# Is logic: created from morals, the reasoning behind morals, or unrelated to morals?



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

While thinking is for logic and feeling is for morals/values, do you believe they ever intertwine?


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Thinking functions are for logic. Feeling functions are for morals.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Strelok said:


> Thinking functions are for logic. Feeling functions are for morals.


I meant to elaborate more on what i was questioning. I edited my OP.


----------



## Yeezus (Feb 22, 2014)

Logic is completely independent of morals (eg. 2+2=4 has nothing to do with morals), though it can also tell us what is moral, assuming you define morality in a hedonistic, suffering-averse sense. It can be used to calculate the course of action which would result in the least amount of suffering, or something to that effect.

/thread


----------



## TML3193 (Jan 27, 2015)

Morals have absolutely nothing to do with logic. Logical rules are always as they are, anywhere in the world, applied to any situation - morality is not.

Yeezus put it perfectly.



Yeezus said:


> Logic is completely independent of morals (eg. 2+2=4 has nothing to do with morals)


2+2 will ALWAYS be 4. Modus ponens and modus tollens will always be constructed in that format. I honestly cannot conceive of how morality would factor into or even intertwine with logic (philosophy major here).


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> While thinking is for logic and feeling is for morals/values, do you believe they ever intertwine?


Logic is a tool we use to lead us to accurate conclusions about the state of reality. With the current state of things, the term "morality" has come to take on many, many meanings, and often they are frequently ill-defined and "wishy-washy". If you can define what you mean by "morals", then I may be better equipped to answer.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Clyme said:


> Logic is a tool we use to lead us to accurate conclusions about the state of reality. With the current state of things, the term "morality" has come to take on many, many meanings, and often they are frequently ill-defined and "wishy-washy". If you can define what you mean by "morals", then I may be better equipped to answer.


The belief system of good and bad. (E.g. a person's belief of good and bad, per se.)


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

TML3193 said:


> Morals have absolutely nothing to do with logic. Logical rules are always as they are, anywhere in the world, applied to any situation - morality is not.
> 
> Yeezus put it perfectly.
> 
> 2+2 will ALWAYS be 4. Modus ponens and modus tollens will always be constructed in that format. I honestly cannot conceive of how morality would factor into or even intertwine with logic (philosophy major here).



Yes, but can logic sometimes define or calculate morals?


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Yeezus said:


> Logic is completely independent of morals (eg. 2+2=4 has nothing to do with morals), though it can also tell us what is moral, assuming you define morality in a hedonistic, suffering-averse sense. It can be used to calculate the course of action which would result in the least amount of suffering, or something to that effect.
> 
> /thread


I like your idea that logic can calculate what is moral, although it isn't in itself. That's sort of where I stand.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Queen of Mars said:


> I like your idea that logic can calculate what is moral, although it isn't in itself. That's sort of where I stand.


I think what you're curious about is the difference between logical and rational.
One can be logical without being rational, but one must be logical to be rational, I think that's how it goes anyway.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Wellsy said:


> I think what you're curious about is the difference between logical and rational.
> One can be logical without being rational, but one must be logical to be rational.


That's fascinating. I've always presumed they were the same thing, but that is really enlightening.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> The belief system of good and bad. (E.g. a person's belief of good and bad, per se.)


Sorry to do this again, but the way that "good" and "bad" is defined will also affect to what extent logic is connected.

If we properly define wishy-washy words like "good" and "bad", then we can use logic as a tool for finding consistent and accurate answers. If we define morality as a representative word of human conscious experience, with the experience of pain being at the "bad" end and the experience of pleasure being at the "good" end, then we can easily assess moral actions with a logical framework. If we define morality as that which contributes to the goals of the entity in question (as I formerly did), then we can still just as easily assess moral actions with a logical framework despite the obvious difference in what it actually means. If, however, we do not properly define morality and instead go off of "gut feelings", then we are not actually exercising critical thinking and are instead relying on intuition and built in mechanisms. This is not exercising logic, and so with that regard, logic would not be tied to _that_ morality. We still, however, could assess that morality using the tool of logic, by assessing the basis for that intuition or otherwise.

Logic, at the end of the day, is a tool for achieving consistency and accuracy with regard to facts, reality, and tangible information. Any properly defined question has an answer, whether we can reach that answer or not. Any properly defined question can thus be tied to logic as that is the tool we use for reaching consistent and accurate answers. Morality, properly defined, has answers whether we can reach them or not, and thus can be tied to logic. Morality, ill-defined, cannot be tied to logic as it does not have answers. Even if it is ill-defined, we can still analyze its basis with logic. Still, I guess from the analysis point of view, we'd have to define exactly what we're analyzing to be able to reach a conclusion, so even then it is based in a defined scope.

Hopefully I didn't ramble too much. Did what I say make sense?


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Clyme said:


> Sorry to do this again, but the way that "good" and "bad" is defined will also affect to what extent logic is connected.
> 
> If we properly define wishy-washy words like "good" and "bad", then we can use logic as a tool for finding consistent and accurate answers. If we define morality as a representative word of human conscious experience, with the experience of pain being at the "bad" end and the experience of pleasure being at the "good" end, then we can easily assess moral actions with a logical framework. If we define morality as that which contributes to the goals of the entity in question (as I formerly did), then we can still just as easily assess moral actions with a logical framework despite the obvious difference in what it actually means. If, however, we do not properly define morality and instead go off of "gut feelings", then we are not actually exercising critical thinking and are instead relying on intuition and built in mechanisms. This is not exercising logic, and so with that regard, logic would not be tied to _that_ morality. We still, however, could assess that morality using the tool of logic, by assessing the basis for that intuition or otherwise.
> 
> ...


Your answer is quite logically thought out in itself and makes a lot of sense. 
You basically said what I was looking for, as my idea is that it's a tool used for understanding and/or properly using morals, as long as the morals are rational and not some crazy radical thing. I especially like the idea that logic helps us understand _why_ certain acts are perceived as good while others are perceived as bad, since I often question them myself. Although, that probably stems from me being a "serotonin and dopamine are the only things you technically enjoy" kind of person.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> Your answer is quite logically thought out in itself and makes a lot of sense.
> You basically said what I was looking for, as my idea is that it's a tool used for understanding and/or properly using morals, as long as the morals are rational and not some crazy radical thing. I especially like the idea that logic helps us understand _why_ certain acts are perceived as good while others are perceived as bad, since I often question them myself. Although, that probably stems from me being a "serotonin and dopamine are the only things you technically enjoy" kind of person.


I'm glad I was able to answer your question sufficiently.

Another thing I would like to add is that morality is a system of valuation, generally regardless of the definition, and so evaluations can only occur if criteria is known. When the criteria is known and clear, that's where we begin drawing conclusions (logic). 

I'm interested in what you define as morality, and how you define its derivatives (like "good" and "bad"). I hope that's not derailing the thread too much.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Clyme said:


> I'm glad I was able to answer your question sufficiently.
> 
> Another thing I would like to add is that morality is a system of valuation, generally regardless of the definition, and so evaluations can only occur if criteria is known. When the criteria is known and clear, that's where we begin drawing conclusions (logic).
> 
> I'm interested in what you define as morality, and how you define its derivatives (like "good" and "bad"). I hope that's not derailing the thread too much.


I've had a difficult time with morality, as I always question it and whatnot. I was confused by my ability to not just accept morals and to pretty much question everything in society when I was younger, however when I discovered MBTI I inferred it was due to my personality type. Anyway, to answer your question:

*Morality - The basic premise of "good" and "bad." Good things are "moral", whilst bad things are "immoral." Morality concerns actions, ideas, language, pretty much anything. Fe/Fi cognitive functions are what contemplate and use morality in an everyday basis.

*Good - Well, this is tricky, as my idea of good is a bit objective. My idea of what is valued as good is in essence whatever the society sees as pleasing and a valued trait. In our society's case, a good person is someone who is kind, honest, loyal, and a whole conglomeration of other valued things. When someone is morally good, they follow all of the society's ideas of "good" actions, beliefs, behaviors, and whatnot. I do not believe that what is good is necessarily the same for every society. Just look back a few hundred years ago, it was seen as good and honorable to own a slave. Moreover, what is good is derived through the acts of sympathy and empathy. Even if you aren't an empath by nature, we do require empathy to derive out sense of good. Or else, we would never be able to experience how others felt and therefore could not really infer something like "Oh, that person was killed. I wouldn't want to be killed, that means killing is bad." 
*Bad - basically the polar opposite of good. Any traits, beliefs, anything really that are not looked upon well from society. 

No one is completely "good" or "bad", it is all shades of grey. 

My definition of good and bad is going to be different from a feeling type, and thus I'm not quite sure I'm the best source on the topic. I don't exactly believe I did an amazing job explaining myself, but it's difficult to verbalize myself at times as my ideas are in general hard to explain verbally (a lovely product of Ni, yes?) I hope this was at least somewhat comprehend-able.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> I've had a difficult time with morality, as I always question it and whatnot. I was confused by my ability to not just accept morals and to pretty much question everything in society when I was younger, however when I discovered MBTI I inferred it was due to my personality type. Anyway, to answer your question:
> 
> *Morality - The basic premise of "good" and "bad." Good things are "moral", whilst bad things are "immoral." Morality concerns actions, ideas, language, pretty much anything. Fe/Fi cognitive functions are what contemplate and use morality in an everyday basis.
> 
> ...


I think you explained your position quite well. To slap a good old label on it, you strike me as a moral relativist, or in other words, somebody who believes that the basis of moral systems is prevailing cultures and societies and that it changes as the evolve or are assimilated. The question now is what side of relativism you're on really, as there are normative relativists and descriptive relativists generally. Do you believe that all systems of morality, due to their basis generally in cultural trends, are of equal merit and thus cannot and should not be compared (a normative relativist)? -Or, on the other hand, do you simply recognize that systems of morality are the product of prevailing cultural trends but do not necessarily believe this is how it ought to be (a descriptive relativist)?

I do appreciate your inference, that the spectrum of good and evil are generally drawn from empathy and sympathy. It seems, from induction, that systems of morality seem concerned with the promotion of well-being and with harm-reduction. Even religions, which have often been the subject of criticism for their allowance or incitement of abject actions and ideologies, seem concerned with ultimate well-being and harm-reduction. Through various rites (whether it's stoning people to death, or not eating certain foods), they seek to get themselves on the right side of their deities or perceived spiritual forces so that they will in some transcendent sense be better off because of it. So, even there, I think it's a generally correct observation that the basis of most moral systems (if not all) is concerned with this facet of human existence and experience. How do we weigh these though? This is really where logic comes into play I think. We can start making comparisons and valuations on moral systems based on how well they achieve the purpose of moral systems, which by induction (as it must be so), is how well they either promote and reduce human well-being. There are many things which can be argued here, such as whether it pertains just to our species, whether group well-being should be taken into account or just individual well-being, or so many other things, but that's the basis that I think morality _really_ tries to get at. I think it's also important to observe how moral-systems can lead to violent and harmful behavior too, such as honor killings, which still have the intended goal of doing the "right" or "moral" thing. Anyway, at this point I'm really rambling. It's a very interesting subject to me, if you haven't gathered already. I don't really have any firm position on the matter, but I do study it as much as I can.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Clyme said:


> I think you explained your position quite well. To slap a good old label on it, you strike me as a moral relativist, or in other words, somebody who believes that the basis of moral systems is prevailing cultures and societies and that it changes as the evolve or are assimilated. The question now is what side of relativism you're on really, as there are normative relativists and descriptive relativists generally. Do you believe that all systems of morality, due to their basis generally in cultural trends, are of equal merit and thus cannot and should not be compared (a normative relativist)? -Or, on the other hand, do you simply recognize that systems of morality are the product of prevailing cultural trends but do not necessarily believe this is how it ought to be (a descriptive relativist)?
> 
> I do appreciate your inference, that the spectrum of good and evil are generally drawn from empathy and sympathy. It seems, from induction, that systems of morality seem concerned with the promotion of well-being and with harm-reduction. Even religions, which have often been the subject of criticism for their allowance or incitement of abject actions and ideologies, seem concerned with ultimate well-being and harm-reduction. Through various rites (whether it's stoning people to death, or not eating certain foods), they seek to get themselves on the right side of their deities or perceived spiritual forces so that they will in some transcendent sense be better off because of it. So, even there, I think it's a generally correct observation that the basis of most moral systems (if not all) is concerned with this facet of human existence and experience. How do we weigh these though? This is really where logic comes into play I think. We can start making comparisons and valuations on moral systems based on how well they achieve the purpose of moral systems, which by induction (as it must be so), is how well they either promote and reduce human well-being. There are many things which can be argued here, such as whether it pertains just to our species, whether group well-being should be taken into account or just individual well-being, or so many other things, but that's the basis that I think morality _really_ tries to get at. I think it's also important to observe how moral-systems can lead to violent and harmful behavior too, such as honor killings, which still have the intended goal of doing the "right" or "moral" thing. Anyway, at this point I'm really rambling. It's a very interesting subject to me, if you haven't gathered already. I don't really have any firm position on the matter, but I do study it as much as I can.


Interesting. I hadn't ever before thought of the exact definition of my opinion on morals, but I believe you're right in that I am a moral relativist (at least relying on your definition of it.) From what you said of the types, I'd say I lean more towards the ideals of the descriptive relativist, as I'm the type of person who believes their is only one true answer. I may need to endeavor into this further, however.

In terms of your ideas that all morals are (in general) based off of the welfare of the people, I completely agree. I also agree that it can lead to some morals that are _not_ beneficial to an individual (e.g. what you said before, honor killing.) Additionally, in my own opinion, morals are something unique to humans. It is an aspect of our brain that is inherently human, and as far as we know now, it is not an attribute of any other species. For example, chimpanzees often _eat_ their offspring. That sounds absolutely atrocious and completely immoral to us humans (excluding cannibals), however as a chimpanzee does not have the complicated thought process or moral beliefs that a human does, it would not process that. A person could potentially argue that the chimpanzee's simply have their own set of morals which allow them to eat their offspring, similarly to how the cannibal human tribes believe that cannibalism is just fine. However, I highly doubt this is a truth, as a chimpanzee's mind does not have the depth of complex thought to actually _think_ of values, and this goes the same for any other non-human species in its current evolutionary state that we currently _know_of. This is one example of how logic comes into play for morals. We had to discover all of the attributes of the chimpanzee and other non-humans as well to discover that they didn't have the ability to comprehend morals, and we had to logically contemplate about it and experiment to do so. 

This subject is quite interesting, and it is one of my favorites to discuss as well. I am exceptionally interested in the idea of whether morals should be more community-based or individual-based. I was initially exposed to this particular interest when completing a project on evolution back in early high school. The writer of the book I read was in essence an anti-Ayn Rand, believing that everything should be done for the whole of society and not directed towards the individual. I am not sure where I stand on this topic thus far, but what is your opinion?


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> Interesting. I hadn't ever before thought of the exact definition of my opinion on morals, but I believe you're right in that I am a moral relativist (at least relying on your definition of it.) From what you said of the types, I'd say I lean more towards the ideals of the descriptive relativist, as I'm the type of person who believes their is only one true answer. I may need to endeavor into this further, however.
> 
> In terms of your ideas that all morals are (in general) based off of the welfare of the people, I completely agree. I also agree that it can lead to some morals that are _not_ beneficial to an individual (e.g. what you said before, honor killing.) Additionally, in my own opinion, morals are something unique to humans. It is an aspect of our brain that is inherently human, and as far as we know now, it is not an attribute of any other species. For example, chimpanzees often _eat_ their offspring. That sounds absolutely atrocious and completely immoral to us humans (excluding cannibals), however as a chimpanzee does not have the complicated thought process or moral beliefs that a human does, it would not process that. A person could potentially argue that the chimpanzee's simply have their own set of morals which allow them to eat their offspring, similarly to how the cannibal human tribes believe that cannibalism is just fine. However, I highly doubt this is a truth, as a chimpanzee's mind does not have the depth of complex thought to actually _think_ of values, and this goes the same for any other non-human species in its current evolutionary state that we currently _know_of. This is one example of how logic comes into play for morals. We had to discover all of the attributes of the chimpanzee and other non-humans as well to discover that they didn't have the ability to comprehend morals, and we had to logically contemplate about it and experiment to do so.
> 
> This subject is quite interesting, and it is one of my favorites to discuss as well. I am exceptionally interested in the idea of whether morals should be more community-based or individual-based. I was initially exposed to this particular interest when completing a project on evolution back in early high school. The writer of the book I read was in essence an anti-Ayn Rand, believing that everything should be done for the whole of society and not directed towards the individual. I am not sure where I stand on this topic thus far, but what is your opinion?


I personally do not share the opinion that morals are inherent to humans alone, nor do I actually think that morals are the result of executive reasoning. For one, many animals exhibit altruistic behavior. One such example is the ground squirrel (and other similar animals) who give off warning calls when they see a predator. This alerts other animals who recognize the call and allows them to flee, benefiting them, but it delays the escape of the one making the call[SUP]1[/SUP]. We also see social frameworks in the animal kingdom, such as the banning together of carnivores when hunting or the organization of flocks or herds of prey for mutual protection[SUP]2[/SUP]. Those things are really no different than what we do. Our social networks are based in very similar foundations, but I reckon that the more complex nature of it stems from the demands of our ever-advancing and ever-growing population. We only really started exercising internationalist policies post-WWII as we realized that we all have the capability of causing mass destruction and harm to our populations if we don't observe the shared space we have. In fact, the formation of basic communities is based in the recognition of shared mutual space. We only have this one land, this one resource, or whatever it is, and we're better off sharing it fairly and evenly than wasting resources fighting over it. That's pretty much been the basal recognition in every social structure. It's seen throughout the animal kingdom, and it's seen with us (but to a much greater extent for the reasons I mentioned). Hell, we even see as a common trait that parents will often protect and be self-sacrificing to their offspring. Things like this are not new or unique to humans, and these things are based in the recognition of welfare for other creatures. Also, on the topic of executive thinking, it seems more to be the case that we begin with a "moral" assumption or instinct, and then work back to rationalize it. We have innate social tendencies as a result of social evolution, childhood development (and the way we're raised within societal frameworks), and so forth[SUP]3[/SUP]. Have a look at my third end-note for a good article on that. So, in any case, we tend not to be doing moral reasoning but more-often operating off of intuition resulting from social and biological evolution, as well as childhood development and social conditioning. In any case, morality is not uniquely human, and it is not the product of higher-ordered thinking. I think we can definitely utilize our ability to think critically to vastly improve our systems of morality, but I don't think that critical thinking is the basis of it.

Well, I think it's a little "give and take" really. I think as individuals, we must realize that we collectively share a space. It's harmful to all parties involved (generally) to operate on principles that exploit others. We're better off working together, sharing resources, and treating each other fairly and decently. The benefits of cooperation are tremendous and most (if not all) of our achievements across a variety of platforms are the result of societal cooperation. I highly doubt we'd be able to reach the level of peace, technology, understanding, social justice, or other things which we have achieved in this world without cooperation. It's obviously not perfect, but without cooperation, I think we'd really be reduced to tribalism. Hell, world wars were started because of a lack of cooperation, which is really what founded the United Nations (and its predecessor, the league of nations). It's pretty well recognized that if we are to live in harmony and deal with global issues, we must work together. So, I think that we morality must recognize that cooperation and fairness is essential for the well-being and health of individuals within social frameworks. We must give up some freedom for a greater overall quality of life, for better security, and so forth. There are, of course, many theories about how to organize societies and on that note, I really haven't a clue which is better. I think at the base level though, an effective moral system must recognize the individual, but more-so the individual as part of a collective of other individuals.


Sources:

1: Altruistic behaviors
2: Social Behavior - Biology Encyclopedia - body, examples, animal, different, life, structure, make, first
3: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/m...d401354908b626b1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Clyme said:


> I personally do not share the opinion that morals are inherent to humans alone, nor do I actually think that morals are the result of executive reasoning. For one, many animals exhibit altruistic behavior. One such example is the ground squirrel (and other similar animals) who give off warning calls when they see a predator. This alerts other animals who recognize the call and allows them to flee, benefiting them, but it delays the escape of the one making the call[SUP]1[/SUP]. We also see social frameworks in the animal kingdom, such as the banning together of carnivores when hunting or the organization of flocks or herds of prey for mutual protection[SUP]2[/SUP]. Those things are really no different than what we do. Our social networks are based in very similar foundations, but I reckon that the more complex nature of it stems from the demands of our ever-advancing and ever-growing population. We only really started exercising internationalist policies post-WWII as we realized that we all have the capability of causing mass destruction and harm to our populations if we don't observe the shared space we have. In fact, the formation of basic communities is based in the recognition of shared mutual space. We only have this one land, this one resource, or whatever it is, and we're better off sharing it fairly and evenly than wasting resources fighting over it. That's pretty much been the basal recognition in every social structure. It's seen throughout the animal kingdom, and it's seen with us (but to a much greater extent for the reasons I mentioned). Hell, we even see as a common trait that parents will often protect and be self-sacrificing to their offspring. Things like this are not new or unique to humans, and these things are based in the recognition of welfare for other creatures. Also, on the topic of executive thinking, it seems more to be the case that we begin with a "moral" assumption or instinct, and then work back to rationalize it. We have innate social tendencies as a result of social evolution, childhood development (and the way we're raised within societal frameworks), and so forth[SUP]3[/SUP]. Have a look at my third end-note for a good article on that. So, in any case, we tend not to be doing moral reasoning but more-often operating off of intuition resulting from social and biological evolution, as well as childhood development and social conditioning. In any case, morality is not uniquely human, and it is not the product of higher-ordered thinking. I think we can definitely utilize our ability to think critically to vastly improve our systems of morality, but I don't think that critical thinking is the basis of it.
> 
> Well, I think it's a little "give and take" really. I think as individuals, we must realize that we collectively share a space. It's harmful to all parties involved (generally) to operate on principles that exploit others. We're better off working together, sharing resources, and treating each other fairly and decently. The benefits of cooperation are tremendous and most (if not all) of our achievements across a variety of platforms are the result of societal cooperation. I highly doubt we'd be able to reach the level of peace, technology, understanding, social justice, or other things which we have achieved in this world without cooperation. It's obviously not perfect, but without cooperation, I think we'd really be reduced to tribalism. Hell, world wars were started because of a lack of cooperation, which is really what founded the United Nations (and its predecessor, the league of nations). It's pretty well recognized that if we are to live in harmony and deal with global issues, we must work together. So, I think that we morality must recognize that cooperation and fairness is essential for the well-being and health of individuals within social frameworks. We must give up some freedom for a greater overall quality of life, for better security, and so forth. There are, of course, many theories about how to organize societies and on that note, I really haven't a clue which is better. I think at the base level though, an effective moral system must recognize the individual, but more-so the individual as part of a collective of other individuals.
> 
> ...


Pardon my ignorance, I take back what I said before about humans being the only moral species, I believe you're right. When I was initially writing this, I was more-so thinking of conscious morals, rather than intuitive biological one. Intuitive biological morals are of course an aspect of every creature, it just may not be a conscious effort. I feel like an idiot for what I said before, I was half asleep and I really wasn't thinking it through logically. Thank you for enlightening me on the matter, however.

In terms of individualism vs community, I am not quite sure either. I guess I believe you need to incorporate both the individual and the society in order to create a healthy moral opinion, which is similar to what you said. This way, it allows each person a healthy combination of both generosity towards others and a care for themselves. This goes on a larger scale for governments and politicians, who need to incorporate both when making serious decisions.

I feel in general there are a great amount of things in this society that I wish to change. Being one person, there's not much I can do save making a small imprint upon the planet. However still, I tend to be overly-idealistic and am always attempting to change things. This is why I pertain such an interest in morals, because it plays such a prominent role in our society. I am relatively new to the topic (as you can clearly see) and I would like to know more. I'm curious, besides the articles you already listed, is there anything else concerning morals that you believe would be enlightening to read? More-so, is there any particular branch of ethical philosophy that you particularly like and you believe would be interesting and useful to learn about?


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> Pardon my ignorance, I take back what I said before about humans being the only moral species, I believe you're right. When I was initially writing this, I was more-so thinking of conscious morals, rather than intuitive biological one. Intuitive biological morals are of course an aspect of every creature, it just may not be a conscious effort.
> 
> In terms of individualism vs community, I am not quite sure either. I guess I believe you need to incorporate both the individual and the society in order to create a healthy moral opinion, which is similar to what you said. This way, it allows each person a healthy combination of both generosity towards others and a care for themselves. This goes on a larger scale for governments and politicians, who need to incorporate both when making serious decisions.
> 
> I feel in general there are a great amount of things in this society that I wish to change. Being one person, there's not much I can do save making a small imprint upon the planet. However still, I tend to be overly-idealistic and am always attempting to change things. This is why I pertain such an interest in morals, because it plays such a prominent role in our society. I am relatively new to the topic (as you can clearly see) and I would like to know more. I'm curious, besides the articles you already listed, is there anything else concerning morals that you believe would be enlightening to read? More-so, is there any particular branch of ethical philosophy that you particularly like and you believe would be interesting to learn about?


Oh, think nothing of it. We're all here to discuss and learn. The purpose of conversation is the exchanging of views and information. I see what you mean, and it is true that our cognitive faculties are better developed than other animals, though I think our ideas of morality are still deeply rooted in presupposition and emotional bias. We rationalize better than anything else. From that perspective, I think we have the same moral basis as animals. I think I can also agree that we are probably more sufficiently equipped to develop functional and successful moral systems if we do overcome personal biases and apply logic and critical thinking.

I would agree with you there.

You know, I'm very similar to you in the sense that I'm idealistic. I wish to make a large impact in this world and really promote many positive changes. I would like to improve our society greatly. Actually, there is. "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris was quite a keystone book in my understanding of morality and my position in it. I agree with him on many things. Even though some don't, I still think understanding his perspective and indeed the writing itself is a good read for getting into morality. I'll link the pdf below for you, just for ease.

http://skepdic.ru/wp-content/upload...e__How_Science_Can_Determine_Human_Values.pdf


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Clyme said:


> Oh, think nothing of it. We're all here to discuss and learn. The purpose of conversation is the exchanging of views and information. I see what you mean, and it is true that our cognitive faculties are better developed than other animals, though I think our ideas of morality are still deeply rooted in presupposition and emotional bias. We rationalize better than anything else. From that perspective, I think we have the same moral basis as animals. I think I can also agree that we are probably more sufficiently equipped to develop functional and successful moral systems if we do overcome personal biases and apply logic and critical thinking.
> 
> I would agree with you there.
> 
> ...


Ah, that books seems fascinating. I'll definitely get to reading it, and I'll make sure to inform you of my opinion of it.


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Queen of Mars said:


> Ah, that books seems fascinating. I'll definitely get to reading it, and I'll make sure to inform you of my opinion of it.


I look forward to it. It's actually not a long read if you can commit the time to it. It took me about a week to really absorb it, and he has some really good opinions. He's an active debater as well, so you can find a lot of his talks and debates on morality on youtube as well. You might want to have a look at some of those too, as they may be of equal interest.


----------



## Queen of Mars (Jan 10, 2015)

Clyme said:


> I look forward to it. It's actually not a long read if you can commit the time to it. It took me about a week to really absorb it, and he has some really good opinions. He's an active debater as well, so you can find a lot of his talks and debates on morality on youtube as well. You might want to have a look at some of those too, as they may be of equal interest.


I look forward to talking about this as well. It doesn't seem long at all, and I should be able to read it fairly quickly (as long as my classes don't give me a horrendous amount of homework this week.) I'll make sure to check out the debates too, I'm always up for watching a good debate.


----------



## ninjahitsawall (Feb 1, 2013)

Queen of Mars said:


> The belief system of good and bad. (E.g. a person's belief of good and bad, per se.)


What if I make judgments of good and bad based on cost/benefit ratio? 

I think moral decisions, as they are ultimately decisions, do require some rational thought process.

How your brain makes moral judgments - CNN.com



> A moral "feeling," which seems to be related to the brain's prefrontal cortex and amygdala, is what takes the recognition that an act is immoral and translates that recognition into behavioral inhibition


So the distinction seems to be more b/w 1) a moral decision (emotions with higher-level reasoning/controls), 2) psychopathy (higher-level cognition, lacking emotional circuitry needed to make moral decisions), and what isn't mentioned here but is quite obvious in day to day life... 3) moral judgments that are gut-based, reactive and lacking higher-level reasoning. Of course the first option is ideal.


----------

