Science and Morality

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5266811:

If you are right that we are just cogs in a machine then we have no choice but to hold one another responsible. We cannot be held responsible for holding one another responsible.

If we were just cogs in a machine we would have no choice and we would not responsible for any of our thoughts, actions or omissions. So it would not make sense to use the word “responsible” at all!

 

[Leela]

Leela;5266915:

If we were just cogs in a machine we would have no choice and we would not responsible for any of our thoughts, actions or omissions. So it would not make sense to use the word “responsible” at all!

I don’t know why you keep insisting that we are just cogs in a machine. No one thinks that.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5266811:

Except the reality is that we can make decisions, so we are about trillion times more complicated than a cog in a machine, and we can be held responsible for our decisions.

To be complicated does not alter the fact that our decisions have physical causes (according to the physicalist). Complexity alone does makes us independent nor does knowledge. It’s not a question of trivializing the complexity of our brains or negating reality but of admitting the full implications of being ruled by our brains and nothing else. The brain is a physical organ which functions according to the laws of science and cannot enable us to be responsible for our behaviour.

I can’t hold my hand on a hot stove and try to not take responsibility for that action

. Reflex actions have nothing to do with responsibility. If you force yourself not to withdraw your hand you are responsible if you choose to do it of your own free will for a specific reason.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele;5266841:

tonyrey;5266811:

To be complicated does not alter the fact that our decisions have physical causes (according to the physicalist). Complexity alone does makes us independent nor does knowledge. It’s not a question of trivializing the complexity of our brains or negating reality but of admitting the full implications of being ruled by our brains and nothing else. The brain is a physical organ which functions according to the laws of science and cannot enable us to be responsible for our behaviour.

. Reflex actions have nothing to do with responsibility. If you force yourself not to withdraw your hand you are responsible if you choose to do it of your own free will for a specific reason.

Okay, so you admit that you would be responsible for holding your hand on the burner right?

Okay, not just imagine that there really is no God. Does that suddenly change the fact that I was able to hold my hand on the burner? Of course not, the fact that I can do it is reality. The immense complexities of the brain, while I believe to be entirely physical, allow me to do things that make no sense… I have control over myself specifically because thinking of it otherwise has limited useful purpose (things like substance abuse, depression, etc).

I know you don’t agree, I just want you to see my point of view

 

[cm25]

Im Sorry if i inturupt you, but im wondering if anyone defined morality to a satesfaction of all? and if yes what that was. Thanks

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5272326:

liquidpele;5266841:

Okay, so you admit that you would be responsible for holding your hand on the burner right?

Okay, not just imagine

that there really is no God. Does that suddenly change the fact that I was able to hold my hand on the burner? Of course not, the fact that I can do it is reality. The immense complexities of the brain, while I believe to be entirely physical, allow me to do things that make no sense… I have control over myself specifically because thinking of it otherwise has limited useful purpose (things like substance abuse, depression, etc).

I know you don’t agree, I just want you to see my point of view
I understand your point of view perfectly. Our disagreement doesn’t prevent us from understanding, at least on this occasion, or our comradeship. After all we are in the same philosophical (and existential) boat!

**But(!) **thinking alone does not entail the power to control ourselves. We could well be helpless spectators who simply observe our thoughts and actions without having say in the matter, i.e. our belief in self-control could be false.:crying: And then we are not responsible for what we think, feel, imagine, say, decide or do… Absolute freedom?
No. Total slavery…

 

[Leela]

Im Sorry if i inturupt you, but im wondering if anyone defined morality to a satesfaction of all? and if yes what that was. Thanks

That’s the big stumbling block right now to a science of morality. We don’t have agreement about what morality is. If we can agree that morality is concerned with human well-being and can agree more or less about what that is, we can inquire into morals just as we inquire in other areas of study.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele
*
Hahahahahaha… says the person who obviously has no gay friends.*

I did have a gay friend. He died young from AIDS.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

If we can agree that morality is concerned with human well-being and can agree more or less about what that is, we can inquire into morals just as we inquire in other areas of study.

There are many ways to produce well being. But as long as you and I disagree about what a state of well being is, how can we formulate a science? If I say a state of well being requires belief in God, and you say the contrary, right away we have no basis for a science because there is no agreement about the basic requirement for well being.

 

[Leela]

Leela

If we can agree that morality is concerned with human well-being and can agree more or less about what that is, we can inquire into morals just as we inquire in other areas of study.

There are many ways to produce well being. But as long as you and I disagree about what a state of well being is, how can we formulate a science? If I say a state of well being requires belief in God, and you say the contrary, right away we have no basis for a science because there is no agreement about the basic requirement for well being.

We agree. As long as we disagree about whether religion has anything to do with morality, we won’t have a science of morality.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele
*
Hahahahahaha… says the person who obviously has no gay friends.*

I did have a gay friend. He died young from AIDS.

I’ll just say I’m sorry for your you and your friend.

 

[cm25]

Thanks Leela, but what is the difference between ethics and morality ?

 

[Leela]

Thanks Leela, but what is the difference between ethics and morality ?

Not much. Ethics usually implies applying principles to morality but I think they are pretty interchangable.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*I’ll just say I’m sorry for your you and your friend. *

Thank you. The last time I saw him he embraced me without telling me what I think he already knew … that he was dying. That was his simple way of saying good-by.

 

[cm25]

Charlemagne, in your response to Leela on the previous pg. did you mean that morality is like Art man made and changing or like math unchanging, or somewhere in between? could you explain thanks.

 

[tonyrey]

If we can agree that morality is concerned with human well-being and can agree more or less about what that is, we can inquire into morals just as we inquire in other areas of study.

Morality is not only concerned with human well-being but with the well-being of every person and sentient being in the universe - and perhaps other forms of reality of which we have no inkling. Man is not the measure of all things. People may pull the wings off flies, crush ants and torture toads but that doesn’t mean they are justified.

 

[liquidpele]

Morality is not only concerned with human well-being but with the well-being of every person and sentient being in the universe - and perhaps other forms of reality of which we have no inkling. Man is not the measure of all things. People may pull the wings off flies, crush ants and torture toads but that doesn’t mean they are justified.

I wonder if the reason we see morality in the treatment of animals is because we personify them though? When I was a kid, my sister had a pet rock that I broke… I still feel bad because I feel like I killed the rock… it’s funny.

 

[Leela]

Morality is not only concerned with human well-being but with the well-being of every person and sentient being in the universe - and perhaps other forms of reality of which we have no inkling. Man is not the measure of all things. People may pull the wings off flies, crush ants and torture toads but that doesn’t mean they are justified.

True, but we have to start somewhere.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cm25

Charlemagne, in your response to Leela on the previous pg. did you mean that morality is like Art man made and changing or like math unchanging, or somewhere in between? could you explain thanks.

Mathematics as a logical discipline is different from from one culture to another, because some cultures do not grasp the simplest principles of mathematics; but there are internal laws of mathematical logic vested in us by nature and nature’s God that cannot be violated with impunity without dire consequences. Morality (the laws of right and wrong) changes from culture to culture. In that sense morality may be man made, and errors in morality may reflect the inadequacy (or refusal) of the culture to know those rules that were vested in our hearts by God. However, the objective rules for right and wrong, like the objective rules for mathematics, come ultimately from God and cannot be violated with impunity without dire consequences.

 

[tonyrey]

True, but we have to start somewhere.

To have an adequate view of reality, on this planet at least, we have to consider other forms of life as well as human beings. Otherwise we fall into the trap of regarding morality as a solely human affair.