Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Varying moral intuitions, not a good attack

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:25:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Allot of people, mainly religious ones, believe that our moral intuition is what guides morality. They assert that we intuitively know that murder is wrong and that happiness is good and so forth. I do not belive in this type of morality but would just like to point out the commen but flawed attack of it. Contenders would argue that since people have different intuitions, morality cannot possibly be argued as objective. However, I see a big hole in this. We also have varying logical intuitions, but do we say logic is not objective? And if you don't believe logic is absolute, you might as well leave this discussion since you have no reason to argue, logic being flawed and all that.

Discuss
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 11:29:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:25:24 AM, phantom wrote:
Allot of people, mainly religious ones, believe that our moral intuition is what guides morality. They assert that we intuitively know that murder is wrong and that happiness is good and so forth. I do not belive in this type of morality but would just like to point out the commen but flawed attack of it. Contenders would argue that since people have different intuitions, morality cannot possibly be argued as objective. However, I see a big hole in this. We also have varying logical intuitions, but do we say logic is not objective? And if you don't believe logic is absolute, you might as well leave this discussion since you have no reason to argue, logic being flawed and all that.

Discuss

As a common user of this attack in fun, I think you have an interesting point. I would probably say that logical thinking and moral thinking are two seperate things and do not necessarily comply to the same rules, although off the top of my head I cannot think of why. I shall ponder on this and get back to you.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:00:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:25:24 AM, phantom wrote:
Allot of people, mainly religious ones, believe that our moral intuition is what guides morality. They assert that we intuitively know that murder is wrong and that happiness is good and so forth. I do not belive in this type of morality but would just like to point out the commen but flawed attack of it. Contenders would argue that since people have different intuitions, morality cannot possibly be argued as objective. However, I see a big hole in this. We also have varying logical intuitions, but do we say logic is not objective? And if you don't believe logic is absolute, you might as well leave this discussion since you have no reason to argue, logic being flawed and all that.

Discuss

This is an excellent point. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say that this proves the legitimacy of morality, it does prove the illegitimacy of that specific argument against its objectivity.

Cheers. ^_^
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:08:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:25:24 AM, phantom wrote:
Allot of people, mainly religious ones, believe that our moral intuition is what guides morality. They assert that we intuitively know that murder is wrong and that happiness is good and so forth. I do not belive in this type of morality but would just like to point out the commen but flawed attack of it. Contenders would argue that since people have different intuitions, morality cannot possibly be argued as objective. However, I see a big hole in this. We also have varying logical intuitions, but do we say logic is not objective? And if you don't believe logic is absolute, you might as well leave this discussion since you have no reason to argue, logic being flawed and all that.

Discuss

That specific argument is flawed because it asserts the contrary to a certainty. Rather, the argument that there exists a demographic who believe murder is moral should simply be used to weaken objective, intuitive morality, not refute it entirely.

Also, argumentum ad populum, but that veers from the original point :P
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:10:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

I suppose taste in food is also objective since God created our taste buds and God is objective.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:33:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 12:10:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

I suppose taste in food is also objective since God created our taste buds and God is objective.

As is racial class since God created race and class and God is objective.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:48:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 12:10:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

I suppose taste in food is also objective since God created our taste buds and God is objective.

False analogy. Taste varies because God made us different in that sense. Morality is God's law. Just because we ignore it doesn't mean it is subjective.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:51:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 12:48:48 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:10:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

I suppose taste in food is also objective since God created our taste buds and God is objective.

False analogy. Taste varies because God made us different in that sense. Morality is God's law. Just because we ignore it doesn't mean it is subjective.

Actually it was completely applicable to your vague and incoherent reasoning.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:05:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 12:51:07 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:48:48 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:10:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

I suppose taste in food is also objective since God created our taste buds and God is objective.

False analogy. Taste varies because God made us different in that sense. Morality is God's law. Just because we ignore it doesn't mean it is subjective.

Actually it was completely applicable to your vague and incoherent reasoning.

You do realize that your original post was trash, right? You just use false analogy after false analogy. Is logic objective? Yes? Ok, morality must be too!

LOL. Two different things have different properties. Taste is food is subjective, right? Why not morality then?

Yawn. Keep using garbage analysis.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:07:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

All right. Now prove the God you refer to exists.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:10:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:07:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

All right. Now prove the God you refer to exists.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument does that.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:12:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:25:24 AM, phantom wrote:
Allot of people, mainly religious ones, believe that our moral intuition is what guides morality. They assert that we intuitively know that murder is wrong and that happiness is good and so forth. I do not belive in this type of morality but would just like to point out the commen but flawed attack of it. Contenders would argue that since people have different intuitions, morality cannot possibly be argued as objective. However, I see a big hole in this. We also have varying logical intuitions, but do we say logic is not objective? And if you don't believe logic is absolute, you might as well leave this discussion since you have no reason to argue, logic being flawed and all that.

Discuss

The manner in which moral intuitions and logical intuitions vary is different. Moral intuitions vary in the sense of what is and is not moral.

Logical intutions don't vary in this sense, they vary in the degree to which they are actually logical.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:14:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:10:55 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:07:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

All right. Now prove the God you refer to exists.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument does that.

No it doesn't. Premise 2 fails.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:20:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:05:32 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:51:07 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:48:48 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:10:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

I suppose taste in food is also objective since God created our taste buds and God is objective.

False analogy. Taste varies because God made us different in that sense. Morality is God's law. Just because we ignore it doesn't mean it is subjective.

Actually it was completely applicable to your vague and incoherent reasoning.

You do realize that your original post was trash, right? You just use false analogy after false analogy. Is logic objective? Yes? Ok, morality must be too!

*Yawn* You're either strawmanning me, therefore intellectualy dishonest. Or incapable of intelectual understanding. I wasn't even making an argument for objective morality lmao. I was just pointing out the flaws in one attack of objective morality. GTFO, and stop misrepresenting me. You clearly don't have the capacity to understand what people write.

I think your first post was the one worthy of ridicule. God made morality therefore its' objective! derp

luls


LOL. Two different things have different properties. Taste is food is subjective, right? Why not morality then?

Strawmanning isn't accepted here. You've gota try better than that. Try re-reading the OP a few more times. You might begin to understand it eventually.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:21:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:10:55 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:07:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

All right. Now prove the God you refer to exists.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument does that.

Bare assertions don't prove bare assertions.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:26:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:20:03 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:05:32 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:51:07 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:48:48 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:10:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

I suppose taste in food is also objective since God created our taste buds and God is objective.

False analogy. Taste varies because God made us different in that sense. Morality is God's law. Just because we ignore it doesn't mean it is subjective.

Actually it was completely applicable to your vague and incoherent reasoning.

You do realize that your original post was trash, right? You just use false analogy after false analogy. Is logic objective? Yes? Ok, morality must be too!

*Yawn* You're either strawmanning me, therefore intellectualy dishonest. Or incapable of intelectual understanding. I wasn't even making an argument for objective morality lmao. I was just pointing out the flaws in one attack of objective morality. GTFO, and stop misrepresenting me. You clearly don't have the capacity to understand what people write.

Ok, so even if I was mistaken about what you wrote like three hours after I read it, the fact of the matter is that your refutation is still garbage because it rests on a false analogy.
I think your first post was the one worthy of ridicule. God made morality therefore its' objective! derp

luls


LOL. Two different things have different properties. Taste is food is subjective, right? Why not morality then?

Strawmanning isn't accepted here. You've gota try better than that. Try re-reading the OP a few more times. You might begin to understand it eventually.

Since you're such a genius, why don't you explain to me what was wrong with my analysis? Oh, that's right. You can't. You're just one of those trolls who says "Just think and you'll get it! I don't want to explain it; it's natural!"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:30:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
P1. All rational actions need self-formed reasons

P2. Objective ethical obligations are reason-less actions

C1. Objective ethical obligations are irrational

C2. Using logic to argue for objective morality is inherently contradictory
"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
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:36:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:30:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
P1. All rational actions need self-formed reasons

Premise 1 is flawed. If your mother tells you not to steal because you will go to jail and you obey, was your action irrational on your part? No. Rational actions do not require self-formed reasons. In fact, I would question the notion that any reasons can be self-formed since they all usually link back to things that are out of our control (instinct to survive) or social customs.
P2. Objective ethical obligations are reason-less actions

C1. Objective ethical obligations are irrational

C2. Using logic to argue for objective morality is inherently contradictory
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:44:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:36:46 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:30:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
P1. All rational actions need self-formed reasons

Premise 1 is flawed. If your mother tells you not to steal because you will go to jail and you obey, was your action irrational on your part? No. Rational actions do not require self-formed reasons. In fact, I would question the notion that any reasons can be self-formed since they all usually link back to things that are out of our control (instinct to survive) or social customs.

When your mother tells you not to steal, and then you choose not to steal, that still counts as a self-formed reason. You chose not to steal because you wanted to obey your mother. However, objective morality strips away all wants. Objective morality does not require you to want to be moral...it simply demands that you perform certain moral actions or refrain from performing certain actions, without question or consideration. So your action occurred because of something/someone else's reasons, which of course, is an irrational action.
"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
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:47:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's terrible argument imho. Personally, I think of moral subjectivity as being another, more liberal form of moral realism.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:48:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:44:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:36:46 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:30:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
P1. All rational actions need self-formed reasons

Premise 1 is flawed. If your mother tells you not to steal because you will go to jail and you obey, was your action irrational on your part? No. Rational actions do not require self-formed reasons. In fact, I would question the notion that any reasons can be self-formed since they all usually link back to things that are out of our control (instinct to survive) or social customs.

When your mother tells you not to steal, and then you choose not to steal, that still counts as a self-formed reason. You chose not to steal because you wanted to obey your mother.
That's not necessarily a self-formed reason. Why do you want to obey your mother? Usually because you don't want to be punished. Why don't you want to be punished? We are hardwired to seek pleasure and minimize pain. Those are instincts that are beyond our capacity to control, meaning that ultimately no reason is self-formed.
However, objective morality strips away all wants. Objective morality does not require you to want to be moral...it simply demands that you perform certain moral actions or refrain from performing certain actions, without question or consideration.'
False. Those are the undeveloped forms of morality. Objective morality, as theorized by Kant, requires that 1. You subject yourself to those rules because you wish to be a moral person (if you do a moral action for selfish reasons, you are not acting morally according to Kant) and 2. You subject yourself to rules that are derived according to reason, and since reason is present in all rational beings, you subject yourself to an objective morality that you would want to apply to all (not just selfishly to yourself).
So your action occurred because of something/someone else's reasons, which of course, is an irrational action.

See the analysis above about the pleasure/pain instincts that are at the base of every calculation.
caveat
Posts: 2,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 2:55:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 12:33:23 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 8/1/2012 12:10:38 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

I suppose taste in food is also objective since God created our taste buds and God is objective.

As is racial class since God created race and class and God is objective.

Helter should have stopped at this point.
There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. " Clearly, it is this second part, the missing, which presents the difficulties.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 3:01:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:48:45 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:44:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:36:46 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:30:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
P1. All rational actions need self-formed reasons

Premise 1 is flawed. If your mother tells you not to steal because you will go to jail and you obey, was your action irrational on your part? No. Rational actions do not require self-formed reasons. In fact, I would question the notion that any reasons can be self-formed since they all usually link back to things that are out of our control (instinct to survive) or social customs.

When your mother tells you not to steal, and then you choose not to steal, that still counts as a self-formed reason. You chose not to steal because you wanted to obey your mother.
That's not necessarily a self-formed reason. Why do you want to obey your mother? Usually because you don't want to be punished. Why don't you want to be punished? We are hardwired to seek pleasure and minimize pain. Those are instincts that are beyond our capacity to control, meaning that ultimately no reason is self-formed.

It is a self-formed reason because obeying your mother is a desire you have personally. As in, if you didn't want to obey your mother, then there'd be no reason for you to still do so. If you didn't want to drive to Canada today, nothing says you have to. However if you didn't want to act morally, objective ethics still demands that you do. This is what I mean when I say it isn't a self-formed reason.

However, objective morality strips away all wants. Objective morality does not require you to want to be moral...it simply demands that you perform certain moral actions or refrain from performing certain actions, without question or consideration.'
False. Those are the undeveloped forms of morality. Objective morality, as theorized by Kant, requires that 1. You subject yourself to those rules because you wish to be a moral person (if you do a moral action for selfish reasons, you are not acting morally according to Kant)

Well then that makes his ethics completely hypothetical. Suppose one does not wish to be a moral person. But I disagree with you anyway, Kant's categorical imperative doesn't require any reasons or any "wish to be a moral person". Kant considers such obligations to be axiomatic and unquestionable. Even Kant realized that this was at odds with logic, so his solution was to undercut rationality!

" This proves, said Kant, that man's concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are "limited," said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion "

http://aynrandlexicon.com...
"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
8/1/2012 3:25:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 11:25:24 AM, phantom wrote:
Allot of people, mainly religious ones, believe that our moral intuition is what guides morality. They assert that we intuitively know that murder is wrong and that happiness is good and so forth. I do not belive in this type of morality but would just like to point out the commen but flawed attack of it. Contenders would argue that since people have different intuitions, morality cannot possibly be argued as objective. However, I see a big hole in this. We also have varying logical intuitions, but do we say logic is not objective? And if you don't believe logic is absolute, you might as well leave this discussion since you have no reason to argue, logic being flawed and all that.

Discuss

There is a deeper problem to this conception of "moral intuition" than you may think. Namely, it isn't an unitary entity within us as we like to think.

A "moral intuition" is not the result of your brain looking down a list of rules for violations nor is it your brain making an utilitarian/socially-based calculation. In reality, it's a mix of both, except that these two aspects of the brain are to some extent antagonistic (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...).

For instance, we should expect that a coherent "moral intuition" will give us consistent moral conclusions as long as there is no substantial change of context.

This is where the trolley problem comes in. (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...)

A simple non-substantial change of context (in this case, pushing a man off a bridge instead of pushing a button which leads to a trap door opening which the man falls through) can COMPLETELY reverse someone's moral intuitions.

Even minorly substantial changes of context can have drastic results. When evaluating someone who is "in need of help" but is part of a perceived outgroup, our brain's chemistry reacts very differently (especially in the excitement to parts of our brain that would get us moving like the amygdala) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... than if it were someone in a perceived in group.

The excitement in the amygdala and other centers is what helps determine whether the social-based and individual-based reactions (i.e. utilitarian v deontologist).

Remember, this all occurs BEFORE we go through a conscious process of "Well, I feel like I should choose A, but mathematically maybe I should choose B..."

The closest thing to a deontological list of moral intuitions is that we have a "disgust center" in our brain which activates at varying intensities depending on evolutionary fitness. For instance, the center is activated when we smell feces, vomit, or urine (all of which are not healthy to interact with), it is activated when we consider incest with our immediate family, etc. If you've ever done something and it left "a bad taste in your mouth" then you LITERALLY are experiencing the same type of disgust you would at smelling feces. This is not to be confused with guilt or shame.

Even here, however, we find that experience has an extreme modulating effect. Someone whose experience involves trauma with rape will have a different neurological reaction to considering punishment for rapists. Extreme acts of violence are pre-consciously evaluated differently depending on the individual's experience with violence recently and in the past. Same with theft, cursing, and blasphemy.

What we call "moral intuitions" are the end result of different moral modules interacting in a context-sensitive manner (even when the context should be completely irrelevant). The result is that we can act very differently in different scenarios, especially if over time we have different experiences.

And I haven't even CONSIDERED guilt and shame yet.
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:06:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 3:01:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:48:45 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:44:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:36:46 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:30:10 PM, 000ike wrote:
P1. All rational actions need self-formed reasons

Premise 1 is flawed. If your mother tells you not to steal because you will go to jail and you obey, was your action irrational on your part? No. Rational actions do not require self-formed reasons. In fact, I would question the notion that any reasons can be self-formed since they all usually link back to things that are out of our control (instinct to survive) or social customs.

When your mother tells you not to steal, and then you choose not to steal, that still counts as a self-formed reason. You chose not to steal because you wanted to obey your mother.
That's not necessarily a self-formed reason. Why do you want to obey your mother? Usually because you don't want to be punished. Why don't you want to be punished? We are hardwired to seek pleasure and minimize pain. Those are instincts that are beyond our capacity to control, meaning that ultimately no reason is self-formed.

It is a self-formed reason because obeying your mother is a desire you have personally.
Self-formed implies that I consciously made that desire. I've already explained why that desire is beyond our control.
As in, if you didn't want to obey your mother, then there'd be no reason for you to still do so.
Usually we make this decision on a pleasure/pain calculation. The pleasure/pain instinct was not formed by me, so I'm not responsible for it. It's not self-formed.
If you didn't want to drive to Canada today, nothing says you have to. However if you didn't want to act morally, objective ethics still demands that you do. This is what I mean when I say it isn't a self-formed reason.

How do we make those decisions in the first place?
However, objective morality strips away all wants. Objective morality does not require you to want to be moral...it simply demands that you perform certain moral actions or refrain from performing certain actions, without question or consideration.'
False. Those are the undeveloped forms of morality. Objective morality, as theorized by Kant, requires that 1. You subject yourself to those rules because you wish to be a moral person (if you do a moral action for selfish reasons, you are not acting morally according to Kant)

Well then that makes his ethics completely hypothetical. Suppose one does not wish to be a moral person.
He argues that rational people would want to be moral. Not everyone is rational, however.
But I disagree with you anyway, Kant's categorical imperative doesn't require any reasons or any "wish to be a moral person". Kant considers such obligations to be axiomatic and unquestionable. Even Kant realized that this was at odds with logic, so his solution was to undercut rationality!

" This proves, said Kant, that man's concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are "limited," said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion "

http://aynrandlexicon.com...

I'm sorry, did you really just provide a distorted quote from an Ayn Rand website? I suggest you look at an actual representation of Kant's view. Here's a basic one from a renowned Harvard professor who is an ideological opponent of Kant but who provides a fair and proper analysis of his argument. Please take the time to watch this video; it is easy to understand (it's a recorded video of one of his lectures that was aired on television), and it is not distorted like that Ayn Rand nonsense is.

http://www.justiceharvard.org...

Kant's entire basis for the categorical imperative is rationality.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:24:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 2:10:55 PM, HelterSkelter wrote:
At 8/1/2012 2:07:34 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:45:38 AM, HelterSkelter wrote:
Morality can't be subjective because God creates morality and God is objective.

All right. Now prove the God you refer to exists.

The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument does that.

That argument is flawed due to that its premise no.2 is faulty.
The argument also disregards WHAT deity exists.

Morality exists only in the abstract corners of the human mind. Amorality is the only reasonable approach I've encountered to the topic of morality.
turn down for h'what
HelterSkelter
Posts: 281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:35:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mr. Ike, I did some research into the quote you found on the Ayn Rand site, and I discovered that it's a complete fabrication. Here's the evidence:

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com...

Ayn Rand asserts that Kant says that. It's not a direct quotation from his works.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 9:16:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 3:25:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/1/2012 11:25:24 AM, phantom wrote:
Allot of people, mainly religious ones, believe that our moral intuition is what guides morality. They assert that we intuitively know that murder is wrong and that happiness is good and so forth. I do not belive in this type of morality but would just like to point out the commen but flawed attack of it. Contenders would argue that since people have different intuitions, morality cannot possibly be argued as objective. However, I see a big hole in this. We also have varying logical intuitions, but do we say logic is not objective? And if you don't believe logic is absolute, you might as well leave this discussion since you have no reason to argue, logic being flawed and all that.

Discuss

There is a deeper problem to this conception of "moral intuition" than you may think. Namely, it isn't an unitary entity within us as we like to think.

A "moral intuition" is not the result of your brain looking down a list of rules for violations nor is it your brain making an utilitarian/socially-based calculation. In reality, it's a mix of both, except that these two aspects of the brain are to some extent antagonistic (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...).

For instance, we should expect that a coherent "moral intuition" will give us consistent moral conclusions as long as there is no substantial change of context.

This is where the trolley problem comes in. (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu...)

A simple non-substantial change of context (in this case, pushing a man off a bridge instead of pushing a button which leads to a trap door opening which the man falls through) can COMPLETELY reverse someone's moral intuitions.

Even minorly substantial changes of context can have drastic results. When evaluating someone who is "in need of help" but is part of a perceived outgroup, our brain's chemistry reacts very differently (especially in the excitement to parts of our brain that would get us moving like the amygdala) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... than if it were someone in a perceived in group.

The excitement in the amygdala and other centers is what helps determine whether the social-based and individual-based reactions (i.e. utilitarian v deontologist).

Remember, this all occurs BEFORE we go through a conscious process of "Well, I feel like I should choose A, but mathematically maybe I should choose B..."

The closest thing to a deontological list of moral intuitions is that we have a "disgust center" in our brain which activates at varying intensities depending on evolutionary fitness. For instance, the center is activated when we smell feces, vomit, or urine (all of which are not healthy to interact with), it is activated when we consider incest with our immediate family, etc. If you've ever done something and it left "a bad taste in your mouth" then you LITERALLY are experiencing the same type of disgust you would at smelling feces. This is not to be confused with guilt or shame.

Even here, however, we find that experience has an extreme modulating effect. Someone whose experience involves trauma with rape will have a different neurological reaction to considering punishment for rapists. Extreme acts of violence are pre-consciously evaluated differently depending on the individual's experience with violence recently and in the past. Same with theft, cursing, and blasphemy.

What we call "moral intuitions" are the end result of different moral modules interacting in a context-sensitive manner (even when the context should be completely irrelevant). The result is that we can act very differently in different scenarios, especially if over time we have different experiences.

And I haven't even CONSIDERED guilt and shame yet.

The Fool: The brain is always a bad starting point. Trust me on this wnope the science is kind of Fvcked up in that area. Is really not as organized all we tend to think. I mean would be saying the same things 5 yrs ago. There is problems.
"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