Why are people stuck on morality? Watch

chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#21
Report 5 years ago
#21
(Original post by The Angry Stoic)
Morality ultimately has to exist as catagorical imperatives. Things that should be done for no reason. Just that they are right. The hard part is finding out what they are.

I believe that the only thing we have to base these imperatives on are our emotions and desires.
Why?
0
quote
reply
The Angry Stoic
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#22
Report 5 years ago
#22
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Why?
Why to which part?
0
quote
reply
xMr_BrightSide
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#23
Report 5 years ago
#23
Because morality is like justice. It doesn't exist empirically, it is an aspect of existence that we have created. You can't inspect something, like ethical naturalists think, and objectively determine it's morality.

Morality is always an open question - you are always able to question whether something was right or wrong, good or bad, precisely because it is not empirically decided.
0
quote
reply
chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#24
Report 5 years ago
#24
(Original post by The Angry Stoic)
Why to which part?
Your last sentence.

I'm not sure whether you're making an assertion or just giving an opinion. It doesn't make much sense to argue for categorical imperatives that are inherently right and say they're based on our emotions and desires. In my opinion at least.
0
quote
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 5 years ago
#25
important things for me are:

consent
harm to others


i don't think certain things should be disallowed because they're not "nice" or "appealing"

but i hate arguments like "it's not nice for society" if a certain action doesn't affect you. they just want to control others.
0
quote
reply
chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#26
Report 5 years ago
#26
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
important things for me are:

consent
harm to others


i don't think certain things should be disallowed because they're not "nice" or "appealing"

but i hate arguments like "it's not nice for society" if a certain action doesn't affect you. they just want to control others.
An action doesn't need to affect you directly for you to disagree with it. The persecution of homosexuals doesn't affect me directly yet I'm still opposed to it.
0
quote
reply
The Angry Stoic
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#27
Report 5 years ago
#27
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Your last sentence.

I'm not sure whether you're making an assertion or just giving an opinion. It doesn't make much sense to argue for categorical imperatives that are inherently right and say they're based on our emotions and desires. In my opinion at least.
You'll have to bear with me on this one as its not one of my opinions I've perfected explaining.

It's not a catagorical imperative or imperatives based on individual emotions, so you wouldn't say 'chickenonsteroids hates being raped so its imperative not to rape him', but rather the negative affect an act has on your emotions in the sense that you are hurt, in any sense, so you would say 'chickenonsteroids hates being raped because it hurts him and it imperative not to hurt him' as you may like getting raped so it wouldn't hurt you. Or maybe being whipped is a better example here. No one likes to be raped!

The next problem is sometimes it is useless to hurt someone against their will to help them in the long term most commonly with children and stupid people. I'm trying to decide on what's the right thing to do myself. Kant would say people are an end to themselves not a means to an end so shouldn't be manipulated but I'm not sure if that holds if the end they are being manipulated to is to benefit themselves so they are in part both the means and the end.

Furthermore people's emotions can be manipulated. What should you do for a man who likes to be a slave?

I'm not trying to say this morality is 'objective', whatever people mean by that theses days I don't know and if they mean it never changes then this system would be objective once the kinks are worked out, but emotions are the only thing we have to base morality on. They may be inherently irrational but that doesn't mean they can't be used rationally.

This sort of system is generally what most atheists already do I believe.

How well did I explain that? Terribly I fear. It's something I'm still thinking about myself.
0
quote
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 5 years ago
#28
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
An action doesn't need to affect you directly for you to disagree with it. The persecution of homosexuals doesn't affect me directly yet I'm still opposed to it.
you must have missed the part where i said 'harm'

i would disagree with someone if they SAID all homosexuals should be persecuted. but i wouldn't say it's wrong as it's their BELIEF. but acting upon the belief (as in killing them) is wrong.
0
quote
reply
chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#29
Report 5 years ago
#29
(Original post by The Angry Stoic)
You'll have to bear with me on this one as its not one of my opinions I've perfected explaining.

It's not a catagorical imperative or imperatives based on individual emotions, so you wouldn't say 'chickenonsteroids hates being raped so its imperative not to rape him', but rather the negative affect an act has on your emotions in the sense that you are hurt, in any sense, so you would say 'chickenonsteroids hates being raped because it hurts him and it imperative not to hurt him' as you may like getting raped so it wouldn't hurt you. Or maybe being whipped is a better example here. No one likes to be raped!
So if an action results in a negative emotion then you shouldn't do it? That's a bit simple. The moral dilemmas we face can be much more complicated than a case of punching someone. If I were to say "TAS hates taxes because he doesn't like losing hard earned money therefore it's an imperative not to tax him' then it seems, by your definition of morality, taxes shouldn't be permitted. Or, 'TAS's son hates needles therefore it's imperative you don't inject him with anything' which means that you can't give him any vaccines. Now, you may respond by saying that the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the negative emotion initially felt. However, doing that turns your moral theory into a consequentialist one whereas it was trying to be a deontological one previously.

The next problem is sometimes it is useless to hurt someone against their will to help them in the long term most commonly with children and stupid people. I'm trying to decide on what's the right thing to do myself. Kant would say people are an end to themselves not a means to an end so shouldn't be manipulated but I'm not sure if that holds if the end they are being manipulated to is to benefit themselves so they are in part both the means and the end.
Woops, I forgot you mentioned this. You can read my previous point anyway.

This part is a bit confusing. Who is using who as a means to an end? Kant's maxim utilises consent. I use a teacher as a means to an end (to gain education) but that's permitted since the teacher allows it, plus they use students as a means to an end (to further their knowledge and get paid). So teachers can allow themselves to be 'manipulated' since it'll benefit them in the long run and they allow it.

The problem I have with the word manipulation is that it carries negative connotations and isn't corrected for context. If you're manipulating (or exploiting, if you want a clearer word) someone, you're using them as a means to an end without their explicit permission.

Furthermore people's emotions can be manipulated. What should you do for a man who likes to be a slave?

I'm not trying to say this morality is 'objective', whatever people mean by that theses days I don't know and if they mean it never changes then this system would be objective once the kinks are worked out, but emotions are the only thing we have to base morality on. They may be inherently irrational but that doesn't mean they can't be used rationally.

This sort of system is generally what most atheists already do I believe.

How well did I explain that? Terribly I fear. It's something I'm still thinking about myself.
I have to disagree with your statement about emotion. It's pretty bold! Emotions do play a large part in our moral decision making since we aren't purely rational beings but we use reason quite a lot in the decisions especially when the problems become more complicated.

Do you know what emotivism is? (This isn't meant to be condescing :nah:) Your explanation was a bit confusing and I bet my response was too :lol:
0
quote
reply
chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#30
Report 5 years ago
#30
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
you must have missed the part where i said 'harm'

i would disagree with someone if they SAID all homosexuals should be persecuted. but i wouldn't say it's wrong as it's their BELIEF. but acting upon the belief (as in killing them) is wrong.
Why can't they have beliefs that are wrong even if they don't act on it? Simply because it's a belief doesn't mean that they are of equal standing. Surely proper argument is the way to decide if a view is closer to the truth or not?
0
quote
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 5 years ago
#31
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Why can't they have beliefs that are wrong even if they don't act on it? Simply because it's a belief doesn't mean that they are of equal standing. Surely proper argument is the way to decide if a view is closer to the truth or not?
wrong in the sense that they must change it
0
quote
reply
chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#32
Report 5 years ago
#32
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
wrong in the sense that they must change it
So if I taught people that homosexuals are evil (but didn't harm any of the homosexuals) I'd still be ok in holding that belief?
0
quote
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 5 years ago
#33
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
So if I taught people that homosexuals are evil (but didn't harm any of the homosexuals) I'd still be ok in holding that belief?
no because you're forcing it upon them
0
quote
reply
chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#34
Report 5 years ago
#34
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
no because you're forcing it upon them
So would I be wrong to say that homosexuals are normal without offering any alternative?
0
quote
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 5 years ago
#35
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
So would I be wrong to say that homosexuals are normal without offering any alternative?
just say what homosexuality is then allow people to come to their own conclusions
0
quote
reply
chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#36
Report 5 years ago
#36
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
just say what homosexuality is then allow people to come to their own conclusions
What about teaching people about evolution? Do I have to offer creationism as an alternative?
0
quote
reply
The Angry Stoic
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#37
Report 5 years ago
#37
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
So if an action results in a negative emotion then you shouldn't do it? That's a bit simple. The moral dilemmas we face can be much more complicated than a case of punching someone. If I were to say "TAS hates taxes because he doesn't like losing hard earned money therefore it's an imperative not to tax him' then it seems, by your definition of morality, taxes shouldn't be permitted. Or, 'TAS's son hates needles therefore it's imperative you don't inject him with anything' which means that you can't give him any vaccines. Now, you may respond by saying that the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the negative emotion initially felt. However, doing that turns your moral theory into a consequentialist one whereas it was trying to be a deontological one previously.



Woops, I forgot you mentioned this. You can read my previous point anyway.

This part is a bit confusing. Who is using who as a means to an end? Kant's maxim utilises consent. I use a teacher as a means to an end (to gain education) but that's permitted since the teacher allows it, plus they use students as a means to an end (to further their knowledge and get paid). So teachers can allow themselves to be 'manipulated' since it'll benefit them in the long run and they allow it.

The problem I have with the word manipulation is that it carries negative connotations and isn't corrected for context. If you're manipulating (or exploiting, if you want a clearer word) someone, you're using them as a means to an end without their explicit permission.



I have to disagree with your statement about emotion. It's pretty bold! Emotions do play a large part in our moral decision making since we aren't purely rational beings but we use reason quite a lot in the decisions especially when the problems become more complicated.

Do you know what emotivism is? (This isn't meant to be condescing :nah:) Your explanation was a bit confusing and I bet my response was too :lol:
Morality is a confusing topic especially when you can't talk face to face!

With consent it's naturally fine to hurt someone to benefit them but the difficulty is when they don't consent. If a child refuses to have the vaccine should we still do it? Or if he doesn't want to go to school should we make him? If a Jehovah witness doesn't want a life saving blood transfusion should we make him? And if we should do some but not others where do we draw the line?

I think morality has to be purely based on emotions as if we were entirely rational we wouldn't need morality. It wouldn't exist. To put it bluntly, if everyone was entirely rational and recognised all emotions as irrational we'd all just sit down and wait to die. What rational reason would you have to do anything?

What is emotivism?

I don't like when people say morality is just decided by the society we live in. In no way was slavery or witch hunts were moral. Actions can't be inherently wrong in one place and right in another. People may have thought it was right but that doesn't make it so.
0
quote
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 5 years ago
#38
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
What about teaching people about evolution? Do I have to offer creationism as an alternative?
if you're a 'teacher' then yes
0
quote
reply
Ashahedow
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#39
Report 5 years ago
#39
(Original post by Dualcore)
How so?
In depression, our emotions can override our survival instinct. Societal and familial rejection is a common cause of suicide and suicidal behaviours.
0
quote
reply
Dualcore
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#40
Report 5 years ago
#40
(Original post by Ashahedow)
In depression, our emotions can override our survival instinct. Extreme societal and familial rejection is a common cause of suicide and suicidal behaviours.
Depression can still arise in someone who has had a comparatively easy life how would you explain that.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (132)
18.38%
No (436)
60.72%
Not really bothered about them (150)
20.89%

Watched Threads

View All