Poll: Logic or morality?

[Baneat]

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."

That's two categorical imperatives, he only intended one to be used, offering five options.

And there are five

And I'm officially terrified of Dulcinea, and also believe he is perhaps bullshitting me slightly, as he said in another thread

"I want to support the site!"

He did not mention that he wanted the pub club perks, and it is generally agreed that you will not improve the site enough with your 20 dollars enough to make it worth it, just like buying any video game will not make the next one worth 60 more dollars in value to you.

Without morality we are androids (Nexus-six(book) variety) - without empathy we are worthless processors. It is not sustainable logic, and I place no value on something truly without morality, since it comes from reason and choice naturally.

 

[Lord Merik]

this is kinda a stupid question. What is moral for one man is not for another. The same can be said for logic. Two people can look at the same thing and get totally different logical conclusions. Long story short humanity is doomed.

 

[Varitel]

In my ethics class last fall, we went over this topic a bit toward the beginning of the semester. One short work that we studied was written by Albert Einstein. According to him, "ethical directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking and empirical knowledge". From this whole writing, he basically says that ethics and morality can and should coexist.

 

[Adventurer2626]

The universe is what it is. Morality is a human invention based around the needs of a specific group. There is no overarching morality system for all of us. So, I simply go by what helps others and what hurts them. I try to do the first and avoid the second, but like anyone that tries to be a good follower, I sometimes stray from the path. But I'd rather at least try to follow something I believe in theory than something I think is bogus or naive. So logic it is. It's in my best interest to help others because I think if I do it enough, I'll get the same in return.

 

[RadiusXd]

the two should agree, Vicky had bad programming.

 

[Nabirius]

I dislike the word 'morality' because from a sociological standpoint it means the rules of society that we conform to. However I think people should do what they believe is right over what is logically efficient.

 

[zehydra]

I dislike the word 'morality' because from a sociological standpoint it means the rules of society that we conform to. However I think people should do what they believe is right over what is logically efficient.

Morality just means what people think is "right" and "wrong". It doesn't have to mean the sociological definition (which in my opinion is a really bad definition of morality)

 

[zehydra]

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.

Objectively morality doesn't exist and none of the rules you choose are actually good or bad. The concept is man made and as varied as the men behind them.

In some places, beating your wife is okay. In some, eating people is okay. In some, having sex with young people is okay. In others still, being gay isn't okay. Hell, in some places showing any skin at all is immoral.

Morality is what you make it. None of it is right and none of it is wrong. It's all subjective and can never be shown to be otherwise.

Ever hear of objectivism?

 

[Baneat]

I will deliberately commit the fallacy of appealing to consequences, since the alternative is unworkable

If morality does not exist, we are no more than consequential machines. Literally, everything is worthless, everything is pointless

If it does exist then we can give value and meaning to reason to live.

So, while I do not have a meta-ethical justification for morality, it doesn't *matter* if I'm wrong about morality existing, since if option A is true then being reasonable and right is irrelevant to anything.

 

[Akytalusia]

the sad truth is, they're both fundamentally fallible systems that will inevitably lead you to despair. the ultimate conclusion of logic is nihilism, and morality's so fickle it's individualized. following morality absolutely is absolutely selfish, and following logic absolutely is absolutely hopeless.

 

[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."

That's two categorical imperatives, he only intended one to be used, offering five options.

And there are five

Oh, do I look like fool now.

Yes, I know all that. I just wasn't being specific enough: I like to think that combining the first two formulations, you get a superior version of 'golden rule' wherein you don't base you actions on what you specifically want, and negating the possibility that someone could be stupid enought to think something along the lines of "I want killing all people with beards to be an universal law!"

 

[Nabirius]

I dislike the word 'morality' because from a sociological standpoint it means the rules of society that we conform to. However I think people should do what they believe is right over what is logically efficient.

Morality just means what people think is "right" and "wrong". It doesn't have to mean the sociological definition (which in my opinion is a really bad definition of morality)

No Principals a what individuals believe is right and wrong morals are what we are taught is right and wrong. In my opinion it is the best way to distinguish the two.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Let's crank it up

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

That's not cranking it up. Try this:

By pulling a lever, you can save five souls from a terrible fate.

I, a mad philosopher, have tied down five innocent human beings along the path of a speeding train.

You can throw a lever, switching the track to another path, where I have only secured a single innocent victim.

Don't try rescuing them by cutting their bonds. You'll never make it in time.

That's all. But here's the catch:

You leave the lever be, and I will have murdered five innocents.

You pull the lever, and you will have murdered one, albeit in the saving of five others.

So how do you act?

238U.

 

[Baneat]

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."

That's two categorical imperatives, he only intended one to be used, offering five options.

And there are five

And I'm officially terrified of Dulcinea, and also believe he is perhaps bullshitting me slightly, as he said in another thread

"I want to support the site!"

He did not mention that he wanted the pub club perks, and it is generally agreed that you will not improve the site enough with your 20 dollars enough to make it worth it, just like buying any video game will not make the next one worth 60 more dollars in value to you.

Without morality we are androids (Nexus-six(book) variety) - without empathy we are worthless processors. It is not sustainable logic, and I place no value on something truly without morality, since it comes from reason and choice naturally.

It made me look good in that thread, didn't it

Also: the only reason you see it as bad (killing the homeless man) is an evolved and social drive to avoid danger; if someone shows they are willing to kill, we lock them up, kill them and/or treat them with disgust (nature's defense reflex) so they don't kill us or someone we need. The same reason we hate people who steal -- we don't want our stuff stolen. Every moral outrage has its base in wanting as stable as possible an environment for us to procreate in.

But hey, if you don't want your $10, can I press it twice and have yours? Lol.

A true self-servant would never admit that he is full of shit, since now, nothing you say regarding similar matters have any worth, since the reason behind your choices are all self-serving, and have no grounding in the truth. Like, literally none of your opinions are relevant when you cite any form of reasoning that would convince people, since at the end of the day, it's you you you and truth has no value to you.

I'd push your button based on your standard of reasoning, simply because it's the same as turning off a computer in your case, with the aim of maximising one output of hedonism. I would never push anyone else's button.

 

[RaNDM G]

Morality first, but they really go hand in hand. Your logic is defined by what you know is right or wrong.

 

[Baneat]

Let's crank it up

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

That's not cranking it up. Try this:

By pulling a lever, you can save five souls from a terrible fate.

I, a mad philosopher, have tied down five innocent human beings along the path of a speeding train.

You can throw a lever, switching the track to another path, where I have only secured a single innocent victim.

Don't try rescuing them by cutting their bonds. You'll never make it in time.

That's all. But here's the catch:

You leave the lever be, and I will have murdered five innocents.

You pull the lever, and you will have murdered one, albeit in the saving of five others.

So how do you act?

238U.

Goddamn it you had to pick that little void in which no complete moral system has managed to fix >.>

I'd pull the lever, I know it's not coincident with Kant's feelings of letting the chips fall as they may

but what the hell.

 

[zehydra]

I dislike the word 'morality' because from a sociological standpoint it means the rules of society that we conform to. However I think people should do what they believe is right over what is logically efficient.

Morality just means what people think is "right" and "wrong". It doesn't have to mean the sociological definition (which in my opinion is a really bad definition of morality)

No Principals a what individuals believe is right and wrong morals are what we are taught is right and wrong. In my opinion it is the best way to distinguish the two.

I disagree that the concept of morality is limited to what people are taught in their society. Principals and Morals are essentially interchangeable.

However, it doesn't really matter, since it's more or less just an argument over the meaning of the word "morality" and not the meaning of the concept of morality (or for you, principals[principality?])

So when you say that people should do what they believe is right, are you saying that people should follow the rules that society teaches them, or should they follow their principals?