/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2198239]

Morality and Rationality

discuss.

[Anonymous No.2198243]

When a person thinks as a rational person and tosses away any preconceived bias and baggage that’s held, one must disagree with the site’s assertions and instead reach the conclusion that God does indeed exist.

[Naggarothian No.2198260]

>>2198243

[Anonymous No.2198269]

>>2198243
how so?

[Anonymous No.2198268]

I propose an idea.

You cannot claim the right to anything that you have denied or openly claim should be denied to others.

If you steal, you can't claim the right to own property.
If you kill, you can't claim the right to life.
If you break your contracts, you can't claim the right to have deals with you kept.

[Anonymous No.2198302]

>>2198268
if you propose to deny freedom of speech to others, you cannot post on 4chan
derp

[Anonymous No.2198317]

Do you kill/ steal/ rape/ be a general douche bag whenever you want? No? There's your morality.

Can you think? Yes? There's your rationality.

Tadah

[Anonymous No.2198345]

We can rationally determine what is the optimal morality.

Humans are actually fairly unanimous in how they want to be treated and how they feel they should treat others. Don't kill, don't hurt, don't steal, don't betray, in descending order of severity. And that's pretty much it. The confusion comes in who to apply these rules to. Ideally, we'd apply them to everyone and expect them to be applied to us, but in reality people find all kinds of loopholes. They're not real people, whether for racial, ideological, theological, or whatever reasons, so we don't have to apply morality to them.

I would consider the "don't kill, don't hurt, don't steal, don't betray" to be the first principles of morality. We can show why they are so from biology, the evolutionary heritage of the human species, but there is no need to, since everyone agrees on them anyway. All other morality comes from determining what it is to kill, to hurt, to steal or to betray, and what compensation must be made to those who suffer them from those who inflict them.

[Anonymous No.2198351]

>>2198239

>>Morality and Rationality

See the top of the page? It says /sci/. It does not say /phi/. Now, this would be relevant if it were discussing scientific investigations into morality, or whatever. But no. Not relevant.

[Anonymous No.2198357]

op here
let me narrow the discussion a little
deontology vs. utilitarianism.
i think utilitarianism (whatever is the most good fro the most people is the right thing to do. basically ozymandias from watchmen) is the most rational of ethical perspectives, but it ignores so much. like the fact that people are stupid. i think the only usable rational perspective is deontology, (kant's categorical imperative, basically never treat anyone as a means to your end. rorsach from watchmen), because you can only govern what you yourself does.
basically the deepest argument in ethics is: does the end justify the means?

[Anonymous No.2198366]

>>2198351
name one thing in the universe that does not fall under the category of science.

[Naggarothian No.2198370]

>>2198366
Morality
/thread

[Anonymous No.2198375]

Kant was a frustrated faggot. Love.

[Anonymous No.2198383]

For rationality, I think the concept of a black swan is important, to understand what rationality is.

A black swan is an unexpected, unpredictable event which is so massive that it changes the course of history. The crux of it, though, is that although no one could have seen it coming, we all connect the dots in hindsight, and rationalize why it happened.

I forget the philosopher, he's at Berkeley, but, he describes rationality as more of a description we assign to a certain logical train of thought, rather than one being inherently more "rational" than the other.

I think it speaks to the inherit randomness that is reality.

Morality, on the other hand, is arbitrary, ultimatley, but I feel that there is an underlying moral criteria we all have as humans, and those standards have to content with the subjective nature of our individual senses of reality, but that we are all striving for the same goal, for the most part.

[Anonymous No.2198386]

>>2198375
that's not kant you cunt

that's nietzsche

[Anonymous No.2198387]

>>2198370

How is morality not science? It's psychology, which means it's biology.

[Anonymous No.2198392]

Jesus and LOL

[Naggarothian No.2198394]

>>2198387
Great, now you're going to start a shitstorm over whether or not psychology is a real science. Good job, you moron.

[Anonymous No.2198402]

>>2198394

It's not a mature field, but human behavior is ultimately explicable through scientific means. There is no reason to suppose it wouldn't be.

[Anonymous No.2198405]

>>2198387
Morality is covered by sociology and political science first.

[Anonymous No.2198427]

>>2198375
I agree with this.
>>2198387
This pic is for the shitstorm of saying psychology is science.

[Anonymous No.2198435]

>>2198405
>political science

[Anonymous No.2198437]

Nothing has value.
But I experience things.
All my actions therefore must be done in view of my experience of their consequences or be misguided.

[Anonymous No.2198442]

>>2198435
That's how it's called.
Next you're gonna say history is not a science ?

[Naggarothian No.2198449]

>>2198442
>Next you're gonna say history is not a science ?

10/10

[Anonymous No.2198455]

>>2198427
I hate that picture for several reasons. First, there is the use of the word "purity" and "pure" to mean the degree of abstraction or lack of application. Secondly, even though I agree with it in some capacity, he shows that he has to be a smug cunt about making his point. And finally, making the mathematician female is not just the work of a perfectly unbiased mind, it's Randall trying to make some kind of a dorkish stand against sexism.

[Anonymous No.2198464]

>>2198345

You should look up Utilitarianism; basically it holds that all moral principles are derived from the promotion of happiness and/or the elimination of suffering.

[Naggarothian No.2198475]

>>2198455
And finally, making the mathematician female is not just the work of a perfectly unbiased mind, it's Randall trying to make some kind of a dorkish stand against sexism.

Or it could just be that Math is the mother of them all.

[Anonymous No.2198492]

>>2198464

That is exactly it. There is no higher calling than the promotion of happiness and the reduction of suffering. There are good arguments over how to do this, and no definitive answers, but it is impossible to discuss the matter with someone who does not accept that basic premise. If they believe that morality derives from some supernatural legislative force, for example.

[Anonymous No.2198499]

>>2198475
>>2198455
Or it could just be a simple comic that makes fun of the interdisciplinary flame wars.

[Anonymous No.2198515]

>>2198475

The mathematician is not a girl. They are just not noted for their personal maintenance, and so he has the long, matted hair of a troubled genius.

[Anonymous No.2198512]

not science ... pic related

but still better than GOD IS REALOLOLOLO threads

I approve

[Anonymous No.2198511]

>>2198464
as a rejection of utilitarianism, read "The ones who walked away from Omelas" by Ursula K. Leguin

i posit
would you be okay with a society in which everyone is inconcievably happy, no troubles, fuck all day, everyone is eternally euphoric; but this happiness hinges on the eternal suffereing of a young child, in a basement, sitting in filth, in unending agony.

i say no.

[Anonymous No.2198520]

>>2198455
>>2198475
I think that comic is sarcastic. It's quite obvious that purity isn't a valid criteria to compare fields.

[Anonymous No.2198529]

I fucking hate this board so much.

[Anonymous No.2198533]

>>2198511

I don't think I'd be happy with a society where everyone was constantly euphoric, regardless of the causes.

[Anonymous No.2198537]

>>2198511
There's also the utility monster idea, where you have one person that is so stupendously, mind-bogglingly happy that a Utilitarian ought to accept an entire society living in misery to support them.

Basically, the goal of utilitarianism is pretty neat, but it turns out the math is a bitch.

[Anonymous No.2198544]

>>2198529

[Anonymous No.2198554]

>>2198537
yeah, i was just thinking about one like that
what if when a serial killer kills someone, it makes him so inconcievably happy, that it negates the suffering that he causes. then he has the right to kill everyone in the world right?

[Anonymous No.2198555]

>>2198511

Choice is important. Euphoria is not the only form of happiness. Most people can be happy without doing heroin.

And by eliminating suffering before increasing happiness you can stop any movement to impose slavery. Lots of suffering and lots of happiness is worse than a merely contented world.

[Anonymous No.2198561]

>>2198533
then you wouldn't be there
its hypothetical dumbass

[Anonymous No.2198567]

>>2198554

Only if you skew the values involved so a single being's happiness can override many others' suffering. Normally you'd value each person the same.

[Anonymous No.2198578]

>>2198537

I don't know, happiness is not a zero-sum. Taking utilitarianism to this degree would also support heroin addiction, since the high is so high that it more than makes up for the lows.

But people don't want that, they want to be slightly happy most of the time, very happy some of the time, and are okay with being slightly down some of the time and very down a few times to support this.

And people have a very astute sense of what it means to take from another person, and most are not happy to be involved in unfair deals, even if they benefit from them more than they should. This is why I say that everyone agrees that you should not kill, hurt, steal from, or betray another person. The definition of who deserves this basic treatment is where most of the confusion lies.

[Anonymous No.2198579]

>>2198555
thats my point though. feelings are a singular thing. its pointless to compare feelings between people because each person is their own universe.
is ten thousand people getting diarrhea worse than one person dying? it's a completely pointless question.

[Anonymous No.2198580]

>>2198537
Add to your gross happiness count a small positive starting value for the happiness of each individual, problem solved.

Your criticism of utilitarianism wouldn't stand in a social context.

[Anonymous No.2198582]

>>2198554
Under a very naive utilitarian model, yes.

There are other societal utility functions than just summing the amount dopamine in everyone's head, or some other indicator of pure 'happiness'.

You could normalize everything so everyone contributes equally to the societal utility value, regardless of how crazy their individual utility gets, but then you have the opposite situation in >>2198511

You could get really fancy and discount utility gained at the expense of someone else, but then we're letting some other ethical standard influence the utility calculation, which sort of defeats the point.

[Anonymous No.2198585]

[Anonymous No.2198597]

>>2198580
It's true. I'm Robert Nozick, and my opinion is basically valueless.

[Anonymous No.2198610]

>>2198537
>>2198555
>>2198567
>>2198578
>>2198580
>>2198582
and everyone else talking about utility.
would it not be easier (and more rational) to admit that a mathematical assessment of happiness (or whatever you want to call it, virtue, euphoria, good, all of the above) will be incomplete. and just formulate a new ethic that can focus less on the outcome of actions, and more on the intention. if one follows the categorical imperative, you never need to visit the outcomes of your actions to evaluate goodness.
very (very) simply, do unto others as you would that they do unto you.

[Anonymous No.2198611]

>>2198597
Libertarians have a tradition of ignoring society and of developping valueless opinions.

[Anonymous No.2198612]

>>2198579

Not if you treat all people equally. The next step is to use brain scans to find out how much pain is caused by diarhoea and compare it with an average of all the happines that the dying man would miss in his life.

We need better tools to make better predictions, but the framework is there.

[Anonymous No.2198622]

>>2198610

That's too simplistic. Far too simplistic. Do you let your enemy kill you? A thief rob you? Hitler gas you?

[Anonymous No.2198623]

>>2198612
this IS a joke right?

[Anonymous No.2198628]

>>2198610
It's either too rigid or too complex a system.

[Anonymous No.2198667]

>>2198622
ethics as a whole is too simplistic.
i will try to phrase it better, or you can just read about kant on wikipedia.
1. treat every human as an end, never as a means
2. Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.
basically, if you do something, you should be able to say "if everyone in the world followed the same moral code i do, i would be okay with that."

like, i wouldn't let an enemy kill me, because my imperative is that killing is wrong.
the flaw kant himself points out is this,
you see a guy running down an alley terrified, he hides in a dumpster. then a guy with an ax comes running down the alley and asks you where he went. do you lie?
kant says no

[Anonymous No.2198681]

>do unto others as you would that they do unto you

This principle alone could be your moral compass in most situations, but i think there could be some issues with this, mainly that there might be disagreeements in regards to how one would like to be treated. For instance a extreme christian maybe would like to get his dick cut off in case he were to fuck a girl without being married, but most people probably wouldnt want to be treated in this way.

[Anonymous No.2198691]

>>2198667
The flaw is that it's a normative ethical system.

What incentive is their for treating other people as I want to be treated, when I stand to benefit from treating them like shit?

We are all basically utilitarian egoists.

[Anonymous No.2198702]

>>2198691

But you've moved away from the purpose of morality and ethics. They don't describe what we DO, they describe what we SHOULD do.

The reason why we are moral is left to biology, which is the kind of thing sam harris talked about. To cut a long story short, empathy.

[Anonymous No.2198756]

>>2198702
Yes, even our moral behavior is ultimately self serving due to our psychology.

What we SHOULD do is entirely meaningless, since we aren't going to actually do it unless it's somehow incentivized, and then you'd be better off explaining the actual decision making process.

I admittedly haven't read Harris. If he's making a descriptive claim that's excellent. But if he's saying we should act in the way that best satisfies our goals, biological incentives towards altruism included, then *we're already doing that* and his claim is basically empty.

[Anonymous No.2198799]

>>2198756

There's something called the is-ought problem (linked to the naturalistic fallacy); you can describe what happens but you cant then say that it morally ought to happen.

That's why the biological studies on morality can't produce a moral system, only describe why we desire one.

[Anonymous No.2198814]

>>2198799

They can describe why we desire a moral system. They can describe what makes us happy or content, and what makes us suffer.

Morality, or ethics, is just a set of rules that help us get from one to the other.