(Aug 24, 2016 02:09 AM)Syne Wrote: How do you reconcile wanting to use the term "logical" but then wanting to rely on emotion? Emotions are notoriously fickle and very poor ethical guidance.
It's not about certainty or absolutes...neither is achievable. What is achievable is consistency...the only leverage by which anything is truly knowable. Emotions do not lend themselves to consistency. IMO, it's an error to neglect the consistency that makes science possible just because we don't want to seem judgmental or proscriptive.
I wasn’t saying that we had to rely on emotions. I was simply saying that emotion isn’t reason's antonym. Emotions don’t necessarily have to interfere with rational decision-making, Syne. I like the work that Antonio Damasio has done on the subject. Brain-imaging studies have revealed neural links between emotion and reason. Emotions can help us make decisions.
(Aug 24, 2016 02:49 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I wasn’t saying that we had to rely on emotions. I was simply saying that emotion isn’t reason's antonym. Emotions don’t necessarily have to interfere with rational decision-making, Syne. I like the work that Antonio Damasio has done on the subject. Brain-imaging studies have revealed neural links between emotion and reason. Emotions can help us make decisions.
I agree that there are rational emotions (a rational emotional response to a given situation...grief over loss, etc.), but there is no real "reasoning" involved in emotion.
Emotional reasoning:
Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence. For example, even though a spouse has shown only devotion, a person using emotional reasoning might conclude, "I know my spouse is being unfaithful because I feel jealous."
Emotional reasoning amplifies the effects of other cognitive distortions. For example, a test-taker may feel insecure about their understanding of the material even though they are perfectly capable of answering the questions. If he (or she) acts on his insecurity about failing the written test he might assume that he misunderstands the material and therefore might guess answers randomly, causing his own failure in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_reasoning
Emotion isn't reason's antonym and isn't always completely detrimental to reasoning, but emotion is only beneficial to reasoning to the extent that it contributes to creativity. This may seem like a great boon until we take into account that emotion is the primary source of all human cognitive bias.
The subjective biases you seem fond of are a huge liability to accurate reasoning.
(Aug 24, 2016 05:44 AM)Syne Wrote: Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence. For example, even though a spouse has shown only devotion, a person using emotional reasoning might conclude, "I know my spouse is being unfaithful because I feel jealous.
Or...
Perhaps, her concerns were justified. Maybe she had previously viewed others as being more predictable and overestimated her ability to know others. Maybe she realized that it was his devotion, his emotional bond that was truly irrational. It could be that she had previously over estimated her contributions, attributes, and personal value. So, when a more beautiful, more compatible, and intelligent woman made a pass at her husband, her jealousy, her biological imperative may have been sensible, reasonable, and "logical". The possibility of her spouse’s involvement with a potential rival may not have been completely unfounded. When he realizes that she just needs a little reassurance, her fears and self-doubt will dissipate. Luckily for us, evolution favored people who formed deep emotional bonds.
Quote:Emotion isn't reason's antonym and isn't always completely detrimental to reasoning, but emotion is only beneficial to reasoning to the extent that it contributes to creativity.
We wouldn't be having this discussion without it.
"We wouldn’t have music, art, religion, science, technology, economics, politics, justice, or moral philosophy without the impelling force of feelings."—Antonio Damasio
(Aug 24, 2016 05:44 AM)Syne Wrote: Emotional reasoning is a cognitive process by which a person concludes that his/her emotional reaction proves something is true, regardless of the observed evidence. For example, even though a spouse has shown only devotion, a person using emotional reasoning might conclude, "I know my spouse is being unfaithful because I feel jealous.
Or...
Perhaps, her concerns were justified. Maybe she had previously viewed others as being more predictable and overestimated her ability to know others. Maybe she realized that it was his devotion, his emotional bond that was truly irrational. It could be that she had previously over estimated her contributions, attributes, and personal value. So, when a more beautiful, more compatible, and intelligent woman made a pass at her husband, her jealousy, her biological imperative may have been sensible, reasonable, and "logical". The possibility of her spouse’s involvement with a potential rival may not have been completely unfounded. When he realizes that she just needs a little reassurance, her fears and self-doubt will dissipate. Luckily for us, evolution favored people who formed deep emotional bonds.
So now a man's emotional bond is irrational? Unthinking instinct is reasonable and "logical"? Seems the justification for emotional reasoning requires further plumbing the depths of irrationality. What's much more likely in the above scenario is that the woman's insecurities cannot be adequately addressed externally, and that her continued paranoia will lead to the exact self-fulfilling prophecy she irrationally feared (that she'll be left...but over her own behavior rather than another woman).
Wait, so his devotion is irrational...but also the one thing that saves this woman from her own?
Inconsistencies abound. Can you at least see how emotion is not a good gauge of what is reasonable?
Quote:
Quote:Emotion isn't reason's antonym and isn't always completely detrimental to reasoning, but emotion is only beneficial to reasoning to the extent that it contributes to creativity.
We wouldn't be having this discussion without it.
"We wouldn’t have music, art, religion, science, technology, economics, politics, justice, or moral philosophy without the impelling force of feelings."—Antonio Damasio
Emotion can be a motivator, but that does not make it a reliable factor in reasoning.
I've quickly remembered why I so rarely post on these forums anymore. Subjective emotionalism muddies everything to the exclusion of productive, or even on-topic, discussion. You've taken a discussion about ethics and made it a debate on why your "feelings" matter more than anything else.
C CAug 24, 2016 10:28 PM (This post was last modified: Aug 24, 2016 10:31 PM by C C.)
(Aug 21, 2016 05:13 AM)Syne Wrote: [...] Are these reasonable and ethical?
The system of standards which outputted these prerequisites does not seem to be indicated on that site. "Reasonable" is a matter of whether or not they are truly consistent or commensurable with that [unknown] criterion and its decision-making process. "Ethical" is matter of whether moral values are a sub-genre of its axioms (presumably just being concerned about the welfare of transgender folk would be an instance of such).
Quote:Are they sufficient, or would you strengthen or weaken these restrictions for any of the three examples?
No complex of principles and moral approach has been provided as an alternative (to the unknown source above) for evaluating these stipulations.
I have no data to consider in the context of even an arbitrarily selected category of standards and ethics. Due to not having investigated transgender issues from both a 3rd-party POV and from personal accounts by these individuals themselves as to what they want in regard to requirements (or not remembering much if I have done such in past).
In Antonio Damasio’s book "Descartes' Error" he argues that his error was the dualist separation of mind and body, rationality and emotion.
The main evidence for his theory comes from neuropsychological studies of patients whose cognitive intelligence was largely intact but whose emotional reactions were impaired, and from experiments in which those patients failed to show emotional reactions to the implied content of social stimuli.
Most researchers are attuned to the broad psychological speculation that emotions play a valuable role in decision making. Even his worse critic said that his reputation and strong empirical contribution made it difficult for anyone to challenge him.
Excerpt:
Quote:Knowing about the relevance of feelings in the processes of reason does not suggest that reason is less important than feelings, that it should take a backseat to them or that it should be less cultivated. On the contrary, taking stock of the pervasive role of feelings may give us a chance of enhancing their positive effects and reducing their potential harm.
It is obvious that emotional upheavals can lead to irrational decisions….Well-targeted and well-deployed emotion seems to be a support system without which the edifice of reason cannot operate properly.
He said that although, they can be pernicious to rational decision-making in certain circumstances by creating an overriding bias against objective facts or even by interfering with support mechanisms of decision making, they are indispensable in others.
Emotions enhance our memory, our attention, an allow us to focus. That’s why I like to post on these forums.
You may not enjoy our exchanges, but I’ve learned a great deal from you in the past, and it’s always appreciated.
SyneAug 25, 2016 03:34 AM (This post was last modified: Aug 25, 2016 03:58 AM by Syne.)
(Aug 24, 2016 10:28 PM)C C Wrote:
(Aug 21, 2016 05:13 AM)Syne Wrote: [...] Are these reasonable and ethical?
The system of standards which outputted these prerequisites does not seem to be indicated on that site. "Reasonable" is a matter of whether or not they are truly consistent or commensurable with that [unknown] criterion and its decision-making process. "Ethical" is matter of whether moral values are a sub-genre of its axioms (presumably just being concerned about the welfare of transgender folk would be an instance of such).
As with any physician's practice, the motive should be assumed to be that of the Hippocratic Oath. IOW, it doesn't really take any guesswork to fathom that it is, indeed, about the patient's welfare. But ethics is not a case-by-case subject, so the specific context does not matter. What matters in ethics is what can be justifiably and consistently applied across all decisions.
Quote:
Quote:Are they sufficient, or would you strengthen or weaken these restrictions for any of the three examples?
No complex of principles and moral approach has been provided as an alternative (to the unknown source above) for evaluating these stipulations.
I have no data to consider in the context of even an arbitrarily selected category of standards and ethics. Due to not having investigated transgender issues from both a 3rd-party POV and from personal accounts by these individuals themselves as to what they want in regard to requirements (or not remembering much if I have done such in past).
The obvious alternative is to allow bodily autonomy to take priority over any external regard for the person's welfare, regardless of any estimation of the person's mental health. The brilliant thing about consistent ethics is that they only require you to have personal knowledge of being a human.
(Aug 25, 2016 12:29 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: In Antonio Damasio’s book "Descartes' Error" he argues that his error was the dualist separation of mind and body, rationality and emotion.
The main evidence for his theory comes from neuropsychological studies of patients whose cognitive intelligence was largely intact but whose emotional reactions were impaired, and from experiments in which those patients failed to show emotional reactions to the implied content of social stimuli.
Most researchers are attuned to the broad psychological speculation that emotions play a valuable role in decision making. Even his worse critic said that his reputation and strong empirical contribution made it difficult for anyone to challenge him.
Excerpt:
Quote:Knowing about the relevance of feelings in the processes of reason does not suggest that reason is less important than feelings, that it should take a backseat to them or that it should be less cultivated. On the contrary, taking stock of the pervasive role of feelings may give us a chance of enhancing their positive effects and reducing their potential harm.
It is obvious that emotional upheavals can lead to irrational decisions….Well-targeted and well-deployed emotion seems to be a support system without which the edifice of reason cannot operate properly.
He said that although, they can be pernicious to rational decision-making in certain circumstances by creating an overriding bias against objective facts or even by interfering with support mechanisms of decision making, they are indispensable in others.
Emotions enhance our memory, our attention, an allow us to focus. That’s why I like to post on these forums.
You may not enjoy our exchanges, but I’ve learned a great deal from you in the past, and it’s always appreciated.
Good day to you, Syne.
I don't see any sort of hard data even hinted at there. Social stimuli to test reasoning that specifically relies on empathic cues determines the result sought, and is not a valid scientific test (obvious research bias). It simply shows the trivial truth that emotional impaired people are emotionally impaired. Where is the evidence that empathic impairment is detrimental to reasoning in general? "Most researchers...broad...speculation"? So argumentum ad populum and about the speculative? And his critics lend this some credence because of an appeal to his authority?
You're making a lot of pronouncements without any evidential support. Those aren't arguments. At best, they're musings. Where are the examples of these special cases where emotion is so beneficial? Those with Asperger's are known for their prolonged ability to sharply focus...seemingly without the emotional capacity to pick up on social cues.
If you're not going to challenge yourself, by making more rigorous arguments, why should anyone else?
(Aug 25, 2016 03:34 AM)Syne Wrote: I don't see any sort of hard data even hinted at there. Social stimuli to test reasoning that specifically relies on empathic cues determines the result sought, and is not a valid scientific test (obvious research bias). It simply shows the trivial truth that emotional impaired people are emotionally impaired. Where is the evidence that empathic impairment is detrimental to reasoning in general? "Most researchers...broad...speculation"? So argumentum ad populum and about the speculative? And his critics lend this some credence because of an appeal to his authority?
You're making a lot of pronouncements without any evidential support. Those aren't arguments. At best, they're musings. Where are the examples of these special cases where emotion is so beneficial? Those with Asperger's are known for their prolonged ability to sharply focus...seemingly without the emotional capacity to pick up on social cues.
If you're not going to challenge yourself, by making more rigorous arguments, why should anyone else?
All his work has been peer reviewed, published and with strong empirical evidence. It’s easy to locate, if you’re interested.
Quote:Objective Ethics refers to a view that a person's action can always be seen as right or wrong, regardless of the situation or the consequences. It focuses on rules for governing what is considered to be morally right, wrong, or obligatory. The person’s subjective evaluation of the situation is not of much importance.
Objective Ethics is also known as moral absolutism or ethical absolutism.
Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
Most people have no problems with putting an animal out of their misery. Why? Do we have more empathy for animals or is it our views on human specialness?
You don’t seem to be interested in the surgical risks or the consequences. As you can see in the above quote, objective ethics refers to a view that a person's action can always be seen as right or wrong, regardless of the consequences.
There are plenty of cosmetic procedures that impose life-threatening risks. A healthy self-image can be quite subjective. The standards of beauty that society imposes on people are subjected to cultural ideals and fluctuate over time. Consider for a moment the difficulties that amputees, who are not suffering from BIID have to face. Most amputees seem to grieve more over their loss of body image than function. They feel that their self-image is no longer complete. They feel rejected, less attractive, and part-whole. BIID suffers have said that they feel more complete. Surgery seems to reduce the severity of BIID. However, surgery doesn’t reduce the severity of BDD. People that are obsessed with cosmetic surgery are never satisfied but physicians continue to perform the surgeries that they request.
(Aug 22, 2016 04:26 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Will you risk your life for me? Will you die for me? Will you live for me?
Life is "Nature's war"—the great tribulation—cooperation and competition. There are warriors, victims, prisoners, and casualties.
There are those who are tormented. They seek death but cannot find it. They desire death but it flees from them. They feel helpless and trapped. Are we their tormentors and are they our prisoners?
There are those who seek life but cannot find it. They desire life but it flees from them. They feel ugly and shunned. Are we their tormentors and are they our exiles?
My initial gut reaction towards BIID disorder was biased and purely emotional. After giving this matter some serious thought, I realized I was wrong. There is evidence that their lives improve after the surgery.
My personal opinion is that if we cannot alter the image in the brain to match the body then we should alter the body to match the image in the brain, reduce the symptoms for their comfort and well-being. It may very well be the body that creates the image/your identity, and your identity and your body is your own. As long as you have the mental capacity to understand and appreciate the consequences, the choice should be yours, and yours alone.
If we can make a male and a female into a single one? If we can make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then they will live—they’ll walk through the gates—they’ll see tomorrow.
Aug 24, 2016 02:49 AM
