The paradox in a nutshell: We must always have a good reason for anything but there's no good reason to be good. — TheMadFool
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.
We 'unreasonably' like reasons. — t0m
Isn't desire primary? — t0m
So here, when Hume says that moral principles are ‘not perceived by reason’, then he’s saying something very close to your OP. But it does, I think, depend on a very narrowly-conceived notion of what constitutes ‘reason’. — Wayfarer
Like our principles of morality, we learn what rational thinking is through reward and punishment. — sime
That means morality is irrational. Is this an absolute truth or just situation-dependent? I mean, are we blind to moral truths or is morality, itself, just an illusion? I pray it's the former. — TheMadFool
Like our principles of morality, we learn what rational thinking is through reward and punishment.
— sime
A fine point. — TheMadFool
Reason is key to survival and look at all the scientific truths we've discovered using rationality. — TheMadFool
My question, specifically, is the unreasonable association of morality and reason. To me the expression ''good reason'' is proof of the morality-reason connection. Yet, when we apply rationality to morality all we get is confusion.
What's the problem here? Could it be that morality is irrational? Goodness is associated with foolishness e.g. a young person is described as naive or innocent (unaware of the Big Bad World). — TheMadFool
GEORGE PELL: Well, what is the reason that science gives why we're here? Science tells us how things happen, science tells us nothing about why there was the Big Bang. Why there is a transition from inanimate matter to living matter. Science is silent on we could solve most of the questions in science and it would leave all the problems of life almost completely untouched. Why be good?
RICHARD DAWKINS: ‘Why be good’ is a separate question, which I also came to. Why we exist, you're playing with the word “why” there. Science is working on the problem of the antecedent factors that lead to our existence. Now, “why” in any further sense than that, why in the sense of purpose is, in my opinion, not a meaningful question.
It's not 'morality' that's irrational, but the modern conception of what constitutes 'reason — Wayfarer
That's not 'a fine point', it is behaviourism. — Wayfarer
Like our principles of morality, we learn what rational thinking is through reward and punishment.
— sime
A fine point. But the normative nature of reason is quite different from that of morality. We ought to be logical because being so reveals truths that are necessary for our survival. However, logic, as yet, hasn't revealed any reason why we ought to be good. — TheMadFool
However, as Hume said, there's no rational ought to morality, at least not in a an airtight, foolproof sense. — TheMadFool
Now why should it be assumed that reason involves different criteria of normativity to morality? — sime
To me, reason is a tool and morality is the material we use reason on. Isn't that the working analogy for philosophy?
If I understand you correctly, your view is somewhat similar to my OP - that reason is good. This is what I'm questioning here. — TheMadFool
Yes, i think it is a deeply flawed analogy, for we don't possess a single form of reasoning but have evolved many different games of reasoning-behaviour that constitute a family of coping strategies for surviving in different sets of circumstances. — sime
I have no beef with entomology or evolution, but I refuse to admit that they teach me much about ethics. Consider the fact that human action ranges to the extremes. People can perform extraordinary acts of altruism, including kindness toward other species — or they can utterly fail to be altruistic, even toward their own children. So whatever tendencies we may have inherited leave ample room for variation; our choices will determine which end of the spectrum we approach. This is where ethical discourse comes in — not in explaining how we’re “built,” but in deliberating on our own future acts. Should I cheat on this test? Should I give this stranger a ride? Knowing how my selfish and altruistic feelings evolved doesn’t help me decide at all. Most, though not all, moral codes advise me to cultivate altruism. But since the human race has evolved to be capable of a wide range of both selfish and altruistic behavior, there is no reason to say that altruism is superior to selfishness in any biological sense. — Richard Polt
We must always have a good reason for anything but there's no good reason to be good.
Consider The Apology. Socrates goes to his death, untroubled. And why? Because he himself is certain that he has lived in such a way as to not have to fear death
Reason provides guidance. It enables us to sort things out, but I don't think reason is good or bad, moral or immoral. It is the way of thinking that can be valid, sound, or mistaken. We have to desire something in order to employ reason, to obtain what we desire. How we fulfill our desires as well as what we desire can be good, bad or indifferent. I think we all have a conscience, a way to judge our own actions and accept responsibility for them. — Cavacava
advantageous to survival.... — TheMadFool
The strange part is that applying rationality to moral theory hasn't led to anything substantive. — TheMadFool
This leads me to believe you haven’t understood what I’ve been saying. — Wayfarer
Are you sure?
I mean, even prior to any educated judgement about adaptive advantages concerning evolution, I've rarely found that it made much sense to be mean, cruel or simply uncaring. There's usually a simple obvious advantage to doing good, which is that people will tend to notice that you are a person who does mostly good. — Akanthinos
Why is morality so difficult? I mean our moral compass, in general, has religious sources and religion is notoriously ''unreasonable'' — TheMadFool
There is always an aspect of a religious philosophy that is beyond empirical evidence but ‘transcendent’ is not the same as ‘unreasonable’. It might be that it surpasses reason rather than denying it. — Wayfarer
But in the absence of a shared domain of values, such that the Christian ethos used to provide, then society is inclined to look to science as a source of truth or reason, in respect of ethical issues; or alternatively to declare that ‘science has proven’ that there is no objective basis for morality. — Wayfarer
is it wise to give up the fish on our line for a bigger fish that may be simply your imagination? — TheMadFool
That’s where faith plays a role. And no, ‘faith’ is not ‘clinging to a belief in propositions for which there is no evidence’, as a Dawkins would describe it. It exists within a context of a community of practice and a domain of discourse, which provides some anchors for it. It isn’t simply faith in anything, or wishful thinking. — Wayfarer
And if you read what I said, I didn’t imply anywhere that science is harmful for morality. You can be a good person and a good scientist, but being a good person doesn’t necessarily rely on science. — Wayfarer
Why is morality so difficult? — TheMadFool
Perhaps because the way it has been talked about is based upon misunderstanding what it is? — creativesoul
I don't know. Moral theories, at least the ones I'm familiar with, all seem to have one interesting objective - to frame a set of rules that are universal (for all situations and all times). This is the aim of all moral theories and as natural as this is it is also the most problematic. — TheMadFool
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.