whether or not positive and negative feelings such as pain and pleasure are essential in our conception of morality. — Purple Pond
The only reason why they don't put their hand in the fire is because they are programmed not to by evolution as a means of self preservation. — Purple Pond
Suppose on some alien planet there lives a fairly complex sentient humanoid society where feelings such as pain and pleasure never evolved
In The Wrath of Khan (1982), Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.” — Cavacava
So, if feeling is required for morality, then can morality be rational at all? — Pseudonym
The point of of this thought experiment is to determine whether or not positive and negative feelings such as pain and pleasure are essential in our conception of morality.
The point of of this thought experiment is to determine whether or not positive and negative feelings such as pain and pleasure are essential in our conception of morality. — Purple Pond
Reason can sometimes be used to figure out things that aren't clear — T Clark
We may sometimes realize that some things we thought were perfectly moral were actually immoral, but that does not mean we shrug our shoulders and continue on as though nothing happened--that means we change our system! — NKBJ
I believe the foundations of morality are not fundamentally rational. — T Clark
One thing we have to tease apart is the difference between having a moral code for rational reasons, and that code being rational in itself. The trolley problem shows that we can have rational reasons for being morally inclined to contradictory conclusions if only marginal differences exist between situations. — NKBJ
Simply stating that you hate the trolley problem doesn't really help address the point I was making about the difference between rational reasons for moral rules and rational morality. Respectfully, I also disagree about it's real-world implications. It neatly portrays why we make all sorts of daily decisions. It exemplifies why we think actions are stronger than withholding action; being a member of a group lessens our sense of direct responsibility, how far can utilitarianism go, etc, etc. — NKBJ
I also disagree about it's real-world implications. It neatly portrays why we make all sorts of daily decisions. It exemplifies why we think actions are stronger than withholding action; being a member of a group lessens our sense of direct responsibility, how far can utilitarianism go, etc, etc. — NKBJ
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I'm telling you you're wrong, though. Perhaps not clearly enough for you? And you still are seemingly conflating rational reasons for having certain moral rules and those rules being rational in themselves.As I stated, I thought clearly, I don't think moral decisions, judgments, are fundamentally rational.
Oh well, too bad for you I guess! Many very serious philosophers and philosophy teachers use it because it is so clear and illuminating. Dismissing the whole argument because you don't like the example seems not only uncharitable to me, but also an easy way out of addressing a concern you just don't want to answer.Sorry. I think it's silly, convoluted, and confusing.
I'm telling you you're wrong, though. Perhaps not clearly enough for you? — NKBJ
Oh well, too bad for you I guess! — NKBJ
Many very serious philosophers and philosophy teachers use it because it is so clear and illuminating. Dismissing the whole argument because you don't like the example seems not only uncharitable to me, but also an easy way out of addressing a concern you just don't want to answer.
Getting caught up in whether it works 1-to-1 in real life is just a way to evade figuring out what is theoretically right or wrong in that scenario. — NKBJ
I'm hoping you're attempting humor, because otherwise this just seems like so much territorial chest-thumping that I'm not particularly interested in.You just got here.
I didn't dismiss any argument because you didn't make one, at least not related to the Trolley Problem. — T Clark
I'm hoping you're attempting humor, because otherwise this just seems like so much territorial chest-thumping that I'm not particularly interested in. — NKBJ
the Trolley problem both exemplifies and problematizes your insistent claim not to think moral decisions are primarily rational. — NKBJ
When faced with the various scenarios of the trolley problem, we realize that we have many rational reasons for the seemingly knee-jerk reactions we have to given moral dilemmas, but that they can be at odds with each other if only a single variable is adjusted. Thus throwing in our face that we may not always be consistent about our moral reasoning. So, for instance, if I say flipping the switch to kill one instead of five is okay, it's likely because I think one small sacrifice is better than letting more people die. That's a rational conclusion. Then I'm faced with the idea of throwing the fat man on the tracks, and suddenly it seems less morally permissible, because it seems wrong to rope someone into being a sacrifice when he was never involved in the first place--also pretty rational. — NKBJ
Reason can sometimes be used to figure out things that aren't clear and what needs to be done to address the moral issue. — T Clark
"Insistent" = "Does not agree with me." Is that correct? — T Clark
I've tried to learn not to respond belligerently to, what shall we call them....unpleasant people. I look forward to more learning experiences with you. — T Clark
That doesn't change the fact that the basic motivations for moral behavior are not rational. — T Clark
Not sure why we need the snide comments? It should be possible to disagree about something in theory without succumbing to verbal put-downs and getting defensive? I'm certainly not interested in that kind of discourse. — NKBJ
Still, waiting on your example for the lack of rationality in morality though! — NKBJ
To put this in terms of the Trolley Problem, as NKBJ, is asking - who we choose to run over might be a rational problem, why we care is an emotional one. Why are no answers to the problem that we should choose to run over the one with ginger hair? Why is it not considered a dilemma if one of the potential victims recently insulted us? What about if one of the potential victims is gay, does that change things? Of course none of these things are problems for the rational brain to consider because these questions have already been solved by the basic emotions. — Pseudonym
Sure, our morality stems from feelings and empathy about other people's feelings--no argument there. — NKBJ
It's this whole head or heart dualism that has sadly pervaded our thinking for too long now, even though feminist scholars have long debunked that whole idea by formulating the ethics of care. — NKBJ
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.