Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Believing, but not feeling; Is it wrong?

RocketEngineer
Posts: 553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?
Beginner
Posts: 4,292
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:52:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

It would only be hypocritical to think murder is wrong and then actually committing murder. It doesn't matter what you are thinking. Your actions define you. Politeness falls under the same category. It's not about what you think, but about what you do.
Senpai has noticed you.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 4:21:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
IMO This means that either your moral ideas are wrong, or that you aren't acting in line with them; acting in line with correct morals would mean that you would be emotionally present, and being distant is a sign of the opposite. So I guess my answer is yes, not feeling is wrong. My advice would be to honestly assess this fact, if it's true that this is happening to you, because that is the best way to solve the problem. You will probably automatically start fixing a problem like this subconsciously if you realise that it's there. The problem comes when people lie to themselves or act like being distant is a good thing.

Not sure where this line of thinking comes from but it seems like a lot of people on this site think that all the facets of life: politics, morality, personal life, thoughts, emotions etc, are all completely separate and acting of their own volition.. I'm sure they would not put it in those words but that's honestly how it seems to me.. For instance beginner's post above, basically separating 'personal thought' and 'practicality' into two worlds as if they don't overlap. Of course, feeling that murder is good but not acting on it doesn't make the person a murderer, but it certainly will make them act less morally overall, if not obviously, in many different subtle ways.

Another thing, your 'feelings' are in my opinion a mirror on your own philosophy. If you truly believe that murder is wrong, and you understand the thinking behind it well enough, then you will not 'feel' that it is right. I can't really substantiate that bit, but it's something I've thought about recently, and it seems true from personal experience.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 9:55:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

In the case of murder, no it's not wrong. In order for us to live successful lives we have to abide by the laws of the land. But if you would feel no guilt after murdering a person,I'd say you have bigger problems then being a hypocrite on your hands.
TUF
Posts: 21,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 3:52:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is the second thread that rocket has made that makes me think he is an aspiring serial killer...
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 6:59:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

Not at all. I think it makes it all the more moral to do something based solely on moral analysis rather than feeling. It's more admirable to have no emotional trade offs to committing crimes yet still refrain from them since you believe they're wrong, than refrain from them just because you'd feel bad afterwards. The latter does good because it's beneficial to him, the former does it out of duty. How is the latter better than the former?
"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)
RocketEngineer
Posts: 553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 4:23:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:52:34 PM, Beginner wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

It would only be hypocritical to think murder is wrong and then actually committing murder. It doesn't matter what you are thinking. Your actions define you. Politeness falls under the same category. It's not about what you think, but about what you do.

Okay, but what if you know something is wrong according to your own logic, and still want to do that thing?

Like if I constantly crave to steal an xbox, but don't because of some stupid logic I have that has constructed or a fallen in line with the moral basis of knowing I shouldn't. Is it wrong to want?

I guess that is a bad example.
RocketEngineer
Posts: 553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 4:32:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 4:21:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
IMO This means that either your moral ideas are wrong, or that you aren't acting in line with them; acting in line with correct morals would mean that you would be emotionally present, and being distant is a sign of the opposite. So I guess my answer is yes, not feeling is wrong. My advice would be to honestly assess this fact, if it's true that this is happening to you, because that is the best way to solve the problem. You will probably automatically start fixing a problem like this subconsciously if you realise that it's there. The problem comes when people lie to themselves or act like being distant is a good thing.

Thanks, this was a pretty good answer, and I think answered my question pretty well from your point of view. I am still wanting more feedback from others on this though. So when it comes to fixing the problem, is it okay to fix it, even though you feel no desire or need to, just an obligation? Basically should I put my own logic in front of my thoughts and feelings? Based on your previous answer, I assume you would say yes, but if your interested in going a little deeper, I might also want to know why? Sorry this is all helping me somehow, trust me.

Not sure where this line of thinking comes from but it seems like a lot of people on this site think that all the facets of life: politics, morality, personal life, thoughts, emotions etc, are all completely separate and acting of their own volition.. I'm sure they would not put it in those words but that's honestly how it seems to me.. For instance beginner's post above, basically separating 'personal thought' and 'practicality' into two worlds as if they don't overlap. Of course, feeling that murder is good but not acting on it doesn't make the person a murderer, but it certainly will make them act less morally overall, if not obviously, in many different subtle ways.

This is why, at heart, I am a nihilist, however still have conformed to societal morals. I know that is hypocritical, but I don't know what to do about it really. I have seemingly come to the conclusion that fitting in with society is probably the best route. If there are millions of normal like minded people, and I am one of a few that don't think the same way, I have decided it is probably best to conform if I ever want to go anywhere in life.

Another thing, your 'feelings' are in my opinion a mirror on your own philosophy. If you truly believe that murder is wrong, and you understand the thinking behind it well enough, then you will not 'feel' that it is right. I can't really substantiate that bit, but it's something I've thought about recently, and it seems true from personal experience.

Good point, I suppose. The way I look at it is, my philosophy on the topic makes sense to me. But I understand the other side of it too, and ultimately the harms that come from it are harms that effect others, and not myself. But then the inner conflict of the importance of others VS self is a completely different controversial topic for my insane little brain.
RocketEngineer
Posts: 553
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 4:41:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 6:59:57 AM, phantom wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

Not at all. I think it makes it all the more moral to do something based solely on moral analysis rather than feeling. It's more admirable to have no emotional trade offs to committing crimes yet still refrain from them since you believe they're wrong, than refrain from them just because you'd feel bad afterwards. The latter does good because it's beneficial to him, the former does it out of duty. How is the latter better than the former?

In this case, I would have to agree with you. Though I think I am slightly different than the above situation, as for the moral value in question, I can see, feel, and believe plenty of reasons as to why it is okay. However I can also see why it isn't, and question whether my philosophy on the subject is wrong, because so many others tend to dis-agree. So in a sense, I force myself to agree with something, and believe something, that I am not completely sure if I agree with myself.

Here is a good example that might be a little more impacting to some people;

A potential pedophile refrains from doing things to a child because he knows societal harms that can follow from his actions. However he himself believes the act of perversion towards the child is okay. He doesn't do anything to the child specifically because he knows how society views it, and what the replication of his actions will cause.

But following a discussion I had with a co-worker, I kind of understood her take on this example. She said the way of thinking itself was wrong for multiple reasons that she listed off that actually make sense. But even with all those reasons, the pedophiles reasons may still make sense in a different way.

So the broad question is; conforming to societal morals and logic, that contradict your own, just so you can fit in. Should I do it, or should I not?

I am not a pedophile or a serial killer btw, and the moral issue I am faced with is completely un-related to any example I have used so far.
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 5:49:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 4:32:01 AM, RocketEngineer wrote:
At 8/11/2013 4:21:22 AM, sdavio wrote:
IMO This means that either your moral ideas are wrong, or that you aren't acting in line with them; acting in line with correct morals would mean that you would be emotionally present, and being distant is a sign of the opposite. So I guess my answer is yes, not feeling is wrong. My advice would be to honestly assess this fact, if it's true that this is happening to you, because that is the best way to solve the problem. You will probably automatically start fixing a problem like this subconsciously if you realise that it's there. The problem comes when people lie to themselves or act like being distant is a good thing.

Thanks, this was a pretty good answer, and I think answered my question pretty well from your point of view. I am still wanting more feedback from others on this though. So when it comes to fixing the problem, is it okay to fix it, even though you feel no desire or need to, just an obligation? Basically should I put my own logic in front of my thoughts and feelings? Based on your previous answer, I assume you would say yes, but if your interested in going a little deeper, I might also want to know why? Sorry this is all helping me somehow, trust me.

It seems like the real dilemma here is long-term rational self-interest, versus short term whims / subconscious programming / addiction. For example, take pornography. Many people are addicted to pornography, and while realising that it is harmful with their rational mind, they continue to go to this vice more and more, and it takes the form of an addiction. This is because it's tapping into their 'child' state rather than 'adult' state. This means it's bypassing their rational mind, the subjects they are able to assess objectively, and being handled directly by their subconscious programming. In the case of pornography, the programming has probably resulted from violence or a lack of affection experienced at a very early age.

This is not always a bad thing: if someone says 'Hello' to you, you might automatically reply 'Hi' without needing to think about it much. If someone throws something at you, you might catch it before you know what's going on. The problem comes when your programming is at odds with your rationality. Consider a gay person who is told that being gay is always wrong by his religious parents. His rationality tells him that being gay is wrong, because that is all he's been told. However, his programming tells him that he wants to be gay (I'm not saying people are born gay or not, this could occur regardless of that.)

We then decide which option to go with. This involves choosing between what's being pushed by our programming, and what seems like the best option in our rational mind. The only method we have to figure this out is further rationality, since our emotions are not capable of being rational. Therefore we must use logic to figure out if our programming is subconsciously being guided the wrong way by previous experience, or if our logic was faulty (ie, if the parents were wrong about being gay being bad.)

It's true that your logic may be wrong, and your thoughts and feelings right, but ironically the only way to figure out if your logic is wrong is through further logic.

Not sure where this line of thinking comes from but it seems like a lot of people on this site think that all the facets of life: politics, morality, personal life, thoughts, emotions etc, are all completely separate and acting of their own volition.. I'm sure they would not put it in those words but that's honestly how it seems to me.. For instance beginner's post above, basically separating 'personal thought' and 'practicality' into two worlds as if they don't overlap. Of course, feeling that murder is good but not acting on it doesn't make the person a murderer, but it certainly will make them act less morally overall, if not obviously, in many different subtle ways.

This is why, at heart, I am a nihilist, however still have conformed to societal morals. I know that is hypocritical, but I don't know what to do about it really. I have seemingly come to the conclusion that fitting in with society is probably the best route. If there are millions of normal like minded people, and I am one of a few that don't think the same way, I have decided it is probably best to conform if I ever want to go anywhere in life.

Again, in my view this comes down to either your emotional assumptions being wrong, your rationality being wrong, or both being wrong: The idea that nothing matters (logic,) versus the ideas that society has imposed (programming.) However, I'd suggest that nihilism is not the most logical option of philosophy, but nor is following society's 'status quo' philosophy.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:11:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

It's tough to understand why someone would think murder is wrong if they would feel no guilt upon committing murder.

This is because the natural way of determining "rights" and "wrongs" is from evaluating what you care about.

If you don't care in regard to a person's being murdered.. then one would think you wouldn't name it "wrong".

However, sometimes people get a pre-fab, unsupported, list of rights and wrongs from their culture or religion... and for some inexplicable reason cling to that.

so... the answer is if you truly don't care it's tough to understand why you'd call it wrong, why you would hold to some (for you) base-less, unsupported, standard... One would think that you would, naturally, act upon your cares.

That said, I think people generally do empathize with people, and that's a big part of the reason as to why most people think murder is wrong.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:22:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
also...

Believing but not feeling is Always wrong ;)
(or insensible, unsupported, without good reason)

there is no reason to assume something as true but as to have a conceptual framework upon which to act.
And... If you have no feelings that seemingly might be related in some manner to what's going on in the world, there's no impetus for action.

So, without the impetus for action, there's no reason to assume (/believe) any particular conceptual understanding as being the case.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 11:23:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 11:11:06 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

It's tough to understand why someone would think murder is wrong if they would feel no guilt upon committing murder.

This is because the natural way of determining "rights" and "wrongs" is from evaluating what you care about.

If you don't care in regard to a person's being murdered.. then one would think you wouldn't name it "wrong".

However, sometimes people get a pre-fab, unsupported, list of rights and wrongs from their culture or religion... and for some inexplicable reason cling to that.

so... the answer is if you truly don't care it's tough to understand why you'd call it wrong, why you would hold to some (for you) base-less, unsupported, standard... One would think that you would, naturally, act upon your cares.

That said, I think people generally do empathize with people, and that's a big part of the reason as to why most people think murder is wrong.

I don't think it's that hard to understand. We really don't actively determine what we care about; that's mostly the product of emotional biases and intuitive feelings. People who aren't born with those perceptions, maybe have a personality disorder or another, have no other choice but to rationally concede to the social establishment of ethics, for their own well-being. That means that they won't feel that murder is wrong, but they would of course never commit it and live their lives with the assumption that it is.
"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
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:49:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 6:59:57 AM, phantom wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

Not at all. I think it makes it all the more moral to do something based solely on moral analysis rather than feeling. It's more admirable to have no emotional trade offs to committing crimes yet still refrain from them since you believe they're wrong, than refrain from them just because you'd feel bad afterwards. The latter does good because it's beneficial to him, the former does it out of duty. How is the latter better than the former?

Shut up Kant Jr.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2013 8:08:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 10:49:28 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/12/2013 6:59:57 AM, phantom wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

Not at all. I think it makes it all the more moral to do something based solely on moral analysis rather than feeling. It's more admirable to have no emotional trade offs to committing crimes yet still refrain from them since you believe they're wrong, than refrain from them just because you'd feel bad afterwards. The latter does good because it's beneficial to him, the former does it out of duty. How is the latter better than the former?

Shut up Kant Jr.

Kant reincarnate brah. Honestly though, you'd never see me supporting Kant's broader ethical claims.
"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)
Cowboy0108
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 10:37:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:46:00 PM, RocketEngineer wrote:
If you practice a set of moral beliefs, and feel the logic behind them is appropriate, yet, feel nothing in conjunction to them, is it hypocritical to practice them?

For example; If you know that murder is wrong, but would feel no guilt upon committing murder, is that hypocritical, even if you would know you would never do it?

You probably don't think murder is wrong. You probably just think jail is wrong. Therefore, you don't commit murder.