Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

The IS of morality

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 10:12:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is a fact that most moral judgments are conceived out of pure intuition. If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution.

So, the origin of morality was never a consensus on what would sustain the prosperity of humanity, but most likely rather an act of natural selection. Reasoning takes a secondary role as an agent of the intuitive decision.

My question is, OUGHT morality be decided the way it IS decided? If we establish that we want to have the most efficient and clear form of judgment in mind, then is it better to go by the intuition or to suppress immediate sentiment and reason out the situation? If you decide to go with the latter, then how feasible would that be to expect people to go against their emotions?

Also keep in mind that intuition gives a clear and obvious answer more consistently and faster than reasoning.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 10:38:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It isn't in a thief's best interest to divulge that they steal. If they want to steal something, but don't, it is for fear of consequence.

Even on an intuitive level, the mind is making calculations. If someone doesn't fear people, they fear God. Belief plays a big part in these things.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 2:38:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 10:12:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
It is a fact that most moral judgments are conceived out of pure intuition. If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution.

So, the origin of morality was never a consensus on what would sustain the prosperity of humanity, but most likely rather an act of natural selection. Reasoning takes a secondary role as an agent of the intuitive decision.

My question is, OUGHT morality be decided the way it IS decided? If we establish that we want to have the most efficient and clear form of judgment in mind, then is it better to go by the intuition or to suppress immediate sentiment and reason out the situation? If you decide to go with the latter, then how feasible would that be to expect people to go against their emotions?

Also keep in mind that intuition gives a clear and obvious answer more consistently and faster than reasoning.

Alright, now you HAVE to read this link. It gives a big boost to what you're saying.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 3:12:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 2:38:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:12:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
It is a fact that most moral judgments are conceived out of pure intuition. If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution.

So, the origin of morality was never a consensus on what would sustain the prosperity of humanity, but most likely rather an act of natural selection. Reasoning takes a secondary role as an agent of the intuitive decision.

My question is, OUGHT morality be decided the way it IS decided? If we establish that we want to have the most efficient and clear form of judgment in mind, then is it better to go by the intuition or to suppress immediate sentiment and reason out the situation? If you decide to go with the latter, then how feasible would that be to expect people to go against their emotions?

Also keep in mind that intuition gives a clear and obvious answer more consistently and faster than reasoning.

Alright, now you HAVE to read this link. It gives a big boost to what you're saying.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...

lol yeah, I read that when you showed it to me, it actually led me to this: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu... , and that convinced me that reasoning doesn't have a large role in moral situations.

I have to say, this makes me feel like all ethical philosophies are somewhat futile. Morality is governed by emotion, and then add the point that emotional reactions vary, there's no right answer to any case beyond an individual's perceptions. We as people decide, part consciously, mostly unconsciously, what we value in human interaction, and we seek whatever is conducive to those virtues.

It appears that life is designed for stalemate and conflict, while we search for concord where concord cannot exist.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 5:09:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 3:12:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/26/2012 2:38:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:12:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
It is a fact that most moral judgments are conceived out of pure intuition. If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution.

So, the origin of morality was never a consensus on what would sustain the prosperity of humanity, but most likely rather an act of natural selection. Reasoning takes a secondary role as an agent of the intuitive decision.

My question is, OUGHT morality be decided the way it IS decided? If we establish that we want to have the most efficient and clear form of judgment in mind, then is it better to go by the intuition or to suppress immediate sentiment and reason out the situation? If you decide to go with the latter, then how feasible would that be to expect people to go against their emotions?

Also keep in mind that intuition gives a clear and obvious answer more consistently and faster than reasoning.

Alright, now you HAVE to read this link. It gives a big boost to what you're saying.

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...

lol yeah, I read that when you showed it to me, it actually led me to this: http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu... , and that convinced me that reasoning doesn't have a large role in moral situations.

I have to say, this makes me feel like all ethical philosophies are somewhat futile. Morality is governed by emotion, and then add the point that emotional reactions vary, there's no right answer to any case beyond an individual's perceptions. We as people decide, part consciously, mostly unconsciously, what we value in human interaction, and we seek whatever is conducive to those virtues.

It appears that life is designed for stalemate and conflict, while we search for concord where concord cannot exist.

Yes, it is a bit amusing.

Ethical systems are important when it comes to after-the-fact moral reflection and reasoning. It's easier to construct a government using ethical propositions than it is to react to seeing a possible murder.

But if you try to explain that to most people, they'd say I'm negating free will and "the self" and so on. So, in meta-ethics, I mainly stick with gate-keeping between is and ought as opposed to how cognitively humans actually make moral decisions.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 6:38:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 10:12:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
It is a fact that most moral judgments are conceived out of pure intuition. If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution.

So, the origin of morality was never a consensus on what would sustain the prosperity of humanity, but most likely rather an act of natural selection. Reasoning takes a secondary role as an agent of the intuitive decision.

My question is, OUGHT morality be decided the way it IS decided? If we establish that we want to have the most efficient and clear form of judgment in mind, then is it better to go by the intuition or to suppress immediate sentiment and reason out the situation? If you decide to go with the latter, then how feasible would that be to expect people to go against their emotions?

Also keep in mind that intuition gives a clear and obvious answer more consistently and faster than reasoning.

Certainly not, emotion-ridden intuitional responses can vary greatly between actors. It's likely our intuitions are molded by our culture as well - there's no reason why we should accept this as a definitive moral guide. The range of differing intuitions would seem to be a huge stumbling block.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2012 6:44:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Everyone plays many different games, and each of varying importance. If you can figure out what games a person is playing, and the order of importance, humans are for the most part predictable.

The thing is, it takes a little time to figure out these games. With some it can be nearly impossible.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2012 3:05:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 10:12:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
It is a fact that most moral judgments are conceived out of pure intuition. If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution.

So, the origin of morality was never a consensus on what would sustain the prosperity of humanity, but most likely rather an act of natural selection. Reasoning takes a secondary role as an agent of the intuitive decision.

My question is, OUGHT morality be decided the way it IS decided? If we establish that we want to have the most efficient and clear form of judgment in mind, then is it better to go by the intuition or to suppress immediate sentiment and reason out the situation? If you decide to go with the latter, then how feasible would that be to expect people to go against their emotions?

Also keep in mind that intuition gives a clear and obvious answer more consistently and faster than reasoning.(no it doesnt at there nothing clear and obvious about intuition) Some people have an intuition to kill you on the spot.

The Fool: you are really having a hard time with this. Intentional morality depends on being rational. Intuition is a reflex, its not intentional. if intuitions were good enough. There we would not have developed reasoning. The whole purpose rationaity is to account for errors in intuition. That is its and upgrade. All animals have intuition but all animals if any are not moral, why? because they can't intentionally be moral without reasoning.

The Fool: secondly emotions and rationality are false dichotomies, rationality is build upon the intuitional system, so it can't possibly be distinct, in fact it is even dependent on emotion. No emotion would make us a dead system, like an unplugged computer. Rational rules are the softwhere but are not going anywhere without the motivation to apply them. But too much emotion can over ride your reason, and that is when we error(inconsistency) the most, right? Most violent crimes is because people got tooo angry . That is emotions on the loose without rationality.

You should be able to figure or your problem with this information. I am not just going to give the answer away. what do I look like a Fool? I am curious to here what you think?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 8:18:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/26/2012 10:12:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
It is a fact that most moral judgments are conceived out of pure intuition. If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution.

So, the origin of morality was never a consensus on what would sustain the prosperity of humanity, but most likely rather an act of natural selection. Reasoning takes a secondary role as an agent of the intuitive decision.

My question is, OUGHT morality be decided the way it IS decided? If we establish that we want to have the most efficient and clear form of judgment in mind, then is it better to go by the intuition or to suppress immediate sentiment and reason out the situation? If you decide to go with the latter, then how feasible would that be to expect people to go against their emotions?

Also keep in mind that intuition gives a clear and obvious answer more consistently and faster than reasoning.

Really? So if you ask someone if it's morally acceptable for a mother to steal to feed her starving children, you don't think anyone would at least stop and consider for a moment?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 8:22:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 8:18:05 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:12:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
It is a fact that most moral judgments are conceived out of pure intuition. If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution.

So, the origin of morality was never a consensus on what would sustain the prosperity of humanity, but most likely rather an act of natural selection. Reasoning takes a secondary role as an agent of the intuitive decision.

My question is, OUGHT morality be decided the way it IS decided? If we establish that we want to have the most efficient and clear form of judgment in mind, then is it better to go by the intuition or to suppress immediate sentiment and reason out the situation? If you decide to go with the latter, then how feasible would that be to expect people to go against their emotions?

Also keep in mind that intuition gives a clear and obvious answer more consistently and faster than reasoning.

Really? So if you ask someone if it's morally acceptable for a mother to steal to feed her starving children, you don't think anyone would at least stop and consider for a moment?

Please tell me what in the OP prompted you to make that assumption?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2012 8:26:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/18/2012 8:22:04 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/18/2012 8:18:05 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 2/26/2012 10:12:58 AM, 000ike wrote:
It is a fact that most moral judgments are conceived out of pure intuition. If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution.

So, the origin of morality was never a consensus on what would sustain the prosperity of humanity, but most likely rather an act of natural selection. Reasoning takes a secondary role as an agent of the intuitive decision.

My question is, OUGHT morality be decided the way it IS decided? If we establish that we want to have the most efficient and clear form of judgment in mind, then is it better to go by the intuition or to suppress immediate sentiment and reason out the situation? If you decide to go with the latter, then how feasible would that be to expect people to go against their emotions?

Also keep in mind that intuition gives a clear and obvious answer more consistently and faster than reasoning.

Really? So if you ask someone if it's morally acceptable for a mother to steal to feed her starving children, you don't think anyone would at least stop and consider for a moment?

Please tell me what in the OP prompted you to make that assumption?

This:

"If you ask one whether or not theft is wrong, he does not calculate in his mind a cost/benefit analysis of the action and the consequences it may lead to, he just immediately accepts it as wrong, and then if asked why, attempts to find post hoc justifications for his resolution."

In reality, it is not a fact that moral judgements are conceived out of pure intuition. If it was, then people would never change their minds. Some people may have immediate knee-jerk reactions, but most people, if given something they have never considered before, will go and research it to refine their position on a topic.