A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-01-2016, 06:45 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(09-01-2016 08:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-01-2016 05:19 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  No one does. We're not talking about math problems. We're talking about when you hurt someone you care about.
Same think. A mistak is a mistake, given whatever goals you are trying to achieve.
You trying something, it turns out to be a "mistake" so you try something else. No need to beat yourself up by feeling guilt or remorse.

(09-01-2016 08:13 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-01-2016 05:19 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  No one does. We're not talking about math problems. We're talking about when you hurt someone you care about.
Same think. A mistak is a mistake, given whatever goals you are trying to achieve.
You trying something, it turns out to be a "mistake" so you try something else. No need to beat yourself up by feeling guilt or remorse.

When a person hurts someone they care about, and feels zero remorse, then I would guess that most psychologists would classify that as an abnormality or personality disorder. This is one of the characteristics of psychopathy.

Back to my other question though, do you think one has to have moral beliefs to experience regret and/or remorse?

Perhaps you don't even feel that way about guilt and I'm misunderstanding you. For clarification, do you think that feeling guilt requires moral belief?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
10-01-2016, 07:36 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(07-01-2016 03:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is hard to put myself in this situation, but I'd probably be terrified of going to jail.
Would I feel guilt for having killed the other people? Maybe, I'm not sure (it certainly would be a test of my lack of moral beliefs).

Assuming you're not a sociopath, than you likely would feel a strong sense of guilt and remorse. You give too much power over you particular set of beliefs, in governing your emotional states, and it's just fantasy.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with George Delury, who murdered his wife, and didn't believe there was anything morally wrong with what he did.

Yet he speaks of a sort of visceral feeling of guilt that overtook him:

"He admits, denies, and dismisses his remorse, all at once. Immediately after describing the killing, he writes: This act was at the base of a primitive, irrational guilt that haunted me for months after Myrna’s death. It was not a moral guilt, an awareness of having done something ethically wrong; it was more immediate than that, almost physical. . . . I have come to believe we humans, like other primates, have an instinctual block against killing our own kind, a prohibition that, if violated, sets up strong undercurrents of dissonance. . . . I suspect that after the victorious animal finishes celebrating his or her survival and victory or comprehends the fact of death in an accident, an observer might see some unusual behavior—withdrawal, heightened sensitivity to slights or threats, increased rejection or acceptance of grooming, nervousness, and a host of other possible signs of uneasiness. It was this sort of primordial, instinctual unease that I felt and called “guilt.” In the weeks and months that followed, I often spoke of my guilt feelings, trying to sort out their natures and sources. referring to the act of helping Myrna die. But I had no moral guilt about the act itself, only about how I had handled it, about the silence. And, at other times, I was referring to this primitive guilt, the dissonance of a primate over the violation of a fundamental instinct." -Budziszewski, J (2011-02-16). What We Cant Not Know (p. 158). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps given a strong enough situation, you would feel this sort of primitive guilt, that perhaps you'd justify along the of the man above, with your lack of beliefs in morality.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
10-01-2016, 07:49 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(09-01-2016 05:09 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Evolution has no purpose. I don't think guilt is an emotion that has come from evolution. I don't think the guilt emotion is written into our DNA. Its a learned emotion.

Does "learning" creates new emotions, or does "learning" just create particular situations that might elicit a particular emotion? And this case our emotions are a part of biological makeup, but elicited by a variety of different "learned responses". Such as the emotion of hatred is part of our biological makeup, but the fact that our hatred can be directed to a particular political party, or ethnic group is "learned".

The feeling of guilt, remorse, empathy, hatred, love, joy, sadness, etc.. are all part of our innate composition. They're often responses to a variety of different stimuli, that evokes them. Perhaps you commit an act that evokes that sensations most people refer to when they speak of guilt, or remorse. Perhaps you try and dismiss these sensations as a series of biological misfirings, that don't correspond to anything truly "wrong" that you've done, but are just a set of primitive biological sensations, that you hope your belief will help mitigate the effects of in the long run.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
10-01-2016, 11:49 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(10-01-2016 07:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps given a strong enough situation, you would feel this sort of primitive guilt, that perhaps you'd justify along the of the man above, with your lack of beliefs in morality.
The man's take on primitive guilt vs moral guilt is somewhat interesting and imaginative.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2016, 12:00 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(10-01-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Does "learning" creates new emotions, or does "learning" just create particular situations that might elicit a particular emotion?
I'm not entirely sure.
I think it is quite possible that some emotions are classified as unique emotions (different from other emotions) simply because they have been given a unique name.


(10-01-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And this case our emotions are a part of biological makeup, but elicited by a variety of different "learned responses".
possibly

(10-01-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Such as the emotion of hatred is part of our biological makeup, but the fact that our hatred can be directed to a particular political party, or ethnic group is "learned".
Hatred might be the emotion of "anger"

(10-01-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The feeling of guilt, remorse, empathy, hatred, love, joy, sadness, etc.. are all part of our innate composition.
Nice assertion.

(10-01-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps you commit an act that evokes that sensations most people refer to when they speak of guilt, or remorse. Perhaps you try and dismiss these sensations as a series of biological misfirings,
Perhaps I don't experience those sensations.

If I don't experience guilt when using a condom or when not going to church on the week-end it doesn't mean that I have the sensation but just don't call it "guilt". It means I don't believe that I have anything to feel remorse or guilt about.

Tomasia - a Question back for you.
How do you determine which "guilt" emotions are simulated in your brain based on personal belief and which "guilt" emotions are real primitive emotions (independent of personal belief)?

(10-01-2016 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  that you hope your belief will help mitigate the effects of in the long run.
I don't have any hopes regarding my lack of beliefs. I experience consequences, but these aren't consequences that I have sought after.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2016, 12:12 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(10-01-2016 06:45 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Back to my other question though, do you think one has to have moral beliefs to experience regret and/or remorse?
What is the difference between guilt and remorse?

Perhaps a person has remorse for playing a sport too aggressively?
Like perhaps cricket or golf. And they realised they may have won the game if they played it safer but they thought it was more fun to play aggressively and they stuffed it up. Perhaps they beat themselves up for having been "stupid" and playing too aggressively? Is that remorse without guilt?
I tend not to beat myself up. I tend to think, OK maybe I got out because I played too aggressively, took more risks than was necessary. Try a little safer next time.
Or perhaps its the other way around, lost because didn't play aggressive enough, try to play more aggressively next time. It's about moving on rather than dwelling. Having belief and faith in yourself rather than putting yourself down for past events.


(10-01-2016 06:45 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Perhaps you don't even feel that way about guilt and I'm misunderstanding you. For clarification, do you think that feeling guilt requires moral belief?
I think so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2016, 11:20 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(23-12-2015 06:39 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That 1st point by that theosophist on his podium is flawed and I don't get why that point gets skirted over so often. Glad that 2nd video actually points out there is serious flaws there.

There is no reason for these claims I see theists & even those talking against theism use of saying there can't be objective morals without god.

Not that I believe in objective morals, but there are atheists who do & it's not an impossible concept without a Deity/Being/Entity enacting them. They could exist like the electromagnetism exists or in holon form that the integral folks think. It may just exist like The Force, a essence of good & evil that doesn't need a "divine" creator. It just exists.

Good and evil are value judgments, as varied as the number of people who have lived on the planet. Those judgements cannot be 'objective'.

As for morals... They are implicitly given by a religion, by the supposed deity around which the religion is organized. I, as an atheist, am amoral. It's not a condemnation. I have enlightened self-interest which looks similar to morals, but is not... though a few thought experiments indicate that such considerations are likely what originally generated the thought/behavior codes we call 'morals'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes coyote's post
15-01-2016, 05:03 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(14-01-2016 11:20 PM)coyote Wrote:  
(23-12-2015 06:39 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  That 1st point by that theosophist on his podium is flawed and I don't get why that point gets skirted over so often. Glad that 2nd video actually points out there is serious flaws there.

There is no reason for these claims I see theists & even those talking against theism use of saying there can't be objective morals without god.

Not that I believe in objective morals, but there are atheists who do & it's not an impossible concept without a Deity/Being/Entity enacting them. They could exist like the electromagnetism exists or in holon form that the integral folks think. It may just exist like The Force, a essence of good & evil that doesn't need a "divine" creator. It just exists.

Good and evil are value judgments, as varied as the number of people who have lived on the planet. Those judgements cannot be 'objective'.

As for morals... They are implicitly given by a religion, by the supposed deity around which the religion is organized. I, as an atheist, am amoral. It's not a condemnation. I have enlightened self-interest which looks similar to morals, but is not... though a few thought experiments indicate that such considerations are likely what originally generated the thought/behavior codes we call 'morals'.

Then what do you think the only definition of morals is? The term Morals doesn't only mean the religious context. Nor the objective context.

The question and debate of what "morality" is goes historically and currently beyond the religious argument into other philosophy & sociological topics. Morality isn't only a topic of good/bad that's a subset portion of the topic.

Those self-interest patterns are indeed what we call morals still. In a non-religious connotation, they're still morality. As a moral nihilist, it just means you don't believe in "intrinsic/absolute/objective" types of morality. Not that you disregard the term moral in all it's contexts. Because the other context still exists as merely descriptive value judgement. The term amoral is similar to that in not accepting any concept of a personal moral or a right/wrong. It's fine, but the term morality doesn't only mean right/wrong or some notion of obligation.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
15-01-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(15-01-2016 05:03 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Then what do you think the only definition of morals is? The term Morals doesn't only mean the religious context. Nor the objective context.

The question and debate of what "morality" is goes historically and currently beyond the religious argument into other philosophy & sociological topics. Morality isn't only a topic of good/bad that's a subset portion of the topic.

Those self-interest patterns are indeed what we call morals still. In a non-religious connotation, they're still morality. As a moral nihilist, it just means you don't believe in "intrinsic/absolute/objective" types of morality. Not that you disregard the term moral in all it's contexts. Because the other context still exists as merely descriptive value judgement. The term amoral is similar to that in not accepting any concept of a personal moral or a right/wrong. It's fine, but the term morality doesn't only mean right/wrong or some notion of obligation.
I think if you take out the concept of right/wrong, should/ought and moral obligation then you don't have morality, certainly you don't have morality in a way that most people (including dictionary definitions) would consider something as pertaining to morality.

I would consider putting personal subjective value onto things as not being enough to qualify for the morality concept.
I value nutritional food more than I value sugar does not equate to a moral claim.
I value tea more than I value coffee does not equate to a moral claim.
These claims are missing many things that are needed for this to qualify as a moral claim.

If I look up Value ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28ethics%29
Quote:In ethics, value denotes something's degree of importance, with the aim of determining what action of life is best to do or live (deontology), or to describe the significance of different actions (axiology). It may be described as treating actions themselves as abstract objects, putting value to them. It deals with right conduct and good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively highly, valuable action may be regarded as ethically "good" (adjective sense), and an action of low, or at least relatively low, value may be regarded as "bad".
It still has the concept of good and bad rather than merely denoting that I personally value something more than another.
I value tea more than coffee, this does not mean that I consider it ethically bad for me to choose to drink coffee rather than tea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 02:21 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(15-01-2016 01:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 05:03 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Then what do you think the only definition of morals is? The term Morals doesn't only mean the religious context. Nor the objective context.

The question and debate of what "morality" is goes historically and currently beyond the religious argument into other philosophy & sociological topics. Morality isn't only a topic of good/bad that's a subset portion of the topic.

Those self-interest patterns are indeed what we call morals still. In a non-religious connotation, they're still morality. As a moral nihilist, it just means you don't believe in "intrinsic/absolute/objective" types of morality. Not that you disregard the term moral in all it's contexts. Because the other context still exists as merely descriptive value judgement. The term amoral is similar to that in not accepting any concept of a personal moral or a right/wrong. It's fine, but the term morality doesn't only mean right/wrong or some notion of obligation.
I think if you take out the concept of right/wrong, should/ought and moral obligation then you don't have morality, certainly you don't have morality in a way that most people (including dictionary definitions) would consider something as pertaining to morality.

I would consider putting personal subjective value onto things as not being enough to qualify for the morality concept.
I value nutritional food more than I value sugar does not equate to a moral claim.
I value tea more than I value coffee does not equate to a moral claim.
These claims are missing many things that are needed for this to qualify as a moral claim.

If I look up Value ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28ethics%29
Quote:In ethics, value denotes something's degree of importance, with the aim of determining what action of life is best to do or live (deontology), or to describe the significance of different actions (axiology). It may be described as treating actions themselves as abstract objects, putting value to them. It deals with right conduct and good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively highly, valuable action may be regarded as ethically "good" (adjective sense), and an action of low, or at least relatively low, value may be regarded as "bad".
It still has the concept of good and bad rather than merely denoting that I personally value something more than another.
I value tea more than coffee, this does not mean that I consider it ethically bad for me to choose to drink coffee rather than tea.

That avoids only 1 definition. When morality is studied sociologically, psychologically, and philosophically it is talked about with more than that meaning.
This was posted before I think by Finney or someone, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ but it's about the philosphical difference of context of morality. The normative is only the real objective/universal type & not only what moral means.

Yes, not all value judgement are "moral judgments." This is apart of the case Tomasia states when trying to make some weird actual objective moral claim... that case doesn't mean there aren't moral judgements. It merely means not every judgement might be one, okay, then so what?

Philosophical views like Moral Foundation Theories or Moral development stage ideas are not based on the concept of good and bad... It is merely denoating that you value something more than another... but it's cataloging these "somethings" in a culture/situational type value judgement. It's largely tied to behavior & outcomes of actions. Liking Coffee vs Tea isn't much of an active behavior. Choosing to give 2 people equal tea but splashing 1 in the face with the coffee might be different along some actions because of the values had there. Whether the choice was "fair" or of "equal" treatment to the two individuals via the action. That's not a direct relation to how it differs but it's proportionally that way.

There is something different and similar for masses of people in these moral value patterns. A lot of it has to do with something related to them but their influenced situations, backgrounds in religious/education/political views and those influence what types of base stances people have.

Yes we do in some decree establish these values via evolutionary impact and have made them up. The values of judging moral things aren't universal, intrinsic, or absolute. Though they exist psychologically through study via human patterns.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: