On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Hold on there. You can't just equate logic and reasoning. Logic is systematic study of proper inferences and such. By itself, logic has no actual content. Logic is a machine, it can't tell you anything about morals or art or science. The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid. Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
How can you say this? Clearly if you are pursuing the truth then knowing whether or not a line of thought is valid is of utmost importance.
You can tell if a premise is valid with logic, but you can't create a premise without giving some subjective input. People like Descarte have tried, and made so called logical arguments about the existence of god that are really pretty bad.
That's what I thought you meant at first. That values are subjective, and logic and reasoning is a subjective but good way to go about when determining ethics.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Hold on there. You can't just equate logic and reasoning. Logic is systematic study of proper inferences and such. By itself, logic has no actual content. Logic is a machine, it can't tell you anything about morals or art or science. The best you can do is give logic some statements and arguments and logic will tell you if they are consistent or valid. Logic can't help you with the truth of the premises and such.
Alright, well, I never was trying to claim that you can actually attain an objective truth. Just that it was a goal to pursue it. You can definitely reach a conclusion that makes more sense than another conclusion, and logic is a tool that helps us do that when we are reasoning.
You cannot properly reason without logic. If someone is pursuing truth then logic is a requirement, right? So if someone was to try to reason out a moral system, logic would be the basis of how this reasoning was formed, right? If the system wasn't logical then the reasoning would be flawed?
And if logic isn't the science of reasoning then why is the very first definition on dictionary.com
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
.
The science of reasoning is exactly what logic is.
I never said logic wasn't a requirement. I said logic cannot dictate the way things should be in a contingent world. Logic is the very tool by which we 'reason' our way through a system, so in this you are agreeing with me (so I assume you misunderstood me.) However, logic cannot tell you that 'the best human life is one lived in pursuit of knowledge.' It can tell you that the argument 'Knowledge is useless therefor you should spend your whole life pursuing it' is a bad argument. But it can't tell you whether the context itself is the right place to be.
Oh my god, all my years of studying philosophy and I could have just used dictionary.com to define all my terms! One thing you'll learn very quickly if you intend to take these issues seriously is that dictionaries on technical terms have very little role in philosophy. Science makes contingent statements about predictive outcomes. Logic makes necessary conclusions. In a colloquial sense, logic is indeed the science of reasoning. In a literal sense the two are very, very different. Dictionaries are not written for academia, if they were most academic debates at the moment would have very clear outcomes, and they do not.
On May 12 2011 07:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: While some people post interpretive statements as if they were factual, you can surely post a subjective opinion that's well-defended I understand your surprise though lol.
Some of us are just defending ourselves, our values, and way of thought and logic, we've never said it applied to everyone.
Earlier someone told me what would I say if they came up to me and wanted to kill me because of their moral values. I would say, "Really, why?" and I would most likely said this afterwards, "Well, I'm not stopping you, the only thing that is stopping you is yourself."
If our subjective views or logic applied to everyone and everything, it wouldn't be subjective anymore, it would then be objective.
On May 12 2011 06:01 lectR wrote: Is there really someone here that hasn't said, "that isn't fair" or "that isn't right?"
If you have ever said either of the two phrases (in similar wording), you've implied that there is a standard that either everyone should adhere to or that everyone already does adhere to (except maybe the person you're saying it to...heh).
No. There is a standard you are holding that person to, namely your own standard. That doesn't mean that the other person agrees with you (or anybody else does for that matter). Fairness in general is an interesting concept, but is only tangentially related to morality and you shouldn't confuse the two issues.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with determining a person's taste in music, food, dating, etc. These are determined by personal preferences, whether learned or biological, etc.
Admittedly, taste in music and food are pretty terrible examples, I didn't give it much thought. Dating is a good example though. What about picking a favorite sports team or player? Personal preferences definitely play a role in this but reasoning can be the primary means by which these choices are made(or in the case of MoltkeWarding, 100% of the means).
Even if they use logic to deduce a belief, they are still operating on the premise of their subjective preferences.
What does personal preference have to do with belief in god or lack thereof? What does personal preference have to do with being a nihilist? Do you think I am a Theravada Buddhist because of personal preference? No, it's from hours upon hours of pondering the nature of things. I was raised a Christian, or such was attempted at least.
Dating is not a good example either. Explain abusive but continuing relationships
You cannot properly reason without logic. If someone is pursuing truth then logic is a requirement, right? So if someone was to try to reason out a moral system, logic would be the basis of how this reasoning was formed, right? If the system wasn't logical then the reasoning would be flawed?
And if logic isn't the science of reasoning then why is the very first definition on dictionary.com
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
.
The science of reasoning is exactly what logic is.
I never said logic was a requirement. I said logic cannot dictate the way things should be in a contingent world. Logic is the very tool by which we 'reason' our way through a system, so in this you are agreeing with me (so I assume you misunderstood me.) However, logic cannot tell you that 'the best human life is one lived in pursuit of knowledge.'
Well I think that with enough thought given to the matter, enough reasoning, then usage of logic would take you to that conclusion if it is the case. It's just a matter of properly reasoning it out, which clearly isn't easy and may not be attainable within a lifetime. And it's also a matter of basing your reasoning on what you have experienced in life, and experience grows change as our lives go on.
Oh my god, all my years of studying philosophy and I could have just used dictionary.com to define all my terms! One thing you'll learn very quickly if you intend to take these issues seriously is that dictionaries on technical terms have very little role in philosophy.
yeah, fine, fair enough. I didn't actually get my definition from dictionary.com, it just happened to agree with me. the only reason I quoted it is because you weren't actually explaining why you thought my definition was wrong.
Science makes contingent statements about predictive outcomes. Logic makes necessary conclusions. In a colloquial sense, logic is indeed the science of reasoning. In a literal sense the two are very, very different.
well this is just a semantical argument. you must not be using the same definition of science as myself.
On May 12 2011 06:21 travis wrote: Morality is subjective, for sure. We make up the rules of right or wrong based on ideals we hold and what is important to us.
Logic, however, is objective; and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality.
Wait, is he trolling? I don't understand...
How is logic supposed to determine subjective values?
We use logic to determine subjective values all the time. Logic is the science of reasoning. Reasoning is used to determine what music we like, what food we like, who we would like to date, etc etc etc etc.
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational and that's exactly why I say "and for thinking persons logic should dictate morality."
Logic and reasoning have nothing to do with determining a person's taste in music, food, dating, etc. These are determined by personal preferences, whether learned or biological, etc.
Admittedly, taste in music and food are pretty terrible examples, I didn't give it much thought. Dating is a good example though. What about picking a favorite sports team or player? Personal preferences definitely play a role in this but reasoning can be the primary means by which these choices are made(or in the case of MoltkeWarding, 100% of the means).
There is no way that logic or reasoning could be used to determine a normative judgement of the "good" or "bad" preferences in an individual.
What do you mean by this?
Even if they use logic to deduce a belief, they are still operating on the premise of their subjective preferences.
What does personal preference have to do with belief in god or lack thereof? What does personal preference have to do with being a nihilist? Do you think I am a Theravada Buddhist because of personal preference? No, it's from hours upon hours of pondering the nature of things. I was raised a Christian, or such was attempted at least.
Dating is not a good example either. Explain abusive but continuing relationships
Well, I originally said
Now sure, emotion plays a large part in this as well. But emotion isn't rational
plenty of people base relationship choices mostly upon reasoning
This might be an important contribution to the discussion.
"Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human wellbeing?"
Watch it! Think about it! It might change your opinion.
Yah, Sam Harris is a baller. His argument in favor of objective morality outside of theism is way better than mine, so imma let him finish.
On May 12 2011 06:55 turdburgler wrote: morality is based in evolution, so its mainly objective. it can appear subjective because of different people growing up in different situations and that shaping their views.
even the staunchest liberals and conservatives want the same basic things at the simplest level, based on objective morals and such.
The capacity for hate and murder are also evolved. Are they therefore moral?
its easy to hate people who are different because they are competition who probably dont share your dna.
its easy to love family members because even your cousin is still mostly the same as you, helping them increases the chances of your genetic code living on.
thats an evolved reasoning for hate and love, i dont think anyones ever said its the only reasoning. and i never said that morals are the only thing we pass on to each other
On May 12 2011 06:47 travis wrote: Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality.
Sorry to hear that? Feeling ethically superior or something? I'm sorry for being honest.
I addressed it in my prior posts.
"Good, bad, right and wrong are simply classifications of actions based on perspective. Morality is a societal construct; it's subjective."
There is no objective "right" or "wrong" because each person has their own relative experience, values (existentialism), and perspective to evaluate the situation with. An action is just an action. Just because we've evolved the capacity to create a construct by which to classify actions does not equate it to being objective.
On May 12 2011 06:47 travis wrote: Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality.
Sorry to hear that? Feeling ethically superior or something? I'm sorry for being honest.
not ethically, I don't care about that, it doesn't actually mean anything to me. And I think it's great that you are honest.
anyways I agree that morality isn't objective. but maybe you should do some more thinking on what reasons there could be for not killing other people.
On May 12 2011 07:48 travis wrote: Well I think that with enough thought given to the matter, enough reasoning, then usage of logic would take you to that conclusion if it is the case. It's just a matter of properly reasoning it out, which clearly isn't easy and may not be attainable within a lifetime. And it's also a matter of basing your reasoning on what you have experienced in life, and experience grows change as our lives go on.
Well, then really we agree. But you're description of logic is still kind of inflated. Most human beings if put to the test are quite logical within a particular system, this has never been the problem. If logic was the issue we'd have achieved an objective system of morality a thousand years ago.
It is certainly a matter of living, and dedicating yourself to trying to always provide logic and reasoned arguments to your fellow man. The question shouldn't be 'is there an objective form of morality' but 'how should one live' which is the original philosophical question anyways. But that question is the most problematic all of.
Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty.
On May 12 2011 06:22 BleaK_ wrote: The only thing scientist have found to be "universal morally wrong" is incest. So no, there is nothing that is morally objective, unless all societies agree upon that norm.
Why is incest morally wrong? Because it leads to malformed babies? How about incestuous relationships that use birth control (lets say a relation between mutually consenting adult brother and sister)? There would be no victim of this "universal morally wrong" act, so why is it wrong?
On May 12 2011 06:47 travis wrote: Really, that's why you don't kill people? I am sorry to hear that. But I am not sure how what you're saying has any place in a discussion on morality. You aren't even addressing the issue of morality.
Sorry to hear that? Feeling ethically superior or something? I'm sorry for being honest.
not ethically, I don't care about that, it doesn't actually mean anything to me. And I think it's great that you are honest.
anyways I agree that morality isn't objective. but maybe you should do some more thinking on what reasons there could be for not killing other people.
He stated a reason, his desire to not go to jail, and you balked at that. Obviously what you wanted were not reasons, but emotions, such as guilt, compassion, empathy, etc.
It would be more appropriate to say: "maybe you should do some more feeling on what emotions there could be for not killing other people."
After all, morality is entirely dependent on emotion, not on reasoning or logic.
EDIT:
On May 12 2011 08:13 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote: Just added a poll to the OP
On May 12 2011 08:08 kataa wrote: Philosophy really hasn't moved on much in the past 2,500 years outside of rhetoric, but maybe thats just me reading too much Wittgenstein and Rorty.
I think that's being a bit unfair to Descartes, Hume, Kant and all the other enlightenment philosophers. That Wittgenstein disagreed with them doesn't mean he didn't need to build upon their thought processes to disagree with them! It's like saying Freud was a horrible psychologist because he has been proven wrong on almost every account. However, if he hadn't done the pioneering work we might still have looked at phrenology as a valid explanation of people's behaviour (I know, I exaggerate).
On May 12 2011 06:22 BleaK_ wrote: The only thing scientist have found to be "universal morally wrong" is incest. So no, there is nothing that is morally objective, unless all societies agree upon that norm.
Why is incest morally wrong? Because it leads to malformed babies? How about incestuous relationships that use birth control (lets say a mutually consenting, adult, brother and sister)? There would be no victim of this "universal morally wrong" act, so why is it wrong?
I believe I read something about the risk of malformation in incestuous relations to be greatly exaggerated.
EPT
I understand your surprise though lol. 
