Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why be moral?

TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 5:09:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Self-explanatory title. Is there a compelling reason to be moral beyond appealing to prudent self-interest, or can someone convincingly propose some Kantian-esque solution? Or some other third option. Or fourth. yada yada
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 10:31:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nah. Unless you're being threatened or you have a naturally "honourable" personality there's not really any reason why you would or should act "morally" it seems.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:06:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 10:31:25 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Nah. Unless you're being threatened or you have a naturally "honourable" personality there's not really any reason why you would or should act "morally" it seems.

pretty much this. You can act 'morally' because you might feel guilty acting immorally or feel good acting 'morally' but that's about it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:07:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate.

So you've just admitted that morality is subjective, and has no meaning beyond what is sociologically beneficent...

Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.
"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
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:09:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you have no morals then its anything goes, if your anything goes. People have to have some morals, can you argue why they shouldn't?
Me
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:10:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:09:05 PM, yoda878 wrote:
If you have no morals then its anything goes, if your anything goes [thats a bad thing] People have to have some morals, can you argue why they shouldn't?

fixed
Me
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:31:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Yeah, because those 15 shots of cheap tequila on Saturday night are always a good idea.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:38:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:31:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Yeah, because those 15 shots of cheap tequila on Saturday night are always a good idea.

A good idea depending on what goal you seek to accomplish...or whatever ends you wish to meet...If you don't care about your health or any other responsibilities, and only want to be drunk, then it's perfectly rational to poison yourself.
"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
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:59:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:38:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:31:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Yeah, because those 15 shots of cheap tequila on Saturday night are always a good idea.

A good idea depending on what goal you seek to accomplish...or whatever ends you wish to meet...If you don't care about your health or any other responsibilities, and only want to be drunk, then it's perfectly rational to poison yourself.

Well, your goal would be irrational in that case.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:13:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:59:17 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:38:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:31:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Yeah, because those 15 shots of cheap tequila on Saturday night are always a good idea.

A good idea depending on what goal you seek to accomplish...or whatever ends you wish to meet...If you don't care about your health or any other responsibilities, and only want to be drunk, then it's perfectly rational to poison yourself.

Well, your goal would be irrational in that case.

says who? The correctness of an action is dependent on the degree to which it accomplishes its intended goal. The intended goal is not up for judgement unless you superimpose another intended goal by which you may measure the original intended goal. Which is what you're doing, which still qualifies as subjective.

It doesn't make any sense to judge something without a standard of judgement, and yet no matter where that standard of judgement comes from, it is only applicable to the being(s) that established it.

So therefore, if someone wants to commit suicide through alcohol poisoning, and that is conducive to his/her desired goal, then by his/her standard, the actions is correct. By YOUR standard it may be wrong,...but your standard has no objective origination by virtue of it being YOUR standard, so it has absolutely no bearing on the overall rationality of the individual's 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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:16:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:07:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate.

So you've just admitted that morality is subjective, and has no meaning beyond what is sociologically beneficent...

Why admit meaning for sociological benefit? If morality is subjective then a bunch of people holding to a similar moral code doesn't make it any more or less so.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:18:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:07:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate.

So you've just admitted that morality is subjective, and has no meaning beyond what is sociologically beneficent...

I have no idea from where you're drawing that conclusion at all.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:19:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Wow, really? No, I think that's completely false. Humans act with intent, while computers do not. Of course someone can act irrationally. An example is randomly attacking people verbally or physically.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:20:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 2:38:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:31:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Yeah, because those 15 shots of cheap tequila on Saturday night are always a good idea.

A good idea depending on what goal you seek to accomplish...or whatever ends you wish to meet...If you don't care about your health or any other responsibilities, and only want to be drunk, then it's perfectly rational to poison yourself.

Actually, no, 15 shots of tequila is never a good idea, at all, unless your goal is to accomplish sickness.

Anyway, he was more referring to how such a state makes you behave, not necessarily the act of drinking so much liquor.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:22:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:13:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:59:17 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:38:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:31:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Yeah, because those 15 shots of cheap tequila on Saturday night are always a good idea.

A good idea depending on what goal you seek to accomplish...or whatever ends you wish to meet...If you don't care about your health or any other responsibilities, and only want to be drunk, then it's perfectly rational to poison yourself.

Well, your goal would be irrational in that case.

says who? The correctness of an action is dependent on the degree to which it accomplishes its intended goal. The intended goal is not up for judgement unless you superimpose another intended goal by which you may measure the original intended goal. Which is what you're doing, which still qualifies as subjective.

It doesn't make any sense to judge something without a standard of judgement, and yet no matter where that standard of judgement comes from, it is only applicable to the being(s) that established it.

So therefore, if someone wants to commit suicide through alcohol poisoning, and that is conducive to his/her desired goal, then by his/her standard, the actions is correct. By YOUR standard it may be wrong,...but your standard has no objective origination by virtue of it being YOUR standard, so it has absolutely no bearing on the overall rationality of the individual's action.

Generally speaking, people do not drink to become sick or compromise his or her health.

In any case, people very frequently do things counterintuitively given their intent, and that is right there in the seat of irrationality.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:22:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:18:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:07:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate.

So you've just admitted that morality is subjective, and has no meaning beyond what is sociologically beneficent...

I have no idea from where you're drawing that conclusion at all.

You said that morality came from natural selection. That means its reason for existence is impersonal survival and it's existence originated from an impersonal evolutionary rule. That makes it subjective.
"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
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:23:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:22:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:18:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:07:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate.

So you've just admitted that morality is subjective, and has no meaning beyond what is sociologically beneficent...

I have no idea from where you're drawing that conclusion at all.

You said that morality came from natural selection. That means its reason for existence is impersonal survival and it's existence originated from an impersonal evolutionary rule. That makes it subjective.

Lol, although you're completely misinterpreting my point, I'd like to first understand how your interpretation leads you to believe that it's subjective.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:25:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
sub"jec"tive   [suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:26:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:13:42 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:59:17 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:38:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:31:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Yeah, because those 15 shots of cheap tequila on Saturday night are always a good idea.

A good idea depending on what goal you seek to accomplish...or whatever ends you wish to meet...If you don't care about your health or any other responsibilities, and only want to be drunk, then it's perfectly rational to poison yourself.

Well, your goal would be irrational in that case.

says who? The correctness of an action is dependent on the degree to which it accomplishes its intended goal. The intended goal is not up for judgement unless you superimpose another intended goal by which you may measure the original intended goal. Which is what you're doing, which still qualifies as subjective.

It doesn't make any sense to judge something without a standard of judgement, and yet no matter where that standard of judgement comes from, it is only applicable to the being(s) that established it.

So therefore, if someone wants to commit suicide through alcohol poisoning, and that is conducive to his/her desired goal, then by his/her standard, the actions is correct. By YOUR standard it may be wrong,...but your standard has no objective origination by virtue of it being YOUR standard, so it has absolutely no bearing on the overall rationality of the individual's action.

I'm not going to argue this with you because I do believe in objective standards of rationality and morality. I don't know, if you want to claim that no action is irrational I don't know what I could say to appeal to you because you've adopted a view that I think is utterly absurd.

Certainly on our first judgments, experience, and intuition would ALL point to the idea that chugging an insane amount of alcohol is ridiculously harmful and irrational. It would seem to be that you would need an extremely strong case to override that.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:26:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:23:13 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:22:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:18:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:07:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate.

So you've just admitted that morality is subjective, and has no meaning beyond what is sociologically beneficent...

I have no idea from where you're drawing that conclusion at all.

You said that morality came from natural selection. That means its reason for existence is impersonal survival and it's existence originated from an impersonal evolutionary rule. That makes it subjective.

Lol, although you're completely misinterpreting my point, I'd like to first understand how your interpretation leads you to believe that it's subjective.

That's what I just explained. You admitted that morality is contingent on survival....objective morality is contingent on nothing.
"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
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:27:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:19:19 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Wow, really? No, I think that's completely false. Humans act with intent, while computers do not.

We don't act with intent at all. We just act and really have no clue why we acted. We can make post-rationalizations for it, but they're usually wrong anyways or at least only partially correct. If we knew intentions for actions, they'd be no need to study psychology since we already know our intentions.

Of course someone can act irrationally. An example is randomly attacking people verbally or physically.

Not an irrational act at all. Just an act.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:29:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:26:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:23:13 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:22:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:18:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:07:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate.

So you've just admitted that morality is subjective, and has no meaning beyond what is sociologically beneficent...

I have no idea from where you're drawing that conclusion at all.

You said that morality came from natural selection. That means its reason for existence is impersonal survival and it's existence originated from an impersonal evolutionary rule. That makes it subjective.

Lol, although you're completely misinterpreting my point, I'd like to first understand how your interpretation leads you to believe that it's subjective.

That's what I just explained. You admitted that morality is contingent on survival....objective morality is contingent on nothing.

What do you mean contingent on nothing? Naturalistic objective moral theories certainly don't fulfill that requirement and I'd say it's dubious to apply to non-naturalistic theories.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:30:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 5:09:32 AM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Self-explanatory title. Is there a compelling reason to be moral beyond appealing to prudent self-interest, or can someone convincingly propose some Kantian-esque solution? Or some other third option. Or fourth. yada yada

To try to answer your question you have to know what moral conduct is.

If we can assume that really immoral conduct is stuff like fraud, theft, assault/murder, that violent kind of stuff, it's obvious why we should not be doing that kind of stuff - the reason why they became known as "immoral" in our society to begin with. Human society simply couldn't function if most people were engaging in such behavior. Most people don't commit fraud, theft, assault, and serious immoral actions like that - so most people don't commit seriously immoral offenses.

If moral behavior is dealing kindly with other people, helping other people out via your own time and effort, and not committing immoral behavior - this suits us because we are empathetic creatures and helping other people out and being nice makes us feel good about ourselves, and also fosters positive behavior from the people we interact with. Or perhaps moral behavior is simply not behaving immorally. I don't think there's a reason to be moral per se, aside from that in general, behaving morally or at least not immorally is the norm and is beneficial in human interactions. What's moral and immoral is such for a reason, and it's obvious why the general standards of morality and immorality are what they are.

Also, what's the definition of "being" moral? Are you being moral if you are mostly moral most of the time? Are you being moral just by not acting immorally?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:33:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:27:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:19:19 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Wow, really? No, I think that's completely false. Humans act with intent, while computers do not.

We don't act with intent at all. We just act and really have no clue why we acted. We can make post-rationalizations for it, but they're usually wrong anyways or at least only partially correct. If we knew intentions for actions, they'd be no need to study psychology since we already know our intentions.

?!??!

If we didn't act with intent, then science would make no sense whatsoever, because science is essentially developing general predictions about states arranged with the intent of the scientist.

You know what?

I think you're trolling me...

...but, in any case, psychology exists to a great degree to study anomalies in cognition and mental states that, in many cases, causes irrational behavior, as compared to rational behavior.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:36:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:26:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:23:13 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:22:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:18:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:07:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate.

So you've just admitted that morality is subjective, and has no meaning beyond what is sociologically beneficent...

I have no idea from where you're drawing that conclusion at all.

You said that morality came from natural selection. That means its reason for existence is impersonal survival and it's existence originated from an impersonal evolutionary rule. That makes it subjective.

Lol, although you're completely misinterpreting my point, I'd like to first understand how your interpretation leads you to believe that it's subjective.

That's what I just explained. You admitted that morality is contingent on survival....objective morality is contingent on nothing.

objective  
Use Objective in a sentence Origin
ob"jec"tive   [uhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
noun
1.
something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.

Morality developed with the intent of cooperation and survival.

I'd say my position is that morality and rationality are objective. If you're so eager to agree, then I'd say that you might want to open your mind to an objective interpretation as well.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:39:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:26:30 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

I'm not going to argue this with you because I do believe in objective standards of rationality and morality. I don't know, if you want to claim that no action is irrational I don't know what I could say to appeal to you because you've adopted a view that I think is utterly absurd.

Certainly on our first judgments, experience, and intuition would ALL point to the idea that chugging an insane amount of alcohol is ridiculously harmful and irrational. It would seem to be that you would need an extremely strong case to override that.

The reasoning that predicates action, defines the action. The action cannot be defined in and of itself....the same way how you judge the correctness of an answer based on what the question demanded. Intuition is mildly subjective influence as is experience, what course of action both influences encourage is by no means the objective course of action. If you personally hold your life as your highest value, then alcohol poisoning would be irrational ONLY because it doesn't adhere with its reasons. However, if your life is not of highest value, then killing yourself might be rational.

I don't why you think this is absurd, it makes perfect sense. This reasoning I'm using also explains how some people give their lives for someone else...simply because that person's life was a higher value than their own. A rational action is dependent on the reasoning behind it, which makes the action variably rational or irrational.
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:45:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:29:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:26:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:23:13 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:22:13 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:18:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:07:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate.

So you've just admitted that morality is subjective, and has no meaning beyond what is sociologically beneficent...

I have no idea from where you're drawing that conclusion at all.

You said that morality came from natural selection. That means its reason for existence is impersonal survival and it's existence originated from an impersonal evolutionary rule. That makes it subjective.

Lol, although you're completely misinterpreting my point, I'd like to first understand how your interpretation leads you to believe that it's subjective.

That's what I just explained. You admitted that morality is contingent on survival....objective morality is contingent on nothing.

What do you mean contingent on nothing? Naturalistic objective moral theories certainly don't fulfill that requirement and I'd say it's dubious to apply to non-naturalistic theories.

naturalistic and objective is logically incongruous...a flat out oxymoron. If it is derived from nature, it is dependent on the nature of nature..and were nature's nature "different" so too would that ethical system. Objectivity is defined by its unchanging, absolute, and universal properties.

Morality from nature can't possibly be objective.
"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
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 3:45:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 3:27:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 3:19:19 PM, Ren wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:10:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/18/2012 2:02:09 PM, Ren wrote:
Why act rationally? For the same reasons. Because, it's a mental faculty that we've developed to better survive and cooperate. Morality is every bit as important (and, to a great degree, stems from) rationality.

You really can't even act "rational" or "irrational" in a sense. You can make "rational" or "irrational" arguments. However, whether a human acts rational or irrational is like saying whether a computer can act "rational" or "irrational". It doesn't. It just acts.

Wow, really? No, I think that's completely false. Humans act with intent, while computers do not.

We don't act with intent at all. We just act and really have no clue why we acted. We can make post-rationalizations for it, but they're usually wrong anyways or at least only partially correct. If we knew intentions for actions, they'd be no need to study psychology since we already know our intentions.

Of course someone can act irrationally. An example is randomly attacking people verbally or physically.

Not an irrational act at all. Just an act.

why aren't you a determinist?
"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