absolute morals
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2013, 05:05 AM
absolute morals
Good: Gwynnies! Heart

Bad: Everything else. Big Grin That's why I put Gwynnies in everything, sillies. Thumbsup

Anyhoo, I'm thinking that thinking of static morality is fail. We do not have absolute morals, but we do have local absolutes of aligning moral vectors.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
04-07-2013, 05:57 AM
RE: absolute morals
Morals are not linear. Life is a conglomeration of events that are catalyzed by a vast mix of external and internal phenomena.

A well adapted individual remains flexible and evaluates each situation on it's own.

This requires some trust in one's own ability to make moral judgments based on the available factors in each situation.

Rigidity leads to moral failure, sooner or later.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
04-07-2013, 06:05 AM
RE: absolute morals
The thing about absolute morals is that every moral situation is absolutely NOT the same.

People want to ask "Is stealing wrong" ?
Well, stealing isn't one action. It's a myriad of situations that calls for examination and not to simply be thrown under the same absolute bus.
A homeless man steals a piece of fruit because he's starving.
A guy robs a bank
A bank sells worthless properties all bundled together, hedging their money that they will all fail.

The same can be said for killing.
"Is killing wrong" ?
I kill flies every chance I get.
If I should become terminal and in constant pain, I would like to hope that my death would come sooner, rather than later.
Shooting the guy robbing the bank
Shooting the loan officer too for all those bad loans he made money off of.

Morals are situational. They are not absolute. Why would you want absolutes ? So you don't have to think ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 08:03 AM
RE: absolute morals
houseofcantor, If you mean morals that are absolute such that in all cases they are applicable you have some truth in your statement.

I think however we can agree that some activities are outside the bounds of acceptable human behavior.

Picking out random people and killing them.

Physically forcing another against their will to have sex with them, or unduly influencing a child so as to have sex with them.

Abusing others for pleasure or financial gain.

I could go on.

If by the term "absolute morals" you mean the restriction of human behavior by an outside agency you have a point. If you mean that all human behavior is by definition moral you are not correct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 09:15 AM
RE: absolute morals
I like to use the train thought experiment to show that morality is a human precept. It's used a lot, but here's the summary:

Situation A:
You are in the position to throw a switch to cause a passenger train to take an alternate route, and thereby prevent the train from going down a track that has been damaged and would certainly lead to the destruction of the train and all its passengers. The moral dilemma is that the alternate track has a person standing on the tracks and unaware that the train would run them over if you throw this switch.

Situation B:
You are standing on a bridge over a train track, and the oncoming train will be destroyed similar to Situation A if not rescued, however instead of a switch, you find yourself standing on this bridge next to another person. Your dilemma is that with the train barreling down the track, your only option to save the train is to throw this person off the bridge to jam up the tracks.

Now, in both scenarios, you would be instructed to assume that the method of trying to save the train and its passengers is certain to work. When this type of dilemma is posed to people, we find that most people will agree the right decision in Situation A is to throw the switch, and more people than not will agree that the right decision in Situation B is to do nothing.

Both situations result in the same moral choice to sacrifice one person to save many, so why do these two scenarios provoke different responses? The moral choice is the same, but humans are more repulsed by the idea of directly pushing someone to their death than pulling a switch to do the same thing. It really looks like moral relativism is built right into humans. How else can differing human reactions to these dilemmas be explained?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: absolute morals
That is why it is obvious that we have built in empathy - most of us anyway.

This is triggered by visuals and sounds - visually we are more triggered to be empathetic by the cute than by the ugly. Certain sounds trigger it - sounds of a baby in distress trigger the most, other humans in distress second, and sounds of animals in distress trigger us too.

The guy right next to us on the bridge is a strong visual, while the guy someplace on an alternate track does not have the same visual impact. The guy next to us on the bridge is a definite human being, we can see and feel him there. We would have to touch him to kill him and save the others.

The guy on the tracks does not have the same physical presence, nor do we have to touch him.

It goes to show how much our decisions are influenced by our hard coding, like it or not.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
04-07-2013, 10:13 AM
RE: absolute morals
(04-07-2013 08:03 AM)JAH Wrote:  houseofcantor, If you mean morals that are absolute such that in all cases they are applicable you have some truth in your statement.

Gwynnite is dualist in the sense of the tension between sequence and simultaneity. One can come to a point, and go off on a moral vector.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 10:58 AM
RE: absolute morals
houseofcantor, I am a simple person. I have some trouble with the deep meaning of some words. I do not understand what you are trying to say and would like some more simple words to understand it.

I would also suggest that you not be a gwynnite in your approach. I do not like an approach from authority no matter how attractive that authority might be.

BryanS and Dom, made up moral dilemmas are that, made up. Let us take it a step further, would I throw one of my sons or grandchildren off a bridge to save a train full of strangers, no. Would I kill a person who harmed one of my sons or grandchildren, yes. Made up situations do not determine whether a person is moral or not actual actions in real circumstances determine that. I would suggest that the above statements by myself indicate that I have conflicted, at best, morals.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 12:03 PM
RE: absolute morals
(04-07-2013 10:58 AM)JAH Wrote:  houseofcantor, I am a simple person. I have some trouble with the deep meaning of some words. I do not understand what you are trying to say and would like some more simple words to understand it.

I would also suggest that you not be a gwynnite in your approach. I do not like an approach from authority no matter how attractive that authority might be.

BryanS and Dom, made up moral dilemmas are that, made up. Let us take it a step further, would I throw one of my sons or grandchildren off a bridge to save a train full of strangers, no. Would I kill a person who harmed one of my sons or grandchildren, yes. Made up situations do not determine whether a person is moral or not actual actions in real circumstances determine that. I would suggest that the above statements by myself indicate that I have conflicted, at best, morals.

Firstly, you will need to get used to HOC's way of expressing himself. It is what it is. Stick around and you will get there.

I don't think you have conflicting morals. The situations you describe are perfectly in tune with your hard coding. You instinctually protect yours. No mystery there.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 07:50 PM
RE: absolute morals
(04-07-2013 10:58 AM)JAH Wrote:  I would also suggest that you not be a gwynnite in your approach.

Tongue

Kinda the opposite. Find excessive "I" statements to be distasteful. Big Grin

Anyway, vectors have magnitude and direction...

[Image: 220px-Vector_by_Zureks.svg.png]

(I don't know if you know this stuff...)

[Image: vec7a.gif]

As above, say the moral vector is B; and among peeps who say they share the same absolute morality these vectors (B) may appear identical. But there's always this underlying emotional vector (A) occurring that leads to the expression of B. Like there's these pedo threads where everybody is going off, the resultant vector is universally "no" but the component vectors differ.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: