# Morality



## Cnote11

In your opinion, where does it come from and what does it mean to you? Where do you get your own moral inspiration from?


----------



## Dodecaplex

The Tractatus answers everything. Here is its answer to your questions:



Tractatus 6.41 said:


> The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value -- and if there were, it would be of no value.
> 
> If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.
> 
> It must lie outside the world.





Tractatus 6.42 said:


> Hence also there can be no ethical propositions.
> 
> Propositions cannot express anything higher.





Tractatus 6.421 said:


> It is clear that ethics cannot be expressed.
> 
> Ethics is transcendental.
> 
> (Ethics and æsthetics are one and the same).





Tractatus 6.54 said:


> My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it).
> 
> He must surmount these propositions. Then he sees the world rightly.





Tractatus 7 said:


> Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


----------



## Polednice

I shall be almost as brief as your question as I'm about to plonk myself in bed (though I shall return with armaments tomorrow for a gruesome battle): I think there is reason to think the foundations of human morality are evolved (there being good evidence for it and no need to imagine a supernatural cause), and I think our refinements of basic morality for complex human culture ought to be founded on curtailing suffering and improving life quality in line with what good evidence tells us is and is not damaging to individuals and societies.


----------



## Polednice

P.S. Dodeca, quite aside from the value of the thoughts in the Tractatus, I would personally appreciate it if you could formulate those ideas in your own words if you agree with them for two reasons: 1) I think conversation would flow easier; 2) Like many such texts, the Tractatus is obtusely worded. It may use no more words than is required, and, with a handy glossary or familiarity with the text from page 1, may read without too much difficulty, but it is an affront to how most people speak naturally making it very difficult to digest.


----------



## Cnote11

I can't see this thread turning very controversial.


----------



## Dodecaplex

@Poley: Kay, I'll henceforth try to use my own words.

Now, argue with me. Someone. Anyone.


----------



## Philip

Cnote11 said:


> I can't see this thread turning very controversial.


----------



## Cnote11

I honestly have no idea what that means. I may be young but I don't really do the young scene on the internet.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> I honestly have no idea what that means. I may be young but I don't really do the young scene on the internet.


It's not part of the young scene (I think that's probably facebook derpery), it's nerdy. Now stop derailing your own thread. *slap*


----------



## Cnote11

I don't know, I'm quite positive its some type of meme which are so popular with the young folks. Sorry for derailing the thread, Cnote11.


----------



## Philip

Cnote11 said:


> I honestly have no idea what that means. I may be young but I don't really do the young scene on the internet.


http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yao-ming-face


----------



## Cnote11

Thanks, Philip.

And _thanks_, composer... ~_~

I honestly doesn't see origin and identity of morality as a controversial thing. Or perhaps I can't see why it WOULD be because it seems so simple.


----------



## PetrB

That second entry, "The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value -- and if there were, it would be of no value.
If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.
It must lie outside the world."

This is either hopelessly lost in translation, missing some essential cultural ethos as part of it, without which any understanding of it beyond that it is meaningless gobbledygook is next to impossible. 

Often, with only semantic spins or slight rhetorical inflection, 'Moral' and 'Ethical.' are the same thing. They are very much inflected or shaped and agreed upon by a culture, and are not 'everywhere' universal.'

Ones first societal culture is the family... That's where I 'got mine.'


----------



## mmsbls

I suspect my view on morality is a bit different from maybe everyone's here. I do agree with Polednice that evolution shaped many basic behaviors or at least "desires" that lead to behaviors. We find certain things disgusting (food that smells a certain way, excrement, etc.), and we, therefore, choose to stay away from those things. Children that we grow up with are not considered sexually attractive so we tend not to have sex or fall in love with our siblings. To a significant extent altruism is favored so we tend to help others (at least those within our social group). 

Obviously not every behavior or moral code has evolved. While it is tempting to believe that we each develop a moral compass over time that is consciously determined by our free will, I personally do not believe in free will. Rather I believe our morals develop over time from our genetic endowment which interacts with our complex environment (physical inputs from people and the non-human world). Subconsciously our brain develops responses to environmental inputs which result in our behavior. What we call morals are really complex, subconscious processing that determine behaviors for actions that can be viewed as good or bad. 

A behavior that leads to scratching an itch would not be considered determined by morals, but a behavior that leads to returning a wallet with a lot of money normally is considered determined by morals. I believe both behaviors have similar neuronal causes (i.e. subconscious processing leading to actions and not some abstract thought process). Unfortunately I think discussing this view of morality (or the absence of morality) is difficult on internet discussion fora). But there it is.


----------



## Dodecaplex

PetrB said:


> "The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value -- and if there were, it would be of no value.
> If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.
> It must lie outside the world."
> 
> The quote heading the OP seems to be hopelessly lost in translation, missing some essential cultural ethos as part of it, and without which my understanding anything from it is impossible. (To me, it reads and sounds like a less than sophomoric attempt at mystical abstract cleverness, trying to sound 'like something very deep and important' while safely saying, really, nothing.)
> 
> I suggest if the OP wants any more specific comments or discussion, it would be best if they more concretely defined, in their own terms, what they think 'morality' is, and then take the question from there. Read that quote! It is a literally meaningless garble!!!


Please read the quote more carefully. First of all, it couldn't be any further from being a "sophomoric attempt at being clever". It was Wittgy's doctoral dissertation, and it's considered a masterpiece of 20th century philosophy. Really, the point that Wittgy is trying to make couldn't be any clearer.

It simply states that no value exists in the world, and that even if value existed, then the value itself would be of no value. Tell me, what is so "mystical" or "abstract" about this?

Then, he goes on to say that "all happening and being-so is accidental" which simply repeats what he says at the beginning of the quote: "everything in the world is as it is and happens as it happens."

Finally, he says that _if_ there were something of value, _if_ there were something non-accidental, then it must lie outside the world. Because if it was _in_ the world, then _it_ would also be of no value, _it_ would also be accidental.

Again, could it be any clearer than that?


----------



## Cnote11

PetrB said:


> "The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value -- and if there were, it would be of no value.
> If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental. What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.
> It must lie outside the world."
> 
> The quote heading the OP seems to be hopelessly lost in translation, missing some essential cultural ethos as part of it, and without which my understanding anything from it is impossible. (To me, it reads and sounds like a less than sophomoric attempt at mystical abstract cleverness, trying to sound 'like something very deep and important' while safely saying, really, nothing.)
> 
> I suggest if the OP wants any more specific comments or discussion, it would be best if they more concretely defined, in their own terms, what they think 'morality' is, and then take the question from there. Read that quote! It is a literally meaningless garble!!!
> 
> Often, with only semantic spins or slight rhetorical inflection, 'Moral' and 'Ethical.' are the same thing.
> 
> I still do not get the point of the question, or what, exactly is being asked, let alone 'why.'


It is really simple. I have nothing to say about the quote, seeing as how it isn't mine.

What I'm asking is this: What is morality _to you_ and where does your moral inspiration come from? Do you think morality is inherent? Where do you think morality, or the rules that govern our behavior both social and personal, come from? Other people seem to have gotten it just fine.


----------



## Cnote11

My sense of morality is this! There is not such thing as inherent morality. As is, there is no "positive" or "negative" value behind anything until you put a certain construct behind it. For instance, the current construct we live behind is "society values", which means those things which we deem to be moral are those which are seen as constructive to sustaining a society. However, these things are not immoral in themselves. This means that murder is not immoral. One would not say that a lion is immoral for murdering an antelope. We also may not pass moral judgement on a lion that eats its cubs. However, if held to a progressive standard in which we measure meaning behind a construct of social value in which we strive to push for high quality of life across the board then we would view this action as immoral. Morality is a relative matter, but I do believe that some morals are definitely better than others. This, however, is due to my conviction that a life worth living is one filled with knowledge, art, and enjoyment where one does not have to stress over basic needs. This should apply to the entire human species in my construct and by doing so it makes it easier for each individual to have that type of life. I do not feel that anything is of any actual value, including life, although I do highly, highly, highly value it myself. We have to make up a value for life and value others lives as we would our own. Once we establish that there is this intersubjective value of life, then we can continue to build morality off of that. This is where the idea of murder, rape, slavery, etc. becomes immoral. Also, by making up morals one greatly increases chances of survival. Moral codes attached with consequences allow for societies to be built and for easier lives where one can successfully procreate and flourish. This also deters revenge crimes and random acts of violence and increases security and stability. Man then can put his talents and time towards other projects in collaborative efforts that would not be possible without a moral code.


----------



## Dodecaplex

_In_ the world, Cnote. _In_ the world.

Those three words should have been placed at the end of just about each and every one of your sentences.


----------



## Cnote11

Sorry, I'll edit it to include those words :lol: In other news, I just received my first warning.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Haha, was it because krummhorn saw your post where you say the mods told us we can only make silly threads?

You do know libel is a crime, right?


----------



## Philip

Nevermind.


----------



## Cnote11

I'm a tad confused about what mmsbls is saying. How fluid is morality in the system you propose?


----------



## Polednice

PetrB said:


> Ones first societal culture is the family... That's where I 'got mine.'


That's where we all get our first sense of morality, but you have since questioned it, haven't you? If not, that's rather unfortunate...



mmsbls said:


> I suspect my view on morality is a bit different from maybe everyone's here. I do agree with Polednice that evolution shaped many basic behaviors or at least "desires" that lead to behaviors. We find certain things disgusting (food that smells a certain way, excrement, etc.), and we, therefore, choose to stay away from those things. Children that we grow up with are not considered sexually attractive so we tend not to have sex or fall in love with our siblings. To a significant extent altruism is favored so we tend to help others (at least those within our social group).
> 
> Obviously not every behavior or moral code has evolved. While it is tempting to believe that we each develop a moral compass over time that is consciously determined by our free will, I personally do not believe in free will. Rather I believe our morals develop over time from our genetic endowment which interacts with our complex environment (physical inputs from people and the non-human world). Subconsciously our brain develops responses to environmental inputs which result in our behavior. What we call morals are really complex, subconscious processing that determine behaviors for actions that can be viewed as good or bad.
> 
> A behavior that leads to scratching an itch would not be considered determined by morals, but a behavior that leads to returning a wallet with a lot of money normally is considered determined by morals. I believe both behaviors have similar neuronal causes (i.e. subconscious processing leading to actions and not some abstract thought process). Unfortunately I think discussing this view of morality (or the absence of morality) is difficult on internet discussion fora). But there it is.


I would completely agree with your position, mmsbls, though there is a slight complicating factor in how we therefore deal with morality (and by "morality", I do not mean a system of positions that we are able to freely choose between in accordance with our feelings, I mean a collection of memes that serve as input variables affecting human behaviour). We can consider all human ideas we come across to be behaviour-affecting memes, and that means how we understand morality will affect how we behave. If, even though true, we were to all consider our actions completely determined by environmental and biological inputs, we would absolutely behave differently (maybe worse, I'm not sure) than if we think and talk as though we are free agents with the capability to choose between right and wrong. Now, I value the truth, so I don't want us to lie to ourselves with the second meme, but I think it's important to continue asking and answering questions of morals and ethics with the implication that we have a choice in the matter in the hope of adding beneficial memes to the overall collection that affects behaviour.


----------



## emiellucifuge

MY sense of morality is whatever I feel it to be. Our species has evolved, biologically and culturally, to give me adequate 'feeling' of what is right and wrong, as it applies to my own actions. Also I dont want to be imprisoned.


----------



## Cnote11

The problem I have with this is that I believe morality should be a conscious intellectual decision as opposed to some subconscious "feeling". It should be active morality.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I dont think so at all. Assuming the absence of an external and absolute 'god' or such - the question may be posed; why do we even bother with things such as good or bad, moral or immoral? Humans instinctively divide actions into good or bad and the concept of morality arises from this instinct rather than the other way around.

To me, any moral system arising from an 'absolute' concept or being contrived from pure intellect must be false in so far as it disconnected from these instincts.

As an aside these instincts are extremely relative and vary over time and also among cultures.


----------



## Polednice

I think you're right that our sense of morality should involve significant reflection and reason rather than following subconscious feeling - although evolution has primed us very well to get along with our human peers, it is inadequate in the complexities of 21st century culture. Although evolution gives us empathy and altruistic tendencies, it does not give us useful intuitive answers to the use of dangerous scientific research, to the implementation of euthanasia, or to laws about sexuality. The major problem is that even though there is no evolutionary precedent for these questions, and therefore no good intuitive answers, our instincts nevertheless push us to come up with an answer anyway because our silly mammalian brains want us to have an opinion on absolutely everything. This is the problem with "gut instinct", and we ought to be aware when we're forming opinions based on it because they're highly likely to be wrong or even damaging.


----------



## Cnote11

Feeling is not enough and historic moral systems should tell you that. You've had slavery since the beginning of human civilization. Moral or not? You've had condoned rape. Moral or not? You've had the condoned slaughtering of innocents because of power lust. Moral or not? I'm not going to agree that we necessarily have altruistic tendencies. We perhaps have altruistic tendencies for in-groups, but do we really have it for out-groups? Humans divide things into "good" or "bad" based on how it affects their lives. It obviously wasn't instinct to sort slavery into bad and that was a development of intellectual morality. Our instincts are based on primal needs. Do you really want primal needs dictating society?


----------



## Cnote11

Also, the reason we bother with it is because it builds a better society. Education and intellect is important. If you throw it out the door in terms of morality then we're right back to mass prejudice and discrimination. You're right that humans sort things into "good" and "bad" and that includes other people. Instinctively, majority of people will create a prejudice against the unfamiliar. This is essentially what you'd be doing with all of morality if you took education and intelligence out of the picture. You'd leave morality to be developed by people who do not understand the things they are making moral decrees against. It would be based upon ignorance. The instinctual system is highly ignorant to everything, which is why we have a conscious system to intervene, otherwise we wouldn't get very far in life.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> Feeling is not enough and historic moral systems should tell you that. You've had slavery since the beginning of human civilization. Moral or not? You've had condoned rape. Moral or not? You've had the condoned slaughtering of innocents because of power lust. Moral or not? I'm not going to agree that we necessarily have altruistic tendencies. We perhaps have altruistic tendencies for in-groups, but do we really have it for out-groups? Humans divide things into "good" or "bad" based on how it affects their lives. It obviously wasn't instinct to sort slavery into bad and that was a development of intellectual morality. Our instincts are based on primal needs. Do you really want primal needs dictating society?


Yes, you're right - I only meant that we have an evolved sense of altruism for _some_ people, not all. The real need for our kind, of course, is to convince everyone that _all_ life - human and non-human - is part of the in-group.


----------



## mmsbls

Dodecaplex;298421
It simply states that no value exists in the world said:


> if[/I] there were something of value, _if_ there were something non-accidental, then it must lie outside the world. Because if it was _in_ the world, then _it_ would also be of no value, _it_ would also be accidental.
> 
> Again, could it be any clearer than that?


It could be enormously clearer. The main problem is that many of the terms are not defined for us. Most philosophical texts spend much time defining terms and concepts, and since Wittgenstein's text focused on language, I suspect he did that as well. Since we just have a few sentences, we do not really know their meaning.

"Value" is not well defined. Does it mean "a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable", "a principle related to right and wrong", or something else?

"Accidental" is also not defined. I have to guess its meaning because he certainly seems not to use it as I would. Does it mean "uncaused", "not caused on purpose", something else?

"In the world" is unclear as well. presumably he does not mean on the Earth. Does he mean in reality? For me, there is nothing that is not in reality so that would mean there can be no value.

Anyway, it needs more definition to make sense.


----------



## mmsbls

Cnote11 said:


> I'm a tad confused about what mmsbls is saying. How fluid is morality in the system you propose?


I'm not sure what you mean by fluid, but I assume you mean "how changeable is morality?" Morality certainly can change and can vary from person to person. Individuals experience many significant events throughout their lives, and each event modifies one's neural structure (some more than others). When we are young (and even later), we map concepts onto reality. We have a concept of "chair" that might initially include couches. As we get more inputs, we modify our internal concepts and maybe drop couches from our concept of "chair". The same is true of our values and morality.

We may not initially include a human zygote (fertilized egg) as "valued life", but perhaps after interactions with various memes including pro-life statements, religious views, and ideas from developmental biology, we change our morals (internal neural structures that influence behaviors related to "right and wrong") to include human zygotes as "valued life."


----------



## mmsbls

Polednice said:


> We can consider all human ideas we come across to be behaviour-affecting memes, and that means how we understand morality will affect how we behave. If, even though true, we were to all consider our actions completely determined by environmental and biological inputs, we would absolutely behave differently (maybe worse, I'm not sure) than if we think and talk as though we are free agents with the capability to choose between right and wrong. Now, I value the truth, so I don't want us to lie to ourselves with the second meme, but I think it's important to continue asking and answering questions of morals and ethics with the implication that we have a choice in the matter in the hope of adding beneficial memes to the overall collection that affects behaviour.


I understand the dilemma. The bottom line is that I'm not sure we cannot prevent ourselves from doing so (questioning morals). We may intellectually believe that our morals come from subconscious neural processing, _but it still feels wrong to steal_. I might consciously believe that nothing matters because we're all just particles interacting, but when I put my hand in the fire, it still burns, and when I steal, I still have that unpleasant internal sensation that I don't like.

The bottom line is that I'm not sure how much we can control our "morals" through pure intellectual thought. I also know that even though I strongly suspect we have no free will, that view has not changed my behaviors, morals, or general day to day thoughts. In other words I still apparently act as though I have free will.


----------



## Badinerie

I just thought it was the bad guy from Sherlock Holmes...


----------



## emiellucifuge

Excuse the wait, id written half a response to Polednice, but am now in the midst of a social occasion. I hopeto complete it in a few hours if anyone is still interested.


----------



## Cnote11

mmsbls said:


> I understand the dilemma. The bottom line is that I'm not sure we cannot prevent ourselves from doing so (questioning morals). We may intellectually believe that our morals come from subconscious neural processing, _but it still feels wrong to steal_. I might consciously believe that nothing matters because we're all just particles interacting, but when I put my hand in the fire, it still burns, and when I steal, I still have that unpleasant internal sensation that I don't like.
> 
> The bottom line is that I'm not sure how much we can control our "morals" through pure intellectual thought. I also know that even though I strongly suspect we have no free will, that view has not changed my behaviors, morals, or general day to day thoughts. In other words I still apparently act as though I have free will.


I don't exactly buy this. I do many things people would consider immoral and I do not feel bad about it. I believe I can change my morals on a dime depending on what I believe is important. I could (and do, "technically") steal without feeling a singular ounce of guilt. This isn't spawned out of some rush for doing something immoral either. When I do something "immoral" it simply does not matter to me. Perhaps I'm just Satan.


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> I also know that even though I strongly suspect we have no free will, that view has not changed my behaviors, morals, or general day to day thoughts. In other words I still apparently act as though I have free will.


Yes, that's important - I always think of the analogy with love here; although it seems like an abstract, almost metaphysical subjective experience, the fact that we can (theoretically) reduce its origins, causes and functions to material interactions does not remove that very human experience. In the same way, we can intellectually acknowledge our deterministic behaviours while still (maybe helplessly) feeling as though we have free will. In that sense, too, I think our questions of morals and ethics will/should be discussed as though free choices can be made, as it is the most natural way for us to view the world regardless of whether or not it's less harmful than the alternatives.

I think, by the way, that part of the danger of moral systems that reject the notion of free will is not that there is anything inherently damaging with the idea, but that because it is so counter-intuitive, it is ripe for misunderstanding, and people often conflate a lack of free will with the abdication of responsibility and consequences for our actions, when, in fact, the two are fully reconcilable.


----------



## Cnote11

On the topic of love, I kind of discount the initial material interactions as superficial and not quite as important as intellectual love, although I recognize its importance in the role it plays. I feel like I do the same thing when it comes to morals. Also, love isn't really a metaphysical thing, in my opinion. It is a very real process to help stimulate bonding, procreation, and self-pleasure.


----------



## mmsbls

Cnote11 said:


> I don't exactly buy this. I do many things people would consider immoral and I do not feel bad about it. I believe I can change my morals on a dime depending on what I believe is important. I could (and do, "technically") steal without feeling a singular ounce of guilt. This isn't spawned out of some rush for doing something immoral either. When I do something "immoral" it simply does not matter to me. Perhaps I'm just Satan.


Could you kill without feeling strong negative emotions? Would you feel badly about stealing from someone you cared deeply about? Do you _ever_ feel pleasure when helping others? The point is that it doesn't matter what others feel is immoral. It only matters what you feel is immoral. Only your moral concepts will guide your behaviors. There are people who have a vastly reduced moral sense and difficulty empathizing with others (i.e. psychopaths). They are rare (a few percent or less of society), but they do not feel the same internal moral pressure that others of us do. The fact that psychopaths exist gives some credence to the notion that physiological processes give rise to moral behavior.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I have a number of points I want to give, but im not sure how well my language skills will serve me.

Firstly, and be honest with yourself, when you began to hear and read about the issue of animals rights, for example, how did you form your opinion on the proper treatment of animals? Before you decided what was wrong and right, did you have a well defined and articulated system of morality, perhaps adopting one from a great philosopher, and attempt to fit the issue into this framework? Or was your conclusion not lying dormant inside you, only being confirmed by the facts discovered in your research and the statements of others? Indeed, have you ever actively altered your view on the issue through intellectual thought?

Morality is entirely relative, and the moral fabric of a man is formed by factors to complex to elaborate on, and, with rare exception, is held indefinitely and with strong passion. Any education leads only to confirmation and validation or disagreement with presupposed values.

Using your example of euthanasia, the moral question seems to me which evil is worse: to kills a human, or keep a human alive in suffering. (nearly) All people will agree that to cause pain (although indirect), and to kill are morally wrong. To me these are examples of fairly universal moral values held by humans, inherited genetically or through culture. Whether you are for or against the legalisation of euthanasia is simply the outcome of which of those two evils you consider the worst - a matter of degree. Again, what intellectual arguments can be used here? 

IMO


----------



## Dodecaplex

mmsbls said:


> It could be enormously clearer. The main problem is that many of the terms are not defined for us. Most philosophical texts spend much time defining terms and concepts, and since Wittgenstein's text focused on language, I suspect he did that as well. Since we just have a few sentences, we do not really know their meaning.
> 
> "Value" is not well defined. Does it mean "a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable", "a principle related to right and wrong", or something else?
> 
> "Accidental" is also not defined. I have to guess its meaning because he certainly seems not to use it as I would. Does it mean "uncaused", "not caused on purpose", something else?
> 
> "In the world" is unclear as well. presumably he does not mean on the Earth. Does he mean in reality? For me, there is nothing that is not in reality so that would mean there can be no value.
> 
> Anyway, it needs more definition to make sense.


"Value" here can both be taken to mean "a principle related to right and wrong" in the ethical sense (e.g. stealing is wrong, donating money to the poor is right), or mean "right and wrong" in the logical sense (i.e. truth-value (e.g. saying "if p then q, p, therefore q" is right, while saying "if p then q, not p, therefore q" would be wrong)). What I understand from Wittgy is that there are no such values in the world.

"Accidental" is a fairly well-defined philosophical concept. Here is a link that explains it quite nicely. When it comes to Wittgy, he says that everything in the world is accidental.

And "in the world" indeed means "in reality." However, Wittgy doesn't say that there _is_ actually anything outside the world, he simply says that _if_ there is such a thing as value, then it cannot be in the world, and therefore it must be outside the world. The only difference here is that you take a further step saying that there is nothing outside the world, while Wittgy (presumably) would say that there may or may not be, but we can't know.

And that's where he says that we must simply remain silent.


----------



## Cnote11

I have no reason to kill because of my convictions, but I'm sure I could kill and not care if I did not have that intellectual conviction. I don't avoid doing them because I would feel bad and I don't do things for people to feel good. I feel it is my intellectual convictions that drive me. That was my point in my post. You said that even if you were to believe it didn't matter that you would still feel bad about it. Perhaps you were just applying that to you and not in general, but I know I am not that way. I completely disagree with the bit about "only your moral concepts will guide your behaviors". I think you're not giving enough credit to the role social/cultural morals play in shaping how people behave. In this way, it does matter what other people feel is immoral. If you go against the social code then you are ostracized from the community. It is quite important for most people to conform to this code accordingly. Many people derive their morals straight from law documents, and not from an internal "feeling".


----------



## Cnote11

Well, emiellucifuge, to me there lies a problem. I don't believe murder nor pain are actually morally wrong. I think many people naturally do believe that due to a sense of empathy. I too can empathize with it, which is why I do take a moral stance on it, but I do not believe that either is inherently morally wrong. For the record, I have actively, continually, and overwhelmingly changed my positions and moral being based on intellectual thought.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Firstly, and be honest with yourself, when you began to hear and read about the issue of animals rights, for example, how did you form your opinion on the proper treatment of animals? Before you decided what was wrong and right, did you have a well defined and articulated system of morality, perhaps adopting one from a great philosopher, and attempt to fit the issue into this framework? Or was your conclusion not lying dormant inside you, only being confirmed by the facts discovered in your research and the statements of others? Indeed, have you ever actively altered your view on the issue through intellectual thought?
> 
> Morality is entirely relative, and the moral fabric of a man is formed by factors to complex to elaborate on, and, with rare exception, is held indefinitely and with strong passion. Any education leads only to confirmation and validation or disagreement with presupposed values.
> 
> Using your example of euthanasia, the moral question seems to me which evil is worse: to kills a human, or keep a human alive in suffering. (nearly) All people will agree that to cause pain (although indirect), and to kill are morally wrong. To me these are examples of fairly universal moral values held by humans, inherited genetically or through culture. Whether you are for or against the legalisation of euthanasia is simply the outcome of which of those two evils you consider the worst - a matter of degree. Again, what intellectual arguments can be used here?
> 
> IMO


I think this is all rather simplistic and perhaps characterises those who don't think hard about their morality, but certainly not those who take it seriously. My one relativist assumption is that suffering is bad and happiness is good, after which I rely on evidence - not intuition - to tell me how best to achieve it for society. Asking me if my thoughts on animal rights or any other issue are preconceived biases only superficially confirmed by research is like asking if I trust the evidence on gravity because the idea of gravity fits well with my world-view.

There are environmental factors that play into our basic values such as the extent of our desires for justice, fairness, vengeance, punishment, quality of life, happiness etc., but these do not easily map onto very complex, unprecedented scenarios such as euthanasia. I mean, take that example, there are multiple, deceptive ways of talking about it, all of them superficially convincing: I could tell you a) euthanasia is an act of killing, therefore murder, and should not be allowed, society instead should improve the quality of life for the sufferer; b) keeping a person alive while suffering is torturous, and so ending the life on their own terms is a preferable "evil"; c) euthanasia is not an act of killing, it is an act of empowerment, allowing a person to take control over life choices in the same manner that they have freedom to choose what to eat; d) suffering is a natural part of existence, more likely towards the end of life, and must be dealt with in the most dignified manner possible. And so it can go on.

All of these can sound convincing and the reason why is that they all play into our simplistic, innate concepts of morality. If you don't approach morality intellectually, you will most likely side with whichever position you heard last or more often. The only way that you can reach a comprehensive, reliable, working system of morality is to actively reject your intuitions, strong as they are, and search for evidence. If my thoughts on animal rights, gravity, or euthanasia were formed by superficially confirmed preconceived biases that I am not open to changing, then I am doing it all wrong. I'm sure I do it without thinking sometimes, as do most people, but you seem to be suggesting that it is not possible to ever move away from it - I think that is a cynical position without much reason.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> I have no reason to kill because of my convictions, but I'm sure I could kill and not care if I did not have that intellectual conviction. I don't avoid doing them because I would feel bad and I don't do things for people to feel good. I feel it is my intellectual convictions that drive me.


I think the point here is not the "why" but the "what" - even if you are genuinely only motivated by your intellectual convictions, it is most likely that, in circumstances where you felt it was OK to kill someone, you would still be negatively affected by the experience because of innate drives which, through empathy, tell us killing is wrong. I'm not saying that these drives should be trusted or that we should base our morality on them, I'm just saying that those feelings are there, and that's where many people get their morality. I think you're right to base your morals on intellectual thought, but you describe it as though, without those intellectual reasonings, you would be non-functioning and amoral when, in fact, you'd just have more primitive ideas.


----------



## Cnote11

Vengeance, "justice" and "punishment" are terrible current social values, in my opinion. (At least in the way they are currently conceptualized, but vengeance basically always is boring)


----------



## Polednice

I think you're right, and I think a lot of the reform needed over the judicial system is going to be dependent on a very long, very slow process where public ideas about free will are changed.


----------



## Cnote11

Polednice said:


> I think the point here is not the "why" but the "what" - even if you are genuinely only motivated by your intellectual convictions, it is most likely that, in circumstances where you felt it was OK to kill someone, you would still be negatively affected by the experience because of innate drives which, through empathy, tell us killing is wrong. I'm not saying that these drives should be trusted or that we should base our morality on them, I'm just saying that those feelings are there, and that's where many people get their morality. I think you're right to base your morals on intellectual thought, but you describe it as though, without those intellectual reasonings, you would be non-functioning and amoral when, in fact, you'd just have more primitive ideas.


My empathy stems from my intellect though. Perhaps I'm a tad psychopathic, but I don't feel any empathy towards anything I'm not intellectually convinced about. There is the moral dilemma about a kid jumping in front of your car but you have zero ability to avoid his death. In this scenario I'm positive I would not care much about the child's death. It is a sad loss for the family, sure, but I'm not going to beat myself up over it whatsoever. There wasn't anyway I could prevent it after all. Things happen. If life came down to needing to kill to survive, it seems to me that we would most likely be like animals and have no sense of morality attached to it. Most people do not feel a moral conflict when devouring their latest meal. Humans are just another animal in my opinion and I view them no differently.


----------



## Cnote11

You're completely right though. It is a backwards progression I am speaking to. If I didn't develop an "intellectual thought" view point of morality, I would indeed have primitive morals. You are 100 percent correct on that. However, if I now decide to regress having had developed my point-of-view, I would indeed err towards "amoral".


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> My empathy stems from my intellect though. Perhaps I'm a tad psychopathic, but I don't feel any empathy towards anything I'm not intellectually convinced about. There is the moral dilemma about a kid jumping in front of your car but you have zero ability to avoid his death. In this scenario I'm positive I would not care much about the child's death. It is a sad loss for the family, sure, but I'm not going to beat myself up over it whatsoever. There wasn't anyway I could prevent it after all. Things happen. If life came down to needing to kill to survive, it seems to me that we would most likely be like animals and have no sense of morality attached to it. Most people do not feel a moral conflict when devouring their latest meal. Humans are just another animal in my opinion and I view them no differently.


I don't think you should beat yourself up over the inevitable, but I certainly would consider you somewhat sociopathic if you felt no sadness over the death of the child. Not guilt or remorse, but the same sadness that is exploited in tragic plays and films and music, or the sadness that gets many people to donate to charity. You're right that we are animals, but that doesn't remove a sense of empathy we should have for other species - most people don't feel a moral conflict when devouring their latest meal, but they should.


----------



## Cnote11

Perhaps they should, which is where my intellectual convictions come on. Yes, I'd think it was sad that the family lost a child, but it wouldn't be some lasting sadness past, "Oh, that is rather sad", nor would I apologise. It is over and done with. Expressing sadness doesn't bring anybody back after all. I don't like that manipulative viewpoint about charity either. I kind of like Kant's idea that intention is important.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> Perhaps they should, which is where my intellectual convictions come on. Yes, I'd think it was sad that the family lost a child, but it wouldn't be some lasting sadness past, "Oh, that is rather sad", nor would I apologise. It is over and done with. Expressing sadness doesn't bring anybody back after all. I don't like that manipulative viewpoint about charity either. I kind of like Kant's idea that intention is important.


I envy your ability to distance yourself from others' standards. It's not necessary to a good moral system, but I find myself frequently sad about things beyond my control.


----------



## Cnote11

Perhaps it is because I grew up around a lot of death and loss. It isn't necessarily something to envy either. It seems to scare away most people either way. I am of habit to filter my emotions through my mind automatically a lot of the time. It is something I've worked on since I was a teenager to the point it becomes a habit. I'm quite positive I wasn't born like this. I have a sort of disdain for what I term superficial emotion. In this way I have intelligent emotions but not emotional intelligence :lol: Do not worry though, I do also get sad about things beyond my control, but once against these stem from my intellectual convictions. 

Perhaps this is why I can never relate when people go on about how 9/11 gets to them emotionally.


----------



## Ukko

Polednice said:


> I envy your ability to distance yourself from others' standards. It's not necessary to a good moral system, but I find myself frequently sad about things beyond my control.


From what _Cnotell_ has told us about his background, it is reasonable to assume that several of the 'soft' sentiments appear to him to be frivolous to some degree. Any sentiment that detracts from one's ability to survive _must_ be avoided when survival is iffy. It may be that his intelligence and drive will take him to a place where the luxury of soft sentiments is affordable.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Cnote11 said:


> Well, emiellucifuge, to me there lies a problem. I don't believe murder nor pain are actually morally wrong. I think many people naturally do believe that due to a sense of empathy. I too can empathize with it, which is why I do take a moral stance on it, but I do not believe that either is inherently morally wrong. For the record, I have actively, continually, and overwhelmingly changed my positions and moral being based on intellectual thought.


I dont understand what exactly the moral stance is that you profess to take regarding murder. You dont believe it is inherently wrong.. well Ive also argued the same - that there is no absolute moral standard, but that in the ever-evolving morality of humanity, murder is at the present considered wrong by the vast majority of people.

If Ive understood correctly that to kill another human is not wrong in your view, then I must ask: Would you kill a stranger if there were no negative repercussions on yourself? And If not.. why not?



Polednice said:


> I think this is all rather simplistic and perhaps characterises those who don't think hard about their morality, but certainly not those who take it seriously. My one relativist assumption is that suffering is bad and happiness is good, after which I rely on evidence - not intuition - to tell me how best to achieve it for society. Asking me if my thoughts on animal rights or any other issue are preconceived biases only superficially confirmed by research is like asking if I trust the evidence on gravity because the idea of gravity fits well with my world-view.


Your relativist assumption is the entire core of your moral system. Every individual stand you have is thus intellectually derived from this emotional and irrational dichotom of suffering and happiness. How do you define these two things? They must be derived from experience and observation of how people react to various 'stimuli' - something totally ingrained culturally and genetically. It is impossible to create an external definition of happiness; for example if there was a single stimuli which produces happiness emotionally, but is defined as causing suffering in the intellectual definition then it is worthless. If the emotional and intellectual definitions are consistent, then the intellectual definition is entirely worthless also.

Further, i feel that you are slyly simplifying my meaning even further. Why do you talk of research? You imply that there is an objectively defined standard in morality - how can you research what is right and wrong, as you can research what is true and false (such as in the case of gravity)? With morality it is impossible to 'research' as it is not something external to us, we can only talk of philosophy.

As someone with an intellectual interest in morality, you have no doubt looked into the writings of various philosophers (I have seen Kant, Wittgenstein mentioned.. others..), each of which have explained a consistent moral system. Each being very different, due to the premises from which they elaborate -each, also being tightly intellectually argued, and yet they are spread throughout the spectrum and can even oppose eachother.

I do not believe that an absolute morality exists, nor do I believe one can exist - through reason and the intellect one cannot reach an absolute moral truth. Instead the vast multiplicity of factors which contribute individually to the making of each person determine their response to moral questions.

--


Cnote11 said:


> My empathy stems from my intellect though. Perhaps I'm a tad psychopathic, but I don't feel any empathy towards anything I'm not intellectually convinced about. There is the moral dilemma about a kid jumping in front of your car but you have zero ability to avoid his death. In this scenario I'm positive I would not care much about the child's death. It is a sad loss for the family, sure, but I'm not going to beat myself up over it whatsoever. There wasn't anyway I could prevent it after all. Things happen. If life came down to needing to kill to survive, it seems to me that we would most likely be like animals and have no sense of morality attached to it. Most people do not feel a moral conflict when devouring their latest meal. Humans are just another animal in my opinion and I view them no differently.





Cnote11 said:


> Perhaps it is because I grew up around a lot of death and loss. It isn't necessarily something to envy either. It seems to scare away most people either way. I am of habit to filter my emotions through my mind automatically a lot of the time. It is something I've worked on since I was a teenager to the point it becomes a habit. I'm quite positive I wasn't born like this. I have a sort of disdain for what I term superficial emotion. In this way I have intelligent emotions but not emotional intelligence :lol: Do not worry though, I do also get sad about things beyond my control, but once against these stem from my intellectual convictions.
> 
> Perhaps this is why I can never relate when people go on about how 9/11 gets to them emotionally.


Perhaps you are a tad psychopatic. If a child died in front of you without any external negative effect on yourself and you did not feel an ounce of empathy im almost certain you would fit the definition of psychopath: "Psychopaths have a lack of empathy and remorse," - Wikipedia.
A psychopath does not see killing as wrong, yet I believe it is reasonable to state that to humans; murder is wrong. We can define humans as having 2 legs also, despite the fact that occasionally people with 3 are born. A bit of a dangerous game perhaps, but luckily an unnecessary one, as humanity will be what it is as a product of its environment as all species are.

You admit that your lack of empathy is perhaps due to innate factors now beyond your control: your upbringing.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> Your relativist assumption is the entire core of your moral system. Every individual stand you have is thus intellectually derived from this emotional and irrational dichotom of suffering and happiness. How do you define these two things? They must be derived from experience and observation of how people react to various 'stimuli' - something totally ingrained culturally and genetically. It is impossible to create an external definition of happiness; for example if there was a single stimuli which produces happiness emotionally, but is defined as causing suffering in the intellectual definition then it is worthless. If the emotional and intellectual definitions are consistent, then the intellectual definition is entirely worthless also.
> 
> Further, i feel that you are slyly simplifying my meaning even further. Why do you talk of research? You imply that there is an objectively defined standard in morality - how can you research what is right and wrong, as you can research what is true and false (such as in the case of gravity)? With morality it is impossible to 'research' as it is not something external to us, we can only talk of philosophy.
> 
> As someone with an intellectual interest in morality, you have no doubt looked into the writings of various philosophers (I have seen Kant, Wittgenstein mentioned.. others..), each of which have explained a consistent moral system. Each being very different, due to the premises from which they elaborate -each, also being tightly intellectually argued, and yet they are spread throughout the spectrum and can even oppose eachother.
> 
> I do not believe that an absolute morality exists, nor do I believe one can exist - through reason and the intellect one cannot reach an absolute moral truth. Instead the vast multiplicity of factors which contribute individually to the making of each person determine their response to moral questions.


For the sake of clarity, let me reiterate my position. First, I think that our moral sense is thoroughly determined, like all behaviours, from the interaction of biology and environment. Second, I think that our biology comes with certain preset, primitive moral ideas. Third, I do not believe there are or can be any absolute moral truths, whether reached emotionally, intuitively, or intellectually, but I believe that intellectual reflection is completely necessary to develop a working moral system for advanced human culture as intuition is both repeatedly deceptive, and did not evolve to deal with the issues we face today.

That out of the way, a few responses. Suffering and happiness are difficult to define, but the standards we use are totally dependent on circumstance and question. For example, if you consider the question of equal marriage rights, you do not need a mechanical description of happiness and repeated empirical observation to determine that gay people would be happier with equal marriage rights, and that no harm would come of it. What you said in the second half of your first paragraph seems incoherent and incomprehensible to me, so I can't reply.

When I spoke of research, as you did also, I didn't for a moment mean to imply research into _answers_ for moral questions, only research into _data_ that can help us answer moral questions in accordance with the happiness/suffering balance. Your remark about it being impossible to research things that are "internal" to us - which presumably covers measures of happiness and suffering - is false. Much biological and medical research is dependent on thorough studies of thoughts, feelings and experiences that are completely subjective without external indicators. We nevertheless make good advances, with consistent effects and predictive power across people, because, though internal and subjective, all our experiences are rooted in matter and its governing physics.

Once again, I do _not_ think there are any absolute moral truths, and I _agree_ that many factors - biological and cultural - contribute to the making of each person's responses to moral questions. I nevertheless maintain that we _cannot_ rely on _instinctive_ answers to moral questions, as our moral instincts were not developed for our advanced culture and are therefore inadequate to answer questions that are novel to the 21st century experience. I think intuition is as deceptive and unreliable with regards to morals as it is to statistics - our natural sense of number and cause and effect is dire, leading to poor pattern-seeking and superstition, but with much counter-intuitive maths, we can overcome this barrier to rationality. Similarly, intellectually-derived, counter-intuitive moral frameworks are the antidote to poor moral instincts (an example would be that we could rationalise from a certain set of assumptions that our instinctive drive to separate in-groups and out-groups and wage war is a _bad_ instinct).


----------



## Cnote11

About the stranger thing, I would not, because as I have said I have certain convictions which are positive towards progressing society and increasing quality of life for everyone. If I didn't have these convictions I probably still wouldn't go about killing people without reason, but if I did to get something I wanted I wouldn't care surely. As for the last, I did say earlier in the thread that morals are, in part, shaped by the experiences you have in life. Perhaps I'm less freaked out by death because I saw a lot in my younger years is all I meant by that. Even without those experiences I believe I could have still ended up with the same idea purely out of intellectual interest. I didn't say I wouldn't feel empathy for the family who has to deal with the loss, but I wouldn't feel any remorse on my end because I had no choice in the matter of the child's death. I could feel empathy but not grieve personally.


----------



## mmsbls

Dodecaplex said:


> "Value" here can both be taken to mean "a principle related to right and wrong" in the ethical sense (e.g. stealing is wrong, donating money to the poor is right), or mean "right and wrong" in the logical sense (i.e. truth-value (e.g. saying "if p then q, p, therefore q" is right, while saying "if p then q, not p, therefore q" would be wrong)). What I understand from Wittgy is that there are no such values in the world.
> 
> "Accidental" is a fairly well-defined philosophical concept. Here is a link that explains it quite nicely. When it comes to Wittgy, he says that everything in the world is accidental.
> 
> And "in the world" indeed means "in reality." However, Wittgy doesn't say that there _is_ actually anything outside the world, he simply says that _if_ there is such a thing as value, then it cannot be in the world, and therefore it must be outside the world. The only difference here is that you take a further step saying that there is nothing outside the world, while Wittgy (presumably) would say that there may or may not be, but we can't know.


I agree with his definition of accidental, but I do not agree with his definition of reality. For me, reality is everything that exists. To say something might exist outside of reality would be a contradiction similar to saying there might be parts of the US that are not in the US. Perhaps his definition of reality is something like spacetime. I don't know, but he obviously does not believe it is everything that exists.

Based on what you've said, it seems to me that Wittgenstein is simply saying that values don't exist in reality. Since there are concepts such as "stealing is wrong" that many people articulate and believe, it would seem that this contradicts his statement. The concepts are clearly principles related to right and wrong, and since people believe them, there is empirical evidence that values exist in reality. His definition of "value" or "in the world" must be slightly different from what I understand.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Polednice said:


> First, I think that our moral sense is thoroughly determined, like all behaviours, from the interaction of biology and environment. Second, I think that our biology comes with certain preset, primitive moral ideas. Third, I do not believe there are or can be any absolute moral truths, whether reached emotionally, intuitively, or intellectually, but I believe that intellectual reflection is completely necessary to develop a working moral system for advanced human culture as intuition is both repeatedly deceptive, and did not evolve to deal with the issues we face today.


After all these essays it seems we agree more than we disagree, I only take issue with your third point. I dont want to say whether the intellectual thought is necessary or not. To me this is an irrelevant question, as I dont believe intellectual thought is possible as a distinct phenomena (ie. separate from 'instinctual' thought). I believe that even the conclusions taken from 'intellectual' thought are products of the 'interaction of biology and environment'.

In my previous post I attempted to provide an example. In that 'intellectual' thought has led numerous brilliant minds to separate, sometimes opposing conclusions. Each being as intellectually rigorous and reasonable as the other, yet differing due to various premises initially adopted.
My point thus was that intellectually no distinction of validity can be made, but that these conclusions are dismissed or agreed upon based on the 'interaction of biology and environment' which forms a mans mind - the _gefuhlsverstand_, to use a term coined by Wagner.


----------



## Cnote11

I honestly don't think they vary all that much. That is just me though.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Cnote11 said:


> I honestly don't think they vary all that much. That is just me though.


Certainly, they are all within a 'human range' for the current time and culture. (see my post 2 back)


----------



## brianwalker

Ontology>>Epistemology>>"Ethics"

Wittgenstein, in a letter:

On Heidegger:
I can very well think what Heidegger meant about Being and Angst. Man has the drive to run up against the boundaries of language. Think, for instance, of the astonishment that anything exists. This astonishment cannot be expressed in the form of a question, and there is also no answer to it. All that we can say can only, a priori, be nonsense. Nevertheless we run up against the boundaries of language. Kierkegaard also saw this running-up and similarly pointed it out (as running up against the paradox). This running up against the boundaries of language is Ethics. * I hold it certainly to be very important that one makes an end to all the chatter about ethics - *whether there can be knowledge in ethics, whether there are values, whether the Good can be defined, etc. In ethics one always makes the attempt to say something which cannot concern and never concerns the essence of the matter. It is a priori certain: whatever one may give as a definition of the Good - it is always only a misunderstanding to suppose that the expression corresponds to what one actually means (Moore). But the tendency to run up against shows something. The holy Augustine already knew this when he said: "What, you scoundrel, you would speak no nonsense? Go ahead and speak nonsense - it doesn't matter!" 

Values as values don't matter. 

You're all nihilists.


----------



## Cnote11

emiellucifuge said:


> Certainly, they are all within a 'human range' for the current time and culture. (see my post 2 back)


Well, I don't think any of us in this thread really disagree to much on anything. Just perhaps I'm a bit more psychotic :lol:


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

Cnote11 said:


> In your opinion, where does it come from and what does it mean to you? Where do you get your own moral inspiration from?


Gosh. Where to start?

Going back to the original question, I think behaving in a moral way must have evolved when humans noticed that mere self-interestedness did not always generate the best outcome from any particular situation. It may be that I got my way in an argument with you by hitting you over the head with a stick, but I risked being hit over the head with a stick in a similar situation with someone else in the future. Since I don't want to be hit with a stick, if I am intelligent enough to think of an alternative method of dispute resolution, then, providing there are enough likeminded people in my society, naturally the idea that hitting people on the head with a stick is an unhelpful way forward will develop.

In English (at least) there is an ambiguity in the meaning of the word 'wrong'. At one level, it just means 'incorrect' - 'unhelpful' as I put it just now. But it has also grown to acquire a moral overtone. I believe that morality is little more than the collective buy-in to a set of behaviours which are more useful to each member of a society in their role as a member of that society than is a simple, selfish, self-interested approach.

Over the last few millennia, principles of behaviour (implicitly principles of moral behaviour) have become increasingly codified and distanced from the everyday experience of the person in the street (and may have reached their apotheosis in the writings of Wittgenstein). The extent to which that person in the street finds these philosophical approaches useful is up to them.

One, very powerful, faction - religious organisations - has chosen to appropriate these principles for themselves. This is not a bad thing in any society where the local religious organisation has widespread influence. It allows the political seat of power in that society to distance itself from the tedious task of telling people what to do, safe in the knowledge that the religion will not seriously question the political orthodoxy. However a society which looks to its local religion to provide guidance in useful ways of being when the majority of its members do not respect that religion is in trouble.

Lurching into a related area, I think one strong personal quality which contributed to the development of morality is empathy. It probably isn't enough for me to argue that I don't want you to beat me over the head with a stick. If I can use my experience of (or even my imagination of what it would be like) being beaten over the head with a stick to imagine how you would feel if I beat you over the head with a stick, that will help me decide that it would be better to find another way of resolving the dispute.


----------



## Polednice

emiellucifuge said:


> After all these essays it seems we agree more than we disagree, I only take issue with your third point. I dont want to say whether the intellectual thought is necessary or not. To me this is an irrelevant question, as I dont believe intellectual thought is possible as a distinct phenomena (ie. separate from 'instinctual' thought). I believe that even the conclusions taken from 'intellectual' thought are products of the 'interaction of biology and environment'.


Absolutely, but that harks back to my point about wanting beneficial memes in a deterministic social system. I'm not suggesting that intellectual reflection has anything about it that allows us to transcend our basic input-output function, but maybe just calling it something else would appease you - all I'm trying to say is that we have two potential routes, _both_ of them are products of life experience, memes, biology and environment, but just looking at them _superficially_, one is a person who forms moral ideas in the absence of evidence, completely on the basis of whatever comes to their mind when asked a question (their answer being formed for the reasons we've already outlined), and the other is a person who, owing to the philosophy meme or something, has decided to call into question all of their preconceived ideas and look for data to see if their ideas match with what empirical studies say are and are not harmful to individuals and society. This reflection is still part of the mechanical system, but it's an extra variable that I think is necessary. Consider again my analogy with intuitive and intellectual statistics - however you want to word it, I mean _exactly_ the same thing but with morals.

Your other point about conflicting philosophy doesn't really destroy the validity of an empirical moral philosophy, it just raises the issue of how we determine what initial premises to adopt - that's a completely different discussion.


----------



## brianwalker

> our basic input-output function


Well, if that's all there is to it.


----------



## Cnote11

Humans, essentially.


----------



## brianwalker

Cnote11 said:


> Humans, essentially.


So, thread over then?

We're batteries, nuff said. Morality whorefallacy.


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> So, thread over then?
> 
> We're batteries, nuff said. Morality whorefallacy.


Yep. Thread over. Thoughts over. Life over. There's no point to anything ever again because we're all just screwy batteries.


----------



## brianwalker

Polednice said:


> Yep. Thread over. Thoughts over. Life over. There's no point to anything ever again because we're all just screwy batteries.


our basic input-output function


You said that, not me.


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> our basic input-output function
> 
> 
> You said that, not me.


Yep, and after my insight I have no choice but to kill myself.


----------



## brianwalker

Polednice said:


> Yep, and after my insight I have no choice but to kill myself.


Can I get an invitation to the imminent funeral?

I respect life very much.


----------



## Cnote11

and this is how threads end up getting closed :lol:


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> Can I get an invitation to the imminent funeral?
> 
> I respect life very much.


That's very sweet of you, but there's not going to be a funeral. I'm just going to be tossed onto the heap of rotting batteries.


----------



## Dodecaplex

mmsbls said:


> Based on what you've said, it seems to me that Wittgenstein is simply saying that values don't exist in reality. Since there are concepts such as "stealing is wrong" that many people articulate and believe, it would seem that this contradicts his statement. The concepts are clearly principles related to right and wrong, and since people believe them, there is empirical evidence that values exist in reality.


What is important to realize is that these values, such as "stealing is wrong," are themselves of no value. And even if you say that the value is of value, I can easily go further and say that the value of the value is of no value. And so on ad infinitum. As long as I have logic and language, I can challenge each and every one of your statements about value, and no empirical evidence will ever get you out of that problem.



mmsbls said:


> I agree with his definition of accidental, but I do not agree with his definition of reality. For me, reality is everything that exists. To say something might exist outside of reality would be a contradiction similar to saying there might be parts of the US that are not in the US. Perhaps his definition of reality is something like spacetime. I don't know, but he obviously does not believe it is everything that exists.


Here, you're assuming that the statement "reality is everything that exists" is also a part of everything that exists. In other words, you're assuming that it is true. Also, the US analogy doesn't apply because it's meaningless to ask whether or not a statement such as "everything in the US is everything that is in the US" is itself a part of the US. But the statement "reality is everything that exists" is very much dependent on whether or not it is itself a part of everything that exists, and it is very necessary to ask that question.

Now, if you say that the statement "reality is everything that exists" is a part of everything that exists, then you'd have to prove it (perhaps empirically), but I seriously doubt that you could do that.

On the other hand, if you say that the statement "reality is everything that exists" is not a part of everything that exists, then you'd have to admit that there could be things that are outside everything that exists.


----------



## Philip

Dodecaplex said:


> "stealing is wrong,"


Stealing is _right_:

Criminal Penguins - Frozen Planet - BBC One


----------



## brianwalker

How does one derive empiricism empirically? 

Anyone?


----------



## Polednice

brianwalker said:


> How does one derive empiricism empirically?
> 
> Anyone?


I don't believe anyone suggests that you can. The disingenuous of this line of argument, of course, is that when people say, "HA! You can't _prove_ that that's the best system to use!" they don't turn that same gun on their own preferred framework, which is just as worthy of the same criticism. Instead, they hope that if one system can't establish itself absolutely, then it's permissible to have a free-for-all. If we're going to get into discussions about first assumptions and circular arguments, everybody loses, not wins; when we discard the crap and say, "Right, what's actually useful in human experience then?" empiricism wins.


----------



## Cnote11

I think perhaps the wolves win either way


----------



## mmsbls

brianwalker said:


> How does one derive empiricism empirically?
> 
> Anyone?


Empiricism is a technique for learning about reality. Derivations make sense in math and logic. You don't derive things about the real world. Scientists simply say that empirically based knowledge seeking seems to work better than any other method we know about. So we use it. It's really just a practical matter.


----------



## Polednice

By the way, Emiel, I don't know if this is right, but perhaps we were at odds because we were answering different halves of the question? The OP asks about where morality comes from and where we should go from here; if you were answering the former, I'd agree with you more, but I was solely addressing how, given all of that, we should derive morals applicable to 21st century living.

Another, more telling example of why I think we must not rely on intuition and instead rationalise (or whatever you want to call it) regards incest. We are undoubtedly hard-wired to find it repugnant because of the genetic damage it yields, and it has been largely stigmatised throughout many societies with there being no sign that it will change as part of the moral zeitgeist as ideas of slavery or feminism did. But there are cases when we should perhaps call into question our strong instinctive responses. For example, assuming we're okay with homosexuality, what about homosexual incest? Or what about two siblings of either sex when they're both infertile? Our hard-wired propensity to find it _all_ repulsive is really just a barrier against bad genetic offspring, so when reproduction is an impossibility, we can consciously rationalise that there is no damage being done if it is between two consenting adults. Of course, given the deeply-rooted nature of our disgust for incest, we must question if these individuals came from a "broken home" and if they perhaps need counselling or therapy, but I've heard at least one case of happy homosexual incestuous partners, and rationalise against my instincts that there's nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Cnote11

I don't find the idea of incest in itself repugnant. Having said that, the idea of incest with my sisters is highly disturbing :lol:


----------



## mmsbls

Dodecaplex said:


> What is important to realize is that these values, such as "stealing is wrong," are themselves of no value. And even if you say that the value is of value, I can easily go further and say that the value of the value is of no value. And so on ad infinitum. As long as I have logic and language, I can challenge each and every one of your statements about value, and no empirical evidence will ever get you out of that problem.


I think I understand your argument. It's also true that we can't know whether an outside reality actually exists or whether our brain is simply being fed inputs. Both philosophical issues are of some interest but eventually we have to deal with reality and make decisions about things like getting food and other behaviors. We put those issues aside and get back to living our lives. We decide not to steal because we benefit from living in a society where people do not steal. That moral benefits us so we value it, and we don't worry about philosophical details.



Dodecaplex said:


> Here, you're assuming that the statement "reality is everything that exists" is also a part of everything that exists. In other words, you're assuming that it is true. Also, the US analogy doesn't apply because it's meaningless to ask whether or not a statement such as "everything in the US is everything that is in the US" is itself a part of the US. But the statement "reality is everything that exists" is very much dependent on whether or not it is itself a part of everything that exists, and it is very necessary to ask that question.
> 
> Now, if you say that the statement "reality is everything that exists" is a part of everything that exists, then you'd have to prove it (perhaps empirically), but I seriously doubt that you could do that.


I'm not assuming that the statement "reality is everything that exists" is also a part of everything that exists. All statements or ideas are things, and therefore, they are part of reality since I define reality as all things. I'm not sure if you're questioning whether statements exist. I do not question that.


----------



## brianwalker

We decide not to steal because we benefit from living in a society where people do not steal. That moral benefits us so we value it, and we don't worry about philosophical details.

Who's "we", Mr?

Suppose John had no possessions and would benefit if theft was legal - is he part of "society"?


----------



## mmsbls

brianwalker said:


> We decide not to steal because we benefit from living in a society where people do not steal. That moral benefits us so we value it, and we don't worry about philosophical details.
> 
> Who's "we", Mr?
> 
> Suppose John had no possessions and would benefit if theft was legal - is he part of "society"?


Sorry, I was using a conventional definition. We = the vast majority of individuals in a regularly interacting group of people.

John, of course, is part of society and would benefit from stealing (whether it were legal or not).


----------



## Dodecaplex

mmsbls said:


> I think I understand your argument. It's also true that we can't know whether an outside reality actually exists or whether our brain is simply being fed inputs. Both philosophical issues are of some interest but eventually we have to deal with reality and make decisions about things like getting food and other behaviors. We put those issues aside and get back to living our lives. We decide not to steal because we benefit from living in a society where people do not steal. That moral benefits us so we value it, and we don't worry about philosophical details.


Well, this is certainly one way of looking at it. Of course, it doesn't answer the question of whether value exists or doesn't exist, but it is simply a way of "unasking" the question and moving on with life. Well, I don't agree with this fully, but I understand what you mean by it.



mmsbls said:


> I'm not assuming that the statement "reality is everything that exists" is also a part of everything that exists. All statements or ideas are things, and therefore, they are part of reality since I define reality as all things. I'm not sure if you're questioning whether statements exist. I do not question that.


Sorry if I wasn't being clear enough. Here's what I meant: a statement such as, say, "the Earth is round," is used to communicate information about reality. Not every statement, of course, is used to communicate information about reality. It is essentially dependent on how you decide to use language. Now, what I was asking you was whether or not you think the statement "reality is everything that exists" is used in the same manner that the statement "the Earth is round" is used. Because if that's the case, then the statement has to be proven (again, perhaps empirically (which, again, I seriously doubt is possible)). And if that's not the case, then it means the statement is not used to communicate information about reality, which defeats the very meaning of the statement itself.

What I'm trying to get you to change is your definition of reality, which is a very, very loose definition.


----------



## mmsbls

Dodecaplex said:


> Sorry if I wasn't being clear enough. Here's what I meant: a statement such as, say, "the Earth is round," is used to communicate information about reality. Not every statement, of course, is used to communicate information about reality. It is essentially dependent on how you decide to use language. Now, what I was asking you was whether or not you think the statement "reality is everything that exists" is used in the same manner that the statement "the Earth is round" is used. Because if that's the case, then the statement has to be proven (again, perhaps empirically (which, again, I seriously doubt is possible)). And if that's not the case, then it means the statement is not used to communicate information about reality, which defeats the very meaning of the statement itself.
> 
> What I'm trying to get you to change is your definition of reality, which is a very, very loose definition.


The two statements are clearly not used in the same way. One is a definition and the other is an empirical statement. Empirical statements can be true or false whereas definitions cannot be true or false (they only pertain to how words are being used). My definition is not used to communicate information about reality, but that is not the intent of definitions. Their intent is to focus the meaning of words so discussions become clearer.

I'm not sure what you mean by "your definition of reality, which is a very, very loose definition." If you mean it is very inclusive, I would agree that it is maximally inclusive and intended to be. In my view, it would simply be wrong to exclude anything from reality. If you mean it is not well defined, I'm not sure how to remedy that. Do you have a better definition of "reality'?


----------



## Xaltotun

Very few great works of art (and philosophy) do not inspire me morally. Perhaps that is the purpose of art in the modern age: to give moral inspiration. At least Tolstoy thought so...


----------



## Sid James

Jeremy Marchant said:


> ...I think one strong personal quality which contributed to the development of morality is empathy...


Yes, this is also my guide, empathy is the key. It's across all principles of morality/ethics and philosophies worth their salt, whether religious or not. The idea that you treat others how you yourself would like to be treated. It goes across all faiths and moral codes.

In my more darker moods, I think in today's society, some of this has been lost. The me-me-me kind of focus, the Gordon Gekko _greed is good_ mentality has been very harmful and this kind of selfishness is unsustainable. It's like a society with values built on quicksand, which are no values at all (just money, basically).

But I think at the end of the day, there's more worth in doing than talking, in part to counter the negativity. I've helped and been helped by many people of many backgrounds and religions (or no religion). You look at the need and you just do something about it, do what you can. It's also about respect, and esp. respect for human life and freedom from oppression, etc.


----------



## Cnote11

Yes, but the idea of "treat one how you would like to be treated" varies from person to person and can, at times, be highly irrational in its expectations. People are irrational either way and will draw various "lines in the sand" if you will that arbitrarily undermine this. Empathy is a feeling, and this feeling can even be culturally conditioned and irrational, meaning that it isn't the end all to be all.


----------



## Sid James

Cnote11 said:


> Yes, but the idea of "treat one how you would like to be treated" varies from person to person and can, at times, be highly irrational in its expectations. People are irrational either way and will draw various "lines in the sand" if you will that arbitrarily undermine this. Empathy is a feeling, and this feeling can even be culturally conditioned and irrational, meaning that it isn't the end all to be all.


Well yes, some people will have no empathy and not care about it, even if they are on the surface similar or from same country, etc. There are grey areas for sure. However, I am not much interested in national politics and all these big things. I was reflecting on my local community, in which I'm involved and see at least some good things happening. I'm part of that in a small way. The _love thy neighbour _principle can be applied - and I've applied it literally (although often neighbours are at eachother's throats). But loving them doesn't mean you literally love them or like all things about them or agree about all things with them. It's as simple as lending them a hand if they need it, even in simplest of things. I just think locally, like many people here, I'm into what I can do on the ground, here, now.


----------



## Dodecaplex

mmsbls said:


> The two statements are clearly not used in the same way. One is a definition and the other is an empirical statement. Empirical statements can be true or false whereas *definitions cannot be true or false *(they only pertain to how words are being used). My definition is not used to communicate information about reality, but that is not the intent of definitions. Their intent is to focus the meaning of words so discussions become clearer.


If that's the case, then you're admitting that the statement "reality is everything that exists" is not a part of "everything that exists," unless you say there are things that are a part of "everything that exists" that have no truth value. But then again, even that statement itself (that there are things that have no truth value) could be one of those things that have no truth value. As you see, you're simply making the problem worse. Below is my remedy.



mmsbls said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "your definition of reality, which is a very, very loose definition." If you mean it is very inclusive, I would agree that it is maximally inclusive and intended to be. In my view, it would simply be wrong to exclude anything from reality. If you mean it is not well defined, I'm not sure how to remedy that. Do you have a better definition of "reality'?


I believe a better definition of reality would be "everything that we can prove to exist," not simply "everything that exists." This way, if a person asks "is the statement 'reality is everything that we can prove to exist' a part of everything that we can prove to exist?" we can avoid having any problems by simply answering no, admitting that we're unable to prove or disprove the statement itself, but that we can move on from there to create a solid logical framework while still acknowledging its limitations. The previous definition didn't acknowledge these limitations.

By the way, were we discussing morality or what? :lol:


----------



## mmsbls

@Dodecaplex: I think the problem is that we are arguing in two separate realms. I'm arguing as an empirical scientist while you are arguing as a logical philosopher. The two do not overlap enough to have meaningful discussions in certain areas.

In my realm, your definition of reality, "everything that we can prove to exist", would leave a reality with nothing in it since nothing can be proven in the real world. Proofs only pertain to math and logic. My realm is not concerned with "truth value" but rather with what can be reasonably demonstrated. Statements can be heard, read, and conceived so they exist. We don't need to consider their truth value. 

Yes, I believe we have deviated a bit from the OP, but that happens at times.


----------

