2012-09-14, 11:11 | Link #23561 | |
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-09-14, 11:17 | Link #23562 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
|
Quote:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2012-09-14/ |
|
2012-09-14, 11:24 | Link #23563 | |
Asuki-tan Kairin ↓
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fürth (GER)
Age: 43
|
Quote:
And to further erode the idea of an "expert in morality".. evolution needs a pool of diverse moralities to select upon. If there is only one "expert morality" it will turn into a "moral specialization". Specializations are more often than not dead ends in evolutionary processes. So its best to remain versataile and diverse. I admit that my analogy to natural evolution is a little bit adventurous, but I have no doubt that humanity in total order is the best seed for chaos, while a more chaotic humanity results in a natural partial-order (this is just my gut feeling speaking though).
__________________
|
|
2012-09-14, 11:30 | Link #23565 |
Juanita/Kiteless
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New England
Age: 40
|
The idea of becoming a "moral expert" doesn't really allow for differing views and beliefs. If we had these "moral experts" and they tried to tell all others to fall into line with them, how is it all that different from religious people preaching their beliefs to others?
__________________
|
2012-09-14, 11:33 | Link #23566 |
( ಠ_ಠ)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
|
It isn't in context.
The difference would be, following willix's example, one would be originated from mythical faith, whereas the other would be founded on logic and science. As long as the latter understands that it's a tangible, ever-changing concept, it'd probably work better than the former.
__________________
|
2012-09-14, 11:40 | Link #23567 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
I believe that ultimately, the belief in "logic and science" when it comes to ethics is just sophism which sets out to justify what has as much basis as religions. There is no fundamental differences in ethics, and by extension religion.
|
2012-09-14, 11:55 | Link #23568 |
( ಠ_ಠ)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
|
Well, end result may well be the same.
But at least, if done correctly, moral of logic and science would be based on the logical functionality of a society. Of course that may lead to hive mentality and we all turn borgs.
__________________
|
2012-09-14, 11:56 | Link #23569 | |
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 66
|
Quote:
But I'll have to dispute the idea that "logic and science" is just as weak as religion when it is examined under a spotlight of critical analysis. When some of the justification for the doctrines amount to "because I say so" or "invisible beings told me" versus "I ran an experiment on this a thousand times and got results my hypothesis predicted" - that's a fundamental difference.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-14, 12:02 | Link #23570 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Morality comes from the human brain, and is what binds communities together, and helps them work together rather then greedily killing one another.
I think that on most basic matters of morality, most people are pretty good judges. EG I don't think anyone would say you should kill a little girl in order to steal her candy. It's when things get more complex that it becomes more murky, and you need philosophy and reason to figure it out. For instance, is it just to steal to feed your starving children? Is it unjust for a group to commit infanticide knowing that keeping the baby will jeopardize the existence of the entire group (as they know they lack the means to feed it as it grows older)? All the legal disputes you have going on today are between differing competing systems of morality, and also due to grey areas that have never been fully reasoned out. For instance, can you own an idea? Certain IT companies seem to think you can.... |
2012-09-14, 12:02 | Link #23571 | |
勇者
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tesla Leicht Institute
Age: 34
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-09-14, 12:09 | Link #23572 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
There is no such thing as morality anymore - it has become a cliche much like common sense (which degraded into common nonsense.........Aristotle is rolling in his grave right now) and customer service (which involves tricking the poor consumer into thinking that he already got what he paid for). Corporate culture mirrors social culture in a way that "logic" seems to be "pandering to personal desires", but then again, who do we blame? Capitalism?
__________________
|
|
2012-09-14, 12:20 | Link #23573 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Ultimately, I agree with Vexx and understand that any idea of "morality" and "moral progress" is inherently bound to the idea of a social contract. It's not quite so pure and simple like Kant's categorical imperative. That being said, I believe that the frontier of discovering the best ways (methods, structures and techniques, if you will) in which humankind can come together and understand each other and cooperate is constantly shifting. However, even if there is "progress" on the frontier, it doesn't necessarily mean that this information is being disseminated to the whole of our societies. Thus, education plays an integral role, as even if things COULD be calculated and proven to be better.. it may not be accepted by the majority of society as they simply don't know the facts. An interesting anecdote is Singapore, which one of my gay friends mentioned to me, is a very small country that is autocratic and conservative but governed by an extremely rational (if not coldly logical) government is very hypocritical on the issue of homosexuality. Why? Because being against it appeals to the conversative and religious bent .. BUT it brings in tourism dollars and cents and according to various studies, innovation. So slowly, very slowly, VERY VERY SLOWLY .. tolerance builds -- because it makes economic "cents" |
|
2012-09-14, 12:32 | Link #23574 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
Quote:
In the end, everyone is engaged in sophism: The notion that only religion or "science" is the correct path of a ethical or moral society is in itself a fundamentally flawed idea which both sides are not willing to admit. Morality/ethics is a social construction which is based on what what society is, which cannot be purely religious or scientific. To argue that there is one correct path is simple BS. |
||
2012-09-14, 12:35 | Link #23575 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-09-14, 12:38 | Link #23576 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
It can be done as such if taken to extremes, but then ironically, this is where morality comes into play. Cultural relativism is restrained by the limits of ethics and morality, although that leads to a separate problem of "what is ethics or morality?", which I have to say is based on the various forms of the Golden Rule.
|
2012-09-14, 12:45 | Link #23577 | |
( ಠ_ಠ)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
|
Quote:
We're basing this off the proposed utopia where science and logic "took us there". If such thing was possible, and humans can all work for a social future, then these concepts may come in play. It's not too far from Roddenberry vision. Basically, all the hurdles you mention has to be overcome by human race as a whole, before submitting social functions to science and logic. We're not really discussing HOW we can achieve that, just if it is theoretically possible and what the outcome of it would be.
__________________
|
|
2012-09-14, 12:54 | Link #23579 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
Of course as any rational and reasonable person I agree, you cannot lose sight of reality and simply make decisions based on what would be true in an "ideal" world. Simultaneously though, you cannot lose sight of what series of events, decisions and outcomes would otherwise lead to an "ideal" situation. Shoot for the moon! Ultimately, we're not so much talking in circles, rather most of us here are "great people" and we all largely agree but chafe around the edges a bit around definitions and bump up against each other on the degree of our "optimism/pessimism/realism" which as a whole is a good thing! |
|
2012-09-14, 13:01 | Link #23580 | |
( ಠ_ಠ)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
|
Quote:
More of a philosophical question of how it would play out, if it would work, and what difference it would be to the alternative.
__________________
|
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
|
|