User Tag List

First 234

Results 31 to 36 of 36

  1. #31
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Every conscious human being acts upon "oughts" and "ought nots". It doesn't matter if you want to consider it a matter of basic inclination rather than ethics, the same fundamental aspect applies.

  2. #32
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    I've been in an ethics class that had this discussion and we were actually divided about half and half. The ones who said the old man say because he has so many connections to life, while the baby is somewhat of a free floater; the ones who said the baby mainly said the baby hasn't gotten the chance to live or exert its free will yet, whereas the old man has, so the old man has "had his turn" while the baby still "deserves" one. I feel like either way it sucks.
    Too bad we can't save both.

    I don't really see either choice being more morally correct than the other... just different.
    Yeah.

  3. #33
    A window to the soul
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    Do you believe there is such a thing as intrinsic morality? Why or why not?
    Intrinsic, no. Discretion is morally correct [learned behavior (i.e., try, fail, and try again)].

  4. #34
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    No... you're misunderstanding what I am saying. Mapping them wouldn't be for the purpose of seeing which ones are correct or incorrect, but for seeing what the relationships -are-. My very question is what if ethics are "deterministic" because agency of variation (aka choice) exists at multiple levels including non-biological agency.

    So in other words, let's use a classical example of ethics. There is a burning building with an old man and a baby in it which one do you save?

    To me, it is not about choosing one option as correct or finding a third way it is about the subjective emotional experience of the relationships created through your actions. If you save the baby for example then though the family of the old man may feel "you made the right choice" they probably wouldn't want to interact with you anymore. What if the old man and the baby were from the same family? The emotions created would be so overwhelming it'd probably also create a lack of relationship unless the stress was sufficient to create neurological links that created a whole new holistic experience of the person saving and relating to the descision they had to make emotionally in that moment. What if that family was yours? The old man your father, the baby your child.

    So let's say we neurologically map the brain. What if we could take a person bound by personal tragedy compare them to others who had been through similar experience particularly trauma and teach the others who lacked resilience to remap their networks by taking different actions, daying different things, etc. In fact we do this already it's called cignitive behavioral theory, emotion, etc.

    To me the absolute morality comes frome several recognitions. Science is true and works and leaves lots of wiggle room for what shapes the universe may take. However reductionism is not true or rather it is true in conjunction with emergent holistic processes. Love to me is the feeling of everything you experience working together as one toward a specific goal and realizing that goal is but a small part of a larger process that refeeds into the holistic whole. The realization that this is simultaneously an inanimate process and something which mirrors in many respects the qualities of beings. The focusing down of that love to the person in front of you appreciating them entirely because of their flaws and then relating to them through touch, smell, shared experience... sorry I could go on forever because to me this is more of an active experience that I am describing than an intellectual excercise.
    I'm not sure if I follow what you're saying, but in terms of ethics being deterministic, I would say from a certain perspective, yes, they are. We label things "right" and "wrong" because of our neurological states, which are purely physical and predicated on past physical things. So we could call morality intrinsic if we're just saying the labels good and bad are entirely functions of deterministic phenomena.

    That seems to miss a little bit about what people mean when they talk about intrinsic morality, though. My idea is that those people are referring to morality existing as some external and stable thing that humans discover. Using the humans themselves as the source of the "objective" data (like with brainscans) is completely self-referential and doesn't really inform anyone about how they should think through moral decisions.

  5. #35
    Senior Member UniqueMixture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    estj
    Enneagram
    378 sx/so
    Socionics
    esfp
    Posts
    3,038

    Default

    I think it does in a sense. It can be tied to impact on relationships for example. So we can see what kind of behaviors lead most to the kind of outcomes an individual desires. I dunno.

  6. #36
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    I think it does in a sense. It can be tied to impact on relationships for example. So we can see what kind of behaviors lead most to the kind of outcomes an individual desires. I dunno.
    It could help us figure out what most people would do in a specific situation, or even the difference between what they think someone should do and what they would actually do. That's good information to have from a social psychology standpoint, for sure. The problem is that most people aren't satisfied with the average human response to a situation. They want to find an ideal and strive for it. The average human does not act in an ideal way whatsoever. Take diffusion of responsibility as an example, the Kitty Genovese murder is a situation in which a narrative of deterministic morals wouldn't help anyone grow as a moral being.

Similar Threads

  1. Moral Compass Test
    By rivercrow in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 01-31-2009, 02:01 AM
  2. Morality question/dillema.
    By Wolf in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 09:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO