Intrinsic morality

[UniqueMixture]

Do you believe there is such a thing as intrinsic morality? Why or why not?

 

[Elfboy]

yes, it's called Fi

 

[Noon]

Yes. I think that biological imperatives naturally result in some kind of code of morality, even among the creatures driven more by instinct than intellect.

I'm assuming their complexity grows in proportion to the complexity of the civilization which is why we as humans have felt the need to create such a variety of moral structures, but the most fundamental things seem to be somewhat universal.

"Evil", stripped of its moral connotations, seems ultimately to be another term for "maladaptive".

 

[Lady_X]

you're an enfp aren't ya? op person

 

[KDude]

I don't know. Probably not. There are supernovas that destroy everything in their wake. What if there were nearby civilizations involved (again, what if)? Or even just animal life? Theoretically, they're just getting wiped out in a flash, in the most senseless manner. I myself think it's pretty depressing and unjust. But the universe doesn't. Apparently.

 

[Blank]

I think if intrinsic morality exists, it shows that the strong eat the weak. Then you just have to suck it up and deal with it.

 

[UniqueMixture]

[MENTION=6508]Blank[/MENTION] do you think it is emotionally healthy to think that way? I allow myself to have a lot of non-rational/spiritual experiences because black and white reality can appear pretty grim. I have hope that maaaybe just maaybe. It is not as grim as it seems.

you're an enfp aren't ya? op person

Sure why not? . No, I probably am not unless temperament can change. I really like enfps. In some ways I have found certain varieties to be my ideal woman. I think because of this I act in ways/have thinking patterns that are there to bring them into my life. Also, I've just noticed how successful enfp behaviors can be in real life so I adopted them for social situations because they work. I've probably internalized it by this point, but my natural proclivities are otherwise (for example by sounding like a douche by using words like proclivities )

 

[Blank]

[MENTION=6508]Blank[/MENTION] do you think it is emotionally healthy to think that way? I allow myself to have a lot of non-rational/spiritual experiences because black and white reality can appear pretty grim. I have hope that maaaybe just maaybe. It is not as grim as it seems.

It depends. Some would argue that it's healthy to face the facts. Others would argue that it's not really necessary. Some people can handle it. Others can't. Even if it's true, it doesn't necessarily have to get in the way of one enjoying life and the time s/he spends together with others.

 

[entropie]

I dont believe that an intrinsic morality exists, there is rather an intrinsic pragmatism; like dont beat me if you dont want to be beaten yourself. Of course evolution is defined by mavericks so I too think that you cant make a general statement for them all.

 

[UniqueMixture]

I guess to me there is, but it doesn't tell you WHAT to do but rather creates relationships based on those actions

 

[Rasofy]

Just to a small extent. I believe it's mostly social construction. 500 years ago most of you would be raised to believe slavery is a good thing - and would end up believing in it. Today, if I was born as an aborigine, I probably wouldn't feel very guilty about letting a defective baby die - first because it's what everybody does; second because he's supposed to be the incarnation of evil.

 

[entropie]

Just to a small extent. I believe it's mostly social construction. 500 years ago most of you would be raised to believe slavery is a good thing - and would end up believing in it. Today, if I was born as an aborigine, I probably wouldn't feel very guilty about letting a defective baby die - first because it's what everybody does; second because he's supposed to be the incarnation of evil.

True story ^^

 

[Society]

i think there might be something along the lines of instinctive morality... ceraintly not an all encompassing moral code, but if you watch two kids splitting candy bars you'll notice something interesting. kids at a very early age develop a concept of quantifiable fairness. it doesn't mean they will act on it, but they will often start demanding it from their peers.

i think caring for loved ones and family is also very much instinctive. you'd take a bullet for your SO, and you wouldn't even hastiate with your child. we instinctively alivate our emotional tribe to a higher place then ourselves. the logic that your emotions regarding them won't matter after you dead doesn't even come into play. their are exceptions, but noticeable exceptions make the rule.

but no, i don't think there's anything objective about morality.

 

[Viridian]

yes, it's called Fi

I think bologna's aphorism is warranted here.

 

[KDude]

I think bologna's aphorism is warranted here.

But I think it might be what it seems like for a Fi user. That they've located some static universal principal. It doesn't mean it's superhuman. Just how they percieve it, while another might be more ambivalent.

 

[Such Irony]

I think it's intrinsic in the sense that there is a drive to do the ethically right thing even if it goes against one's self-interest. What this ethically right thing is can vary from culture to culture. So I guess its both intrinsic and extrinsic.

 

[redacted]

No.

Morality is a term we've defined to reduce a human-specific, incredibly complex cognitive phenomena into neat little small-dimensional narratives. I mean, I guess you could call that intrinsic in that it describes a kind of thing in the world, but that thing is only visible from its own human-specific lens.

 

[UniqueMixture]

Are you guys famialiar with kohlberg's stages of moral development? I believe that that ethical progression more or less occurs among most people, but I believe it happens in various "spheres of operation" if you will based on the actions you take. So for example in terms of sexual development imo the stages would look like:

1. Using others for sex even against their will
2. Trading for sexual favors in a tit for tat manner
3. Obeying fixed sex role conventions to have sex
4. Seeing sex itself as an ideal to be spread maganimously (lol)
5. Openness to more varied types of roles in sexual expression as pleases all involved without categorically seeing that kind which you prefer as needing to be adopted by others
6. ???
Perhaps sexual expression as a universal human right.

I use these "stages" as kind of a rough guide. I think that the earlier comment of Fi is very good because in my opinion morality arises in conjunction with oxytocin release in relationship to interaction with other human agents (for example when you hug someone). The problem I've noticed is that this doesn't truly become universal until one reaches a state of universal love and attachment to the universe even including things like animals, plants, and inanimate processes. I do think "go with what feels good" is a good rule of thumb though.

[MENTION=1654]Evan[/MENTION]: What if we used eeg and video to correlate neurological function with emotional states and interpersonal interaction?

[MENTION=15291]Mane[/MENTION]: the reason I disagree is because I think that historically human beings have tried to correlate morality to actions/behaviors and/or individuals/groups. Instead I would argue for correlating morality to "structures" whether they be genes, neuological patterns, social movements, or even physical objects like buildings. For example, it is "good" to excercise for most people because it increases lifespan and mitigates death which prevents others from feeling loss, creates endorphin highs that make you feel good, gets you in the sun if you do it with outdoor activities which stimulates the production of vitamin d (mood booster), etc. So buildings can be "bad" in that over urbanization can restrict excercise because people don't feel good/safe excercising in those environments. I believe for example that corporations are morally culpable for exposure to stressors in the work environment that cause cortisol release in most people that is inordinately higher than it would be otherwise which increases the likelihood of social ills. For example, racism in the workplace, sexism, etc but also other more general stressors like noise level, dehumanization of subordinates, etc.

 

[redacted]

[MENTION=1654]Evan[/MENTION]: What if we used eeg and video to correlate neurological function with emotional states and interpersonal interaction?

I don't see why that would change anything. Even if we had a direct mapping of the neurobiological realm to the emotional realm, we still haven't touched on ethics whatsoever. It seems pretty impossible to come up with a framework which includes both deterministic (possibly arguable) processes like the physics of particles in the brain and choice-based concepts like responsibility...it seems to me ethics are predicated on the idea of free will.

I guess you could come up with an "objective" ethical system in which you explicitly map biological processes to "right" and "wrong", but not everyone would agree. You could take an average, but that wouldn't explain fringe moral beliefs, etc. etc. It's just too wrapped up in first-person-experience.

 

[UniqueMixture]

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.