So Stress hormones or the presence of endorphins to deal with pain or the lack of metabolic molecules due to undernourishment or the absence of oxytocin during social interactions(lack of trust) etc etc are not objective metrics of well being?????? — Nickolasgaspar
Do you even know what Homeostasis is? — Nickolasgaspar
Do you really think that well being is a ''bubble" in our world without any connections to our biological nature? — Nickolasgaspar
Actions affect our biology either physically or mentally and we can objectively measure the impact by observing our chemisty and brain function. — Nickolasgaspar
I suspect they probably are, but you'll find an increase in stress hormones in a child denied sweets, you'll find a decrease in oxytocin in a prisoner. You dismissed both as measures of well-being.
-Yes you will but this is why we use more than one metric .
i.e. the biology of a kid reacting to sugar intake shows similarities with other addictive substances.
So we need to "train" the behavior for ITS WELL BEING...not to just seek pleasure.
As I explained a prisoner is removed from a society because his actions affect the well being of its members. A prisoner is NO longer(for now or for ever)
— Isaac
Homeostasis drives our chemicals responsible for our emotions and feelings. Feeling are how we are informed that we i.e. have low blood sugar, thirsty, suppressed, happy etc etc thus affecting our biological chemistry even more. its a top -down- top causation recorded by our chemistry and it can be used to objectively diagnose whether an organism experiences situation that promote his/her well being.I do indeed know what homeostasis is, I'm not sure what it has to do with our valuing well-being. — Isaac
-We agree on that.No, I doubt that. — Isaac
At the time we can, yes. How do you propose we measure the effects of our actions after a decade via observing our chemisty and brain function. — Isaac
There are probably many scenarios where wellbeing is not all that helpful and I think Issac's question of 'whose wellbeing' is a good one. When there is competing wellbeing, whose are we chiefly concerned with? — Tom Storm
Well, in that case, we could start from incontrovertible truths, these being hedonic judgments, in re morality, oui? Let's keep things simple and begin with nobody likes to be physically assaulted. To that one could add psychological pain e.g. insults. These are universal and true across the board. — Agent Smith
I could only say that you are a victim of incorrectly attributing similarities where there shouldn't be. We are talking humans here. Let's get physics out of here. — L'éléphant
My theory, if you could call it that, is to not to be misled by the minority abd focus all our firepower on keeping the majority happy! How many masochists are there anyway? At some point, it should strike our addled brains that negligible is a concept that's perfectly serviceable. I dunno, mileage may vary. — Agent Smith
Feeling are how we are informed that we i.e. have low blood sugar, thirsty, suppressed, happy etc etc thus affecting our biological chemistry even more. its a top -down- top causation recorded by our chemistry and it can be used to objectively diagnose whether an organism experiences situation that promote his/her well being. — Nickolasgaspar
We already know from our biology what we "should value". What we need to do is construct a society that servers those values (our well being). — Nickolasgaspar
The act of keeping kids from satisfying their opioid rewarding mechanisms in their brains doesn't qualify as an act against their Well Being. — Nickolasgaspar
Stress hormones or the presence of endorphins to deal with pain or the lack of metabolic molecules due to undernourishment or the absence of oxytocin during social interactions — Nickolasgaspar
their well being is not linked to the well being of the society any more. — Nickolasgaspar
It can't, for the reasons I've given - 1) Underdetermination - there are too many uncontrolled-for factors for us to say which one caused the change in homeostasis, and 2) Timescale - some activities (like exercise) cause a negative change in homeostasis in the short term but lower the rate of such changes in the long term as the body adapts, so the valence of most factors cannot be determined by immediate assessment of the impact on biochemistry. — Isaac
-Again...our biology receives all the "blows" from acts that are against our well being. Immoral acts do not manifest in a bubble above humans.We know nothing of the sort. Our 'biology' can only tell us that something in the entire current and recent past environment as caused a biochemical response which we, at the time, describe as a negative one. — Isaac
Says who? I thought you were arguing all this was objective. Where's the scientific fact that tells us a prisoner's well-being is no longer tied to the well-being of society? — Isaac
-what? nobody talked about what causes change in homeostasis. — Nickolasgaspar
The actions that "ruffle" those fragile chemical balances can be evaluated. Again this doesn't mean that any action that affects the desire for pleasure of a kid qualify as immoral. As we have established in previous comments well being is more than pleasure and social rules. — Nickolasgaspar
-Again...our biology receives all the "blows" from acts that are against our well being. Immoral acts do not manifest in a bubble above humans. — Nickolasgaspar
Says our action to remove them from our society for a necessary period of time. — Nickolasgaspar
Do you think that its not an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions? — Nickolasgaspar
You argued that Immoral actions were those which caused a disruption in well-being which could be measured by a change in certain biochemicals. Changes in biochemicals away from base levels is a change in homeostasis. — Isaac
-Of course we have. Pleasure is not a metric for well being on its own. Again the definition of well being includes all the members, not just the member who is affected by a rule. His parents will have to pay for his teeth, his insulin shots, his larger clothes and witness his unhappiness when his reaches the age of dating etc et. So monitoring sugar intake in children is a promoter of well being for kids,parents and society(healthy members) and we only reduce some experiences of pleasure.We haven't established that at all. I asked you for a definition of well-being which excluded a child being denied sweets and so far you've only provided me with a definition which includes such a response. — Isaac
that is an irrelevant discussion IMHO. I referred to our ability to quantify Well being just to point out how moral acts reinforce those same metrics that our biological mechanisms strive to serve.Right. So how do we establish, with the scientific rigour you're after, which of the many potential 'blows' was responsible for the chemical changes you're claiming as a measure of well-being? — Isaac
You claim has been one of objectivity. You can't cite our society happening to do something as evidence of objective moral facts. — Isaac
So you don't think that it is objectively good for the society to remove a threat for their children and try to retrain that individual so he won't be a threat in the future?Yes, absolutely. I don't think it's an objective fact that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions. I just think that a child molester should be removed from the society and learn that members of it won't put up with his actions. — Isaac
Apples and oranges. The method of observation and examination of human interaction is different than the one required of physics.it is an analogy, and I think an apt one as I am asking whether there are objective facts about morality. — PhilosophyRunner
By quantifying specific metrics of our biology we see that conditions that favor our well being are promoted by moral behavior from our peers and us. — Nickolasgaspar
Pleasure is not a metric for well being on its own. Again the definition of well being includes all the members, not just the member who is affected by a rule. — Nickolasgaspar
I referred to our ability to quantify Well being just to point out how moral acts reinforce those same metrics that our biological mechanisms strive to serve. — Nickolasgaspar
You claim has been one of objectivity. You can't cite our society happening to do something as evidence of objective moral facts. — Isaac
I don't understand your question, can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar
OK, so to test whether some behaviour is moral we have to put all the members of the society it effects into fMRI scanners, test for cortisol, oxytocin, in every one (or a stratified sample?). Then what? Do we average the results, use consensus? What's the threshold above which an action is immoral? How much of these chemicals is worth individual autonomy? what a rise in oxytocin coupled with a rise in cortisol, how do handle such a complex reactions as that? What about temporary spike in stress response followed by a subsequent drop in the long term? — Isaac
First of all Its not my job to show anything. Its everyone's obligation to learn about basic human biology IF his intention is to talk about a biological byproduct of human behavior and be in the position to judge people's arguments. No matter what I "show" if one lacks relevant epistemic foundations my efforts will be a waste of time.I'm aware of your intentions, but the effort failed as you've failed to show that we have any such ability, nor that moral acts reinforce those metrics. — Isaac
-No it doesn't, why must I keep repeating the same things. Those metrics just stress the importance of well being, they are not "tools" for individual moral evaluations.For every metric you mention it seems moral acts reinforce some and worsen others depending entirely on subjective choices about long-term gains and the relative value of individual autonomy vs the rest of society. — Isaac
Example. It’s a fact that rape occurs in nature — among chimpanzees, for instance; and there are some evolutionary arguments to explain its existence in humans and non-humans alike. But this fact tells us exactly nothing about whether it’s OK to rape people. This is because “natural” doesn’t entail “right” (just as “unnatural” doesn’t necessarily mean wrong) — indeed, the correct answer is that it’s not OK, and this is a judgement we make at the interface of moral philosophy and common sense: it’s not an output of science.
Apples and oranges. The method of observation and examination of human interaction is different than the one required of physics — L'éléphant
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.