There's something (illogical) about morality
@180 Proof
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
To the degree they survive, 'herd species' are better adapted to false positives (i.e.guessing predators are present when they are not there) to false negatives (i.e. taking for granted predators are not there when, in fact, they are there).
— 180 Proof
:100:
Screw logic! I wanna live! :grin:
— TheMadFool
:100:
Comments (61)
If that analysis is correct (and I think it is), then living in the now is amoral and a-logical. It's not immoral, or illogical, or moral, or logical. Living in the now does not concern itself with such things. It's too busy living and dying. That's my read on it.
What a remarkable statement. Morality seems more pain/suffering-oriented (negative utilitarianism) and everyone who's been through high school knows enough about how pain operates - at a subconscious level (the unthinking nature of pain :point: Relfex Action)
Moral theories then are mental reflexes - they're not arrived at by a process of step by step logical deduction (reactions, not responses). Obviously, right? Where's the time to think when someone's skinning you alive?
Further, it makes no sense to view morality from a groupwide (or 'herd' or 'species') perspective. A group consists of individuals who are each moral agents, but the concept of that group is just a generalization and itself not a moral agent.
The group sooner becomes a patsy, a tool to avoid personal accountability for one's actions, rather than a tool of understanding.
Quoting TheMadFool
As Freddy might say, logic-usage is an expression of life. They're not mutually exclusive.
The work of many primatologists, for instance, suggest otherwise.
Quoting 180 Proof
That animals may seem to show signs of empathy at times, does not change the fact that they kill, rape and dominate. Just like some humans, yes. Maybe some human behaviors can then be understood through that lens.
Is that then also moral behavior? If not, we're back at square one with the question what is moral and what is not.
For these eusocial mammals, like humans, empathic behaviors are not accidental or exceptional. A focus on anti-social behaviors is "cherry-picking" that deflects from the predominant eusociality (i.e. what we humans articulate as "morality"), and even the anti-social exceptions which prove the eusociality rule.
Let's cut this matter up into two questions:
Are animals moral agents?
The lack of self-awareness, reflection, reason and capability for deeper than surface level understanding I have seen in all my interactions with animals would imply they are not. Animals seem to be a slave to whatever input is given to them, and unable to analyse that input in the way that (some?) humans can.
Is animal behavior a measure for the morality of human behavior?
The fact that animals seem to act almost exclusively on base necessities and selfpreservation, and shun virtually no actions to meet those ends, attests to little more than a 'rule of the jungle', ergo 'might makes right' concept underlying their behavior. Hardly a guide for moral human conduct.
Further, I would make the point that social or empathic behavior is not the same as being moral. The real question is how that behavior holds up when self-preservation (or self-aggrandisement) is no longer the driving force behind it, or when social or empathic behavior would be at odds with self-preservation. In both humans and animals we see 'morals' go out of the window as soon as they are no longer useful, thus such morals were a meaningless facade and not a matter of principle.
They're not the same thing either (false positives & false negatives are errors).
I might as well ask, do you suppose so-called cognitive biases give us an edge over the competition, evolutionarily speaking that is? In other words, irrationality is/could be an advantage when it comes to survival. Socrates, for example, felt the full force of reasoning well viz. death by Hemlock! Socrates probably set the precedent for the wise (rational) to be tried by a kangaroo court and quickly sent to the gallows. At this rate, by 3000 AD expect foolery to go global. It's a paradox I tell you! Glad to have lived at a time when 180 Proof was around!
Now, I know the answer to where is everybody? (Fermi Paradox)? All intelligence has been replaced by idiocy!
Yes. Human primates, non-human primates, cetaceans, elephants ... groom feed protect & even adopt each other's young; cooperately gather / provide & share "goods"; discourage / punish free-riders; form friendship bonds (outside of kinship & mating); and mourn their dead.
Humans are animals so the behaviors are, at minimum, strongly correlated.
Please do. Explain (or cite some empirical studies).
:roll: C'mon, Fool.
I don't see any of these behaviors as essentially moral.
Quoting 180 Proof
I disagree. The faculties I described previously (self-awareness, reflection, reason, capability for deeper than surface-level understanding, etc.) signify a fundamental difference between human beings and animals. Every individual that possesses these faculties has the choice whether to act as an animal or cultivate that which makes them human. In practice that means that some individuals act like animals, that much I can get behind.
Social behavior comes in many shapes, from behaviors out of selfless compassion and love, to self-preserving, self-aggrandizing or downright manipulative. As such, not all socially cooperative behavior is moral.
Empathy is an emotion, and emotions aren't moral or immoral; they just are. Empathy can lead to moral action, but the emotion of empathy itself does not make a person moral.
Moral actions consist of three elements, all of which are required for an action to be considered moral (will elaborate if needed):
1. The individual acts with a just intention.
2. The individual possesses the power to make their intention reality.
3. The intended outcome (essentially a confirmation of 2.)
Behavior that stems from empathy can, but does not necessarily tick these boxes.
I've never viewed morality as pain/suffering. It might be considering pain suffering, before or after pain/suffering. But pain/suffering are themselves, morality notwithstanding. For me, morality is the consideration of it, not it.
Moral theories then, are theories. Whether a theory is a mental reflex or not is yet another conisderation that has nothing to do with the event (pain/suffering). It's you and I sitting around talking about it, thinking about it; not living it.
Quoting TheMadFool
:100: :up: :death:
:up: :strong:
We've got nothing on animals when it comes to being moral.
Awesome!
:up:
I think consideration and choice themselves may be a leisure time activity.
The law often makes room for "heat of the moment" because it knows that, while an agent may have had an opportunity to avoid a situation in the first place, that is all Monday Morning Quarterbacking once the shit hits the fan. He can be punished for placing himself in the situation, but excused for acting like a human (animal) in the heat of the moment. In other words, the law is smart enough to know it's limits.
Punishment is usually then designed to dissuade the agent, or others, from making choices that may result in what we consider (in after-the-fact ruminations) to be immoral. Take this Kyle Rittenhouse for example. I think they should burn him down. I might have shot when he shot, but I would not have placed myself in that situation in the first place. And I would not have placed myself there because I am a moral agent; not because some law threatened me with punishment for being stupid. But stupid people exist, and punishment should be designed to dissuade them and other stupid people from acting stupid.
If the law fails to dissuade, it can expect repeat performances. Indeed, it may very well incite. I say burn him down like a murderer to avoid stupidity. Momma needs some schooling too.
But here we are, talking about morality. I don't think that can be equated to acting morally.
:blush: :sweat: I hope that is a good thing. Thanks.
:grin: Sometimes I go too far but then some of us don't go to where a path actually leads, preferring to find a comfortable spot and make it their home! I'm a nomad!
A question: Why can't the world of ideas be lived in, experienced as a wanderer? Why do people expect you to, well, settle down in a manner of speaking?
Quoting James Riley
Empathy, does it exist?
David Chalmer's hard problem of consciousness and, more generally, theory vs praxis (Mary's room argument). Why does a discussion on morality end up becoming one on consciousness? Is this some kind of a package deal?
Expansion from a certain vantage point but contraction from another. When I feel more for others, I feel less for myself.
A very good point.
Modal logic:
1. ?P [math]\rightarrow[/math] ?P
It's like looking for water in the desert or something like that.
I'll leave it at that.
In my view, morality is not tied to group behavior; acknowledging the absence of ultimate answers, to live a moral life is to strive to live in accordance with truth. Whether the truth gives rise to empathy in the individual is not relevant to it, nor is the question of whether living in accordance with truth is beneficial to whatever group one arbitrarily is thought to be a part of.
Groups are by their very definition a generalization and thus an inaccurate representation of truth and not useful in determining what is true and moral and what is not.
Quoting 180 Proof
Yet, I could use my free will to act contrary to my individual flourishing or collective sustainability if I so desired. So I don't think such a constraint is present, except there where it is self-imposed, out of free will. Though, the sense of free will seems to not be present in all individuals to the same degree.
Perhaps then free will must first be attained, through a process of self-mastery.
It seems that through observation of the self one can gain insight into the biological drives behind one's behavior, and override these behaviors - something animals are not capable of. Moving sub- or unconscious processes to the level of the conscious, thus allowing adjustment to take place.
This is why creatures, whether they be human or animal, that lack the faculties described previously, cannot be thought of as moral agents. They are essentially automatons.
To be a moral agent then is perhaps a great priviledge to begin with.
Quoting 180 Proof
Hardly all humans manage to elevate themselves above nature, in fact most don't. So I would not make such a generalization about humanity as a whole. I believe every individual has at its essence at least the potential to become something greater than a simple animal - to master the self and become free, thus to become a moral agent, be able to strive towards truth and Good, and to live a life wrought with meaning.
Quoting 180 Proof
Undoubtedly, but I don't mind.
Who says one can't? (e.g. Socrates, Montaigne, Nietzsche, Cioran, S. Weil, I. Murdoch ...)
Insomniacs tend to disturb sleepwalkers.
Idealism (i.e. disembodied cognition / volition). :roll:
Descartes' error. (vide A. Damasio)
Neither would I. It's strongly implied nonetheless by the (seemingly) 'anthropocentric idealist' position you take on 'morality'.
Perhaps morality needs a combination of logic and emotion in order for it to be balanced. Logic or rationality is needed to assess the best course of action, juggling possible effects. However, there may also be need for emotional aspects as a motivating factor to aid an approach which involves empathy or compassion too.
Yeah, ideas/philosophies/theories are like ports to a ship - some are friendly, relaxing, exhilirating places, others are hostile, disturbing, dull as ditchwater - but there really is no reason why a ship must remain at any particular one. As you said, homo viator or, our friend @Wayfarer.
Hi Jack Cummins. I was worried you had left us for greener pastures. Good to see you!
The torturer could not torture if...
[quote=Ella Wheeler Wilcox (Solitude)]
Laugh, and the world laughs with you;
Weep, and you weep alone;[/quote]
No, I haven't left for good and just finished doing house clearance yesterday...It was such a big job and I had to take about 100 teddy bears to charity shops, taking them on buses. So, I am exhausted and finding it hard to concentrate on philosophy but I hope to be able to do so in the next few days.
Where I think animals live in the now, some might say living in the now is to be unconscious. I tent to think living in the now is a state of super-consciousness. Animals live in a state of super-consciousness which might also be considered a lack of self-awareness. As stated before, when I'm living in the now, I'm not really thinking, much less about myself. When I start thinking, especially about myself or what I'm experiencing when I'm living in the now, *POP* it's gone, and I'm back to the same old BS of life.
IMO, empathy exists. It's another feeling, like love, fear, etc. In fact, where I believe there are only two feelings, with sub-categories of each, empathy is just one manifestation of love.
That brings up another question in my mind: Is feeling akin to thinking (i.e. a leisure time activity) or is akin to living in the now? I'm seeing a trend here, where I wondered about whether thinking itself could be a type of action, or living in the now. It makes me want to create a third category: 1. Leisure time activity; 2. Living in the now; 3. Living in the now whilst engaged in a leisure time activity. It's this third one that I'd like to better flesh out and define in order to distinguish it from the other two. Anyone who takes great joy, or misery, in thinking might be able to do that. Not me.
Hmmmm. As the judges use to say "I will take that under advisement." :grin:
Yes, yes. :100:
And we can spend our "leisure time" reflectively rehearsing (like practicing (habitualizing) martial arts) "logic and morality" in order to optimize "living in the now" which otherwise would be sub/less optimal. Thinking is no substitute for doing and vice versa, yet they (can) positively reinforce (feedback to) one another.
:100: Muscle memory can be a good thing. :up:
Shortly after posting my last I came across a T.V. reference about a pending show on Sequoya and it used the word "polymath." I had to look it up and when I did, I thought, "Boy, bet that 180 Proof guy is a polymath!" I would imagine that a polymath might be a person who could be in the now whilst thinking. I'm not sure, but if so, that would be cool.
:up: :smile:
A novel thought/idea!
[quote= Ty Webb (Caddyshack 1980)]There’s a force in the universe that makes things happen. And all you have to do is get in touch with it, stop thinking, let things happen, and be the ball.[/quote]
Gravity? :grin:
I imagine that's the end-in-itself goal of philosophy: contemplation (i.e. reflective praxis, lucid dreaming, Csikszentmihalyi's Flow) in contrast to e.g. mysticism which via meditation seeks to being via stillness, silence and not thinking (i.e. 'pure awareness'). I fail miserably at the latter and reach the former only by chance it seems when I least expect to. Ain't no "polymath", my man; just a jack(ass)-of-all-trades (and masturbator of none). :smirk:
NB: Btw, I've been lifelong devotee of Sequoias (and old growth forest trees), almost as bad as Don Quixote and those windmills. Must be the mushrooms ...
I've had some oblique experience with that, but mostly when I was younger. Man, what a trip! I want to grab that and hold on, but my brain will even fuck that up and start thinking about it while it's happening. :lol: I've only had one out of body experience, where I looked down at myself in bed. I wanted to pursue that and bought a book but I lack the discipline. I want it all and I want it now!
I might be able to do that! :smile:
I guess you mean the moments when you feel the blood spinning in your veins, your heart beating like a bass and you feel all of yourself becoming a "life fireball" with every cell of your body smiling.
Damn drugs help for those kind of Epiphany moments. But yes, the real deal is waiting and just being. The epiphanies might be even greater then.
Waiting is being patient. And patience is a hell of a virtue.
Though I disagree that you don't need logic for living in the present. Maybe when you reach to that point you might not need it anymore. But as to get there you do need the "Logical hand" to lead you in front of the "door".
Imo, It's the most reliable way as to make yourself understand, in first place, that this is where you need to put all your effort on. To try "set your mind - self" behaving like that. When you do it well then it's very possible not to need logic anymore.
I appreciate your words though you misunderstand me. I didn't say we "don't need logic", dimo, rather logic comes before/after living in the moment and not during, that is, logical judgment ought to be like muscle memory, habitualized, e.g. in the way practiced stances and movements are habitualized in martial arts before/after sparring or realtime conflicts. Same with morality. My understanding is that we are our habits (Aristotle) and not the mere "sum of our actions" (Sartre).
Then we agree.
Quoting 180 Proof
I would say we are both. At the end aren't our habits lead to actions? And vice versa?
Adam & Eve were evicted from the, ooooh!, garden of eden for disobeying. Yeah, gravity! We can fly of course but sooner or later we have to land - the easy way or the hard way.
True. But habits are nothing else at the very end than just "repeatedly actions". It's a circle for me. Change habits and your actions will change too, change actions and your habits transform also. My theory don't really distinguish them as to be honest.
That may well be but in the process, you are engaging others in mutual caring, of which is vital in forming a community. No identification, no compassion, no community. The individual is stronger in a community than in the wilderness. Think community and collective organism.
Homo homini lupus.
Major O'Hara: Let’s just say our goals are temporarily aligned.
Baroness: Just for tonight.
11% is the more than enough: Save the girl.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Quoting Jack Cummins
Quoting Jack Cummins
I'm not sure how this works but passion provides the drive to study/practice reason and while reason's preliminary findings suggest that passion is a hindrance, deeper analysis shows that passion can be, if managed well, a powerful ally.
Like I said elsewhere in another thread, there's a pain-joy asymmetry in morality; morality is, on the whole, negative utilitarian i.e. though happiness is important, suffering has more weightage. Misery is like a pounding migraine attack and until it's treated, doing anything else is simply out of the question.
Why does this matter?
Pain is extremely dangerous: When in pain, you can't think well (you become illogical); when you can't think well, you make (silly) mistakes; when you make (silly) mistakes, you worsen the pain...so on and so forth - a closed positive feedback loop that'll spiral out of control so fast that you wouldn't even know what hit you.
There's something illogical about morality.
When you're in a bad situation, there's no time to think (James Riley: leisure and morality); all you can manage is reflexively react, a well-considered response a distant, tempting but unreal mirage.
Suffering benumbs the mind, induces a state of torpor that utterly demotivates a person. So yeah, emotion is not always good for logic or you. At best, it's a necessary evil and at worst, it's holding us at ransom.
Compassion & empathy are emotional concepts that align with my thoughts that there's something illogical about morality. These concepts are meaningless in the absence of pain and, as I explained above, pain is at the heart of morality and where there's pain, there's no logic.
That's an interesting point you make about pain and suffering. However, I am not sure to what extent one may become illogical as a result of pain or lack of pleasure. It may go either way with pain having a detrimental effect on thinking or it could go in the opposite direction with it enabling a person to get to a newer and higher level that logic as a person searches in greater depth. This may apply more to emotional pain because it can bring about a challenge to the ego and lead a person to connect more with others' suffering through empathy. What do you think?
Buy food, to eat.
Buy food, to eat, it's good.
Buy food, to eat, to save yourself from starvation.
Buy food, to eat, to save yourself from starvation, it's good.
... Add it's good.
Truthfully we subtract goodness in commands, in philosophical analysis. Trying to teach someone to be moral may be effective but the word good is a pseudo.
QUIET PLEASE!
EXAM IN PROGRESS!
I am glad that I don't have to do any exams. They really could go either way. I particularly hated multiple choices and preferred essays because it allowed for more fuzzy logic.
Indeed, indeed! I used to cram for my exams listening to death metal music at full volume!