a lunch, and that's the *only* variable. Do not consider any other external factor.
But see what I'm getting at is although one does not seek reward but receives it anyway, how can anyone be sure that their motives really are selfless? On the outside they may appear to be selfless, we can't know what their true intentions are. Perhaps sub consciously, selfless nature really has ulterior motive. I'm nice to you, so you'll be nice to me. Win win.Dulcinea said:
Yes it sounds horribly cynical, but it's something to think about.
Immanuel Kant came up with this selfless duty concept, by the way, and he has no issues accepting rewards if they weren't a factor in him making the decision..WaaghPowa said:
It's why some of us have problems with charity dinners, people call us assholes for shooting people like this down when they try to use it to claim they are moral. Kantians don't say it's immoral, simply that it is not moral.
Best we can hope for is minimisation, truth be told.