Isn't morality just supersition?

[(Q)]

An engineer, for example, who knows that a faulty product his company wants to produce and sell will cause accidents and kill people based on the observational evidence of the failing product.

 

[Balerion]

Compare 'morality'
with
'those who believe in.....'
Abstract concept compared to people.

Now you're being elusive on purpose. I meant, obviously, that you're comparing those who are moral to those who are religious.

That is not a theory I would put forward.

Then what are you saying?

I am not saying morality isn't a part of the human psyche. In fact I believe it is, in those who have a morality, which is most people. I am saying however that there is no objective right or wrong. No objective good or bad, and so any claim that this or that is good or should be done is engaging in fantasy.

No, that's wrong. If it's a part of your makeup, then it isn't fantasy. You can call it whatever you like--maybe it's local morality, or something, but that doesn't make it fantasy. If you're looking for a word, stick with "subjective". But fantasy just doesn't fit. There's nothing fantastic about it.

The actions are not a superstition. The belief that there is an objective good or bad we know about is fantasy.

Well, I suppose if you want to assert that there is a right and wrong for the entirety of humanity, then you're being delusional, yes. Or maybe you just don't know any better. But to assert that you personally think something is wrong or right is nothing at all like a fantasy.

Just think of the door you just opened. As Skinwalker pointed out, any claims made by religious people in the religious forum, if we were stringent, should be the first things removed in any moderation, since this is a science forum. Such claims are theology. And so it is with claims that this or that is good or should be done. Either it is fantasy or theology.

Get over it. We're in an ethics and morality forum, are we not? If such things weren't admissible, then let's not have this forum. Since we do, let's not try to hide from the topic. Nothing about morality suggest fantasy or theology. People's sometimes fanatical desire to force others to adhere to their morality may be considered a form of theology, but morality itself is nothing like that.

But let's consider one thing...people deemed psychopathic are found to have physical differences in the brain from the rest of us. They lack empathy, which is basically our conscience. So there is scientific evidence that morality may in fact be hardwired in our brains, and varies based on the size of a particular part of our brain.

 

[Baron Max]

But let's consider one thing...people deemed psychopathic are found to have physical differences in the brain from the rest of us. They lack empathy, which is basically our conscience. So there is scientific evidence that morality may in fact be hardwired in our brains, and varies based on the size of a particular part of our brain.

Interesting, if true. But no matter ...there's nothing in that scientific research that says which "wiring" is the correct "wiring".

Perhaps the psychopath's "wiring" is the way man should be, while all others have been "modified" by cultural and social indoctrination to the point of degrading that particular "wiring". And if so, then the concepts of morality are, indeed, just cultural and social superstitions.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

It would be interesting to follow up on the brain of a person from birth, to see if differential indoctrination with "morality" produces different "wiring"

 

[Simon Anders]

You don't have to take what I say, you simply need to know for yourself whether or not you wish harm to befall you and whether or not you would dish out the same harm to others.

Nothing in what you said has to do with goodness or evil or should in moral terms.

 

[Simon Anders]

An engineer, for example, who knows that a faulty product his company wants to produce and sell will cause accidents and kill people based on the observational evidence of the failing product.

No morality in here, at all.

If you say, however, that this engineer should fix that product so it does not cause harm
or
say he would be bad or evil if he or she does not
then you are engaging in objective morality speak
and fantasizing.

But of course one can observe products that cause harm. That is all rather grounded in reality.

 

[S.A.M.]

What is "harm"?

 

[Baron Max]

It would be interesting to follow up on the brain of a person from birth, to see if differential indoctrination with "morality" produces different "wiring"

Yeah, or just throw babies out into the jungle and when they're all grow up, if they survive, then we can test 'em to see how their "morality" compares to the highly socialized people in "civilization".

Baron Max

 

[Simon Anders]

Now you're being elusive on purpose. I meant, obviously, that you're comparing those who are moral to those who are religious.

Fussy, not elusive.

Not those who are moral(whatever that is), but those who make moral claims. An important distinction. I am saying that anyone who says this act is good or that act is bad or one should do this (in the moral sense of should) is engaging in fantasy.

Then what are you saying?

I am saying that people who make moral claims are engaging in fantasy or theology. They are either deriving their objective morality from religious texts which they are claiming come from God or they are fantasizing on their own authority. Where would a scientist go to measure objective morality? How does the scientists verify someones claim about what is objectively good?

No, that's wrong. If it's a part of your makeup, then it isn't fantasy. You can call it whatever you like--maybe it's local morality, or something, but that doesn't make it fantasy. If you're looking for a word, stick with "subjective". But fantasy just doesn't fit. There's nothing fantastic about it.

Fantastic has other connotations, despite the same root. It means weird or unique. Fantasy can be shared by members of a culture - for example the coolness of Nike sneakers - and be banal and commonplace. One can pass on fantasies to others. One can create pressure on people to maintain fantasies. And fantasies and can become part of your makeup as you put it. Racism is founded on fantasies rather than reality, for example. I wish racism was fantastic, but it is rather commonplace.

Well, I suppose if you want to assert that there is a right and wrong for the entirety of humanity, then you're being delusional, yes. Or maybe you just don't know any better. But to assert that you personally think something is wrong or right is nothing at all like a fantasy.

I assume that every means 'I personally believe...." when they assert something. But the moment you are saying that something IS good rather than saying it is the way you wish things were, you are engaging in fantasy. Or imagination, perhaps that word will bother you less. You are not referring to something real, this goodness is a code word for your own desires.

Get over it. We're in an ethics and morality forum, are we not? If such things weren't admissible, then let's not have this forum.

One could make the same case about the Religion forum, that such things would be admissible. But I was informed by the moderator that religious assertions, in fact, have no place in sciforums. It seems this will not be enforced, but in return one must accept that theists will be insulted,since in fact they are foreigners here and their ideas have no place here.

Since we do, let's not try to hide from the topic.

The topic can be discussed in sociological, anthropological and analytical terms, without anyone making moral claims.

But let's consider one thing...people deemed psychopathic are found to have physical differences in the brain from the rest of us. They lack empathy, which is basically our conscience. So there is scientific evidence that morality may in fact be hardwired in our brains, and varies based on the size of a particular part of our brain.

One can be empathetic without asserting objective morality. Animals do not make claims about what is good and what is evil and what one should do. They simply are. And in their simple participation in the world they exhibit empathy, at least some do. These animals do not like (note the wording) the suffering of others.
If one says

I do not like seeing a child in pain.

One has not engaged in fantasy.

But once one begins a sentence with

One should

Or

__________ is wrong

Fantasy has begun.

 

[Simon Anders]

What is "harm"?

Good point. The concept 'Harm' could easily and generally does include fantasies of objective morality and/or subjective value statements.

It is a rather insidious hallucination. It will take generations until we fully eradicate this irrationality from our brains and our language.

 

[Baron Max]

I am saying that anyone who says this act is good or that act is bad or one should do this (in the moral sense of should) is engaging in fantasy.

Do you think that a society that creates laws and rules of behavior are "...engaging in fantasy"?

Or are you viewing this as a purely personal issue? That is a single individual claims that something is wrong, then it's fantasy?

I think I agree with you about "morality", but you should be careful not to include social rules and customs that often define a culture. In those cases, "morality" is, in fact, NOT a fantasy.

Baron Max

 

[Simon Anders]

Do you think that a society that creates laws and rules of behavior are "...engaging in fantasy"?

Not necessarily.

Or are you viewing this as a purely personal issue? That is a single individual claims that something is wrong, then it's fantasy?

Only individuals can make claims. But groups of individuals could be sharing fantasies.

I think I agree with you about "morality", but you should be careful not to include social rules and customs that often define a culture. In those cases, "morality" is, in fact, NOT a fantasy.

I think I made this distinction pretty clear in posts earlier in the thread. I am not saying that there is no morality. Of course there is. People do think in these ways. And people do make these claims. I am not denying this at all.

To fantasize is a real event. So is speaking gibberish. So is farting.

But we should not confuse these with making claims that can be verified by science.

 

[jpappl]

Simon,

I am confused.

You are saying that objective morality is fantasy ?

I think to say that is throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are clearly things that apply here. If we do not eat we will die. Me telling my child that he needs to eat and drink is fantasy ? How would you view me if I let me child starve to death ?
There are fundamental things that are required to function in reality. These are the same the world over. All people will die if they don't injest fluids, water etc. All people will die if they don't take in nutrients. They will die or cause great harm to themselves if they jump off a cliff.

In that sense objective morality is not fantasy. However, making assumptions that there is good and evil and that I should be able to make such a claim is a slippery slope. One that delves into subjective morality, which is a creation by the individual or group or thought about what should be or is. Correct ?

In other words, me telling my child to drink water is not subjective, it exists outside of what I think. If he does not he will die. There is cause and effect of not taking such actions.

I should not kill someone, yes ? But should I not protect myself and yes maybe kill someone if they are about to kill me. This is reality.

Telling you that you should kill someone if they are trying to kill you is not fantasy because there is cause and effect. If you fail to act you will be killed.

 

[Balerion]

Fussy, not elusive.

Same difference. By nitpicking everything I say, you delay answering the question, and you damn well know what the question is already. So that's being elusive.

Not those who are moral(whatever that is), but those who make moral claims. An important distinction. I am saying that anyone who says this act is good or that act is bad or one should do this (in the moral sense of should) is engaging in fantasy.

Wrong. If you have morals, you believe that certain things are bad and certain things are good. There's no fantasy involved. If at the very least the "intensity" of your morality is determined by the physical structure of your brain, then that makes it as real as anything else. You seem to take issue with folks who actively try to enforce their morals on others, and I agree that those people are assholes, but just because they do that does not mean that their morality is a fantasy.

I am saying that people who make moral claims are engaging in fantasy or theology. They are either deriving their objective morality from religious texts which they are claiming come from God or they are fantasizing on their own authority. Where would a scientist go to measure objective morality? How does the scientists verify someones claim about what is objectively good?

And I'm saying you're wrong. You're taking the argument too far. These people don't take their morals from a religious book; the morals of the religious book come from an ancient and very man-made society. There's no fantasy involved. Now, people who say their morals are divine...yes, that's fantasy...but only because they claim it to be divine.

Fantastic has other connotations, despite the same root. It means weird or unique. Fantasy can be shared by members of a culture - for example the coolness of Nike sneakers - and be banal and commonplace. One can pass on fantasies to others. One can create pressure on people to maintain fantasies. And fantasies and can become part of your makeup as you put it. Racism is founded on fantasies rather than reality, for example. I wish racism was fantastic, but it is rather commonplace.

Thanks for the lecture, Doctor Anders.

Racism is not based on fantasy, by the way.

I assume that every means 'I personally believe...." when they assert something. But the moment you are saying that something IS good rather than saying it is the way you wish things were, you are engaging in fantasy. Or imagination, perhaps that word will bother you less. You are not referring to something real, this goodness is a code word for your own desires.

You're underestimating how real morality is to people. Isn't there something that absolutely makes you want to puke? As in, if you watched a baby get snuffed out by an adult for no good reason, wouldn't that just make you sick to your stomach? Literally? For you, that morality is physically real. The difference between you and some other people could very well be your ability to see that yours is just that--yours.

One could make the same case about the Religion forum, that such things would be admissible. But I was informed by the moderator that religious assertions, in fact, have no place in sciforums. It seems this will not be enforced, but in return one must accept that theists will be insulted,since in fact they are foreigners here and their ideas have no place here.

Don't mistake this back-and-forth with the war waged on science by theists.

The topic can be discussed in sociological, anthropological and analytical terms, without anyone making moral claims.

Like I said, it isn't fantasy. It's completely real.

One can be empathetic without asserting objective morality. Animals do not make claims about what is good and what is evil and what one should do. They simply are. And in their simple participation in the world they exhibit empathy, at least some do. These animals do not like (note the wording) the suffering of others.

Nononono. That doesn't fly. Empathy doesn't equate to morality in animals, but it obviously does in humans. Our brains our more advanced, and we have abilities that other animals don't. Just because a chimp can show empathy but not morality does not mean that it's possible to do the same in a human.

If one says

I do not like seeing a child in pain.

One has not engaged in fantasy.

But once one begins a sentence with

One should

Or

__________ is wrong

Fantasy has begun.

Not true. They're just making a statement based on what they know. If it makes them so sick, why should it be different with anyone else? Dude, you have perfect examples of this right here on this forum. Baron Max, for example. He's obviously uneducated and unrefined, and because of this he thinks his morals should be shared by everyone, and is utterly shocked that they aren't. Haven't you ever seen him ask sincerely what else homosexuals could be other than perverts? He simply doesn't grasp it.

 

[(Q)]

Nothing in what you said has to do with goodness or evil or should in moral terms.

Making the decision to conduct oneself with the outlook of not intentionally doing harm to others is a moral decision.

Labeling morality as the distinction of "goodness and evil" has little meaning outside of scriptures.

 

[(Q)]

No morality in here, at all.

So, the decision of the engineer to allow the products to be sold or not knowing it will kill people is not a moral decision?

 

[(Q)]

Where would a scientist go to measure objective morality?

Violent crime statistics?

How does the scientists verify someones claim about what is objectively good?

By the amount of damage, injury or trauma caused to the victims of violent crimes?

Just throwing those out there.

 

[Baron Max]

Making the decision to conduct oneself with the outlook of not intentionally doing harm to others is a moral decision.

Labeling morality as the distinction of "goodness and evil" has little meaning outside of scriptures.

What an odd thing to say? The first sentence shows clearly that one has made the decision about his actions ...BASED ON... the ideals of the second sentence!

What gives? What are you really trying to say here?

Baron Max

 

[(Q)]

What an odd thing to say? The first sentence shows clearly that one has made the decision about his actions ...BASED ON... the ideals of the second sentence!

What gives? What are you really trying to say here?

Baron Max

Huh? What? Huh?

 

[Baron Max]

Huh? What? Huh?

Yeah, exactly! I didn't think you knew what you were saying in that last post. But now I know it!

Baron Max