I think that morals and ethics should be grouped in the same category as manners or other matters of taste.
Often people will argue that a certain act is innately wrong or good; such as murder is bad so we musn't do it, or you should give to charity because it's good.
I think these statements have as much value as arguments such as "one should say bless you after a person has sneezed".
Ultimately what is good is what makes one better off, and what is bad is what makes one worse off. Any other oppinons that have the words good/bad attached are simply mannerisms, arbitrary value judments or normally base emotions. As such should not be granted any special reverence or even any innate value.
I belive that when debating any appeal to morlity or ethics should be completely disregarded, just as any argument where a person would appeal to tradition or emotion should be completely regarded.
I truly belive that there are 2 ways a human can think, and at almost any given time will be combining the 2 in order to construct their own thoughts.
Emotion and Logic. Emotion is that which evolution has equiped us with. When we were incapable of logic and higher thought, emotion was of the upmost importance, emotion was the only way we could make choices.
However we have, as a species, recently learnt an alternative to this frankly base system, logic. In ANY circumstance logical thought is superior to that of emotional thought. As such we should denounce all emotion for what it is, a base animalistic vulgar rational.
Then what will make us differnt from robots? Well, we already are. We are biological machines programed to reproduce. If people find living without emotion empty then I advocate we indulge in emotion as a pastime. But we do not let it rule our soceity. So many eminent issues have been decided by emotion under the banner of morality.
I truly belive that there are 2 ways a human can think, and at almost any given time will be combining the 2 in order to construct their own thoughts.
Emotion and Logic. Emotion is that which evolution has equiped us with. When we were incapable of logic and higher thought, emotion was of the upmost importance, emotion was the only way we could make choices.
However we have, as a species, recently learnt an alternative to this frankly base system, logic. In ANY circumstance logical thought is superior to that of emotional thought. As such we should denounce all emotion for what it is, a base animalistic vulgar rational.
Then what will make us differnt from robots? Well, we already are. We are biological machines programed to reproduce. If people find living without emotion empty then I advocate we indulge in emotion as a pastime. But we do not let it rule our soceity. So many eminent issues have been decided by emotion under the banner of morality.
I don't know quite to what extent you can seperate the two; logic and emotion. Certainly a lot of our logical thought rests on our innate feelings about something.
It is true that morality and emotion is something that we have got from evolution, but why does this mean that we should discard it? Our morality is one of the reasons our species as done so well. Ultimately you could say that we should abandon morality altogether as there is no logical truth to it. However, there is subjective truth to it, and we should assume that it is true in so far as it improves our lives.
I don't know quite to what extent you can seperate the two; logic and emotion. Certainly a lot of our logical thought rests on our innate feelings about something.
It is true that morality and emotion is something that we have got from evolution, but why does this mean that we should discard it? Our morality is one of the reasons our species as done so well. Ultimately you could say that we should abandon morality altogether as there is no logical truth to it. However, there is subjective truth to it, and we should assume that it is true in so far as it improves our lives.
Im sorry if I implied the reason we should dsicard emotion is because we evolved it.
The reason is becuase it is soo powerful and yet soo inferior to logic. I am not really speaking from a philosophical perspecitve. Simply put given any aim or set of objectives using logic will in all cases yeild a better outcome then emotion will.
On a philisophical note, one can argue that logic is as true as emotion and that life is without any inherent meaning or absolute truth. But I am simply putting forward that given the choice between logic and emotion we should in a civilised society never choose emotion.
Emotion is why the mob attacked the pedatrition, emotion is why terrorists exist. Emotion is beliving in national identity which ofcourse has caused soo many ways. Emotion is what caused soo many degenerative economic policys. Emotion causes the majortiy of murders and rapes.
Logic abled man to land on the moon. Logic is why I am able to converse with people all over the world effortlessly. Logic is why the average life expectency is over 3 times that of 150 years ago.
Emotion is why the mob attacked the pedatrition, emotion is why terrorists exist. Emotion is beliving in national identity which ofcourse has caused soo many ways. Emotion is what caused soo many degenerative economic policys. Emotion causes the majortiy of murders and rapes.
Emotion is why you think these are bad things. Logic has absolutely nothing to say on the matter.
Emotion is why you think these are bad things. Logic has absolutely nothing to say on the matter.
Fat lot of use that was.
This statment does not have to be true.
I have in the past acted using emotion, and I have acted using logic.
I have seen how logic is more apt to achieve my goals.
So I tout logic.
I argue that it is logical to prefer logic over emotion. It is logical to prefer a "nice feeling" emotion such as warmth over a "bad feeling" emotion such as sadness.
I realise that we will feel emotions, but we musn't let them think for us.
E.g. A man walks into his bedroom to find his wife in the embrace of another man, rage surges through his body, the man kills his wife and her lover, acting on the emotion.
A man walks into his bedroom to find his wife in the embrace of another man, rage surges though his body, this time the man thinks. "I feel angry and want to feel happy. How can I acheive this? Will killing them make me happy in the long run. No. I shall find out why my wife has cheated on me and reasses the situation as to whether or not I shall remain her husband or perhaps find a new wife." The man kills no one and goes on to have long term happiness.
You failed to apply this logic when making the thread "vegetarians are at best ignorant arguebly immoral". How are they immoral if morality means nothing.
But, i agree that morality means nothing. However, it is the only reason we have to live or do anything.
You are making an unbelievable raft of assumptions about "morality".
Of course morality can be based on logic. To say that morality is always based on emotion is always patently false.
Moreover, it is not at all clear that there is a concrete divide between 'emotion' and 'logic'. There are clear evolutionary reasons for 'emotion' after all!
You have also made a giant leap of faith in assuming that the only important thing is what makes one better off. First, I don't see any justification for this statement. Second, it is clear that what makes one better off may well include moral principles.
You are also contradicting your thread on vegetarianism where you state "When campaigners for animal rights are supreimposed against thoose who campaign for human rights the immorality of this belief system become stark.".
I have in the past acted using emotion, and I have acted using logic.
I have seen how logic is more apt to achieve my goals.
So I tout logic.
I argue that it is logical to prefer logic over emotion. It is logical to prefer a "nice feeling" emotion such as warmth over a "bad feeling" emotion such as sadness.
I realise that we will feel emotions, but we musn't let them think for us.
E.g. A man walks into his bedroom to find his wife in the embrace of another man, rage surges through his body, the man kills his wife and her lover, acting on the emotion.
A man walks into his bedroom to find his wife in the embrace of another man, rage surges though his body, this time the man thinks. "I feel angry and want to feel happy. How can I acheive this? Will killing them make me happy in the long run. No. I shall find out why my wife has cheated on me and reasses the situation as to whether or not I shall remain her husband or perhaps find a new wife." The man kills no one and goes on to have long term happiness.
I think that’s the problem: "logic is more apt to achieve my goals"
When you apply this to a society, as you said to choose logic over emotion completely, it raises the issue that logic is not apt for achieving many other goals of many other people. The advance of science (every kind, social included) and other things can be helped by logic. I think many of you examples earlier were of the scientific nature. However, many people, although they may find science interesting (me included in this), do not wish to devote their life to it. After all science's advancement is generally for our advancement, to reduce negative feelings, pain, etc.
Using your example of the cheating wife, I see your nice use of emotion and logic, (in the end a balance of the two is probably preferable) but it does suggest happiness is the ultimate goal of the man. Is this your view?
There are so many things in life which are pointless without emotion. Lastly, don't you think science too rests on emotion, the will to discover, debate, etc?
This is TSR there isn't really a standard of thread.
This thread is at least a bit interesting, unlike the 50million "do I look ugly?" "am I attractive" ones.
In no way am I saying taking those down, I don't have to look at them, and you don't have to look at this one, if you don't like it, stop reading, leave, simple as that.
This is TSR there isn't really a standard of thread.
This thread is at least a bit interesting, unlike the 50million "do I look ugly?" "am I attractive" ones.
In no way am I saying taking those down, I don't have to look at them, and you don't have to look at this one, if you don't like it, stop reading, leave, simple as that.
Fair enough; it's just that this guy keeps on making incoherent threads on topics that have been covered a thousand times, and wonders why he gets dismissive responses, which starts to get irritating after a while.
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
Moralitys place in D&D
