Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    They both have something to offer? Maybe not to you, but open-minded people can benefit from both disciplines.
    So all the scientists who ridicule philosophy as mere sophistry are closed minded? Have you ever considered that you may be wrong, that philosophy is just a game of no value. Consider two philosophical ideas that had some value, the Atom and Alchemy, if philosophy had any value for evidence we could have found chemistry and particle physics much quicker, but philosophy is only interested (according to you) in a good argument and any knowledge gained is incidental. Do you even understand why the Atom and Alchemy could be relevant philosophical questions?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Of course motivations can't be moral, only actions can. You can't choose your motivations therefore you're view is that you are destined to be immoral before you even do anything! Another instance of you relying on determinism...
    We may well be destined to be immoral before we even do anything, but we can also 'choose' to act in a different way (I'm probably a compatibilist on free will).

    (Original post by xylas)
    You are yet to make an argument for utilitarianism. The premise 'every being tries to maximise its own preference-satisfaction' can easily (I would say much more easily) lead to the conclusion that we are amoral beings.
    No, it doesn't, because from that premise you get the next premise which you haven't successfully challenged, namely that there is no logical justification for putting one's own preferences above those of others. This leads to utilitarianism: if we are to maximise the satisfaction of our preferences - which it is impossible not to - we should maximise the preference-satisfaction of every sentient being.

    (Original post by xylas)
    'How am I to live?' doesn't have a correct (factual) answer.
    I'm arguing that it does: unless you can refute the argument above, it does. There are no consequences if we do differently, but we're still, objectively, doing the wrong thing.

    Anyway, I doubt this conversation can go much further: it was certainly very interesting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dozyrosie)
    So all the scientists who ridicule philosophy as mere sophistry are closed minded? Have you ever considered that you may be wrong, that philosophy is just a game of no value. Consider two philosophical ideas that had some value, the Atom and Alchemy, if philosophy had any value for evidence we could have found chemistry and particle physics much quicker, but philosophy is only interested (according to you) in a good argument and any knowledge gained is incidental. Do you even understand why the Atom and Alchemy could be relevant philosophical questions?
    Which scientists are these? Are you attempting an ad populum argument here?

    Philosophy values evidence, don't know where you got that idea from. You seem to think knowledge is 'better' than wisdom. The funny thing is that you need wisdom to make a claim like that.

    Explain yourself better, what are the questions?

    (Original post by viddy9)
    We may well be destined to be immoral before we even do anything, but we can also 'choose' to act in a different way (I'm probably a compatibilist on free will).

    No, it doesn't, because from that premise you get the next premise which you haven't successfully challenged, namely that there is no logical justification for putting one's own preferences above those of others. This leads to utilitarianism: if we are to maximise the satisfaction of our preferences - which it is impossible not to - we should maximise the preference-satisfaction of every sentient being.

    I'm arguing that it does: unless you can refute the argument above, it does. There are no consequences if we do differently, but we're still, objectively, doing the wrong thing.

    Anyway, I doubt this conversation can go much further: it was certainly very interesting.
    'Destined to be immoral' doesn't make sense. Not according to most people's definitions of morality. 'destined to be amoral' on the other hand makes complete sense. Also as far as I'm concerned any element of determinism in your theory completely undermines the utilitarianism that you have described.

    You can get to many premises, your being just one of them. There are countless logical justifications, just because you don't accept any of them doesn't make them less valid.

    You have committed a serious fallacy of presuming your theory is correct until it can be disproven. Btw you haven't disproven my theory just because you keep arguing for your own. In addition, your theory has no consequences for life so it is less powerful than mine. So what if I don't accept your theory, nothing will happen. Usually the truth benefits those who seek it but with your theory it makes no difference to your life whether or not it is true. Hence why it probably isn't.

    It could go further if you bother to address my argument the same way I have bothered with yours. But I doubt you will. Anyway, your the only one so far who has justified why you disagree with me so I'll give you credit for that.

    Message me anytime if you want to discuss philosophy further. We can't spend our life simply talking to those who agree with us now can we?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Humans lack morality. Being moral is a fictional, unattainable quality. Most people say they have morals but in reality no-one follows them. My argument is that it is impossible for a human to follow a system of morality. In essence we are amoral beings. Discuss.

    Definitions:
    Spoiler:
    Show

    noun: morality
    principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

    adjective: amoral
    not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
    Morality is subjective. It is possible that some people are amoral. But the fact that "principles concerning right vs. wrong" have existed (e.g. Confucianism, Christianity, et cetera) fundamentally disproves the idea that we "all" are amoral. And the very fact that "some people say they have morals" makes them inherently NOT amoral, because even if they don't abide by said morals, they still involve questions of right and wrong. Just because you come up with a set of morals, doesn't mean you have to follow them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.G.N.A)
    Morality is subjective. It is possible that some people are amoral. But the fact that "principles concerning right vs. wrong" have existed (e.g. Confucianism, Christianity, et cetera) fundamentally disproves the idea that we "all" are amoral. And the very fact that "some people say they have morals" makes them inherently NOT amoral, because even if they don't abide by said morals, they still involve questions of right and wrong. Just because you come up with a set of morals, doesn't mean you have to follow them.
    Well that's exactly what my definition of amoral refers to: not following a set of morals even though you say you ascribe to them. I have stated my argument many times earlier in the thread, but in essence the existence of morals in no way disproves my argument that we are amoral beings. (and just because you can make up a set of morals doesn't make you a moral being by my definition)...
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.