[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

File: 17 KB, 220x317, Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat May 12 15:28:02 2018 No.11141812 [Reply] [Original]

Can you construct a moral system purely from reason?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 15:30:34 2018 No.11141827 >>11141812 No, but if you have a hot stove it can be done.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 15:31:26 2018 No.11141832 File: 233 KB, 631x659, BTFO.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11141827

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 15:33:21 2018 No.11141843 >>11141832 What a fucking cuck, glad Sammyboy roasted him

Anonymous Sat May 12 15:49:10 2018 No.11141913

No, not a logically sound one anyway. In a moral system made purely from logic you have to presuppose empathy to be moral in order to prove morality. For example you might say, 'these sets of morals are good because they increase human flourishing'-- but of course for the person who argues morality is logical, the augmentation of human flourishing has to be explained to be good by logical means. So they might say, 'human flourishing is good because it produces societal/technological advancement', but then the question arises: why is societal/technological advancement good? Again, they might say, 'societal/technological advancement is good because it increases human flourishing,' but this is evidently circular reasoning. Long story short, my point is this: you cannot prove morality to be objectively real by logic alone as this requires the presupposition that the love one has for their fellow creature is actually moral. Especially in a secular worldview, empathy is just a phenomenon which evolved in order to keep our societies intact. This cannot be said to be moral because a lot of things given to us by evolution (the urge to fight, for example) aren't moral.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 15:53:41 2018 No.11141938 >>11141913 >No, not a logically sound one anyway. In a moral system made purely from logic you have to presuppose empathy to be moral in order to prove morality. Stopped reading here. Morality is not about empathy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 15:54:59 2018 No.11141944 Yes, and don't let any atheist tell you otherwise. Don't let an atheist tell you, you can though either. Those are the transhumanist types. You'd do best to stay away from those as well.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 15:55:59 2018 No.11141951 >>11141938 No? Then what's it about? The scary part is that reason isn't helpful at all: it's subjective. The "logical" thing to do in any situation depends on your values, so you can argue anything from suicide to genocide as being a reasonable act.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 15:56:13 2018 No.11141955 >>11141938 Yes it is. Without empathy there would be no reason to have morals at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 15:59:20 2018 No.11141973 File: 111 KB, 2048x1856, J1HHG0i.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11141832 >i dont get it

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:00:43 2018 No.11141980 >>11141951 Consistency. Reason has a purely regulative purpose. Morality is reason applied to the concepts of good and bad. Something that is moral is something consistently good.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:01:49 2018 No.11141983 >>11141955 I don't think you understand even basic things about morality.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:02:50 2018 No.11141992 >>11141913 Nailed it

Anonymous Sat May 12 16:04:45 2018 No.11142003

>>11141980
Sure, but that's still subjective and dependent on your priorities. What is "good" aside from your opinion? That's why the closest we can get to objective morality is contingent local "actions that tend to make your neighbours happy are good and actions that cause strife in the tribe are bad" vagueness. Even then, the details need to be constantly debated and are always shifting.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:05:25 2018 No.11142012 No. Reason itself never makes an ought.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:06:07 2018 No.11142017 >>11141913 Yes, that's the long view. Good comment. Morals aren't objective, they're practical towards a goal that is of debatable value.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:07:31 2018 No.11142023 >>11141983 Explain it then

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:11:22 2018 No.11142037 >>11142003 I fail to see how objectiveness plays part in defining morality. absolute=moral not absolute=not moral It's that simple.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:12:27 2018 No.11142043 >>11142023 See >>11141980

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:13:22 2018 No.11142045 >>11142012 >Reason itself never makes an ought I ought to stop my sixty-year old grandmother from touching a hot stove, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:14:03 2018 No.11142047 >>11142043 How do you know what is good and bad without empathy?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:15:18 2018 No.11142054 >>11142045 Why do you ought to do that? Because you don't want her to suffer? That's empathy, not reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:17:00 2018 No.11142061 >>11142054 It would be reasonable to stop your grandmother from burning her hand as not to suffer the image of someone close to you being injured and to stop the injury itself, for your own mental posterity and her physical posterity

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:18:10 2018 No.11142064 >>11142047 You obviously don't know what empathy is either. Or good and bad for that matter. How exactly do you think empathy is an indispensable part of knowing what is good or bad?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:18:36 2018 No.11142065 >>11142061 The reason this image will make you suffer is becuase you have empathy. You wouldn't care if you were a psycopath.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:20:22 2018 No.11142071 >>11142064 Empathy makes you feel bad when you see something is suffering and makes you feel good when you prevented suffering. I ask again, why else would you care about other people suffering?

Anonymous Sat May 12 16:20:34 2018 No.11142073

>>11142065
Of course, but we shouldn't construct moral systems along the line of including as many scenarios as possible. I should walk even if it might make a cripple sad, just as we SHOULDN'T dispel a system of morals because a psychopath wouldn't care to see his grandmother injured.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:23:12 2018 No.11142082 >>11142073 Did I say we should dispel of something? I only said there cannot be morality without empathy.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:25:13 2018 No.11142095 >>11142071 Why do you think that morality only applies to subjective identification? There are no other things that can be good or bad, no other things to be moral about?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:26:18 2018 No.11142098 >>11142095 None that I can think of. If you know one give me an example.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:27:59 2018 No.11142103 yes, but only theoretically

Anonymous Sat May 12 16:32:30 2018 No.11142116

>>11142098
For example it is good to be industrious and bad to be lazy.
It's good to keep proper personal hygiene and bad to be a slob.
etc.etc.
There are a lot of practical virtues like this that you'd have to twist your mind in a ribbon to argue are related to subjective identification.

See, if I felt that killing people is a good thing then the moral thing to do would be to kill people. The actual content of moral imperatives is completely irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:35:38 2018 No.11142133 >>11142116 The examples you gave are not moraly good or moraly bad, just different subjective opinions on how to live one's life.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:36:33 2018 No.11142137 >>11142133 And so is helping other people.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:37:06 2018 No.11142142 >>11142137 Right. So?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:39:59 2018 No.11142154 >>11142142 Then your thesis is that morality doesn't exist? If that is your perception that is OK. Some people are pretty feeble-minded so they don't feel as strongly compelled to act in a logically consistent manner.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:49:10 2018 No.11142194 >>11142154 Morality exists in our imagination. Like doumbledore said, of course it is happening inside your head harry, but why on earth would that mean it isn't real?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:52:06 2018 No.11142205 >>11142194 Why are you asking me that? I didn't say it wasn't real.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:52:55 2018 No.11142209 File: 11 KB, 424x417, grayons.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11141973 me neither

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:53:53 2018 No.11142214 >>11142205 The question mark is a part of the quote friend

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:57:23 2018 No.11142229 >>11141812 isn't morally intrinsic rational?

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 16:58:13 2018 No.11142234 >>11142214 WTF I love J.K. Rowling now

Anonymous Sat May 12 17:13:23 2018 No.11142287
File: 148 KB, 1024x1024, 1526136188240m.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Yes

Morality consists of statements about what you ought to do. Something that is objective is true irregardless of subjective experience. For a moral statement to be objectively true it must be binding for every moral agent. Contradictionary statements are incorrect.
If I say: "Moral agents ought to control othet moral agents" then that is incorrect as if it were true, it would contradict itself and must be incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 17:16:58 2018 No.11142307 File: 34 KB, 600x600, Naamloos-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>11141843

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 17:18:08 2018 No.11142314 >>11141913 fucking pseud this site is full of children u write like a middle schooler

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 17:48:40 2018 No.11142418 "The human mind has no more power of inventing a new value than of imagining a new primary colour,or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in."-C.S Lewis

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 17:56:40 2018 No.11142442 >>11142314 Well, since elementary-school insults are your rebuttal, I'd say he won anyway.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 17:58:23 2018 No.11142453 >>11142037 Name me one single absolute moral, then. Good luck.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 18:08:50 2018 No.11142503 >>11141973 stove turns on even if it doesn't want to.

>>	Anonymous Sat May 12 18:14:01 2018 No.11142522 >>11142314 Not an argument

Anonymous Sat May 12 18:14:39 2018 No.11142527

>>11142453
Proceeding from the analytical definition of morality the one absolute moral principle that is absolutely necessary is that moral principles must be absolute. In this sense I can expect this principle to be shared by all subjects that possess reason.

Other absolute moral principles might exist but they are synthetic i.e. not an inherent part of morality. In this sense I can't expect them to be shared by all subject that possess reason.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 13 00:15:40 2018 No.11143804 >>11141827 First post, best post.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 13 03:53:09 2018 No.11144369 bump

>>	Anonymous Sun May 13 03:58:29 2018 No.11144377 >>11141812 No. Dig deep enough and eventually you'll hit an axiom; no matter how hard you try to rationalise your position.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]