Given a lot of the discussions going on I have to ask are morals rational?
A pretty loaded question. I may be missing something but if morals are rational then everyone should be able to arrive at the same set of morals. I don't think this is the case so I'm left asking if morals are rationals. If they are not rational should we do away with them?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Morals, IMO, have rational roots, but get tied up with irrational dogma over time and the original purpose is obscured.
I see it as similar to people at government agencies who do things "by the book". For them, the whole of the laws (or morals) are contained in "the book". They are idiots, and often do things that are completely irrational because they have no concept of the underpinnings of the rules. Those who are more experienced and know WHY the rules are what they are, those who understand the rational roots of teh law (or morals), are able to act in accordance with rationality and morality, even if their actions may cut a corner on "the rules".
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Are morals rational like say math is? Or are they simply a human made set of irrational rules created solely in hopes of creating a civil society? In other words the morals on their own are all irrational but can be thought of as rational when used within the contruct of trying to create a civil society.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
tyler wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Morals, IMO, have rational roots.
Are morals rational like say math is? Or are they simply a human made set of irrational rules created solely in hopes of creating a civil society? In other words the morals on their own are all irrational but can be thought of as rational when used within the contruct of trying to create a civil society.
Hmm. Yes, I believe they are based in the desire to create a civil society. They are rationally related to that goal. I hadn't considered whether the idea of a "civil society" is in itself rational or not. That would require plumbing some pretty deep dark places in search of solid ground. I think the ground is there, but I'm not sure I'm up for teh adventure to prove it.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 12:20 am Posts: 5198 Location: Connecticut Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
Those who are more experienced and know WHY the rules are what they are, those who understand the rational roots of the law (or morals), are able to act in accordance with rationality and morality, even if their actions may cut a corner on "the rules".
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:48 pm Posts: 4320 Location: Philadelphia, PA
tyler wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Morals, IMO, have rational roots.
Are morals rational like say math is? Or are they simply a human made set of irrational rules created solely in hopes of creating a civil society? In other words the morals on their own are all irrational but can be thought of as rational when used within the contruct of trying to create a civil society.
Math can be irrational.
Of course the existence of a moral code is rational. In your case, you seem to be defining rational as reasonable. What is morality? It is, as PD noted, a set of rules that allows people to coexist civilly. Obeying a system of rules that allows one's life to be lived more easily is inherently reasonable. Morality is, however, defined differently in different societies. So we can't assume that our own rules of conduct will apply in societies that have evolved differently from our own. Morality is rational in the context of the society in which it evolves.
I'm not certain that morals in the absence of life with other individuals has much meaning. It's not so much that it is irrational, it's more that the code is dormant when one is living as a solitary being.
Are morals rational like say math is? Or are they simply a human made set of irrational rules created solely in hopes of creating a civil society? In other words the morals on their own are all irrational but can be thought of as rational when used within the contruct of trying to create a civil society.
Math can be irrational.
Of course the existence of a moral code is rational. In your case, you seem to be defining rational as reasonable. What is morality? It is, as PD noted, a set of rules that allows people to coexist civilly. Obeying a system of rules that allows one's life to be lived more easily is inherently reasonable. Morality is, however, defined differently in different societies. So we can't assume that our own rules of conduct will apply in societies that have evolved differently from our own. Morality is rational in the context of the society in which it evolves.
I'm not certain that morals in the absence of life with other individuals has much meaning. It's not so much that it is irrational, it's more that the code is dormant when one is living as a solitary being.
Math is universal and usually very rational. Pi is the same through out the world. Math is a rational science where we aren't trying to create anything but rather explain.
Morals are very man made and not universal. They aren't well defined and were created for a purpose. The goal of creating a civil society may be rational but it does not hold that the morals created to support this goal are rational. The key to morals isn't that they are right or wrong, or even that they rationally support a civil society. The key just seems to be that they are shared. So can morals just be thought of as shared superstitions by which we try to live our lives?
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:48 pm Posts: 4320 Location: Philadelphia, PA
tyler wrote:
Morals are very man made and not universal. They aren't well defined and were created for a purpose. The goal of creating a civil society may be rational but it does not hold that the morals created to support this goal are rational. The key to morals isn't that they are right or wrong, or even that they rationally support a civil society. The key just seems to be that they are shared. So can morals just be thought of as shared superstitions by which we try to live our lives?
Morals aren't superstitions. They define a code of conduct. And they must be shared in order to be effective. That is, to effectively support a civil society. If they were irrational, then they would define a code of conduct that would facilitate the collapse of that civil society.
This came from Merriam-Webster:
Superstition 1 a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition 2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
I think that your concept of morality may be much more complicated than it needs to be. What is your underlying point in asking these questions?
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:37 pm Posts: 7376 Location: Vlaardingen, Netherlands Gender: Female
this thread makes me think of some news I read this week about some Swiss scientists who concluded that hurting and killing plants is immoral. It can all be rationalized.
groetjes, Mirella
_________________ 93 Rdm2x 96 D L2x Ber Gro Ams Par Zür 00 L2x D Gla Man Car Par Pin Pra Kat2x Sal Lju Ver Ber Ham Ros L 01 BSB2x Sea2x 06 D Arn Ant Bern Bol Ver Mil Tor Pis Pra Ber Vie Zag 07 L Düs Nij Wer 09 L Rdm Ber Man L 10 D Belf L Ber 12 Am2x EV:Am2x
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 4:48 pm Posts: 4320 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Mirella wrote:
this thread makes me think of some news I read this week about some Swiss scientists who concluded that hurting and killing plants is immoral. It can all be rationalized.
groetjes, Mirella
Just out of curiousity on what basis would they have concluded that killing plants would be immoral? At the minimum, we need plants in order to survive. It wouldn't be rational to stop killing plants for food. Or to feed the animals that we eat? Generally, morality can't be proclaimed by individuals.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
harvard biologist mark hauser has done quite a bit of excellent work on morals. i just found this moral sense test on the harvard web site you guys make be interested in taking.
The scenarios you judged in this test pit means against ends, which is a common philosophical contrast. Each of the characters must choose whether to use bad means to acheive good ends -- for instance, whether to harm a single person in order to help many others. The statistic provided is an indication of the choices you made about means versus ends. The closer it is to 1, the more heavily you appeared to weight means (the rights of one); the closer it is to 7, the more heavily you appeared to weigh ends (the benefit of many). Your statistic is 3.4. So far, the average statistic for subjects on this test is 3.9. It is important to realize that this statistic is merely provided for your own interest. The MST researchers make no claims about its meaning, nor do we make any claims about what choices are right or wrong. If you refer other people to this test we ask that you do not describe this statistic or its derivation so that they may complete the test with an open mind. Thank you for your participation.
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Last edited by corduroy_blazer on Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
harvard biologist mark hauser has done quite a bit of excellent work on morals. i just found this moral sense test on the harvard web site you guys make be interested in taking.
Quote:
<SNIP> If you refer other people to this test we ask that you do not describe this statistic or its derivation so that they may complete the test with an open mind. Thank you for your participation.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:47 am Posts: 46000 Location: Reasonville
_________________ No matter how dark the storm gets overhead They say someone's watching from the calm at the edge What about us when we're down here in it? We gotta watch our backs
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
Fucking hell, I take the test and at the very end when I click exit, it doesn't register and it just sits at the Moral Sense Test In Progress page. I tried it twice. I'm so pissed
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
Well I tried it using IE instead of Firefox and it worked this time, and was a completely different test ?????. I must have been doing something wrong, or something, with the Firefox one. Here are my results... don't read them unless you have taken it already !
The scenarios you judged in this test pit means against ends, which is a common philosophical contrast. Each of the characters must choose whether to use bad means to acheive good ends -- for instance, whether to harm a single person in order to help many others. The statistic provided is an indication of the choices you made about means versus ends. The closer it is to 1, the more heavily you appeared to weight means (the rights of one); the closer it is to 7, the more heavily you appeared to weigh ends (the benefit of many). Your statistic is 7. So far, the average statistic for subjects on this test is 3.9. It is important to realize that this statistic is merely provided for your own interest. The MST researchers make no claims about its meaning, nor do we make any claims about what choices are right or wrong. If you refer other people to this test we ask that you do not describe this statistic or its derivation so that they may complete the test with an open mind. Thank you for your participation.
I should say that the result is exactly what I would claim if I had to describe myself. A lot of the questions have nothing to do with this though, at least in the last part.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
corduroy_blazer wrote:
harvard biologist mark hauser has done quite a bit of excellent work on morals. i just found this moral sense test on the harvard web site you guys make be interested in taking.
The scenarios you judged in this test pit means against ends, which is a common philosophical contrast. Each of the characters must choose whether to use bad means to acheive good ends -- for instance, whether to harm a single person in order to help many others. The statistic provided is an indication of the choices you made about means versus ends. The closer it is to 1, the more heavily you appeared to weight means (the rights of one); the closer it is to 7, the more heavily you appeared to weigh ends (the benefit of many). Your statistic is 3.4. So far, the average statistic for subjects on this test is 3.9. It is important to realize that this statistic is merely provided for your own interest. The MST researchers make no claims about its meaning, nor do we make any claims about what choices are right or wrong. If you refer other people to this test we ask that you do not describe this statistic or its derivation so that they may complete the test with an open mind. Thank you for your participation.
2.3. think i fucked up a couple by mistake though.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Buffalohed wrote:
Well I tried it using IE instead of Firefox and it worked this time, and was a completely different test ?????. I must have been doing something wrong, or something, with the Firefox one. Here are my results... don't read them unless you have taken it already !
The scenarios you judged in this test pit means against ends, which is a common philosophical contrast. Each of the characters must choose whether to use bad means to acheive good ends -- for instance, whether to harm a single person in order to help many others. The statistic provided is an indication of the choices you made about means versus ends. The closer it is to 1, the more heavily you appeared to weight means (the rights of one); the closer it is to 7, the more heavily you appeared to weigh ends (the benefit of many). Your statistic is 7. So far, the average statistic for subjects on this test is 3.9. It is important to realize that this statistic is merely provided for your own interest. The MST researchers make no claims about its meaning, nor do we make any claims about what choices are right or wrong. If you refer other people to this test we ask that you do not describe this statistic or its derivation so that they may complete the test with an open mind. Thank you for your participation.
I should say that the result is exactly what I would claim if I had to describe myself. A lot of the questions have nothing to do with this though, at least in the last part.
7? Damn.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
The most important part of the test from what I gathered, the "kill this dude to save the others" part, was kind of tricky. The main reason it was tricky is because the test asks you to assume that everything is true and not make any other assumptions. Without going into too much detail, the result of this is that I answered "Obligated" to most things which, in a real life situation, would simply be "Permissible". The thing is that they aren't just different levels of the same scale. Permissible means you can do it, but it is ok not to do it. My interpretation of the word obligated, in the context of the test, is that performing the act is the only morally good action, anything else is either neutral or bad, including non-action. The thing is, given the nature of the test, which says that the people WILL die if you don't do something, the only possible thing to assumption is that the person performing the act knows exactly what the ends will be. He knows that he is either killing one or allowing 5 to be killed. I'm just going on and on here, the point is that Obligated and Permissible are difficult words to deal with.
the test is the same question repeated; would you sacrifice one for the good of others? with the spin of sometimes making it personal. i started answering and then truly felt that i didn't know what i would really do if any of those scenarios happened. how can you think you know what you would do in the face of death, unless you have been in that place before?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
