Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Asking me about morality is like asking a ballerina about bridge building. I just can't get into it. Not that I'm a criminal or I'm not leading a stellar life. Still I think there are some boundaries needing crossing but I sure hope we think about it first. My two cents......

Should intentionally, deliberately or consciously weakening your species ability to survive be considered immoral?  Hypothetically speaking, if a great majority of the human population becomes herbivorous and then a global life threatening event occurs in which the competition for plants is paramount, then does accepting the Vegan philosophy improve the survival chances of herbivores or omnivores? Perhaps the odds of something like that taking place are astronomically high against it but who knows what's in store? In the future, is there even a minute chance that we see Vegan martyrdom or several Darwin Awards handed out?

Quit prattling on to avoid answering questions, SS. The question was simple...without any need to dissect, get into semantics, or equivocate.

Would YOU rather take the risk of suffering something like locked-in syndrome (where you no longer have the ability to opt-out of life), or would YOU rather have not experienced everything you have until now? Is YOUR accumulated experience worth the risk of such suffering? Or would it have been better for YOU to have never existed at all rather than experience that suffering?

IOW (and I'm gobsmacked that I keep needing to reiterate this simple question), if you could foresee your own suffering, would you opt-out of all the experience leading up to it? Or would you accept that suffering as the potential price you pay for all other experience? If you can't answer this....I don't know...maybe you should seek counseling. Life IS worth living, you know.

(Oct 17, 2016 04:59 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]Asking me about morality is like asking a ballerina about bridge building. I just can't get into it. Not that I'm a criminal or I'm not leading a stellar life. Still I think there are some boundaries needing crossing but I sure hope we think about it first. My two cents......

Should intentionally, deliberately or consciously weakening your species ability to survive be considered immoral?  Hypothetically speaking, if a great majority of the human population becomes herbivorous and then a global life threatening event occurs in which the competition for plants is paramount, then does accepting the Vegan philosophy improve the survival chances of herbivores or omnivores? Perhaps the odds of something like that taking place are astronomically high against it but who knows what's in store? In the future, is there even a minute chance that we see Vegan martyrdom or several Darwin Awards handed out?

Eating meat isn't immoral, in and of itself. In my opinion, exploiting and abusing animals in order to make a profit so the general public can eat meat, etc... is immoral. Most people may claim ignorance as to where their food comes from; I was one of the ignorant ones at one time. Funny thing about ignorance...you can't come back to it once you've learned the truth about something. (whatever that ''something'' may be)  I don't believe that ignorance is immoral, though. If you are unaware of how your behavior is affecting others, then how can you be culpable for said behavior?

To your point about competing for plants in the future - a hypothetical example. I think that it's wise to think about the potential effects of our behaviors on generations to come, but we shouldn't let hypothetical examples (that might happen but most likely, won't) negate the positive changes that we could be making today. That's how I see it, anyhow.

When you go boating do you wear a personal floatation device(PFD)? If both of us went for a boat ride and I choose to wear a PFD while you didn't, assuming we have equal swimming ability, then who has the best chance of survival should there be an accident on the water? Would you accept the philosophy of not wearing a PFD because it made you feel uncomfortable? That group of people, although unorganized, actually exists. All I'm saying is why decrease your chances of survival even if the risk is insignificant in your mind?

Maybe my mind set is different because I've survived cancer. What I have done since my big scare is reduce the risk of getting it again while increasing my chances of surviving longer. I live a pretty clean live now, no booze, cigarettes nor do anything that poses even a slight risk of me having to go through that again. My mantra is this, 'despite all its beauty and wonder, nature is out to get us'. Why give it more ammunition?

Syne Wrote:What criteria do you use to determine what is or is not ethical? Feelings?

"Many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's feelings."

And yet, here you are asking me how I "FEEL".  You see, the ethics that you claim to be "objective" coincide very well with what you "FEEL" subjectively to be true. Any value that I’ve attached to this world is derived emotionally, not rationally. Emotions are judgments that we make about this world. Silly Syne, tricks are for kids.

Syne Wrote:Is suffering worse than death?  

Is it better to exist or not exist?

Would you also say that something like locked-in syndrome would be sufficient reason for you to have NEVER existed?
Is that worth the risk of falling prey to something like locked-in syndrome, or does the possible risk outweigh all of the experience you've had til now?

Would YOU rather take the risk of suffering something like locked-in syndrome (where you no longer have the ability to opt-out of life), or would YOU rather have not experienced everything you have until now? Is YOUR accumulated experience worth the risk of such suffering? Or would it have been better for YOU to have never existed at all rather than experience that suffering?

IOW (and I'm gobsmacked that I keep needing to reiterate this simple question), if you could foresee your own suffering, would you opt-out of all the experience leading up to it? Or would you accept that suffering as the potential price you pay for all other experience?

There are too many unknowns, too many variables.  I don’t know myself under those conditions.  

The problem with you is…you use words to describe that which is not there.   Can you think of a few, e.g., nonexistence, god, darkness, cold, and even death.?  Dying is an experience.  Death is not.  Where is your "objectivity" now? 

Syne Wrote:You haven't managed a yes or no answer so I could move on to any point.

Are you here to make a point?  

(Oct 18, 2016 05:36 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:What criteria do you use to determine what is or is not ethical? Feelings?

"Many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's feelings."

And yet, here you are asking me how I "FEEL".  You see, the ethics that you claim to be "objective" coincide very well with what you "FEEL" subjectively to be true. Any value that I’ve attached to this world is derived emotionally, not rationally. Emotions are judgments that we make about this world. Silly Syne, tricks are for kids.

My intent was to ascertain what you THINK (regardless of motivation) and then work backwards to see how consistent your justification, but everything seems to filter through a prism of feelings with you. So no doubt you're oblivious to inconsistency. Not all judgement need be tied to emotional response. Do you think scientists evaluating data must consult their emotions? How do you think we arrive at facts? Is it like "I feel that all blackholes must rotate counter-clockwise...it must be so"? LOL.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Is suffering worse than death?  

Is it better to exist or not exist?

Would you also say that something like locked-in syndrome would be sufficient reason for you to have NEVER existed?
Is that worth the risk of falling prey to something like locked-in syndrome, or does the possible risk outweigh all of the experience you've had til now?

Would YOU rather take the risk of suffering something like locked-in syndrome (where you no longer have the ability to opt-out of life), or would YOU rather have not experienced everything you have until now? Is YOUR accumulated experience worth the risk of such suffering? Or would it have been better for YOU to have never existed at all rather than experience that suffering?

IOW (and I'm gobsmacked that I keep needing to reiterate this simple question), if you could foresee your own suffering, would you opt-out of all the experience leading up to it? Or would you accept that suffering as the potential price you pay for all other experience?

There are too many unknowns, too many variables.  I don’t know myself under those conditions.  

The problem with you is…you use words to describe that which is not there.   Can you think of a few, e.g., nonexistence, god, darkness, cold, and even death.?  Dying is an experience.  Death is not.  Where is your "objectivity" now? 

You only need to know yourself as you are now. Is your current experience worth the risk? Once anything like that happens (and no one can guarantee it won't), you no longer have any choice in the matter. Your blathering to avoid answering is getting tiresome. The problem with you seems to be that you're just a silly girl who can't manage to discuss anything objectively...without resort to your feelings. So much so that it is disturbingly stereotypical.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:You haven't managed a yes or no answer so I could move on to any point.

Are you here to make a point?  

Since you still, after all this discussion, can't manage a straight answer, the point would obviously be complete lost on you. You can go back to playing with dolls...or whatever silly girls do to while away their time.

(Oct 18, 2016 06:39 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Since you still, after all this discussion, can't manage a straight answer, the point would obviously be complete lost on you. You can go back to playing with dolls...or whatever silly girls do to while away their time.

Since you still, after all of our discussions, fail to understand that morality might not be objective, I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

I don’t know the answer to your question.
To know thyself…hah!

And you, Syne, can go back to playing with things that do not exist…your god, nonexistence, life’s intrinsic purpose, the abyss, and your objective morality. All of which are just "CONSISTENT" mental masturbation for the righteous, know-it-all, silly, little boys.

Enjoy!

(Oct 18, 2016 07:36 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 18, 2016 06:39 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Since you still, after all this discussion, can't manage a straight answer, the point would obviously be complete lost on you. You can go back to playing with dolls...or whatever silly girls do to while away their time.

Since you still, after all of our discussions, fail to understand that morality might not be objective, I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise.  

I don’t know the answer to your question.
To know thyself…hah!  

I've ALWAYS agreed that "morality" is not objective. Go look if you doubt it.

"Morals, like morale, are an attribute of a group, where that group influences the attitude of the individual. These can be social norms, religious beliefs, laws, and general consensus of right and wrong.

Ethics are fundamental and practical principles that can be employed by individuals to evaluate right and wrong conduct. So ethics can be utilized to evaluate morals, but not vice versa. Morals, like herd mentality, are not amenable to rigorous reason. Morals are what you follow mostly by rote tradition (including unrecognized biases), where ethics is an active, reasoned evaluation.

Morals are conducive to emotional bias, as emotions are important to belonging to and being accepted by groups. They do not necessarily include any more reason than appeasing the group. Ethics are a logical weighing of interests and counter-interests. The more individually ethical people in a group, the more ethical that group's morals tend to be." - https://www.scivillage.com/thread-2782-p...ml#pid6078

Maybe you forgot being part of that discussion?

This line of questioning specifically started from your statement that, "It’s ethically indefensible."

Morality and ethics are not the same thing...no matter how much you equivocate terms in an attempt to justify yourself.

You even seemed to agree here:

"Ethics are external and morals are internal.
Ethics are imposed by an outside group.
Morals are our own personal sense of right and wrong.
Therefore, morals are subjective and ethics are objective." - https://www.scivillage.com/thread-2782-p...ml#pid6081

Quote:And you, Syne, can go back to playing with things that do not exist…your god, nonexistence, life’s intrinsic purpose, the abyss, and your objective morality. All of which are just "CONSISTENT" mental masturbation for the righteous, know-it-all, silly, little boys.

It's sad that you feel the need to try to poison the well. Oh well...desperate people...

"Ethics is moral philosophy.  The study of the principles of morality.  It involves justifying, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct."

You’ve been arguing for ethical objectivism, correct?  You believe that certain actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the feelings or beliefs of an individual, society, or culture.  Is this correct?

(Oct 19, 2016 03:23 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]"Ethics is moral philosophy.  The study of the principles of morality.  It involves justifying, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct."

Yes, like I said, ethics can be utilized to evaluate morals, but not vice versa.

Quote:You’ve been arguing for ethical objectivism, correct?  You believe that certain actions are inherently moral or immoral, regardless of the feelings or beliefs of an individual, society, or culture.  Is this correct?

Objective/subjective classification of ethics is only used by those who conflate ethics and morals. Once you introduce subjective opinion, you are talking about morals, laws, societal norms, opinions, etc.. "Moral philosophy" is more rigorous than morals, because philosophy is more rigorous than opinion.

One of the most common misconceptions about philosophy is that philosophical views are just opinions and hence any view is just as good (or bad) as any other.
...
A position backed up with arguments is not simply a matter of opinion-the position is now supported with evidence and reasons. Given that logic and reasoning are not simply matters of opinion, these supported positions cannot be dismissed as being simply matters of opinion.
...
The second assumption is also logically self refuting. If all opinions are equally good, then the opinion that not all opinions are equally good is as good as the opinion that all opinions are equally good. This is a contradiction that arises from the assumption that all opinions are equally good. Therefore, the claim that all opinions are equally good must be rejected.
...
The conflict between an objective view of philosophy and relativism is an old one and dates back before the time of Plato. In his dialogue Theatetus Plato agrees that some things are relative. For example, a wind that seems chilly to one might seem pleasant to another. But, he argues that relativism is self-refuting. His specific nemesis in the dialogue is Protagoras, a sophist. Protagoras claims that all opinions are true. This must, of course, include the opinions of his opponents who believe he is wrong. So, his belief is false if those who disagree with him have true beliefs. Plato also points out that Protagoras charged for his teachings and justified this by claiming he was teaching people what they needed to know. But once he claims that his teachings are better than those of others, he has abandoned his relativism. In more general terms, when someone starts arguing for the truth of relativism, they certainly seem to be undermining their own position.
- https://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2007/...f-opinion/

So just like the moral relativist's assumption, that all subjective moral opinion is equally good, is logically self-refuting, relativism in any branch of philosophy is as well.

But no doubt you will continue to whinge about the equality of logic and emotion.