Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

#N001: Properly Choosing a Morality System

NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 1:47:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
When you want to buy a car, you usually have a set of expectations in your mind and you try to find a car which best matches your preconceptions. For example, I would want a red and two-doored Mercedes with oblique side-skirts, and then end up finding a purple Mercedes with most of the characteristics I wanted. Don't do this with morality and go over the different morality systems and check them against your prior judgments. You have to start from a Tabula Rasa (blank state) and simply evaluate different morality systems based on their logical structure as opposed to comparing them to what seems obvious to you at that time based on your prior judgments of "right" and "wrong".

What is obvious is not necessarily true. Choosing a morality system based on what is obvious to you, would simply be circular even if that system felt like the only one you could confirm with, and morality systems don't have to declare "rights" and "wrongs." For instance, they can simply state that we cannot know "rights" and "wrongs" or even argue that they don't actually exist, for that matter.

Therefore, a morality system can be defined as a system of ideas concerning right and wrong, but not explicitly declaring the existence of moral precepts.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 2:27:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You don't choose your morality system, no more than you choose your beliefs. They are inherent within you and you are simply trying to recognize and understand what is within you.

Just like I can't spontaneously choose to not believe in God any more than an Atheist can choose to believe in one. I cannot consciously rewrite more moral beliefs. They can be rewritten through new understandings, experiences, view points, and concepts, but I cannot just choose to do it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 2:46:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 2:27:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You don't choose your morality system, no more than you choose your beliefs. They are inherent within you and you are simply trying to recognize and understand what is within you.

I don't see why you can't choose a morality system based on how logical and well-founded its premises and assumptions are. I myself was a moral realist but then I moved to moral nihilism and then desire utilitarianism and then back to moral nihilism. Haven't I made a choice in choosing those based on my evaluation of those systems?

You start from a moral system inherently, indeed, but that is set to change or be replaced once you start evaluating different morality systems in a philosophical and logical way by starting from a blank state.

Just like I can't spontaneously choose to not believe in God any more than an Atheist can choose to believe in one. I cannot consciously rewrite more moral beliefs. They can be rewritten through new understandings, experiences, view points, and concepts, but I cannot just choose to do it.

Once you convince yourself that your moral beliefs which are obvious to you are not necessarily true, you can choose to base your moral decisions on a different type of moral system. One's moral system is not hard-coded in him like a biological function unless you're severely indoctrinated as a child, I guess, but even in that case, you can overcome that.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 2:56:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 2:46:49 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:27:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You don't choose your morality system, no more than you choose your beliefs. They are inherent within you and you are simply trying to recognize and understand what is within you.


I don't see why you can't choose a morality system based on how logical and well-founded its premises and assumptions are. I myself was a moral realist but then I moved to moral nihilism and then desire utilitarianism and then back to moral nihilism. Haven't I made a choice in choosing those based on my evaluation of those systems?

No, when I was 8, I was not interested in girls, then as I went through puberty I became very interested in girls. That was not a choice, but an understanding of things within me beyond my conscious choice.

You can learn other moral systems and come to realize that they fit and describe your internal moral compass better than your old. They may also change the way you look at things and actually change your compass. With that, you can change over the years, however if you read a particular moral system, lets say nihilism and that strikes a cord, it sounds perfect for you, you don't then choose to be a nihilist, you are a nihilist. You can't then choose to go back to an objective moral supporter at a whim. You can pretend, but that doesn't change what you are.


You start from a moral system inherently, indeed, but that is set to change or be replaced once you start evaluating different morality systems in a philosophical and logical way by starting from a blank state.

Just like I can't spontaneously choose to not believe in God any more than an Atheist can choose to believe in one. I cannot consciously rewrite more moral beliefs. They can be rewritten through new understandings, experiences, view points, and concepts, but I cannot just choose to do it.

Once you convince yourself that your moral beliefs which are obvious to you are not necessarily true, you can choose to base your moral decisions on a different type of moral system. One's moral system is not hard-coded in him like a biological function unless you're severely indoctrinated as a child, I guess, but even in that case, you can overcome that.

Then you can choose to be a naturalist, that if it is natural, it is moral. Try it, try to believe that. You can pretend, but you know that you don't actually believe that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 3:03:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 2:56:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:46:49 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:27:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You don't choose your morality system, no more than you choose your beliefs. They are inherent within you and you are simply trying to recognize and understand what is within you.


I don't see why you can't choose a morality system based on how logical and well-founded its premises and assumptions are. I myself was a moral realist but then I moved to moral nihilism and then desire utilitarianism and then back to moral nihilism. Haven't I made a choice in choosing those based on my evaluation of those systems?

No, when I was 8, I was not interested in girls, then as I went through puberty I became very interested in girls. That was not a choice, but an understanding of things within me beyond my conscious choice.

False analogy fallacy. Puberty is biological and so is sexual attraction, while choosing a morality system is an introspective/mental process.


You can learn other moral systems and come to realize that they fit and describe your internal moral compass better than your old. They may also change the way you look at things and actually change your compass. With that, you can change over the years, however if you read a particular moral system, lets say nihilism and that strikes a cord, it sounds perfect for you, you don't then choose to be a nihilist, you are a nihilist. You can't then choose to go back to an objective moral supporter at a whim. You can pretend, but that doesn't change what you are.

That's the improper way of doing it. What seems similar to how you think is not necessarily true.

You can forget yourself and study each based on its logical foundation, assumptions and claims. For instance, if moral realism says that moral facts exist, you can question the existence of such moral facts. If you can't find such categorical imperatives, then it is rather unsubstantiated for you to believe in the existence of those moral facts even if you feel that you "know inside" that they do exist.

Basically, if you can't get past your prior judgments which you find inherent, you shouldn't be doing philosophy. "I know it deep inside" is a weak argument in philosophy.



You start from a moral system inherently, indeed, but that is set to change or be replaced once you start evaluating different morality systems in a philosophical and logical way by starting from a blank state.

Just like I can't spontaneously choose to not believe in God any more than an Atheist can choose to believe in one. I cannot consciously rewrite more moral beliefs. They can be rewritten through new understandings, experiences, view points, and concepts, but I cannot just choose to do it.

Once you convince yourself that your moral beliefs which are obvious to you are not necessarily true, you can choose to base your moral decisions on a different type of moral system. One's moral system is not hard-coded in him like a biological function unless you're severely indoctrinated as a child, I guess, but even in that case, you can overcome that.

Then you can choose to be a naturalist, that if it is natural, it is moral. Try it, try to believe that. You can pretend, but you know that you don't actually believe that.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 3:06:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I still find Sam Harris' approach to Utilitarianism rather compelling, as it allows an objective, pragmatic and iterative approach.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 3:09:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It also goes without saying that I'm an imperfect being. If I choose a morality system, and I don't follow it to the letter, then that is me being not too careful. But I can do my best to follow a system of moral nihilism where I only follow institutionalized norms, that's not difficult. I will simply try to avoid categorical imperatives as I have no good reason to believe those even exist.

Sometimes I would, sometimes I wouldn't. That only says that my behavior itself is not planned or careful, not that I can't choose a model of morality to follow in my decision-making process.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 3:12:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 3:06:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I still find Sam Harris' approach to Utilitarianism rather compelling, as it allows an objective, pragmatic and iterative approach.

Alonzo Fye's desire utilitarianism seems to have a stronger logical basis, but I will do about 8-10 posts about utilitarianism which will include Harris' approach, hopefully.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 3:13:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 3:12:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:06:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I still find Sam Harris' approach to Utilitarianism rather compelling, as it allows an objective, pragmatic and iterative approach.

Alonzo Fye's desire utilitarianism seems to have a stronger logical basis, but I will do about 8-10 posts about utilitarianism which will include Harris' approach, hopefully.

I am going to google him, have you got a good link?
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 3:17:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 3:13:50 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:12:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:06:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I still find Sam Harris' approach to Utilitarianism rather compelling, as it allows an objective, pragmatic and iterative approach.

Alonzo Fye's desire utilitarianism seems to have a stronger logical basis, but I will do about 8-10 posts about utilitarianism which will include Harris' approach, hopefully.

I am going to google him, have you got a good link?

Note that desire utilitarianism and desirism are the same thing, but Alonzo got fed up of people confusing his theory for preference utilitarianism, so he recently has been calling it "desirism."

This is a shared Podcast between Luke Manchester and Alonzo Fye. It goes over the basics in a very simplified and entertaining way:

http://commonsenseatheism.com...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 3:21:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 3:17:39 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:13:50 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:12:34 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 3:06:56 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
I still find Sam Harris' approach to Utilitarianism rather compelling, as it allows an objective, pragmatic and iterative approach.

Alonzo Fye's desire utilitarianism seems to have a stronger logical basis, but I will do about 8-10 posts about utilitarianism which will include Harris' approach, hopefully.

I am going to google him, have you got a good link?

Note that desire utilitarianism and desirism are the same thing, but Alonzo got fed up of people confusing his theory for preference utilitarianism, so he recently has been calling it "desirism."

This is a shared Podcast between Luke Manchester and Alonzo Fye. It goes over the basics in a very simplified and entertaining way:

http://commonsenseatheism.com...

Danke
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2014 8:49:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/23/2014 3:03:39 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:56:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:46:49 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 4/23/2014 2:27:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
You don't choose your morality system, no more than you choose your beliefs. They are inherent within you and you are simply trying to recognize and understand what is within you.


I don't see why you can't choose a morality system based on how logical and well-founded its premises and assumptions are. I myself was a moral realist but then I moved to moral nihilism and then desire utilitarianism and then back to moral nihilism. Haven't I made a choice in choosing those based on my evaluation of those systems?

No, when I was 8, I was not interested in girls, then as I went through puberty I became very interested in girls. That was not a choice, but an understanding of things within me beyond my conscious choice.

False analogy fallacy. Puberty is biological and so is sexual attraction, while choosing a morality system is an introspective/mental process.

I disagree. The concept of "right" and "wrong" is entirely based on your mind, which is 100% biological, unless you're a robot.



You can learn other moral systems and come to realize that they fit and describe your internal moral compass better than your old. They may also change the way you look at things and actually change your compass. With that, you can change over the years, however if you read a particular moral system, lets say nihilism and that strikes a cord, it sounds perfect for you, you don't then choose to be a nihilist, you are a nihilist. You can't then choose to go back to an objective moral supporter at a whim. You can pretend, but that doesn't change what you are.

That's the improper way of doing it. What seems similar to how you think is not necessarily true.

Morals are not "true", they are subjective to each of us.


You can forget yourself and study each based on its logical foundation, assumptions and claims. For instance, if moral realism says that moral facts exist, you can question the existence of such moral facts. If you can't find such categorical imperatives, then it is rather unsubstantiated for you to believe in the existence of those moral facts even if you feel that you "know inside" that they do exist.

Basically, if you can't get past your prior judgments which you find inherent, you shouldn't be doing philosophy. "I know it deep inside" is a weak argument in philosophy.

We're talking about morals, not philosophy. Those are two entirely different subjects. Philosophy can go over morals, but it itself is not morals.




You start from a moral system inherently, indeed, but that is set to change or be replaced once you start evaluating different morality systems in a philosophical and logical way by starting from a blank state.

Just like I can't spontaneously choose to not believe in God any more than an Atheist can choose to believe in one. I cannot consciously rewrite more moral beliefs. They can be rewritten through new understandings, experiences, view points, and concepts, but I cannot just choose to do it.

Once you convince yourself that your moral beliefs which are obvious to you are not necessarily true, you can choose to base your moral decisions on a different type of moral system. One's moral system is not hard-coded in him like a biological function unless you're severely indoctrinated as a child, I guess, but even in that case, you can overcome that.

Then you can choose to be a naturalist, that if it is natural, it is moral. Try it, try to believe that. You can pretend, but you know that you don't actually believe that.

Did you try changing your morals?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2014 7:47:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I disagree. The concept of "right" and "wrong" is entirely based on your mind, which is 100% biological, unless you're a robot.


If my mind is 100% biological, then I would be a robot and nothing more than a biological machine. My brains are biological, but my brains are not necessarily my mind.

You can learn other moral systems and come to realize that they fit and describe your internal moral compass better than your old. They may also change the way you look at things and actually change your compass. With that, you can change over the years, however if you read a particular moral system, lets say nihilism and that strikes a cord, it sounds perfect for you, you don't then choose to be a nihilist, you are a nihilist. You can't then choose to go back to an objective moral supporter at a whim. You can pretend, but that doesn't change what you are.

That's the improper way of doing it. What seems similar to how you think is not necessarily true.

Morals are not "true", they are subjective to each of us.

I'm not speaking about morals, but about morality systems that describe "right" and "wrong." It's obvious that neither one could be ultimately true, but a moral system can be "less wrong" than the other and superior in its logical foundation.

We're talking about morals, not philosophy. Those are two entirely different subjects. Philosophy can go over morals, but it itself is not morals.

Metaethics is a branch of philosophy. I don't why we should be skeptical about everything, but okay with uttering that we know that morals exist deep down, and that's enough for us.

Did you try changing your morals?

If you referring to my previous morals, yes. I'm currently inclined to moral nihlism.