That doesn't show that morality is fluid but that humans have flaws, one of them is they emotional connection to authority figures. Proponents of objective morality don't believe that all believes bout morality are equal.

Does this prove that reality of how the puzzle box works is fluid, or that humans are mislead by they emotional feelings towards authority words/instructions? Such experiments are important, and everybody should know about they own flaws to be better at understanding what is objectively better, we need to know our flaws to go beyond them.

Science, and logic places our understanding of natural world beyond our intuitive/emotional limitations, it can do the same for our morality.

It does show that morality is fluid, because it shows that morality isn't just this static given that only 'good' people can achieve. Morality is fluid in Milgram's experiment because it became the subject of influence for authority, instead of as just a concept that indicates good or evil. It's not so much a flaw within humans to bow to authority as it is a flaw with the understanding of something like morality as separate from the very socially constructed aspects of our lives. In that way morality is fluid because it is constructed by people, and its mobilisation is affected BY people. If people are emotionally connected then that further emphasises just how fluid morality is because the concept will shift based on these relations, rather than remain static. I don't quite see your point in relating the puzzle box experiment to this.

Polis

Poland1292 Posts

May 29 2011 10:45 GMT

#782

On May 29 2011 19:15 Vasili wrote:That is simply not true at all. Neurology is sketchy and is inextricably linked with subjective consciousness.

No if we had understand everything about how the human brain works then we could see objective comparisons on how much person x feel pain compared to person y, that must be in principle true if you don't believe in magic. What you are criticizing is just our lack of tools, but we have enough of them to estimate things.

On May 29 2011 19:15 Vasili wrote: Why is it that there is a significant correlation between belief of something and the physiological reaction to it, when it is objectively devoid?

For example, many experiments demonstrate that someone who is given a placebo and told it will act just like a certain drug have the physiological and neurological response as if one actually ingested the drug. There are countless experiments demonstrating that participants who 'believe' they have been given alcohol 'feel' intoxicated, and this can be examined through physiological and neurological patterns suggestive of intoxication (i.e. a depressant effect on neuronal activation indicative of alcohol consumption).

That is because that is the objective reality about how the brain work. You know that all those testimonies, and brain when they had said that they felt intoxicated show something about reality, and you have some concept estimation of what feeling intoxicated means, subjective conciousness doesn't stop you from finding objective information from that data, the same can be applied to morality based on principle of human well being.

On May 29 2011 19:15 Vasili wrote:Also, I think to assume that just because someone is accustomed to a life of suffering does NOT mean they are devoid of morality..

I had not said that. I had said that promoting cultures that lead to more suffering is morally wrong.

On May 29 2011 19:15 Vasili wrote:I would say that people placed into situations of conflict and suffering have just as much morality as the rest of us, just that they are placed within a different context which demands a different subjective application of morality. For example, I think it is moral for someone who is destitute to steal bread to feed their starving family because in that context it is ENTIRELY rational. This person DOES NOT have inferior values, they have the same values as us: Family and survival.

I had never said that stealing is always bad, but the general rule that makes stealing illegal is generally good, and it doesn't stop people from helping the starving actually it leads to societies that are able to do so. Notice that your example still holds when the basis for morality is human well being it is not against this principle at all.

Polis

Poland1292 Posts

May 29 2011 11:13 GMT

#783

On May 29 2011 19:25 Vasili wrote:It does show that morality is fluid, because it shows that morality isn't just this static given that only 'good' people can achieve. Morality is fluid in Milgram's experiment because it became the subject of influence for authority, instead of as just a concept that indicates good or evil. It's not so much a flaw within humans to bow to authority as it is a flaw with the understanding of something like morality as separate from the very socially constructed aspects of our lives. In that way morality is fluid because it is constructed by people, and its mobilisation is affected BY people. If people are emotionally connected then that further emphasises just how fluid morality is because the concept will shift based on these relations, rather than remain static. I don't quite see your point in relating the puzzle box experiment to this.

This experiment doesn't show what is moral, but what people believe to be moral, humans can be as wrong about it as they can about how the box works, and knowledge about how authority influence they thinking could help them to understand how the box works (obviously that is only practical when we would have more complex example then the this box). You can feel mobilized by Behe arguments to teach creationism that doesn't say anything about the truth of it, mobilization of creationist group that want to teach creationism in schools are affected BY Behe, and he use his authority all the groups that believe in pseudo science say that many people with Ph.D believe it as well, neither of that point that creationism is an alternative equal belief to evolution by natural selection. I don't consider truths about morality to be a popularity contest.

How human works is of course important, and if you can see that human attachment to authority makes them cause more suffering, then they should be teached about the reality of it. I hope that you can see how the knowledge of such experiments can change people perception on what is moral, more objective facts related to morality in general lead to better moral standards, the bigger ignorance about owns nature in general leads to more mistakes in judging what is moral. Now you can sure give example where understanding something only partially can make somebody belief in something that is more false then intuitive view on it, but that can be said about any sciences.

I had never said that morality is only for good people* sorry but my position as actually not patronizing, and I acknowledge that humans can understand objective results of experiments, and how they relate to morality, and that they should be exposed to those informations. You should also note that cultures in general move to the ones that are better for well being, and that objective data influence what people find to be moral, people that don't want any criticism of cultures/religions put a stop to this progress.

*If by good people you don't mean everybody that doesn't have antisocial personality disorder, those people are inherently unable to understand morality, they for example don't understand the moral difference between teacher allowing them to eat, or to hit other student, people without this disorder do.

Prev 1 38 39 40 All

Please or register to reply.

Live Events Refresh