Poll: Logic or morality?
- Thread starter Mcupobob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Logic would theoretically make the world a safer place. Morality is fine until it gets in the way of results.
That is assuming we can only have one or the other though.
That is assuming we can only have one or the other though.
In my opinion logic is most certainly not the basis for morality, Morality is an emotional reflex based on passion and psychological conditions, nature, nurture and the society you grew up in. If logic were the basis for morality then there would never have been the religious crusades nor half the world conflicts.
I must confess, I've only lightly skimmed this thread, but I'm going to go ahead and say that logic is governed by morality, not the other way around.
When I think logic, I think of the economic concept of the rational actor - essentially (it's been a while since I took micro, so my apologies for using Wikipedia to brush up here), a rational actor is an optimizing agent who seeks to maximize utility (stuff that's good for him) and minimize costs (stuff that's bad for him). There are further assumptions about degree of information known to the agent, search costs, and the fixed nature of utility/costs, but for now let's just say that a rational agent seeks to maximize his or her net utility when performing actions.
Now for an example: let's say that there are two candy shops right next to one another. An agent desires to buy a Twix bar. Shop A sells a Twix bar for $1. Shop B sells the exact same good for $2.
Logic (in the form of rational actorhood) dictates that you always buy from Shop A, right? After all, it gives the most utility for the least costs (here easily expressed as money).
Well, let's make this a bit more complex. Let's say that you are a consumer who cares about sustainable business practices, and you know that Shop A dumps toxic waste into rain forests or something - there is some business practice which is detrimental to the environment. Shop B, however, is known for giving back 10% of its proceeds to environmental activism, switching its lights from incandescent to fluorescent, reducing usage of shipping supplies, etc. Now you have two dimensions to logically assess your purchasing decision, and one is less quantified than the other (that is, it isn't quantified).
Let's add another dimension. The owner of Shop A is your best friend, while Shop B is run by a man you are completely indifferent to. You want to support your friend's livelihood, but do you want to compromise your environmental opinions in doing so?
All of these rational appraisals derive from morality, not logic. Logic concludes the vehicle for realizing your morals. Your morals dictate that it is better to support a friend than a foe; logic merely dictates that shopping at Shop A is the best way to do that. Yet a moral system could be devised wherein supporting your foes is more beneficial than supporting your friends (for instance, I want to compete with the toughest opponent possible, since there is no honor in defeating someone drastically weaker than myself, so I will provide my foe with help). You feel morally obligated to defend the environment; buying from Shop B is the most logical way to go about this. Even utility maximization is moral; we care about ourselves as individuals over the wealth re-distribution inherent in higher prices.
Some might say that these morals are logically deduced; that is not true. If they were, then men would reach shared conclusions on nearly everything. Why do students of mathematics ask questions about math and make math mistakes? Because they are learning a system of symbols, expressions, meanings, and values - very roughly speaking, a morality - which is not inherent in everybody. Some may grasp the system more swiftly than others, but it is nonetheless not something "built into" the human intellect, i.e. an objective logic. True, in many of the cases above (for instance, environmentalism), things like human politics can interfere with what appears to be a logical system (environmentalist efforts are countered by people seeking to maximize their own utility in light of this ostensibly "logical" "fact"), but that is simply exposing one's own morality which logic works with to impose order onto the world (people call certain news outlets wrong, but consumers of these news sources probably say the same things about the news sources of their ideological opponents).
But where do moralities come from? Welcome to the social sciences.
This goes further than economic purchases; financial examples merely offer a simple quantified value judgment. Let's suppose that I, as a scientist, discover some new chemical that can be cheaply produced and shipped and grows massive crops. I can solve a hunger epidemic in certain countries.
Then suppose that I abide by Scrooge's saying "decrease the surplus population," where I think that we, as humans, need to trim down our rate of reproduction and the number of us that are on this earth. I might destroy any evidence of this chemical being discovered, and it's totally logical within my moral framework. There is nothing logically which says that I should unveil this chemical; such a presumption presupposes a moral system which values ending human suffering.
If I wanted to be a bit more crass and much more of a fire starter, I guess that I'd say that logic is nothing more than an arbitrary tool for scared men confronting an irrational universe to judge their peers and impose their wills.
When I think logic, I think of the economic concept of the rational actor - essentially (it's been a while since I took micro, so my apologies for using Wikipedia to brush up here), a rational actor is an optimizing agent who seeks to maximize utility (stuff that's good for him) and minimize costs (stuff that's bad for him). There are further assumptions about degree of information known to the agent, search costs, and the fixed nature of utility/costs, but for now let's just say that a rational agent seeks to maximize his or her net utility when performing actions.
Now for an example: let's say that there are two candy shops right next to one another. An agent desires to buy a Twix bar. Shop A sells a Twix bar for $1. Shop B sells the exact same good for $2.
Logic (in the form of rational actorhood) dictates that you always buy from Shop A, right? After all, it gives the most utility for the least costs (here easily expressed as money).
Well, let's make this a bit more complex. Let's say that you are a consumer who cares about sustainable business practices, and you know that Shop A dumps toxic waste into rain forests or something - there is some business practice which is detrimental to the environment. Shop B, however, is known for giving back 10% of its proceeds to environmental activism, switching its lights from incandescent to fluorescent, reducing usage of shipping supplies, etc. Now you have two dimensions to logically assess your purchasing decision, and one is less quantified than the other (that is, it isn't quantified).
Let's add another dimension. The owner of Shop A is your best friend, while Shop B is run by a man you are completely indifferent to. You want to support your friend's livelihood, but do you want to compromise your environmental opinions in doing so?
All of these rational appraisals derive from morality, not logic. Logic concludes the vehicle for realizing your morals. Your morals dictate that it is better to support a friend than a foe; logic merely dictates that shopping at Shop A is the best way to do that. Yet a moral system could be devised wherein supporting your foes is more beneficial than supporting your friends (for instance, I want to compete with the toughest opponent possible, since there is no honor in defeating someone drastically weaker than myself, so I will provide my foe with help). You feel morally obligated to defend the environment; buying from Shop B is the most logical way to go about this. Even utility maximization is moral; we care about ourselves as individuals over the wealth re-distribution inherent in higher prices.
Some might say that these morals are logically deduced; that is not true. If they were, then men would reach shared conclusions on nearly everything. Why do students of mathematics ask questions about math and make math mistakes? Because they are learning a system of symbols, expressions, meanings, and values - very roughly speaking, a morality - which is not inherent in everybody. Some may grasp the system more swiftly than others, but it is nonetheless not something "built into" the human intellect, i.e. an objective logic. True, in many of the cases above (for instance, environmentalism), things like human politics can interfere with what appears to be a logical system (environmentalist efforts are countered by people seeking to maximize their own utility in light of this ostensibly "logical" "fact"), but that is simply exposing one's own morality which logic works with to impose order onto the world (people call certain news outlets wrong, but consumers of these news sources probably say the same things about the news sources of their ideological opponents).
But where do moralities come from? Welcome to the social sciences.
This goes further than economic purchases; financial examples merely offer a simple quantified value judgment. Let's suppose that I, as a scientist, discover some new chemical that can be cheaply produced and shipped and grows massive crops. I can solve a hunger epidemic in certain countries.
Then suppose that I abide by Scrooge's saying "decrease the surplus population," where I think that we, as humans, need to trim down our rate of reproduction and the number of us that are on this earth. I might destroy any evidence of this chemical being discovered, and it's totally logical within my moral framework. There is nothing logically which says that I should unveil this chemical; such a presumption presupposes a moral system which values ending human suffering.
If I wanted to be a bit more crass and much more of a fire starter, I guess that I'd say that logic is nothing more than an arbitrary tool for scared men confronting an irrational universe to judge their peers and impose their wills.
As I'm sure many people have said, the relationship between logic and morality is not as straitforward as 'this vs. that'.
In many ways, morality is the subjective application of logic.
A lot of my morals come from what I think is logical, but to other people they might be illogical.
For example: theists may argue that a morality which doesn't stem from God is illogical, but atheists would hold the opposite opinion.
My point is, each person believes that their own internal logic justifies their morals. If we didn't believe this then we wouldn't be able to hold them.
In many ways, morality is the subjective application of logic.
A lot of my morals come from what I think is logical, but to other people they might be illogical.
For example: theists may argue that a morality which doesn't stem from God is illogical, but atheists would hold the opposite opinion.
My point is, each person believes that their own internal logic justifies their morals. If we didn't believe this then we wouldn't be able to hold them.
What's ironic is that 'Logic' usually leads to 'Moral'.
Many things considered 'Morality' are just logical extrapolations of actions which lead to social stability.
For example, lying can gain a short-term benefit. Long term, you get labeled a liar and no longer have trust. Logically, being honest is better benefit in the long run.
Most 'moral codes' are basically social engineering.
Many things considered 'Morality' are just logical extrapolations of actions which lead to social stability.
For example, lying can gain a short-term benefit. Long term, you get labeled a liar and no longer have trust. Logically, being honest is better benefit in the long run.
Most 'moral codes' are basically social engineering.
I think your fatal flaw here is that you confuse a selfish personal logic with the logic of the rationalists, a tallying of the net happiness in a moral system for each decision.Jarlaxl said:I must confess, I've only lightly skimmed this thread, but I'm going to go ahead and say that logic is governed by morality, not the other way around.
When I think logic, I think of the economic concept of the rational actor - essentially (it's been a while since I took micro, so my apologies for using Wikipedia to brush up here), a rational actor is an optimizing agent who seeks to maximize utility (stuff that's good for him) and minimize costs (stuff that's bad for him). There are further assumptions about degree of information known to the agent, search costs, and the fixed nature of utility/costs, but for now let's just say that a rational agent seeks to maximize his or her net utility when performing actions.
Now for an example: let's say that there are two candy shops right next to one another. An agent desires to buy a Twix bar. Shop A sells a Twix bar for $1. Shop B sells the exact same good for $2.
Logic (in the form of rational actorhood) dictates that you always buy from Shop A, right? After all, it gives the most utility for the least costs (here easily expressed as money).
Well, let's make this a bit more complex. Let's say that you are a consumer who cares about sustainable business practices, and you know that Shop A dumps toxic waste into rain forests or something - there is some business practice which is detrimental to the environment. Shop B, however, is known for giving back 10% of its proceeds to environmental activism, switching its lights from incandescent to fluorescent, reducing usage of shipping supplies, etc. Now you have two dimensions to logically assess your purchasing decision, and one is less quantified than the other (that is, it isn't quantified).
Let's add another dimension. The owner of Shop A is your best friend, while Shop B is run by a man you are completely indifferent to. You want to support your friend's livelihood, but do you want to compromise your environmental opinions in doing so?
All of these rational appraisals derive from morality, not logic. Logic concludes the vehicle for realizing your morals. Your morals dictate that it is better to support a friend than a foe; logic merely dictates that shopping at Shop A is the best way to do that. Yet a moral system could be devised wherein supporting your foes is more beneficial than supporting your friends (for instance, I want to compete with the toughest opponent possible, since there is no honor in defeating someone drastically weaker than myself, so I will provide my foe with help). You feel morally obligated to defend the environment; buying from Shop B is the most logical way to go about this. Even utility maximization is moral; we care about ourselves as individuals over the wealth re-distribution inherent in higher prices.
Some might say that these morals are logically deduced; that is not true. If they were, then men would reach shared conclusions on nearly everything. Why do students of mathematics ask questions about math and make math mistakes? Because they are learning a system of symbols, expressions, meanings, and values - very roughly speaking, a morality - which is not inherent in everybody. Some may grasp the system more swiftly than others, but it is nonetheless not something "built into" the human intellect, i.e. an objective logic. True, in many of the cases above (for instance, environmentalism), things like human politics can interfere with what appears to be a logical system (environmentalist efforts are countered by people seeking to maximize their own utility in light of this ostensibly "logical" "fact"), but that is simply exposing one's own morality which logic works with to impose order onto the world (people call certain news outlets wrong, but consumers of these news sources probably say the same things about the news sources of their ideological opponents).
But where do moralities come from? Welcome to the social sciences.
This goes further than economic purchases; financial examples merely offer a simple quantified value judgment. Let's suppose that I, as a scientist, discover some new chemical that can be cheaply produced and shipped and grows massive crops. I can solve a hunger epidemic in certain countries.
Then suppose that I abide by Scrooge's saying "decrease the surplus population," where I think that we, as humans, need to trim down our rate of reproduction and the number of us that are on this earth. I might destroy any evidence of this chemical being discovered, and it's totally logical within my moral framework. There is nothing logically which says that I should unveil this chemical; such a presumption presupposes a moral system which values ending human suffering.
If I wanted to be a bit more crass and much more of a fire starter, I guess that I'd say that logic is nothing more than an arbitrary tool for scared men confronting an irrational universe to judge their peers and impose their wills.
The paragraph I find hardest to digest is where you use an analogy straight out of a free market, capitalist, profit motive driven add campaign to justify your argument. This is not an appropriate analogy to use, If anything this is an argument for a morally selfish driven moral code.
On a certain level this may be the case but I personally (Also an atheist) consider my self a logician.austincharlesbond said:
I'd say both are acceptable as long as they don't completely exclude the other.
Morality is OK if you're aware that it can be illogical and attempt to compensate for that shortcoming, and logic is fine if you're aware of the moral sacrifices you must make to follow that logic, and again attempt to make up for those moral shortcomings.
Morality is OK if you're aware that it can be illogical and attempt to compensate for that shortcoming, and logic is fine if you're aware of the moral sacrifices you must make to follow that logic, and again attempt to make up for those moral shortcomings.