Morality

[Qchan]

Pain is a neurological reaction that we can measure in both animals and humans. I don't think plants have the same capacity, so I find it less morally intrusive to uproot a grass, than, say, slap a man, because the latter is able to experience Pain. Someone else with other moral standards might then disagree and say that the former has with it greater Harm. It really depends what your values are. I wouldn't dictate what causes the least amount of Pain, other than what we can measure and agree upon. If there's disagreement, so be it, and there'll be conflict.

You're missing my point. You're agreeing with me, but you don't realize it.
I'm saying morality can't be quantified. For it to be quantifiable would mean that there is a level of morality everyone agrees on.

If you ask me, morality, in the sense we are using it, isn't morality at all. "Values" is the correct word to use in this sense, and I believe you accurately described this. Values are opinions you hold to your heart based on how you lived. Morality isn't morality if its subject to varying opinion, because that is to say that what truly is wrong, isn't really wrong depending on who you are. For example: Is it moral for me to retaliate when someone does me wrong? Whether they sleep with my gf, destroy my property or cause me bodily harm? Would I be wrong if I wanted to _do_ something in retaliation to how someone is treating me? Another example: Would it be wrong to punch a woman in the face if she first punches me? If the answer to my questions aren't a clear "Yes" or "No", then those answers are based on personal values. Morality suggests an invisible list of rules based on right and wrong, no matter _who_ you are.

You're throwing a lot of unsubstantiated claims around, who are these "overwhelming majority" substantiated by? You? Should I take your word for granted? Even if I concede there is (not that I disagree with you, I just want to see some data on the matter) just goes to show the different values Pain and Harm has to different people. I never claimed an objective moral standard, just that it just might be quantifiable and, daresay, measurable.

You're asking for a link to back up this data? What I'm speaking about is called "White Denial".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-j-leonard/white-denial-and-a-cultur_b_1817557.html

Tim Wise wrote a very detailed piece on the subject:
http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/137/studyguide_137.pdf

[missingnocchi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Here's a little thing for you guys saying Qchan's hypothetical was stupid or trying to find easy ways out without addressing the complexities.

Just remember, you aren't calling Qchan stupid, you're calling Philippa Foot stupid. And she could kick any of your asses up and down the trolley in an ethics debate any day of the week, if she hadn't died 5 years ago.

[Qchan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Here's a little thing for you guys saying Qchan's hypothetical was stupid or trying to find easy ways out without addressing the complexities.

Just remember, you aren't calling Qchan stupid, you're calling Philippa Foot stupid. And she could kick any of your asses up and down the trolley in an ethics debate any day of the week, if she hadn't died 5 years ago.

The reality is, I didn't create the scenario. I dunno how many times I need to stress this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ

[missingnocchi]

The reality is, I didn't create the scenario. I dunno how many times I need to stress this.

I know dude, that's what I was saying. Philippa Foot created the original problem.

[Qchan]

I know dude, that's what I was saying. Philippa Foot created the original problem.

Oh, I must've misread you. My apologies.
Seems as though most people are unaware of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

[Mike Cl]

If you ask me, morality, in the sense we are using it, isn't morality at all. "Values" is the correct word to use in this sense, and I believe you accurately described this. Values are opinions you hold to your heart based on how you lived. Morality isn't morality if its subject to varying opinion, because that is to say that what truly is wrong, isn't really wrong depending on who you are. For example: Is it moral for me to retaliate when someone does me wrong? Whether they sleep with my gf, destroy my property or cause me bodily harm? Would I be wrong if I wanted to _do_ something in retaliation to how someone is treating me? Another example: Would it be wrong to punch a woman in the face if she first punches me? If the answer to my questions aren't a clear "Yes" or "No", then those answers are based on personal values. Morality suggests an invisible list of rules based on right and wrong, no matter _who_ you are.

Yeah, that makes sense.  I don't think there are really any 'morals'.  What is usually called morals is what you call 'values'--and that for me is a good label.  I hate it when the politicos use the term Christian Morals--I immediately know that that person is blowing smoke and does not know what he/she is talking about.  So, is it moral for you to retaliate? Only you can answer that.  For me, it would not.  But I've learned that from experience.  Revenge does not make me feel better, even at the moment of getting it.  But self defense is different--attack me or mine and I'll fucking kill ya.  I could say I have my own moral code--but even that has huge amounts of grey.  Basically, I know what I'd do in certain situations--those situations I've been in.  Put me into an untried situation and who knows what I'll end up doing.  But me in a Korean POW camp, and I'd do just about whatever it is that was demanded of me.

[Solomon Zorn]

Webster's:

Morality

: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior

: the degree to which something is right and good - the moral goodness or badness of something

The second definition seems to suggest objectivity, but the first is subjective. What you are calling values. Morality is still an acceptable word for it.

Despite all the nuances  to it, there are some morals, or values, that are pretty common to us all. Overcoming your own nature, and adhering to the golden rule, for example, despite some selfish thing your passions are stimulating you to do, most of us would consider more noble than following your gut. If you were in that POW camp and were required to kill a fellow prisoner to stay alive, you very possibly might give your life for his.

[Mike Cl]

Despite all the nuances  to it, there are some morals, or values, that are pretty common to us all. Overcoming your own nature, and adhering to the golden rule, for example, despite some selfish thing your passions are stimulating you to do, most of us would consider more noble than following your gut. If you were in that POW camp and were required to kill a fellow prisoner to stay alive, you very possibly might give your life for his.

Yes, Solomon, I might.  And I'd like to think I would.  But I have not been there and could very easily rationalize it so that I need to kill the guy to live myself.  As a kid I remember seeing newsreels about the Korean War POW's.  Some were looked down on because they 'cracked' and signed a paper or said that the US was bad.  I wondered then if I would not simply say anything, sign anything to keep from being tortured or to stop the torture.  Would I kill another prisoner?  I don't know. 

[Solomon Zorn]

Torture is another extreme situation though.

I still object to the trolley scenario (even if God Herself wrote it) as just an example of a ridiculously extreme no-win situation, that none of us will ever find ourselves in. Morality for the vast majority of us is so much more mundane. To me, it's how long do I let the dog walk me, before it's time to go in. It's do I leave the last slice for my sister, or do I eat it myself. It's do I go out of my way to help when I could just as easily not get involved. It's what you do when there is nothing obviously beneficial to yourself.

[Mike Cl]

Torture is another extreme situation though.

I still object to the trolley scenario (even if God Herself wrote it) as just an example of a ridiculously extreme no-win situation, that none of us will ever find ourselves in. Morality for the vast majority of us is so much more mundane. To me, it's how long do I let the dog walk me, before it's time to go in. It's do I leave the last slice for my sister, or do I eat it myself. It's do I go out of my way to help when I could just as easily not get involved. It's what you do when there is nothing obviously beneficial to yourself.

Oh, I agree.  How you act when nobody is looking is what you are.  My morals are my daily actions.  But they are situational.  Doing harm is the key element--try not to do it.  Which is why I say there are no morals because morals to me suggest a giver of such, almost always a god of some sort.  Values are a better way of thinking about it.  But for you and I, it is really semantics, for I think we pretty much agree on all of this.

[Solomon Zorn]

...But for you and I, it is really semantics, for I think we pretty much agree on all of this.

Now that's no fun!

[Solomon Zorn]

In the interest of making an increasingly stale thread fun again, indulge me in a couple of poems I wrote on the subject:

"Golden Rule"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/golden-rule.html

"All Loving"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/all-loving.html

[Qchan]

In the interest of making an increasingly stale thread fun again, indulge me in a couple of poems I wrote on the subject:

"Golden Rule"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/golden-rule.html

"All Loving"
http://www.solomonzorn.com/all-loving.html

Solomon. You haven't addressed the point I made in the other thread. Allow me to quote myself:

do you watch anime at all? Ever hear of Gundam? Hear me out. I'm making a point here. Gundam is an anime based on political warfare, espionage and conflict. There are always two sides in Gundam. The Earth Federation and The Principality of Zeon. Earth being the allied nations of earth and Zeon being the allied space colonies. In Gundam, it usually always follows behind a character allied with the Earth Federation. Gundam grasps the ideology of morality very well. It shows how both sides want peace. It follows closely behind the friends and families of both sides so you can relate to both. Neither side is defined as "evil". Suddenly, someone from the Earth Federation would act independently and spark a war between both sides. Eventually, the one responsible would get killed, but the war would still continue. The people fighting the war are still classified as good people, but in the spark of the war, they've lost family and friends - and all they know is anger and revenge. Misunderstandings on the positions of both side circulate and peace between the two sides becomes more and more distant. Some soldiers only fight because they are ordered to fight or because they hold loyalty to a person or group. Other soldiers fight just to feed their families due to the instability of the war. So, my question is... Where is the morality?

My point is that morality isn't scientific. Morality conflicts with the laws of self preservation. Morality makes people unpredictable.

Christians always say that the foundation of morality is God himself. However, what do atheists say is the foundation of morality? Nothing! Because morality doesn't make scientific sense. Use my Gundam example above. Harm and pain is being distributed everywhere, because it's war. However, where is the morality or lack thereof in war? War is entirely fueled by emotions, and morality is specifically linked to emotions. What is right and what is wrong is triggered by how you feel and not by how you think. Your feelings cannot be measured or quantified. The concept of morality is a logic loop-hole and so many atheists fall for it.

Would you address this bit, please?

[Solomon Zorn]

My point is that morality isn't scientific. Morality conflicts with the laws of self preservation. Morality makes people unpredictable. Christians always say that the foundation of morality is God himself. However, what do atheists say is the foundation of morality? Nothing! Because morality doesn't make scientific sense.

Well, while I would agree that objective morality isn't scientific, a subjective one is natural, and therefore not unscientific, and has a foundation in social evolution.

Use my Gundam example above. Harm and pain is being distributed everywhere, because it's war. However, where is the morality or lack thereof in war?

In a soldier falling on a grenade to save his fellow soldier, and a million other examples.

War is entirely fueled by emotions, and morality is specifically linked to emotions.

Too simplistic.

What is right and what is wrong is triggered by how you feel and not by how you think.

I tentatively disagree with this. Ask someone whose lost 80 pounds about will power. Overcoming hunger to improve his health could be considered a moral choice.

The concept of morality is a logic loop-hole and so many atheists fall for it.

Morality has at least two definitions. You should add the qualifier, "objective" or "subjective," rather than confusing the issue by making "values" the only term you use for subjective morals.

[Aletheia]

Oh, I must've misread you. My apologies.
Seems as though most people are unaware of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw

I guess I take the utilitarian approach. In order to reduce the number of casualties, one person has to be sacrificed in either scenario. I would pull the lever sacrificing only one person instead of five. In the other scenario, would push a person off the bridge if it meant saving five others, or if I couldn't overcome my revulsion to murder, I would jump from the bridge sacrificing myself.

Morality seems to stem from trying to reduce harm to the group while taking into account the individual's self-interest and safety. Some people tend to take a more utilitarian approach, others may sacrifice their self-interest for the benefit of the group (altruism), while some might put their self-interest before the group (in extremes, it can be a form of sociopathy), and then most are varying degrees between group interest and self-interest making their choices relative to the situation and severity of need.