Religion is a matter of perspective

[Raithere]

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Formal reasoning. We are not talking about "reason is necessary to make use of moral valuations"-- but even that is incorrect when applied to religious morality and others. We are talking of the origins of morality.

And we come full circle. It seems to me as if we are getting stuck in a semantic disagreement; maybe we can reorient. In your own words; how do you define reason? What faculties do you find are necessary for morality?

I said subtle differenciation.

I don't see where the difference is significant. IMO and within this context reason is simply informal logic. When reason fails the test of logic it is invalid.

It is illogical to think of an ant as God. It is reasonable for me to think an ant is God.

Only if you redefine God to mean "a small communal insect", otherwise I find the unconditional assertion quite unreasonable.

Then you are not reading my posts. There is religious morality, there is rational morality, there is organizational morality, 'societal' morality etc.

I don't see how these categorizations are significant to the discussion. Perhaps you can point out the relevant comparisons.

These are all morality. They are not seeped in reason. This is my assertion.

I agree that all morals are not derived from reasoned thought. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "steeped in reason" and I disagree that reason or logic is inapplicable.

~Raithere

 

[Flores]

Sorry for the late responce Raithere, I had other fires to put out.

Originally posted by Raithere
Justice is a moral value, it developed along with other moral values not as a prerequisite to them. One will note that historically, our cultural sense of justice has changed over time and is highly dependant upon other moral valuations.

I disagree. Actual justice and our perception of it are not the same thing. I speak of actual justice which is an equality and satisfies all the laws of the universe. You speak of our perception of justice which may be true or false and may be improving or deteriorating, noone knows, since there is no bench mark to measure this from. For instance, we deem killing to be unjust, yet we never question diseace or a hurricane that kill hundreds. We announce wars againest a terrorism that killed three thousands while there is no war lauched on speeding that kill three thousands daily. Is it just to develop the earth the way we do? Is it just to burtally cut birds and animals migration patterns so we can construct an orphanage home? Who knows?

Originally posted by Raithere
Only very recently have we come to understand justice in light of the equality of all individuals. Even the founding fathers did not clearly see this as 'all men are created equal' did not include either women or slaves.

As you say, it's our perception, and you have no bench mark or real universal understanding of the term justice to base your evaluation on our performance as humanity. I personally think that the cave man was way more just than an astronomy scientist...

Originally posted by Raithere
Justice can only be served on a societal level as it requires at least two participants. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question; feel free to explain further if I have.

I was merely trying to point you to the fact that justice as human tries to think of it is a subjective selfish concept. Look at our court systems for instance. We have a plantiff and a defendent. What makes a plantiff one and a defendent one? It's based on who sued who first and not based on justice or truth of the matter. If I say right now that Raithere has solicited my phone number and adress from me on the internet knowing that I was 16 and I suspect that he raped me, but I'm not sure for I was kidnapped and blindfolded, then you better believe that Raithere will be dragged in the process of justice as a defendent even though he did nothing. Years later he may be proofed innocent or guilty. Is this justice? No, these are procedures that humans developed to implement some type of order. Our procedures have nothing to do with morality or justice.

Originally posted by Raithere
Could you point out where you think the gaps are? I'd be happy to address them. As it stands, I don't really see any areas where religion has better answers.

Did I say gaps...I really meant oceans of misunderstanding. Where does religion has the answers..? Religion doesn't tell us the answers, it merely points out to us that we don't have the answers because we are misely tiny creatures in an orderly grand scheme of things that is governed by a god who defines the concept of justice. I personally think that this within itself is a great revelation to the human race, others disagree.

Originally posted by Raithere
Generally speaking, I find the religious moral argument to be rather anemic as it relies upon two arguments from authority (the authority of God and the authority of the revelation of God's will) neither of which is well established.

~Raithere

Back to square one. Religious moral argument is spoken from another dimension. From the dimension that is all perfect, all mercifull, all compassionate, all including every ant, hill, ocean, human, ect.....It's not meant to guide us, merely to show us our place in the universe. It's our role to come up with our own moral codes keeping in mind those revelations...It's good to know your limits and abilities prior to starting any project.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by everneo
Its circular / interlinked because the reason based rational morality, also has its fundamentals in values like loyalty, honor, being truthful etc which are not purely rational fundamentals at all.

I find that these values are indeed rational when functionality is examined within context.

They are in fact have their basics at not-so-rational emotions besides some rationailty too.

I disagree that emotions are irrational. Certainly they do not constitute reason in themselves but I find them to be rational in their function.

I think its dangerous to have a reason that genes causing emotions and therefore they are reliable to form a reason.

Why is it dangerous?

Anyone who does not bother about morality can also argue, with that reason, that the emotions / urges are gene-caused and it is beneficial to act on the way he does.

Indeed, this is also true:

'Base' emotions such as lust, greed, anger, and fear work towards the survival of the individual.

'Higher' emotions such as compassion, altruism, loyalty, trust, and guilt work towards the survival of the larger genetic populations in which they occur. They work beyond the context of the individual, which is why we perceive them as 'higher' or more 'noble'. These also wind up becoming the emotional base for most morality. That morality which is 'self-apparent' is so because it is a part of our natures.

This also explains the emotional conflict that the individual often feels. The varying sets of emotions are not always compatible.

Co-operative behaviour has its reason in realising the benefit of cooperation OR being brought up in an environment where it prevails.

I disagree, cooperative behavior exists in the animal world without reason or training. Various studies do in fact indicate instinctive needs that exhibit themselves in this behavior.

Ultimately when one realises that there is no threat or harm, 'reasonably', to him / others he would indulge in anything for his own enjoyment without any deterring factors like loyalty / honor etc IF he strictly goes with the reasoning alone.

I disagree. A rational decision (cost / benefit analysis) is entirely reliant upon the values assigned to the various choices/outcomes. This makes a rational decision highly dependant upon their moral valuations.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Flores
Sorry for the late responce Raithere, I had other fires to put out.

Don't even worry about it. Tiassa and I sometimes take weeks to respond to each other. I'd rather you take your time and give a well considered response (as you have) than rush.

It seems that justice is a rather loaded term. I think we're confusing the issue by mixing justice as it applies to the moral values of fairness and equity and justice as it pertains to the law and a governmental judicial system. Let's keep to the first aspect of the term.

I disagree. Actual justice and our perception of it are not the same thing. I speak of actual justice which is an equality and satisfies all the laws of the universe.

I'd have to ask what you mean by 'all the laws of the Universe' at this point. I'm not quite sure how to interpret that as I don't see that justice is at all evident in the physical laws of the Universe. I suspect you're referring to God but that brings up the problems of authority that I referred to previously.

You speak of our perception of justice which may be true or false and may be improving or deteriorating, noone knows, since there is no bench mark to measure this from.

Then how can we know justice exists at all? It seems to me that you've just invalidated all concepts of justice as they are immeasurable.

I disagree with this. I think that the only thing necessary is that we be able to perceive a situation from an alternative perspective. Certainly it becomes much more complex than this but this basic imaginative ability seems to me to be the cornerstone of the concept. How we then go about evaluating a situation is dependant upon other moral values.

I was merely trying to point you to the fact that justice as human tries to think of it is a subjective selfish concept.

Certainly we often think of justice as it pertains to ourselves first, "This is unfair" is a common human complaint. But certainly it is not entirely so.

Our procedures have nothing to do with morality or justice.

Justice is a misnomer. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." Let's stick to justice and not the legal system.

Religion doesn't tell us the answers, it merely points out to us that we don't have the answers because we are misely tiny creatures in an orderly grand scheme of things that is governed by a god who defines the concept of justice.

How does god define justice? And how is this relevant to us if all we can know is that we're basically nothing and have no hope of understanding? Again, it seems to me as if you have placed the notion of justice beyond human capacity, which makes it meaningless.

Religious moral argument is spoken from another dimension. From the dimension that is all perfect, all mercifull, all compassionate, all including every ant, hill, ocean, human, ect.....It's not meant to guide us, merely to show us our place in the universe.

That's your assertion but I've yet to see the evidence or the argument that would convince me.

~Raithere

 

[everneo]

Raithere,

Its circular / interlinked because the reason based rational morality, also has its fundamentals in values like loyalty, honor, being truthful etc which are not purely rational fundamentals at all.

I find that these values are indeed rational when functionality is examined within context.

You are assigning rationality to values, rather than forming the values by reason, and calling it as reason based rational morality. Moreover examining the functionality and determining the proper context are also influenced by some of these values.

They are in fact have their basics at not-so-rational emotions besides some rationailty too.

I disagree that emotions are irrational. Certainly they do not constitute reason in themselves but I find them to be rational in their function.

I don't get you or i find contradictions in your statement. If emotions are not based on reason then taking their function as rational, that is 'assigning' rationality to them, is itself irrational.

I think its dangerous to have a reason that genes causing emotions and therefore they are reliable to form a reason.

Why is it dangerous?

Genes are not causing emotions uniformly and basing some of them (as having rational functionality) to build reason to have rational morality will give handle for all sort of discrimination based on birth / lineage / social groups.

Anyone who does not bother about morality can also argue, with that reason, that the emotions / urges are gene-caused and it is beneficial to act on the way he does.

Indeed, this is also true:

'Base' emotions such as lust, greed, anger, and fear work towards the survival of the individual.

'Higher' emotions such as compassion, altruism, loyalty, trust, and guilt work towards the survival of the larger genetic populations in which they occur. They work beyond the context of the individual, which is why we perceive them as 'higher' or more 'noble'. These also wind up becoming the emotional base for most morality. That morality which is 'self-apparent' is so because it is a part of our natures.

This also explains the emotional conflict that the individual often feels. The varying sets of emotions are not always compatible.

When 'Base' emotions and 'Higher' emotions conflict pure reasoning gives more weightage to survival / personal benefit.

Co-operative behaviour has its reason in realising the benefit of cooperation OR being brought up in an environment where it prevails.

I disagree, cooperative behavior exists in the animal world without reason or training. Various studies do in fact indicate instinctive needs that exhibit themselves in this behavior.

I don't think animals don't have reasoning ability altogether. Though they don't seem to have logical chain of thoughts like humans, they do recognize the consequences of some of the actions.

As for training, animals (wild) learn their skills (hunting) from their mother or from their pack. Certain animals know the advantage / tricks / ways to store food for hard times ahead by experience either learned or earned from their pack/colony. The more the stock of food the more chance of their survival. This needs addititional hands - the organized pack / society. This is an automatic learning process for individuals in such a society. If the the individuals did not have a chance to be brought up in such society / pack / colony then they do learn it in a hardway and form their own society / pack.

Instinctive needs are basically selfish. being in packs is more advantageous to individuals as for their security / survival concerned. The lion family is not as big as a herbivorous herd. They are more sure of their security and less need for a bigger society and infact more lions mean reduced share of food and other advantages. A hardwired social behaviour is not present, as i understand.

Ultimately when one realises that there is no threat or harm, 'reasonably', to him / others he would indulge in anything for his own enjoyment without any deterring factors like loyalty / honor etc IF he strictly goes with the reasoning alone.

I disagree. A rational decision (cost / benefit analysis) is entirely reliant upon the values assigned to the various choices/outcomes. This makes a rational decision highly dependant upon their moral valuations.

But the problem is, these values mostly do not have intrinisic reason, 'assigning' rationality is in your hand. One can conviniently choose not to assign any rationality, with his own reasoning, on functionality within the context (your words). But if moral values were built on reason alone then they would also come under evaluation by reason in the context. Either way morality based reason / rationality alone is volatile.

 

[Raithere]

Enverno, et al:

I'm not trying to assign rationality arbitrarily or through bias; I'm trying to perceive the mechanisms at work. I see a direct correlation between morality, emotion, and their function within individuals and populations. Such function seems to be rational / logical in analysis; X emotion and/or Y moral value drives this behavior which serves that purpose which promotes its survival within a population. This seems logical and rather evident in analysis to me.

I'm honestly looking for some alternative explanations here. I'm not entirely convinced by my own argument either but thus far all I've been getting is a blanket refutation that reason and logic are not applicable. Can any of you propose alternatives to my conjecture that morals are operationally rational / logical?

Genes are not causing emotions uniformly and basing some of them (as having rational functionality) to build reason to have rational morality will give handle for all sort of discrimination based on birth / lineage / social groups.

Whether or not you agree that emotions are a component of genetic makeup, genetic variations within populations is simply a fact. That it can be misused is irrelevant. One cannot deny reality simply because it is inconvenient or open to misuse. The question is then whether emotions are caused by our physical, and thus genetic, makeup or not.

When 'Base' emotions and 'Higher' emotions conflict pure reasoning gives more weightage to survival / personal benefit.

I disagree with the unconditional assertion. Reasoned choice can or might give more weight to personal survival but this is not unconditional, it depends upon the individual's valuations and the context of the situation.

I don't think animals don't have reasoning ability altogether.

Nor do I, that is not what I was suggesting.

As for training, animals (wild) learn their skills (hunting) from their mother or from their pack.
...
If the the individuals did not have a chance to be brought up in such society / pack / colony then they do learn it in a hardway and form their own society / pack.

This actually serves my argument better than your own. What you are suggesting is a logical process of trial and error.

A hardwired social behaviour is not present, as i understand.

I disagree. There is far too much commonality between isolated populations for there not to be biological components. For instance; all dogs greet each other with the same basic set of mannerisms whether they are wild or domestic, raised in China or England. Basic interactions seem to be largely 'hardwired', though this is not to say that there isn't room for variations in populations and individuals.

One can conviniently choose not to assign any rationality, with his own reasoning, on functionality within the context (your words). But if moral values were built on reason alone then they would also come under evaluation by reason in the context.

Argument from ignorance: That one can choose not to believe something is logical has no bearing on weather it is or not. One can choose not to believe there is a logical order to the revolution of the planets around the sun; this does not mean it isn't so.

Either way morality based reason / rationality alone is volatile.

Again, your missing my point. I am not asserting that morality is always derived through rational thought. What I am asserting is that it serves a rational / logical function within context. Look again to the beginning of this post. I'm willing to discuss alternatives...

~Raithere

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Raithere
It seems that justice is a rather loaded term. I think we're confusing the issue by mixing justice as it applies to the moral values of fairness and equity and justice as it pertains to the law and a governmental judicial system. Let's keep to the first aspect of the term.

Fine, let's keep justice to morality. It sounds very moral and just to adopt an orphan child as one's own child out of an orphanage....wouldn't you agree? ( I would ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that I'll eventually have a point to make with that question).

Originally posted by Raithere
I'd have to ask what you mean by 'all the laws of the Universe' at this point. I'm not quite sure how to interpret that as I don't see that justice is at all evident in the physical laws of the Universe. I suspect you're referring to God but that brings up the problems of authority that I referred to previously.

Justice is a major component of all physical laws. Just look at our relations in physics, ect, and you'll always see an equality or equal sign used to describe the relation. E=Mc2, F=ma.....All the laws of the universe are equal and just. They're a balance. Now, when you start combining all those relations to describe higher relations like the galaxy rotation, and eventually, god's relation, you'll still be dealing with equality and singularity. A single force, energy, god, ect is just or equal in relation to all creations.

Originally posted by Raithere
Then how can we know justice exists at all? It seems to me that you've just invalidated all concepts of justice as they are immeasurable.

Justice is manifest in all creations. Balance and equality is found in all aspects of our life. It's very simple to compute the daily just and balanced calorie intake that will result in a balanced and constant body weight. Binging or eating less is not just and thus is immoral. Cutting trees more than needed is immoral, attaining more than one's fair balanced share in the universe is immoral. perhaps owning five SUVs is immoral.... Spending more than one's budge is not just and thus immoral. Being stingy is not just. Abusing our bodies with alcohol is not just, gambling and abusing our phscyology is not just.......And what does religion speak of.. It's words from a higher being, god, telling us humans that our manual of creation doesn't permit us to abuse our health and morality beyond their design criteria.

Originally posted by Raithere
I disagree with this. I think that the only thing necessary is that we be able to perceive a situation from an alternative perspective. Certainly it becomes much more complex than this but this basic imaginative ability seems to me to be the cornerstone of the concept. How we then go about evaluating a situation is dependant upon other moral values.

Perceiving a situation from an alternative perspective is not a consistent method for dealing with your problems, by doing that you're bound to make a bunch of decisions that are all contradicting with each other and may even eventually undermine one of your own decisions. Today, you tell your daughter is not allowed to date boys because she's too young, tomorrow, you complain that your daughter is too old and without a husband, or better, you complain that she doesn't know how to choose a good husband. Do we ever teach our daughters about men, not really, we assume that it's moral to shelter them and then somehow someway, all of a sudden, these sheltered girls will be ready to enter the new relationships. Perhaps we are always at fault when it comes to morality in forgetting to address issues in a whole and instead dealing with problems as they approach us at that second. Just like you told me earlier, morality grows with us, I think their is a big problem with your concept of evolving morality.

Originally posted by Raithere
Justice is a misnomer. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice." Let's stick to justice and not the legal system.

But the all wise Oliver Wendell Homles didn't want to stick to justice. He found that dealing with law is much more simpler and doable than to try to attain justice, so why should we take a route that many wise men have refrained from taking.

 

[everneo]

Raithere

You may conviniently ignore this post as Cris used to do. Either you are bored or don't want to realise that your logic of rational morality is not absolutely rational.

I'm not trying to assign rationality arbitrarily or through bias; I'm trying to perceive the mechanisms at work. I see a direct correlation between morality, emotion, and their function within individuals and populations. Such function seems to be rational / logical in analysis; X emotion and/or Y moral value drives this behavior which serves that purpose which promotes its survival within a population. This seems logical and rather evident in analysis to me.

"Taking few pennies from the pocket (or few kisses from his wife) of a rich friend is not going to infringe the loyalty" - might be the reasoning of someone whose view of loyalty is different from yours and mine. There are degrees of loyalty for they are based on emotions which vary from person to person. You and me are not in a position of asserting what is absolute loyalty and their degree of usefulness. Applying reasons for their functional usefulness is not absolute.

I'm honestly looking for some alternative explanations here. I'm not entirely convinced by my own argument either but thus far all I've been getting is a blanket refutation that reason and logic are not applicable. Can any of you propose alternatives to my conjecture that morals are operationally rational / logical?

The whole seemingly boring discussion started from the assertion that ratioanl morality is the best alternative to the existing morality. I tried to say this alternative has same drawbacks of religious morality which is not either a complete failure or complete success. What we have now is not a moral utopia obviously.

Genes are not causing emotions uniformly and basing some of them (as having rational functionality) to build reason to have rational morality will give handle for all sort of discrimination based on birth / lineage / social groups.

Whether or not you agree that emotions are a component of genetic makeup, genetic variations within populations is simply a fact. That it can be misused is irrelevant. One cannot deny reality simply because it is inconvenient or open to misuse. The question is then whether emotions are caused by our physical, and thus genetic, makeup or not.

We have bitter truths facing us. To reduce its adverse impact atleast we should not give an ideological weapon to unscrupulous elements to have some bull shit ideologies. Religions, for good or bad, atleast attempted at some sort of damage control.

Emotions can be controlled by countering them. Physical or mental either way.

When 'Base' emotions and 'Higher' emotions conflict pure reasoning gives more weightage to survival / personal benefit.

I disagree with the unconditional assertion. Reasoned choice can or might give more weight to personal survival but this is not unconditional, it depends upon the individual's valuations and the context of the situation.

I agree with a side note. Majority is not as reasonable as Raithere.

I don't think animals don't have reasoning ability altogether.


Nor do I, that is not what I was suggesting.

May be, i misunderstood your statement : "cooperative behavior exists in the animal world without reason or training. "

As for training, animals (wild) learn their skills (hunting) from their mother or from their pack.
...
If the the individuals did not have a chance to be brought up in such society / pack / colony then they do learn it in a hardway and form their own society / pack.

This actually serves my argument better than your own. What you are suggesting is a logical process of trial and error.

If you mean cooperative behaviour in animal world was a result of trial & error or casual training.

A hardwired social behaviour is not present, as i understand.

I disagree. There is far too much commonality between isolated populations for there not to be biological components. For instance; all dogs greet each other with the same basic set of mannerisms whether they are wild or domestic, raised in China or England. Basic interactions seem to be largely 'hardwired', though this is not to say that there isn't room for variations in populations and individuals.

I agree that 10 dogs from different corners of the world would bark, wag their tail, show their teeth, growl, piss with a raised hind leg, sniff or greet each other etc., in similar manner. But i doubt whether they would form a cooperative society immediately. I would expect a good nasty fight among them before a working compromise realised overcoming their instant instincts. Perhaps i should have typed 'cooperative behaviour' instead of 'social behaviour'.

One can conviniently choose not to assign any rationality, with his own reasoning, on functionality within the context (your words). But if moral values were built on reason alone then they would also come under evaluation by reason in the context.

Argument from ignorance: That one can choose not to believe something is logical has no bearing on weather it is or not. One can choose not to believe there is a logical order to the revolution of the planets around the sun; this does not mean it isn't so.

The ignorance is in thinking which is logical. You think you are logical but others would have their own logic based on their own value / weightage system and views on emotions. There is no absolute logic, thats what i was trying to tell vainly. Physical facts like sun and planet movements are more or less established beyond doubt & convince everyone and common to all objectively.

Either way morality based reason / rationality alone is volatile.


Again, your missing my point. I am not asserting that morality is always derived through rational thought. What I am asserting is that it serves a rational / logical function within context. Look again to the beginning of this post. I'm willing to discuss alternatives...

If you are not asserting nor am i. I will get back to you when i find a better alternative. Thanks for your time.

 

[thefountainhed]

In your own words; how do you define reason?

Different meanings that have their own context.
1. Rational/Logical thought
2. Justification for act --> Reasons for

What faculties do you find are necessary for morality?

I am unsure of the context you are using "faculties". What abilities are necessary for morality? Or what basis does one base morality?

I don't see where the difference is significant. IMO and within this context reason is simply informal logic. When reason fails the test of logic it is invalid.

How is it out of context when the context is morality; and morality by virtue of having a subtext that is religious can be illogical?

Only if you redefine God to mean "a small communal insect", otherwise I find the unconditional assertion quite unreasonable.

You are missing it. It is reasobale if by accepting the ant as God, I get say a million bucks. It is illogical to accept the ant as God but reasonable within the context. The point is that morality can be based on greed or faith-- which can be irrational.

I don't see how these categorizations are significant to the discussion. Perhaps you can point out the relevant comparisons.

How can you not?? They are all morality.

I agree that all morals are not derived from reasoned thought.

OK, then we have no quarrel over that.

However, I'm not sure what you mean by "steeped in reason"

Based or overwhelmingly based on reason as is rational thought or any conscious reason.

and I disagree that reason or logic is inapplicable.

Eh?

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Flores
It sounds very moral and just to adopt an orphan child as one's own child out of an orphanage....wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I would generally say that is a morally good act. I'll leave it at that and see where you go with it.

Justice is a major component of all physical laws. Just look at our relations in physics, ect, and you'll always see an equality or equal sign used to describe the relation.

I don't think I agree with this. That energy equals mass at the speed of light squared doesn't seem to equate to a notion of justice. But I might have to reconsider, regarding this:

They're a balance. Now, when you start combining all those relations to describe higher relations like the galaxy rotation, and eventually, god's relation, you'll still be dealing with equality and singularity.

I'm going to have to give this one more thought, I've never considered unity in quite this way. My first objection is that this does not necessarily imply justice for the individual. That we can view the Universe as a singularity from certain perspectives does not necessarily mean that it could not be improved upon. This wouldn't necessarily negate your theory but it might rely upon the Universe being perfect. I'll have to think on that one if you don't mind.

Justice is manifest in all creations. Balance and equality is found in all aspects of our life.

My maxim is, "Everything in moderation, including moderation." Too much balance can be boring. But I do tend to agree. However, this seems perfectly rational to me; to put things out of balance would be irrational (particularly when regarding the consequences).

Perceiving a situation from an alternative perspective is not a consistent method for dealing with your problems, by doing that you're bound to make a bunch of decisions that are all contradicting with each other and may even eventually undermine one of your own decisions.

This wasn't my suggestion. What I was saying is that one may understand justice by considering alternative perspectives. As far as solving problems, I still think it's a good idea to do so but one must then combine these views and consider them from your own perspective.

Just like you told me earlier, morality grows with us, I think their is a big problem with your concept of evolving morality.

Which is?

But the all wise Oliver Wendell Homles didn't want to stick to justice. He found that dealing with law is much more simpler and doable than to try to attain justice, so why should we take a route that many wise men have refrained from taking.

I don't think that this was necessarily the case. What he was pointing out is that the judicial system is concerned with interpreting and enforcing the law and not about absolute justice. An unjust law is still a law and must be enforced by the judicial system, it is up to the public, via its representatives, to determine whether the laws are just and to change them if need be. My concern in avoiding this aspect is that it simply makes matters far more complex as we would need to take into account the process of lawmaking, politics, governance, etc. Let's see if we can tackle the moral issue instead.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by everneo
Either you are bored or don't want to realise that your logic of rational morality is not absolutely rational.

I'm arguing a point, everneo, and trying to see where it leads us.

There are degrees of loyalty for they are based on emotions which vary from person to person.

I am willing to accept that individuals give different values to the same moral principles and that these various values influence each other as well as the overall outcome. I will also grant you that there is nothing to guarantee that an individual assigns these values rationally or that they will act rationally based upon them. But I still don't see where this indicates that the moral principles themselves are irrational.

You and me are not in a position of asserting what is absolute loyalty and their degree of usefulness. Applying reasons for their functional usefulness is not absolute.

I wasn't trying to assert any absolutes nor am I trying to make a moral judgment regarding moral values. I'm trying to examine the source and function of morality.

The whole seemingly boring discussion started from the assertion that ratioanl morality is the best alternative to the existing morality. I tried to say this alternative has same drawbacks of religious morality which is not either a complete failure or complete success. What we have now is not a moral utopia obviously.

What we have now is not a rational morality. But I tend to agree with Cris in this, thus far. If you find that there are drawbacks I'd be pleased to hear them.

Sorry you find it boring, I find it quite interesting.

We have bitter truths facing us.

Truths like this are only bitter if you prefer fantasy.

To reduce its adverse impact atleast we should not give an ideological weapon to unscrupulous elements to have some bull shit ideologies.

I don't see where the notion that our emotions are in some part directed by our genetics gives anyone an ideological weapon.

I agree with a side note. Majority is not as reasonable as Raithere.

I tend to agree. But the problem is that they are being unreasonable not that reason isn't effective.

May be, i misunderstood your statement : "cooperative behavior exists in the animal world without reason or training."

I wasn't very clear there. I didn't mean to assert that animals do not have some level of reason but that there are examples of cooperative behavior that do not rely on reason. I cannot conceive of an ant, for instance, making a reasoned choice to cooperate with its colony, nor does it seem to rely on training.

If you mean cooperative behaviour in animal world was a result of trial & error or casual training.

Either way. Even by training the individual would have to see an action and then attempt to duplicate it. The process would proceed by trial and error.

But i doubt whether they would form a cooperative society immediately. I would expect a good nasty fight among them before a working compromise realised overcoming their instant instincts. Perhaps i should have typed 'cooperative behaviour' instead of 'social behaviour'.

But that ordering process (the nasty fights) is how dogs form a cooperative society. The instinct is for certain dogs to attempt to lead, leadership is determined by battle.

BTW, this is important to keep in mind when training dogs. I don't mean that you should beat them but that physical dominancy is how they perceive social hierarchy.

The ignorance is in thinking which is logical. You think you are logical but others would have their own logic based on their own value / weightage system and views on emotions. There is no absolute logic, thats what i was trying to tell vainly.

Logic isn't different from person to person, the values and premises are.

If you are not asserting nor am i. I will get back to you when i find a better alternative. Thanks for your time.

I'll look forward to it. Thanks for your input.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Different meanings that have their own context.
1. Rational/Logical thought
2. Justification for act --> Reasons for

This may be the source of some of our misunderstanding. I have been using it purely in the logical reference and assuming you were doing the same. Certainly I agree that not all justifications are logical.

I am unsure of the context you are using "faculties". What abilities are necessary for morality? Or what basis does one base morality?

Why not both?

I don't see where the difference is significant. IMO and within this context reason is simply informal logic. When reason fails the test of logic it is invalid.

How is it out of context when the context is morality; and morality by virtue of having a subtext that is religious can be illogical?

One can build a logical argument from an assumed premise. Thus, God is omni benevolent. God wishes us to worship him for our own good. Therefore we should worship God. Would be a logical argument built from assumed premises.

You are missing it. It is reasobale if by accepting the ant as God, I get say a million bucks. It is illogical to accept the ant as God but reasonable within the context.

Sorry, we were miscommunication there (see top).

The point is that morality can be based on greed or faith-- which can be irrational.

But this demonstrates exactly why logic is appropriate.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

All:

Whew... I'm starting to confuse myself.

:bugeye:

I'm gonna go take a nap.

~Raithere

 

[thefountainhed]

This may be the source of some of our misunderstanding. I have been using it purely in the logical reference and assuming you were doing the same.

Surely you cannot mean you meant reason as in formal logic. If you did, this weakens your argument. Re-read and see.

Certainly I agree that not all justifications are logical.

Good

Why not both?

Fine.
Abilities: Brain
Basis: Greed, culture, religion, reason(informal), logic, etc etc

I don't see where the difference is significant. IMO and within this context reason is simply informal logic. When reason fails the test of logic it is invalid.

Contradiction with first statement. Of course the differences are significant. Religion for instance is not based on reason; so religious morality must follow.

One can build a logical argument from an assumed premise. Thus, God is omni benevolent. God wishes us to worship him for our own good. Therefore we should worship God. Would be a logical argument built from assumed premises.

One should also not make an assumed premise. The Christian God is also vicious and jealous. Either way, it is illogical because the fundamental premise-- the existance of a God is not fact and cannot be proven.

Sorry, we were miscommunication there (see top).

I thought so at first, now I am unsure what your assertion really is.

But this demonstrates exactly why logic is appropriate.

You just tried to show how Religious morality was rational! And no, logic is not appropriate because religious morality can be, AND is effective within certain contexts-- and the contexts are really at that matter. Context implying of course time periods, society, culture, etc.

 

[okinrus]

It's interesting that Godel's theorem says that all formal logic systems above a certain point are inconsistant. I'm not sure how he proved it though... This would however mean that some things are based upon perspective and what we choose to see.

 

[Flores]

Originally posted by Raithere
Yes, I would generally say that is a morally good act. I'll leave it at that and see where you go with it.

I will try to show you where religion fills the gaps in our understanding of morality.
A family of a mother, father, and two children have decided to adopt another child. Under the current western laws, the adoptive parents would give the child their last name and the child would be equated in rights and responsbilities to the biological children. The religious take on this is different, at least the muslim take on this. Islam allows for adoption, yet prohibts that the child be given the name of the adoptive parents. The child is to know from day one their status as adopted children. The child is not to enter with the biological children in a war over inheritance, ect... You may criticize this system and say that it's cruel to treat the child differently, while the all knowing god is letting us know in religion that it's best for the child to know his origin from day one. Your perception of justice might again be causing you to commit future injustices, and your commitment to ignore religion is the equivalent of reinventing the wheel.

Originally posted by Raithere
I don't think I agree with this. That energy equals mass at the speed of light squared doesn't seem to equate to a notion of justice. But I might have to reconsider, regarding this:

In my view it does. For an equality to take place between these different terms, they must interact in a specific order. All interaction attain an equality and work under order that is just. Same for humans, our equality is not the percieved linear function. Thou shall not kill, but when you are attacked, you better believe that you can defend yourself. Thou shall not steal, but when your kids are starving, you better believe that stealing a loaf of bread is more just than letting the kids die. The jewish ten commandments as moral codes are silly and very simplistic. Any attempts to simplify the religious scriptures into cookie cutter or checklist is undermining the meanings of the scriptures and have nothing to do with religion.

Originally posted by Raithere
I'm going to have to give this one more thought, I've never considered unity in quite this way. My first objection is that this does not necessarily imply justice for the individual. That we can view the Universe as a singularity from certain perspectives does not necessarily mean that it could not be improved upon. This wouldn't necessarily negate your theory but it might rely upon the Universe being perfect. I'll have to think on that one if you don't mind.

A perfect universe, includes the good, the bad, and the ugly. The concept of judgement explains how justice is finally attained. In chemistry, we assign oxidation and reduction numbers to the elements and sort them out in a periodic table. We are told that judgement of the human souls is a similar process, and thus equality is fianlly achieved.

Originally posted by Raithere
Which is?

To me, evolving morality is a very questionable concept. You must explain to me whether you think that morality is hardwired within us and is evolving with the human race, or whether you think the theoretical concept of morality is the one you mean is evolving. If you believe in the later, then please explain how can an exterior theoretical concept that is evolving independant of the human be enforced or made compatible to a human. How does our nature catch up to this evolving concept?

Originally posted by Raithere
I don't think that this was necessarily the case. What he was pointing out is that the judicial system is concerned with interpreting and enforcing the law and not about absolute justice. An unjust law is still a law and must be enforced by the judicial system, it is up to the public, via its representatives, to determine whether the laws are just and to change them if need be. My concern in avoiding this aspect is that it simply makes matters far more complex as we would need to take into account the process of lawmaking, politics, governance, etc. Let's see if we can tackle the moral issue instead.

I dare to disagree Raithere, I think that the deep meaning under his quote was to subtly say that adminstering justice is a such a difficult and complex term that he can't attain, and that's why he opted for a simpler job of adminstering the law.