Poll: Logic or morality?

[Baneat]

I do whatever works out best for me.

Which means your morality follows the logic of self-benefit.

Actually, scratch that, that's amorality. But; you probably don't follow it as solidly as you might think. Stealing lying and piracy all work out best for you at the cost of others, but something will stop you from such extreme egotism.

Morality based on the logic of reason works best to me, there's no exclusivity between the two.

Well, I do whatever works best for me as far as my foresight can see.

Example: I won't steal from someone if there is a chance of me getting caught. I will help someone if I think there is a good chance I will gain something from it now or some time in the near future. I will lie if I can get away with it and it serves me well to do so, but not if telling the truth gains me more. I will turn myself in if there is a 50% chance or better of being caught - that way I can bank on getting credit for coming forward. Stuff like that.

Hypothetical - 0% chance of getting caught or even acknowledged by anyone else for the action

Steal a homeless man's lunch

Trying to isolate the part where you only consider your own benefit, with coincidentally "good" actions derived from an ulterior motive.

If I'm hungry, there is no chance at all of being caught, and the benefits of stealing his food outweigh any other option (like pretending to be nice to him in front of someone for moral credit with them) then I will be eatin' homeless food!

You're not hungry, there's actually a very rich man offering you five cents for the unneeded(by you) lunch.

Five cents isn't worth the time required to steal the lunch.

Please, hypothetical analogies don't have to be airtight provided the issue is understood.

For this we'll consider the time and effort to have zero value, you make identical time and effort either side of your decision - not a practical scenario, I can't translate that to a real-world application, but the kind of crazy shit I put in normative ethics essays.

 

[boag]

I choose logic, but sadly, i do not have the gravitas to bind myself to it, I would never be able to constrain myself to the chains of logic, Im only human after all.

 

[Baneat]

There needs to be a balance of both. I believe that rationality is more important. Cold hard logic is simply that, cold, while having a moral compass allows for one to differentiate right from wrong. In certain cases, logic could actually condemn someone, while morality could obscure ones perspective.

Trying to isolate the part where you only consider your own benefit, with coincidentally "good" actions derived from an ulterior motive.

I actually had a thought regarding this. Is it possible to be truly selfless? Meaning can you do something, without getting anything in return? To me, a selfless act gains no reward in any shape or form. For example: A man sacrifices his life to save the life of another. Is this truly "Selfless"? You could argue yes, but if you take into account that he will be revered as someone who saved the day, he has indeed received something. Though not intentionally.

Parodied nicely in the Friends episode where Phoebe tries to make a selfless act, then accidentally feels good about it.

In the realm of the hypothetical, you have to ask if you'd do it if you go in knowing that you will gain absolutely nothing.

The problem is that it is impossible to factor out personal gain beforehand, I even consider "fulfilling the (Kantian)Will" to be of some self-service.

You can try as hard as you can, I donated blood, refused the cookies, refused the drink, refused the sticker and, at the time, told no-one. I didn't know it would be useful to mention this later..

Then I realised I was trying to gain from it, I was trying to assess the possibility of selflessness, and as a result, went against the concept >.>

Dulci- come into the realm of the hypothetical. The only difference between the stealing of the lunch and the not-stealing is that you gain five cents and he loses a lunch, and that's the *only* variable. Do not consider any other external factor.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I believe being selfless means not seeking reward of any kind.

But see what I'm getting at is although one does not seek reward but receives it anyway, how can anyone be sure that their motives really are selfless? On the outside they may appear to be selfless, we can't know what their true intentions are. Perhaps sub consciously, selfless nature really has ulterior motive. I'm nice to you, so you'll be nice to me. Win win.

Yes it sounds horribly cynical, but it's something to think about.

 

[Waaghpowa]

-

Exactly, to me it seems that the ability to be selfless or the concept itself is impossible, because in the end there's always something you want.

 

[Baneat]

I believe being selfless means not seeking reward of any kind.

But see what I'm getting at is although one does not seek reward but receives it anyway, how can anyone be sure that their motives really are selfless? On the outside they may appear to be selfless, we can't know what their true intentions are. Perhaps sub consciously, selfless nature really has ulterior motive. I'm nice to you, so you'll be nice to me. Win win.

Yes it sounds horribly cynical, but it's something to think about.

Immanuel Kant came up with this selfless duty concept, by the way, and he has no issues accepting rewards if they weren't a factor in him making the decision..

It's why some of us have problems with charity dinners, people call us assholes for shooting people like this down when they try to use it to claim they are moral. Kantians don't say it's immoral, simply that it is not moral.

Best we can hope for is minimisation, truth be told.

 

[Waaghpowa]

-

I read a little Kant way back and honestly can't remember any of it.

These are the things I think about when I can't sleep, which is all the time...

 

[Madara XIII]

The golden rule is inherently logical, and is the basis of most moral behaviour.

VWOOT!! Treat your neighbor as you would have them treat you. Truly you are a win sir.

 

[Frotality]

morality is subjective, and therefore a very bad foundation for anything, least of all civilization.

morality is born of logic anyway; humans need to stay alive, so we developed logical means to stay alive, and as we thrived we developed more extroverted means to stay alive and to keep society alive; as a meta-concept, the survival of society became abstract morals rather than purely logical.

logic and morality are not exclusive; in fact they are inseparable. no human mind can function without considering both; pure logic without a goal results in nothing, with a goal results in the fanatical pursuit of that goal at the expense of all else. ironically, a society focused solely on its moral code would be the stagnant one because it would do everything by its own rules and only its own rules forever. theyre apples and oranges really; logic is built from the most basic facts upwards, morality is built from the most metaphysical navel-gazing downwards.

its quite simple really; what is a better basis for a thought: what is believed, or what is fact?

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Why isn't there a "BOTH!?!" or "TROLOLOLOL!!!" option?

 

[Baneat]

Let's crank it up

Ten bucks to press a button which will kill the homeless man

You are guaranteed not to be linked to this in any way

If you do not press the button, nobody will press the button

It takes no time at all to press it, and zero effort

the ONLY change between deciding to press said button is that you have ten dollars, and the man is dead.

You would not have contacted this man in any way if you refused to press it, you can not communicate with him, and he will live life as normal.


I absolutely refuse to believe any rational person is enough of a dick to push the button.

I'm making it as airtight as possible. Do not fancypants around the point made.

 

[Wuggy]

The golden rule is inherently logical, and is the basis of most moral behaviour.

If you're referring to the golden rule of Christianity, then it's a bit flawed. "Treat others the way you want to be treated" can apply well for most people but not all. A person with masochistic tendencies should not, in my opinion, go knocking about causing pain to other people. While this example is sort of 'out of this world' it points out the shortage of the golden rule.

To be honest I think Kant's categorical imperative is better rule to act according to:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."

 

[Madara XIII]

Why can't we have both? I always try to do the logical thing then way it up against what my moral code says about it. If I feel wrong about doing something, I'm generally not going to do it because logic says I should.

Indeed. Say for instance that your moral code does not allow killing, yet you are assigned to execute a person(s) because you were ordered to. Now in some circles logic would say to listen to orders and those higher up than you. However it may also be logical to kill said person because he possibly poses a threat to your life and others. Now this is where the moral code comes in. You may not want to kill and it may go against what you feel is right, but given the chance to prevent danger and possibly imminent death towards yourself and others then it would seem both logical and morally correct to kill that person.

Ugh, mixing those 2 is such a sticky and nasty situation. Thus is life though. We can't rely solely on logic 100% of the time and neither can we rely on a moral code 100% of the time. Gotta find your middle ground somewhere.

 

[MetaMuffin]

So escapist what would you rather have a world of morality where we do what we think is right or a world where we go by whats more safe and efficient?

Not sure what you're going for here. We live in a world where everyone does what they think is right and a world where we "go by whats more safe and efficient". People choose which moral path to take and encompass logic around their decision in order to function in society. I personally mix the two, along with using a David Hume style of morality (letting your emotions help determine if an action is right or wrong). I'm still debating whether or not morality actually exists, but it's working for me so far.

 

[Madara XIII]

Let's crank it up

Ten bucks to press a button which will kill the homeless man

You are guaranteed not to be linked to this in any way

If you do not press the button, nobody will press the button

It takes no time at all to press it, and zero effort

the ONLY change between deciding to press said button is that you have ten dollars, and the man is dead.

You would not have contacted this man in any way if you refused to press it, you can not communicate with him, and he will live life as normal.


I absolutely refuse to believe any rational person is enough of a dick to push the button.

I'm making it as airtight as possible. Do not fancypants around the point made.

I wouldn't push the button based on both morality and logic. For one it goes against my moral standards to take a life for my own personal gain. I go by logic as well because one of human nature's purposes is to grow, reproduce and pass on to the next generation and seeing as how I'm stopping this process it doesn't seem all too smart to prevent that process for another being just because I can raise my personal gain. That's my opinion and thinking process behind it.