The Problem of Morals

[blü 2]

The question of morals is pretty complex, but I believe the biggest factor involved is feelings.
I know there are cultural factors, experiential factors, theological factors, still I think it mostly boils down to what you feel is right or wrong. These other factors contribute to what you feel is right or wrong.

Some claim morals is not something which "science" can deal with, and I generally agree.

Feelings are a feedback systems developed by humans through evolution. A system that has worked well enough to allow our survival still a very imprecise system. Fear, anger, love, lust etc... are triggered by a subconscious process, which is not a rational process. We feel what we feel but can't rationalize why we feel this way. We can consciously try to justify after the fact of experiencing what we feel.

Science would be the ideal way to make choices, However, our pesky feelings get in the way.

So, instead of increasing the likelihood of making correct choices, we rely on our feelings to make value judgements. Those values are generally not the best choices for us but the choices that will provide the desired feeling.

We humans are addicted to our feelings however, science can not not engage with the system of morals or human values since it is a mediocre system lacking any precision.

It's like telling a junkie that getting high is bad for them but the high is more important to the junkie than making the better choice.

We get our morals in two main ways ─ from evolution and from environment.

We've evolved to like child nurture and protection; to dislike the one who harms; to like fairness and reciprocity; to respect authority; to be loyal to the group; and to get a sense of self-worth through self-denial. Evolution has also provided us with a conscience and with the capacity for empathy.

The rest of our morals ─ largely about dealing with other humans, depending on their relationship, sex, status, occasion, authority &c ─ we get from our upbringing, culture, education and experience.

Et voilà!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The question of morals is pretty complex, but I believe the biggest factor involved is feelings.
I know there are cultural factors, experiential factors, theological factors, still I think it mostly boils down to what you feel is right or wrong. These other factors contribute to what you feel is right or wrong.

Some claim morals is not something which "science" can deal with, and I generally agree.

Feelings are a feedback systems developed by humans through evolution. A system that has worked well enough to allow our survival still a very imprecise system. Fear, anger, love, lust etc... are triggered by a subconscious process, which is not a rational process. We feel what we feel but can't rationalize why we feel this way. We can consciously try to justify after the fact of experiencing what we feel.

Science would be the ideal way to make choices, However, our pesky feelings get in the way.

So, instead of increasing the likelihood of making correct choices, we rely on our feelings to make value judgements. Those values are generally not the best choices for us but the choices that will provide the desired feeling.

We humans are addicted to our feelings however, science can not not engage with the system of morals or human values since it is a mediocre system lacking any precision.

It's like telling a junkie that getting high is bad for them but the high is more important to the junkie than making the better choice.

Don't entirely agree with your disregard of science.

Through science, it is very much possible to determine what constitutes well-being in terms of mental health and physical health. When faced with decisions with moral implications, science is very much able to inform us on the consequences of actions and decisions, and thus it informs us on what actions / decisions will increase well-being and which will increase suffering.

All these things are important aspects of moral decision making.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Actually as I see it, morality has it's limit.
It's an inferior system to science.

Would you do live human testing on children to more quickly discover how to treat brain tumours through surgery?
Why/Why not?

 

[1213]

...
So then why do people steal? I imagine there are exceptions but IMO people usually steal for pleasure. Logic may give you the better answer, but the best answer may not give a person the pleasure they are looking for.

I think there can be many reasons. Maye for some it is about pleasure. Some may do it because they don’t see any other way for example to have food and therefore think it is ok to do so. Some may be just greedy or lazy. Greed can be seen as one form of fear, which perhaps is an emotion. In that case person may base his actions on feelings. However, if it would be asked form him, is it ok, if other people steal from him, he would probably still say stealing is wrong? Maybe the moral can be only known correctly, when the wrong thing is done the person himself.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The question of morals is pretty complex, but I believe the biggest factor involved is feelings.
I know there are cultural factors, experiential factors, theological factors, still I think it mostly boils down to what you feel is right or wrong. These other factors contribute to what you feel is right or wrong.
Some claim morals is not something which "science" can deal with, and I generally agree....................

Unless damaged, humans come equipped with an inborn conscience.
Unlike animals who don't apologize for wrongdoing (one dog stealing another dog's bone) because of conscience human feelings can do the right thing.
Because of conscience people of the nations know stealing, lying, murder etc. is wrong.
Right, morals do Not come from science nor is science the teacher of morals, but morals come from one's conscience. A properly trained or guided conscience then could be a good moral conscience or compass pointing in the right direction.

 

[sealchan]

Perfect, it seems from the WIKI page at least, supports my point.
Emotions are our biological feedback system. I agree with this. I'm just saying it is not a very good one. Emotions have their flaws.
As you stated, you cannot convince a person of a better choice because of the need to appeal to their emotions.

I am saying that feelings are not only good but they are essential to good thinking. Emotions and feelings are at two different scales...when someone is emotional they are less able to be rational. But feeling is rational and is a kind of more conscious form of "emotion" that does not trigger the adrenal glands. It is, perhaps, a difference of intensity and some people are more capable of wielding the expression of emotion without losing their ability to be rational (thinking or feeling).

In some cases people use the word feeling to mean an intuition. As in "I've got a bad feeling about this." Actually that might be a good blend of feeling and intuition.

So I would say you do NOT want to appeal to their emotions...that is akin to manipulating them by making them activate their adrenaline and reducing their ability to be rational. Rather you want to appeal to their sense of value and try to change how they have built their rational construction of valuations. You want to make a case in terms of good and bad, right and wrong and important or unimportant...valuations.

 

[Nakosis]

I am saying that feelings are not only good but they are essential to good thinking. Emotions and feelings are at two different scales...when someone is emotional they are less able to be rational. But feeling is rational and is a kind of more conscious form of "emotion" that does not trigger the adrenal glands. It is, perhaps, a difference of intensity and some people are more capable of wielding the expression of emotion without losing their ability to be rational (thinking or feeling).

In some cases people use the word feeling to mean an intuition. As in "I've got a bad feeling about this." Actually that might be a good blend of feeling and intuition.

So I would say you do NOT want to appeal to their emotions...that is akin to manipulating them by making them activate their adrenaline and reducing their ability to be rational. Rather you want to appeal to their sense of value and try to change how they have built their rational construction of valuations. You want to make a case in terms of good and bad, right and wrong and important or unimportant...valuations.

I suspect emotions are a source of our values as well. To claim rational thought IMO puts the cart before the horse. First the feelings, then the rationalization of the choice caused by our feelings.
Maybe it occasionally happens the other way, but I don't think it happens as often as people would like to think.

 

[sayak83]

The question of morals is pretty complex, but I believe the biggest factor involved is feelings.
I know there are cultural factors, experiential factors, theological factors, still I think it mostly boils down to what you feel is right or wrong. These other factors contribute to what you feel is right or wrong.

Some claim morals is not something which "science" can deal with, and I generally agree.

Feelings are a feedback systems developed by humans through evolution. A system that has worked well enough to allow our survival still a very imprecise system. Fear, anger, love, lust etc... are triggered by a subconscious process, which is not a rational process. We feel what we feel but can't rationalize why we feel this way. We can consciously try to justify after the fact of experiencing what we feel.

Science would be the ideal way to make choices, However, our pesky feelings get in the way.

So, instead of increasing the likelihood of making correct choices, we rely on our feelings to make value judgements. Those values are generally not the best choices for us but the choices that will provide the desired feeling.

We humans are addicted to our feelings however, science can not not engage with the system of morals or human values since it is a mediocre system lacking any precision.

It's like telling a junkie that getting high is bad for them but the high is more important to the junkie than making the better choice.

Science cannot deal with morality as there is and can be no way to scientifically ascribe valuation to entitities. Emotions have nothing to do with it.

 

[Nakosis]

Science cannot deal with morality as there is and can be no way to scientifically ascribe valuation to entitities. Emotions have nothing to do with it.

Where do your values come from then?

 

[sayak83]

Where do your values come from then?

Values generally come from the survival and flourishing needs of humans.
For example, for a thirsty person water is more valuable than stone. But for science they are simply different matter configurations with a set of properties. The concept of values cannot arise in a scientific description.

 

[Nakosis]

Values generally come from the survival and flourishing needs of humans.
For example, for a thirsty person water is more valuable than stone. But for science they are simply different matter configurations with a set of properties. The concept of values cannot arise in a scientific description.

Thirst is a feeling. I suppose emotions can be seen as a subset of feelings.
So it seems you agree with my initial post. However, if we accept survival as the purpose of life then water would have the higher value.
Water, food, shelter, procreation all necessary for survival.
Survival is a necessity for life.

 

[sayak83]

Thirst is a feeling. I suppose emotions can be seen as a subset of feelings.
So it seems you agree with my initial post. However, if we accept survival as the purpose of life then water would have the higher value.
Water, food, shelter, procreation all necessary for survival.
Survival is a necessity for life.

What I am saying that evaluations like "life is valuable and things that help us to live are valuable" cannot be made through science.

 

[Nakosis]

What I am saying that evaluations like "life is valuable and things that help us to live are valuable" cannot be made through science.

I don't think I agree but I'll consider what you said.
The problem I see is humanity is a somewhat unique species in that we have needs unique from other species.
I suspect once this is better understood, science we have no difficulty determining the best choices for us.

 

[Sheldon]

Science can't test which of 2 different subjective value facts is objective with evidence.

Don't entirely agree with your disregard of science.

Through science, it is very much possible to determine what constitutes well-being in terms of mental health and physical health. When faced with decisions with moral implications, science is very much able to inform us on the consequences of actions and decisions, and thus it informs us on what actions / decisions will increase well-being and which will increase suffering.

All these things are important aspects of moral decision making.

I'm inclined to agree, while the basis for our morality might be subjective, avoid suffering, increase wellbeing etc etc, science can help us make objective decisions about which choices will achieve the best results that reflect that morality.

 

[sealchan]

I suspect emotions are a source of our values as well. To claim rational thought IMO puts the cart before the horse. First the feelings, then the rationalization of the choice caused by our feelings.
Maybe it occasionally happens the other way, but I don't think it happens as often as people would like to think.

Your understanding of feeling and emotion is common but I subscribe to the theory first put forward by C.G. Jung which is the basis of the following extremely popular personality typology tools:

The Myers & Briggs Foundation - MBTI® Basics
Keirsey Temperament Assessment

Some people, and most likely Western societies, are biased to believe that rationality is primarily and only about the coherent and comprehensive organization of words and their meanings. Some people are strongly biases to be rational in the sense of creating coherent an comprehensive organizations of valuations and their subjects and objects.

I believe that a failure to understand this (in our society) is a deep basis for a great deal of mutual misunderstanding between individuals in social and personal relationships. If you try to be rational with another person and they are biases on a different type of rationality (again a natural cognitive way of thinking in the human brain). Then you may land in perpetual debate and mutual misunderstanding and mutual inability to acknowledge the points being made.

Case in point...the conservative vs the liberal debate about knowledge. Liberals reference overt sources of knowledge based on authoritative sources while conservatives more and more and resorting to feeling based knowledge unhinged from psychology or factual data. The conservatives perhaps are trying to promote a feeling based rationality but in a culture that thinks that truth is inherently logical they are fighting an uphill battle though valiantly. Unfortunately those same conservatives who might decry "communism" are also adhering more and more to Hitlerian and Leninian based propaganda methodologies which will only undermine the values they might otherwise wish they were better examples of.

Another related example is literalist monotheist mindset vs a more universal "polytheist" (in the sense of an individual who acknowledges that other people's gods are equally valid for them) mindset. Christianity used to be about the creation of good character but since the enlightenment and its emphasis on thinking type rationality and objective, non-personal knowledge, Christianity has tried too hard to ape these qualities of science which has resulted in dogmatic and literalistic readings of its sacred texts. This perversion of the Christian faith into a list of dogmatic truths is partially the basis for the corruption of the conservative epistemology today. That feeling values have to cloth themselves in fantasy and stubborn denial of demonstrable truths is dragging the "reputation" of our collective feeling into the mud.

Feeling type rationality is good for establishing moral frameworks of knowledge while thinking type rationality is good for establishing terminological frameworks of knowledge. With a general culture trend in this world of needing to come together to solve world-wide problems, learn to equitably share our common pool of natural resources and otherwise reduce the sense of absolute entitlement to commandeer limited resources by those who have the most economic power, we are being forced to lean more on our moral, feeling rationality than our terminological, thinking rationality and this is creating great disturbances for many people and polarizations in many cultures.

So called "political correctness" is really our collective feeling trying to reframe the context of truth into something based on human experience instead of the experience of any one particular special interest even if that special interest is a majority interest. Transcending majority interest is a necessity for the rationality of our collective feeling to become instantiated in our culture more strongly and guide us into creating cooperative and moral patterns of behavior for everyone.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm inclined to agree, while the basis for our morality might be subjective, avoid suffering, increase wellbeing etc etc, science can help us make objective decisions about which choices will achieve the best results that reflect that morality.

Including how to improve killing humans more effectively.
That is a tool that works for "good" and "bad". And yes, they are subjective.

 

[Nakosis]

Your understanding of feeling and emotion is common but I subscribe to the theory first put forward by C.G. Jung which is the basis of the following extremely popular personality typology tools:

The Myers & Briggs Foundation - MBTI® Basics
Keirsey Temperament Assessment

Some people, and most likely Western societies, are biased to believe that rationality is primarily and only about the coherent and comprehensive organization of words and their meanings. Some people are strongly biases to be rational in the sense of creating coherent an comprehensive organizations of valuations and their subjects and objects.

I believe that a failure to understand this (in our society) is a deep basis for a great deal of mutual misunderstanding between individuals in social and personal relationships. If you try to be rational with another person and they are biases on a different type of rationality (again a natural cognitive way of thinking in the human brain). Then you may land in perpetual debate and mutual misunderstanding and mutual inability to acknowledge the points being made.

Case in point...the conservative vs the liberal debate about knowledge. Liberals reference overt sources of knowledge based on authoritative sources while conservatives more and more and resorting to feeling based knowledge unhinged from psychology or factual data. The conservatives perhaps are trying to promote a feeling based rationality but in a culture that thinks that truth is inherently logical they are fighting an uphill battle though valiantly. Unfortunately those same conservatives who might decry "communism" are also adhering more and more to Hitlerian and Leninian based propaganda methodologies which will only undermine the values they might otherwise wish they were better examples of.

Another related example is literalist monotheist mindset vs a more universal "polytheist" (in the sense of an individual who acknowledges that other people's gods are equally valid for them) mindset. Christianity used to be about the creation of good character but since the enlightenment and its emphasis on thinking type rationality and objective, non-personal knowledge, Christianity has tried too hard to ape these qualities of science which has resulted in dogmatic and literalistic readings of its sacred texts. This perversion of the Christian faith into a list of dogmatic truths is partially the basis for the corruption of the conservative epistemology today. That feeling values have to cloth themselves in fantasy and stubborn denial of demonstrable truths is dragging the "reputation" of our collective feeling into the mud.

Feeling type rationality is good for establishing moral frameworks of knowledge while thinking type rationality is good for establishing terminological frameworks of knowledge. With a general culture trend in this world of needing to come together to solve world-wide problems, learn to equitably share our common pool of natural resources and otherwise reduce the sense of absolute entitlement to commandeer limited resources by those who have the most economic power, we are being forced to lean more on our moral, feeling rationality than our terminological, thinking rationality and this is creating great disturbances for many people and polarizations in many cultures.

So called "political correctness" is really our collective feeling trying to reframe the context of truth into something based on human experience instead of the experience of any one particular special interest even if that special interest is a majority interest. Transcending majority interest is a necessity for the rationality of our collective feeling to become instantiated in our culture more strongly and guide us into creating cooperative and moral patterns of behavior for everyone.

I recall taking the MBTI test many years ago. Don't recall exactly what I ended up with. Seemed appropriate at the time.

I do like that they say no type is any better than the other. It's more about understanding the differences.
I see the rational temperament to be the minority on the Keirsey site.

 

[Sheldon]

Including how to improve killing humans more effectively.
That is a tool that works for "good" and "bad". And yes, they are subjective.

If that is part of your moral worldview then yes, but committing murder is not part of mine obviously, which is why I didn't include it. Though I suspect form this response you may have missed the point, yet again.

That is a tool that works for "good" and "bad". And yes, they are subjective.

The morality is subjective, the scientific ideas are not. If your morality includes murdering as many people as possible, then the scientific method can give objective help in how to achieve that. That was your own point...