VWOOT!! Treat your neighbor as you would have them treat you. Truly you are a win sir.octafish said:
Poll: Logic or morality?
- Thread starter Mcupobob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
morality is subjective, and therefore a very bad foundation for anything, least of all civilization.
morality is born of logic anyway; humans need to stay alive, so we developed logical means to stay alive, and as we thrived we developed more extroverted means to stay alive and to keep society alive; as a meta-concept, the survival of society became abstract morals rather than purely logical.
logic and morality are not exclusive; in fact they are inseparable. no human mind can function without considering both; pure logic without a goal results in nothing, with a goal results in the fanatical pursuit of that goal at the expense of all else. ironically, a society focused solely on its moral code would be the stagnant one because it would do everything by its own rules and only its own rules forever. theyre apples and oranges really; logic is built from the most basic facts upwards, morality is built from the most metaphysical navel-gazing downwards.
its quite simple really; what is a better basis for a thought: what is believed, or what is fact?
morality is born of logic anyway; humans need to stay alive, so we developed logical means to stay alive, and as we thrived we developed more extroverted means to stay alive and to keep society alive; as a meta-concept, the survival of society became abstract morals rather than purely logical.
logic and morality are not exclusive; in fact they are inseparable. no human mind can function without considering both; pure logic without a goal results in nothing, with a goal results in the fanatical pursuit of that goal at the expense of all else. ironically, a society focused solely on its moral code would be the stagnant one because it would do everything by its own rules and only its own rules forever. theyre apples and oranges really; logic is built from the most basic facts upwards, morality is built from the most metaphysical navel-gazing downwards.
its quite simple really; what is a better basis for a thought: what is believed, or what is fact?
Let's crank it up
Ten bucks to press a button which will kill the homeless man
You are guaranteed not to be linked to this in any way
If you do not press the button, nobody will press the button
It takes no time at all to press it, and zero effort
the ONLY change between deciding to press said button is that you have ten dollars, and the man is dead.
You would not have contacted this man in any way if you refused to press it, you can not communicate with him, and he will live life as normal.
I absolutely refuse to believe any rational person is enough of a dick to push the button.
I'm making it as airtight as possible. Do not fancypants around the point made.
Ten bucks to press a button which will kill the homeless man
You are guaranteed not to be linked to this in any way
If you do not press the button, nobody will press the button
It takes no time at all to press it, and zero effort
the ONLY change between deciding to press said button is that you have ten dollars, and the man is dead.
You would not have contacted this man in any way if you refused to press it, you can not communicate with him, and he will live life as normal.
I absolutely refuse to believe any rational person is enough of a dick to push the button.
I'm making it as airtight as possible. Do not fancypants around the point made.
If you're referring to the golden rule of Christianity, then it's a bit flawed. "Treat others the way you want to be treated" can apply well for most people but not all. A person with masochistic tendencies should not, in my opinion, go knocking about causing pain to other people. While this example is sort of 'out of this world' it points out the shortage of the golden rule.octafish said:
To be honest I think Kant's categorical imperative is better rule to act according to:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."
Indeed. Say for instance that your moral code does not allow killing, yet you are assigned to execute a person(s) because you were ordered to. Now in some circles logic would say to listen to orders and those higher up than you. However it may also be logical to kill said person because he possibly poses a threat to your life and others. Now this is where the moral code comes in. You may not want to kill and it may go against what you feel is right, but given the chance to prevent danger and possibly imminent death towards yourself and others then it would seem both logical and morally correct to kill that person.Redlin5 said:
Ugh, mixing those 2 is such a sticky and nasty situation. Thus is life though. We can't rely solely on logic 100% of the time and neither can we rely on a moral code 100% of the time. Gotta find your middle ground somewhere.
Not sure what you're going for here. We live in a world where everyone does what they think is right and a world where we "go by whats more safe and efficient". People choose which moral path to take and encompass logic around their decision in order to function in society. I personally mix the two, along with using a David Hume style of morality (letting your emotions help determine if an action is right or wrong). I'm still debating whether or not morality actually exists, but it's working for me so far.Mcupobob said:
I wouldn't push the button based on both morality and logic. For one it goes against my moral standards to take a life for my own personal gain. I go by logic as well because one of human nature's purposes is to grow, reproduce and pass on to the next generation and seeing as how I'm stopping this process it doesn't seem all too smart to prevent that process for another being just because I can raise my personal gain. That's my opinion and thinking process behind it.Baneat said:
That's two categorical imperatives, he only intended one to be used, offering five options.Wuggy said:
And there are five
And I'm officially terrified of Dulcinea, and also believe he is perhaps bullshitting me slightly, as he said in another thread
"I want to support the site!"
He did not mention that he wanted the pub club perks, and it is generally agreed that you will not improve the site enough with your 20 dollars enough to make it worth it, just like buying any video game will not make the next one worth 60 more dollars in value to you.
Without morality we are androids (Nexus-six(book) variety) - without empathy we are worthless processors. It is not sustainable logic, and I place no value on something truly without morality, since it comes from reason and choice naturally.
this is kinda a stupid question. What is moral for one man is not for another. The same can be said for logic. Two people can look at the same thing and get totally different logical conclusions. Long story short humanity is doomed.
In my ethics class last fall, we went over this topic a bit toward the beginning of the semester. One short work that we studied was written by Albert Einstein. According to him, "ethical directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking and empirical knowledge". From this whole writing, he basically says that ethics and morality can and should coexist.
The universe is what it is. Morality is a human invention based around the needs of a specific group. There is no overarching morality system for all of us. So, I simply go by what helps others and what hurts them. I try to do the first and avoid the second, but like anyone that tries to be a good follower, I sometimes stray from the path. But I'd rather at least try to follow something I believe in theory than something I think is bogus or naive. So logic it is. It's in my best interest to help others because I think if I do it enough, I'll get the same in return.
I will deliberately commit the fallacy of appealing to consequences, since the alternative is unworkable
If morality does not exist, we are no more than consequential machines. Literally, everything is worthless, everything is pointless
If it does exist then we can give value and meaning to reason to live.
So, while I do not have a meta-ethical justification for morality, it doesn't *matter* if I'm wrong about morality existing, since if option A is true then being reasonable and right is irrelevant to anything.
If morality does not exist, we are no more than consequential machines. Literally, everything is worthless, everything is pointless
If it does exist then we can give value and meaning to reason to live.
So, while I do not have a meta-ethical justification for morality, it doesn't *matter* if I'm wrong about morality existing, since if option A is true then being reasonable and right is irrelevant to anything.
the sad truth is, they're both fundamentally fallible systems that will inevitably lead you to despair. the ultimate conclusion of logic is nihilism, and morality's so fickle it's individualized. following morality absolutely is absolutely selfish, and following logic absolutely is absolutely hopeless.
Oh, do I look like fool now.Baneat said:That's two categorical imperatives, he only intended one to be used, offering five options.Wuggy said:
And there are five
Yes, I know all that. I just wasn't being specific enough: I like to think that combining the first two formulations, you get a superior version of 'golden rule' wherein you don't base you actions on what you specifically want, and negating the possibility that someone could be stupid enought to think something along the lines of "I want killing all people with beards to be an universal law!"