Poll: Logic or morality?

[Bandvagn]

Both. Our ability as humans to think logically and still feel empathy towards each other is what makes this race of ours great as whole. Now if we loose lets say logic, we will most likely just sit around playing drums in a circle praying to the goddess of weed and harmony. If we loose empathy we might just end up building great societies, great monumenst, fight great high tech wars, stride around in massive battle walkers but we will sooner or later lose our humanity and thus fall.

 

[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.

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.

You're a moral nihilist and I've been there, but I choose to believe that there are some objective moral laws in the universe that apply to humans. It's the only thing that keeps me sane sometimes. I'm familiar with the argument, that morality is simply a result of human evolution, was born with humanity and will die with humanity, ect, but morality operates outside of science and logic. It's something unique about humanity. I noticed the post earlier about pushing the button, I don't think you'd really do it, or at the very least you would hesitate and question yourself. You wouldn't do this in self-interest, but because killing is intrinsically wrong and human life has value. I'm not saying I know all objective morality in the universe, but I believe it exists on some meta-level.

 

[theheroofaction]

Morals without logic and logic without morals are the 2 types of dystopia, as each are invalid without the other.

effectiveness is the balance between the 2.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

When we discuss the difference between religious-based morality and rational-based morality, the issue is not about the mores themselves, but about their source. Religious morality is revealed via scripture. The ten commandments are a good example of this. Where religious morality becomes questioned (by non-adherents) is in the theistic mores, that is rules regarding the deity involved. Rules such as Honor the Sabbath and Do not create graven images, which have minimal effect on society (compared to Don't kill and Don't steal).

Rational morality is usually derived from societal fundamentals such as the Ethic of Reciprocity (known in Christian society as the Golden Rule, but in fact iterated in almost every religion in history). Treat others as you would be treated, and the negative version, Don't treat others as you would want to not be treated both allow for much derivation, including Don't kill and Don't steal. Less so, Don't worship other gods before me.

But the real meat of moral philosophy comes in the conflict between consequentialism and deontology, that is, the choices we make in order to facilitate specific outcomes, and the choices we make out of honor and duty and the obligation to act in specific ways.

Both present dilemmas like the one I presented above (with the train), yet in our daily lives, when we make moral choices, these are the issues that shape our options before we decide our path.

238U.

 

[Nabirius]

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?

I'm a firm believer in principles, because many things that society teaches us as 'right' can be very backwards, such as racism (I read a study saying that racism is a learned behavior).

 

[zehydra]

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?

I'm a firm believer in principles, because many things that society teaches us as 'right' can be very backwards, such as racism (I read a study saying that racism is a learned behavior).

I agree, although why do you suppose you and I perceive those things as backwards?

 

[Xixikal]

I agree that this would be a better question.
But even still I have found that compassion, or acting with the intent of good will, is always the logical decision, because anything else is self destructive.

although you can still be a hardass when you need to be

That's true. It's very dependent on your personality type, though. Some very ambitious people will do what ever it takes to achieve their goal - compassion isn't part of the picture for them.

 

[Nabirius]

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?

I'm a firm believer in principles, because many things that society teaches us as 'right' can be very backwards, such as racism (I read a study saying that racism is a learned behavior).

I agree, although why do you suppose you and I perceive those things as backwards?

Even though I don't like to admit it there is probably some environmental factors in that my teachers always taught that racism was wrong, also though even as a very small child I had a large belief in 'fairness' and that people should be treated equally that is probably just inherent to me. I can definitely say that there are many societal influences that have affected my world view, but I also know that there are some beliefs that are my own.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

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

They call them paradoxes for a reason.

And I, too, would pull the lever, knowing full well the poor sod's family would sue me into next Tuesday, even if good samaritan laws protected me from homicide charges.

But as a student of Just War doctrine, I recognize and accept that sometimes we have to take responsibility for terrible deeds if it ultimately persues a greater good. I suppose that makes me an excellent candidate to become a patriotic hero, or a terrorist.

238U.

 

[zehydra]

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?

I'm a firm believer in principles, because many things that society teaches us as 'right' can be very backwards, such as racism (I read a study saying that racism is a learned behavior).

I agree, although why do you suppose you and I perceive those things as backwards?

Even though I don't like to admit it there is probably some environmental factors in that my teachers always taught that racism was wrong, also though even as a very small child I had a large belief in 'fairness' and that people should be treated equally that is probably just inherent to me. I can definitely say that there are many societal influences that have affected my world view, but I also know that there are some beliefs that are my own.

and thus now comes my question. The beliefs about fairness that you say are your own, are they what you would call "logical"?

My point is largely a criticism of OP's post, in that, it's a bad idea to paint a picture of society-based rules vs logic-based ethics. There are also rules which we create for ourselves which are genuinely our own which follow no logical basis, and many people employ these on a day to day basis. They couldn't really tell you WHY they follow the rule, and it's not necessarily societally influenced, but they still believe it to be true.

 

[zehydra]

I would say, rather than have Logic vs. Morality, you should have Logic vs. Compassion. Logic, as others have said, is the basis of morality.
And I vote Logic!!

I agree that this would be a better question.
But even still I have found that compassion, or acting with the intent of good will, is always the logical decision, because anything else is self destructive.

although you can still be a hardass when you need to be

why is being self-destructive illogical? I agree it's bad, but what does being self-destructive have anything to do with logic?

 

[Nabirius]

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?

I'm a firm believer in principles, because many things that society teaches us as 'right' can be very backwards, such as racism (I read a study saying that racism is a learned behavior).

I agree, although why do you suppose you and I perceive those things as backwards?

Even though I don't like to admit it there is probably some environmental factors in that my teachers always taught that racism was wrong, also though even as a very small child I had a large belief in 'fairness' and that people should be treated equally that is probably just inherent to me. I can definitely say that there are many societal influences that have affected my world view, but I also know that there are some beliefs that are my own.

and thus now comes my question. The beliefs about fairness that you say are your own, are they what you would call "logical"?

My point is largely a criticism of OP's post, in that, it's a bad idea to paint a picture of society-based rules vs logic-based ethics. There are also rules which we create for ourselves which are genuinely our own which follow no logical basis, and many people employ these on a day to day basis. They couldn't really tell you WHY they follow the rule, and it's not necessarily societally influenced, but they still believe it to be true.

No actually I don't think my beliefs in fairness are logical at all, or at least they are not personally expedient. For example I infuriate some of my teachers because they perceive me as having a lack of respect. I do respect them, but only to the same degree I respect basically everyone else I know. I think its wrong to respect a professor more than other people, even though they have accomplished more, which is probably illogical.

 

[octafish]

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."

To be honest I think of Kant's categorical imperative as a fully qualified golden rule. It really does boil down to the same core intent. The golden rule was around a looooooong time before Jesus of Nazareth, I don't think it can be tied to one religion.

 

[Togs]

Who says the 2 are mutually exclusive?

 

[Belated]

Morality doesn't have to be illogical. I find Vicki's actions highly illogical. So what if she was doing her best to make sure humans survive as long as possible? How does she know that's what's best for humanity? If surviving as long as possible means throwing away fun and having a boring life, then screw surviving as long as possible. I'd rather die early and happy then live long and bored. Fun gives you a reason to live. So where's the logic in living without reason? I'll tell you where: Nowhere!

 

[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."

To be honest I think of Kant's categorical imperative as a fully qualified golden rule. It really does boil down to the same core intent. The golden rule was around a looooooong time before Jesus of Nazareth, I don't think it can be tied to one religion.

Yes, bible isn't the original source of the Golden Rule. That is true, it's just where people know it from usually.

Also, I see Golden Rule as being derived from categorical imperative but with limitations, 'universal' being the key word there. For example, under the grounds of the golden rule a man who's doing financially good can refuse to donate to charity where as under the categorical imperative, that decision would be incompatible.

But yes, they are like fundamental cousins to the same core idea.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I read a study saying that racism is a learned behavior.

That is only partially true. We do have an instinct to organize ourselves into small groups, and to regard those that don't quite smell like us[footnote]...or look like us, or worship the same gods as we do...[/footnote] as outsiders, and possibly enemies (whose villages we raid and women we steal). Most of the time, we find socially acceptable ways to do this, churches, schools and sports teams presenting excellent examples of ways we categorize ourselves so that our personal tribe is smaller than an entire state.

But children grow up looking at the people around them. The ones with whom they interact are imprinted as part of their acceptable range of us, whereas those who don't fit into that gamut become categorized as them. So an urban family who is friendly with neighbors who are differently pigmented, or speak different languages or who is headed by a same-sex couple will, themselves, raise kids who are accustomed to a polyfaceted community. Contrast to a family who lives in an isolated town where everyone is the same color, speaks with the same dialect and goes to the same church. Kids from that family will have a harder time adjusting to someplace where people are less homogenous.

Humans also go to great lengths to justify our categorizations of others such as calling dark-skinned people primitive or women emotional[footnote]Indeed, the world's intelligentsia emerge from all genetic sources and ethnic groups, and men are just as emotional, only really tending to act sooner and confer less.[/footnote] and these justifications are passed on by parents and teachers, to kids, reinforcing racial prejudices, often contrary to peer-reviewed evidence.

238U.

 

[Twilight_guy]

A world of morality. If we lived in a world of logic humanity would have killed itself long ago. Not to mention that paradoxes would end our society immediately.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

All my morals are based on logic. so... both?\

Morals based on anything other than logic are irrelevant.