A basis for morality
-2
So I wanted to talk about morality for a bit, i'm sure you can find a lot about this subjects in other topics aswell but probably not really focused.
So I will start this off by giving my view:
I would like to start by accepting the following premise: "There is no objective morality, nothing is "Right" or "Wrong" in nature"
I know that many won't find this evident and I have no problem debating anyone who thinks he has arguments to decline my premise.
So what can we understand under morality?
birth of society
Well to get this we have to look at objectives. Every person has objectives th most easiest and moest universal is probably survival, every healthy human has this objective and will take actions towards this goal.
One of this actions will be to group with other humans to make a society, this will be beneficial towards his survival for obvious reasons.
rules of society
Rules go hand in hand with society, if there are no rules then there is chaos. So society has rules to make sure there is order and everyone acts as is expected.
So I think there is no doubt that rules are neccesary, but what should these rules be?
Well I think rules have to be decided by using rationality.
This again has to be looked at using objectives, every society has objectives and so certain actions have to be taken to reach these goals. The rules of this society should be the actions that will be the most beneficial towards reaching these goals and this can be found by logic and rationality.
Objectivity of Objectives
Now you might say "That only moves the problem from rules to objectives" wich in a way is right.
But I think we can construct a logical basis of rules using the nature of objectives.
I accept that goals can be best pursued using actions wich have been determined using logic, there seems to be no doubt about this. Now before we can apply logics however we need knowledge.
What is the best way to get this knowledge? The scientific method ofcourse !
And is a basis for this method? Freedom specifically, freedom of the mind, freedom of speech and freedom of participance.
Summary
- There is no objective morality and you should not look at it like this.
- Morality is a tool to make people follow rules so goals can be pursued
- The most efficient way to pursue goals stands on the pricipal of freedom so Freedom and all rules that are derived from it can be seen as objectivly better then any other rules
So I will start this off by giving my view:
I would like to start by accepting the following premise: "There is no objective morality, nothing is "Right" or "Wrong" in nature"
I know that many won't find this evident and I have no problem debating anyone who thinks he has arguments to decline my premise.
So what can we understand under morality?
birth of society
Well to get this we have to look at objectives. Every person has objectives th most easiest and moest universal is probably survival, every healthy human has this objective and will take actions towards this goal.
One of this actions will be to group with other humans to make a society, this will be beneficial towards his survival for obvious reasons.
rules of society
Rules go hand in hand with society, if there are no rules then there is chaos. So society has rules to make sure there is order and everyone acts as is expected.
So I think there is no doubt that rules are neccesary, but what should these rules be?
Well I think rules have to be decided by using rationality.
This again has to be looked at using objectives, every society has objectives and so certain actions have to be taken to reach these goals. The rules of this society should be the actions that will be the most beneficial towards reaching these goals and this can be found by logic and rationality.
Objectivity of Objectives
Now you might say "That only moves the problem from rules to objectives" wich in a way is right.
But I think we can construct a logical basis of rules using the nature of objectives.
I accept that goals can be best pursued using actions wich have been determined using logic, there seems to be no doubt about this. Now before we can apply logics however we need knowledge.
What is the best way to get this knowledge? The scientific method ofcourse !
And is a basis for this method? Freedom specifically, freedom of the mind, freedom of speech and freedom of participance.
Summary
- There is no objective morality and you should not look at it like this.
- Morality is a tool to make people follow rules so goals can be pursued
- The most efficient way to pursue goals stands on the pricipal of freedom so Freedom and all rules that are derived from it can be seen as objectivly better then any other rules
0
(There are societies without rules. Take wolf or lion packs, for instance, or even ants. Rules are really a human thing, at most, primate.)
(I don't think a rule has never been without an objective. The point of rules were to achieve certain outcomes after all.)
I'd say that is ultimately the establishment of any type of human society, the goal of survival, but humans have different opinions of how those societies should work.
The tricky thing about objectives is, not everyone has the same objective. Rules attempt to unite everyone under one objective, but that often times clashes with the objective of others, who then proceed to change the rules to best suit them, or find loop-holes/round-a-bouts, or simply ignore them. Spawning conflicts of "whose rule is best (suited to their taste)".
While you can define significance of some things through science, the value of it is still left to opinions and desires. So say, some may want to move out into space, some underwater, others may want to stay where they are, and some may want something already possessed by another individual/group.
I don't particularly see morality as a means of "control", more along the lines of "allowable acceptability" we develop, either, on our own or through other people, to which, we (people) may impose onto others so that our (individual) morality is left intact. That morality can extend into expectations of what societies should look and act like.
Ultimately I view morals as, simply something that allows us to feel good or bad about our decision. Rather we find them morally acceptable, is different from, rather well do it or not. A (greatly) contributing factor to the "process to reach the outcome". Often developed with the perceived "norm's" of the surrounding society. And if we must, we will change our morals to find justification in our individual actions, example: "a boyfriend who suspects his girlfriend of cheating, who then blames her while he attempts to hurt her" scenario. Justifying his actions, validating his feelings towards his current actions, by making it morally acceptable.
Rules are in direct opposition of freedom. The more rules exist, the less freedom for acceptable choices/beliefs exist. Rules can vary the amount of freedom some have versus others in under the same set of rules, such as segregation and slavery.
(I think) I understand that your focus is morality and societies, but I'm not sure where you want to take it, so I'm going to stop with this.
(I don't think a rule has never been without an objective. The point of rules were to achieve certain outcomes after all.)
I'd say that is ultimately the establishment of any type of human society, the goal of survival, but humans have different opinions of how those societies should work.
The tricky thing about objectives is, not everyone has the same objective. Rules attempt to unite everyone under one objective, but that often times clashes with the objective of others, who then proceed to change the rules to best suit them, or find loop-holes/round-a-bouts, or simply ignore them. Spawning conflicts of "whose rule is best (suited to their taste)".
While you can define significance of some things through science, the value of it is still left to opinions and desires. So say, some may want to move out into space, some underwater, others may want to stay where they are, and some may want something already possessed by another individual/group.
I don't particularly see morality as a means of "control", more along the lines of "allowable acceptability" we develop, either, on our own or through other people, to which, we (people) may impose onto others so that our (individual) morality is left intact. That morality can extend into expectations of what societies should look and act like.
Ultimately I view morals as, simply something that allows us to feel good or bad about our decision. Rather we find them morally acceptable, is different from, rather well do it or not. A (greatly) contributing factor to the "process to reach the outcome". Often developed with the perceived "norm's" of the surrounding society. And if we must, we will change our morals to find justification in our individual actions, example: "a boyfriend who suspects his girlfriend of cheating, who then blames her while he attempts to hurt her" scenario. Justifying his actions, validating his feelings towards his current actions, by making it morally acceptable.
Rules are in direct opposition of freedom. The more rules exist, the less freedom for acceptable choices/beliefs exist. Rules can vary the amount of freedom some have versus others in under the same set of rules, such as segregation and slavery.
(I think) I understand that your focus is morality and societies, but I'm not sure where you want to take it, so I'm going to stop with this.
0
Rules and laws in a democracy are reflective of the collective consensus of morality of society at the time. The weak link is that people who make the laws are subject to their own opinions and biases.
-5
bakapink wrote...
(There are societies without rules. Take wolf or lion packs, for instance, or even ants. Rules are really a human thing, at most, primate.)Well they do have rules but they are nor as clear as in human societies, they are probably a product of evolution. But I have no ambition to extend my vision about morals beyond humanity.
(I don't think a rule has never been without an objective. The point of rules were to achieve certain outcomes after all.)
I don't get how this matches? your first sentence seems to contradict the first. objectives and achieve a certain outcome would mean the same in this context.
The tricky thing about objectives is, not everyone has the same objective.
Thats completely right but I tried to argue that the scientific method would benefit all possible objectives because it is the best method to gain knowledge. The scientific method works optimal with freedom so freedom would be a rule every sensible society has to adapt.
While you can define significance of some things through science, the value of it is still left to opinions and desires.
Totally true, I propose science not to determine wich objectives we want to pursue but to help us reach the objectives we do choose.
The objectives should be chosen trough the Democratic method.
I don't particularly see morality as a means of "control", more along the lines of "allowable acceptability" we develop, either, on our own or through other people, to which, we (people) may impose onto others so that our (individual) morality is left intact.
I get your point but this morality would still dictate your actions thus it has the ability to control your actions. example: one goal could be we don't want people to be scared to walk on the streets . If we make it immoral to harm people then this would reduce the amount of agression and people would feel safer.
That morality can extend into expectations of what societies should look and act like.
I don't this that there exist a morality on a level above a society (except the scientific method ofcourse). So there is no way to determine what morality societies would have to adopt.
Rules are in direct opposition of freedom. The more rules exist, the less freedom for acceptable choices/beliefs exist.
This is where the scientific method is radically different from other ideas/beliefs. It does not limit freedom, actually it is the highest from of freedom imaginable. (I could further explain this if you do not get what science has to do with freedom, this would take a good deal of text). The only thing that could be seen as limiting freedom is that it is not permitted to harm another persons freedom, but I think that you gain more freedoms by not permitting this then you would gain by permitting this.
(I think) I understand that your focus is morality and societies, but I'm not sure where you want to take it, so I'm going to stop with this.
I wanted to propose my idea of the scientific as a basis for morality and I wanted to hear other peoples opinion on the subject
Fricken Hamster wrote...
Rules and laws in a democracy are reflective of the collective consensus of morality of society at the time. The weak link is that people who make the laws are subject to their own opinions and biases.
I argue that the scientific method as a basis is not a matter of opinion its solid truth.
0
NosferatuGuts wrote...
bakapink wrote...
(There are societies without rules. Take wolf or lion packs, for instance, or even ants. Rules are really a human thing, at most, primate.)Well they do have rules but they are nor as clear as in human societies, they are probably a product of evolution. But I have no ambition to extend my vision about morals beyond humanity.
There are no rules, just instinctual drives. They make the choices they make because instincts dictates that behavior, though they also have individuality (maybe not as much with ant's). They are not bond by rules from their societies.
NosferatuGuts wrote...
(I don't think a rule has never been without an objective. The point of rules were to achieve certain outcomes after all.)
I don't get how this matches? your first sentence seems to contradict the first. objectives and achieve a certain outcome would mean the same in this context.
Wasn't suppose to match, why I separated the unrelated statements. If your saying that they collide, I don't understand how, you'll have to explain in what way. Also, I'm not sure which is "first".
Everything that happens is the outcome of multiple influences, all objectives are achieved through desired outcomes, and desired outcomes do not need to be specific or even known.
NosferatuGuts wrote...
The tricky thing about objectives is, not everyone has the same objective.
Thats completely right but I tried to argue that the scientific method would benefit all possible objectives because it is the best method to gain knowledge. The scientific method works optimal with freedom so freedom would be a rule every sensible society has to adapt.
The scientific method doesn't always work, or maybe I should define it as, it can be a process that takes more years, than a person has, to be answered. Take Einsteins theories, the cosmological constant, to be exact. Which, he believed was wrong, was proven right after his death. That is far too slow to dictate a society by, decisions may have only hours before their necessity, to short a time to apply the method too.
The method can be used to prove such things as, let's say, climate change validity, but it being true doesn't force change in and of itself. It just verifies the cause of change and states the need for change else ensured calamity in the future.
Yes, as long as the scientific method isn't enforced, it does not restrain freedom.
NosferatuGuts wrote...
While you can define significance of some things through science, the value of it is still left to opinions and desires.
Totally true, I propose science not to determine wich objectives we want to pursue but to help us reach the objectives we do choose.
The objectives should be chosen trough the Democratic method.
The scientific method alone doesn't tell us how to proceed, the question has to be posed correctly, and in situations that the method is best suited, it is used by the scientific community. Using previous example of climate change. You can eliminate possible choices, but without having the hypothesis, the method is useless. The method also requires trial-and-error before verification of it being correct (which, for the most part, is in use already). Maybe you should give me an example of how to apply it in a way that it isn't already, in the way you imagine.
NosferatuGuts wrote...
I don't particularly see morality as a means of "control", more along the lines of "allowable acceptability" we develop, either, on our own or through other people, to which, we (people) may impose onto others so that our (individual) morality is left intact.
I get your point but this morality would still dictate your actions thus it has the ability to control your actions. example: one goal could be we don't want people to be scared to walk on the streets . If we make it immoral to harm people then this would reduce the amount of agression and people would feel safer.
While that is true, RL proves that morality does not perfectly transfer between people and even in those in which it does, will still act against it. Additionally, I am not sure if you can relate, but the US has morals against killing yet "pro war" morality, a complete contradiction that exist without conflict within people here.
NosferatuGuts wrote...
That morality can extend into expectations of what societies should look and act like.
I don't this that there exist a morality on a level above a society (except the scientific method ofcourse). So there is no way to determine what morality societies would have to adopt.
(I'm not entirely sure what you were saying, but assuming you meant "think" instead of the bold) Religions are a type of society.
The scientific method is a method removing bias from analysis, there are no moral implications in it.
NosferatuGuts wrote...
Rules are in direct opposition of freedom. The more rules exist, the less freedom for acceptable choices/beliefs exist.
This is where the scientific method is radically different from other ideas/beliefs. It does not limit freedom, actually it is the highest from of freedom imaginable. (I could further explain this if you do not get what science has to do with freedom, this would take a good deal of text). The only thing that could be seen as limiting freedom is that it is not permitted to harm another persons freedom, but I think that you gain more freedoms by not permitting this then you would gain by permitting this.
"Science" is, by definition, the study of the physical and natural world, not a system of enforcement for desirable situations and outcomes that is "rules".
NosferatuGuts wrote...
(I think) I understand that your focus is morality and societies, but I'm not sure where you want to take it, so I'm going to stop with this.
I wanted to propose my idea of the scientific as a basis for morality and I wanted to hear other peoples opinion on the subject
Science often calls for the absence of morality in pursuit of knowledge. Example: The people who, unknowingly, had radiation tested on them for the bombs used in World War 2. Morality and rules keep science in check.
---
The dot's your connecting are not quite complete when expressed. I did my best to reply, but I feel that the conversation is about 3 separate topics that still haven't been connected to each other. It may be me, so I apologies if that is the case.
0
bakapink wrote...
Everything that happens is the outcome of multiple influences, all objectives are achieved through desired outcomes, and desired outcomes do not need to be specific or even known.
I follow your thought till the bold sentence, while there is no real 'need' it would still beneficial for outcomes to be known so you can try to reach objectives efficiently.
NosferatuGuts wrote...
The tricky thing about objectives is, not everyone has the same objective.
Thats completely right but I tried to argue that the scientific method would benefit all possible objectives because it is the best method to gain knowledge. The scientific method works optimal with freedom so freedom would be a rule every sensible society has to adapt.
The scientific method doesn't always work, or maybe I should define it as, it can be a process that takes more years, than a person has, to be answered.
To be exact the scientific method would takes an infinite amount of time but this is not a problem. At any point in time science has an answer and how fyrther you go in time how more reliable the answer will be. So science always works an always produces the best possible answer given a certain context and timespan.eo
for example: Before einstein there was Newton and while Einstein was developing his theory we could still look to Newton's theory wich was less correct but still the most correct thoery at that point in time.
The method can be used to prove such things as, let's say, climate change validity, but it being true doesn't force change in and of itself.
True, those decisions have to be made by a democracy. Though science is needed to show the democracy what the facts are.
Yes, as long as the scientific method isn't enforced, it does not restrain freedom.
You can't enforce the scientific method because it is not of that nature. That would be like imprisoning people by setting them free.
NosferatuGuts wrote...
While you can define significance of some things through science, the value of it is still left to opinions and desires.
Totally true, I propose science not to determine wich objectives we want to pursue but to help us reach the objectives we do choose.
The objectives should be chosen trough the Democratic method.
You can eliminate possible choices, but without having the hypothesis, the method is useless.
Again we would use democracy to set the hypothesis.
Maybe you should give me an example of how to apply it in a way that it isn't already, in the way you imagine.
It is already being applied in the right way. Only thing that I think needs to be changed is education. All people need an education of the highest level they can handle.
While that is true, RL proves that morality does not perfectly transfer between people and even in those in which it does, will still act against it.
You always have flaws but it is besides fear one of the strongest tools to dictate peoples behaviour.
Additionally, I am not sure if you can relate, but the US has morals against killing yet "pro war" morality, a complete contradiction that exist without conflict within people here.
Not really true, morals often apply to the group. Anyone outside the group is often not considered. On top of that if people have the feeling they are in danger then fear takes over. Fear is another very powerfull tool that bends behaviour and can be stronger then morals.
(I'm not entirely sure what you were saying, but assuming you meant "think" instead of the bold) Religions are a type of society.
The scientific method is a method removing bias from analysis, there are no moral implications in it.
The scientific method is a method removing bias from analysis, there are no moral implications in it.
Religion is a type of society but in the way of efficienty it will always be beaten by societies that apply the scientific method. This is because they don't leave all options open.
But I get the feeling you don't really understand my point, I will try to say it very clear.
I do NOT define morals as something to determine what is 'Good' or 'Bad' in nature, I think such an approach is useless.
I do define morals as (sometimes 'unenforced') rules that are used in a society to control peoples behaviour.
What is the point of these 'rules'? They are needed to reach objectives.
How can we determine these objectives? Democracy
How can we determine wich rules serve these objectives best? Rationality and science
What is a requirement for science? the rule of Freedom
quote="NosferatuGuts"]
Rules are in direct opposition of freedom. The more rules exist, the less freedom for acceptable choices/beliefs exist.
This is where the scientific method is radically different from other ideas/beliefs. It does not limit freedom, actually it is the highest from of freedom imaginable. (I could further explain this if you do not get what science has to do with freedom, this would take a good deal of text). The only thing that could be seen as limiting freedom is that it is not permitted to harm another persons freedom, but I think that you gain more freedoms by not permitting this then you would gain by permitting this.[/quote]
"Science" is, by definition, the study of the physical and natural world, not a system of enforcement for desirable situations and outcomes that is "rules".
Science often calls for the absence of morality in pursuit of knowledge. Example: The people who, unknowingly, had radiation tested on them for the bombs used in World War 2. Morality and rules keep science in check.
That is not real science in its best form. The scientific method is not complete until there is freedom, so sacrificing people against their will is not an option.
The dot's your connecting are not quite complete when expressed. I did my best to reply, but I feel that the conversation is about 3 separate topics that still haven't been connected to each other. It may be me, so I apologies if that is the case.
Not your fault, the idea im proposing is not the easiest to understand when written on a forum and im not the best writer.
I will tried to connect it above, I will put the same here to emphasis its importance.
What is the point of these 'rules'? They are needed to reach objectives.
How can we determine these objectives? Democracy
How can we determine wich rules serve these objectives best? Rationality and science
What is a requirement for science? the rule of Freedom
-1
[spoil]
There is far to little that is truly known, it's impossible, as we are, to always know what the results will be. We make objectives in hopes of achieving something similar to our expectations, but our expectations themselves are never completely defined.
I don't see why this poses a problem, objectives can still be pursued when they have a vague definition. You would have to give ma an example of something that would be impossible to pursue using clear rules.
These are so called micro-objectives the other are mega-objectives. micro-objectives are valuable because they are needed to pursue mega-objectives. Though you have to be carefull to not harm mega-objectives in the pursuit of micro-objectives.
This is exactly what I am saying and it is true that not many take an active role in it. This is exactly what im proposing, a set of rules as a basis that would lead to the most active form of the scientific method.
[quote="NosferatuGuts"]
The method can be used to prove such things as, let's say, climate change validity, but it being true doesn't force change in and of itself.
Well democracy isn't installed perfectly anywhere at the moment.
There is no "right choice" and the idea of it is useless.
The world being destroyed is not a "bad end" in nature as I said, it is however not compatible with the objective of survival and so it would be illogical to set this is an objective.
Then you don't enforce it you just put people in place that use it. No one is enforced cause you can't enforce freedom itself.
This is exactly what I mean, system like this take away peoples mental freedom and should therefor be fought.
Remember im talking about a basis for morality, and thus a way to prove that the scientific method and its implications on justice are logically superiour to any other system. So yeah we do already use it and thats good, but not every person in society (or atleast in mine) is raised with these key principals.
Fear only goes so far, and eventually becomes harassment and suppression, which leads to hatred and a desire to oppose. Example: The US and it's image to 2/3rds of the world (though with the spying thing, may have grown to 3/4ths or more).
I'm not sure what your point is here. I never said that it should be used, I just said that it's powerfull
Prisoners were once part of the same group, they are then excluded from the group and justification is made in murdering them.
Well people distance themselves from criminals saying that their actions are different from the group so the groups morality doesn't apply to them.
There is only morals that apply to the group and there is no "good for the greater". That being said there is no strict definition of the group and the group can be very big or very small.
True and I did not propose this.
You'll have to give me an example of a society that does leave all options open. Additionally, morality stresses, that not all options are right and/or should be chosen.
Morality is just a tool to control actions. You can't speak of options that are right of should be chosen. There are however options that are logicaly superiour given a certain objective.
The example you seek is a society that teaches this.
Religions have prevailed quite successfully on the basis of morality for quite a long time. The short comings of them are the same as any other structure of human power subject to decadence.
A religious society is always less efficient then a scientific one.
Totally true, so what is the point you are trying to make here?
As I said, Freedom of speech, Freedom of mind and Freedom of participance.
The radical freedom of action as you think of is not needed or wanted for the scientific method in place of it we use a system of duties and rights. It's a social contract that we participate in. You can however choose to not participate in it but this would require you to live alone.
The scientist you refer to are illogical ones they lose track of the mega-objectives and this cannot be allowed.
A great example here is doctor strangelove (Maybe you have seen this movies) he is so obsessed with his micro-objective of making strong weapons that he fails to see how his actions are bad for his mega-objectives and he gets killed by his own weapons.
bakapink wrote...
There is far to little that is truly known, it's impossible, as we are, to always know what the results will be. We make objectives in hopes of achieving something similar to our expectations, but our expectations themselves are never completely defined.
I don't see why this poses a problem, objectives can still be pursued when they have a vague definition. You would have to give ma an example of something that would be impossible to pursue using clear rules.
Some are done, not for the results, but for the process (example: a type of practice for a skill, drawing pictures for fun, the short term results do not matter compared to the long term, though this differ for person.
These are so called micro-objectives the other are mega-objectives. micro-objectives are valuable because they are needed to pursue mega-objectives. Though you have to be carefull to not harm mega-objectives in the pursuit of micro-objectives.
If your saying, we must work from the mistakes of our past/present, constantly trying to validate rather it is the right choice or not. It is a process, not many, take an active role in already.
This is exactly what I am saying and it is true that not many take an active role in it. This is exactly what im proposing, a set of rules as a basis that would lead to the most active form of the scientific method.
[quote="NosferatuGuts"]
The method can be used to prove such things as, let's say, climate change validity, but it being true doesn't force change in and of itself.
Then, that is exactly what is happening, those in the democracy are choosing to believe what they want to believe, for or against, while those whose job is to find solutions, try to find one that the whole world will come together for in complete co-operation in. (Refer to Global warming, and the complications of uniting the world to act on it.)
Well democracy isn't installed perfectly anywhere at the moment.
Democracy does allow for a certain extent of freedom, the choices given are a set laid out by another. Even then, it doesn't mean the "right choice" will be taken. I'll use it with certainty at this point, since the world being destroyed is a "bad end" (therefore bad choice, for me both physically, and in terms of my interest; I need human creativity to continue viewing anime and video games). Normally there is no "right choice" for everyone, often times they can be to the detriment of others.
There is no "right choice" and the idea of it is useless.
The world being destroyed is not a "bad end" in nature as I said, it is however not compatible with the objective of survival and so it would be illogical to set this is an objective.
You can enforce it, so say, intervening in a countries affairs, by force, to apply the scientific method in place of them who refuse to use it.
Then you don't enforce it you just put people in place that use it. No one is enforced cause you can't enforce freedom itself.
Your looking at it too plainly, incarceration I mean. A person, who only knows how to live in prison, sent back to the outside world, told to seek employment but unable to find due to his past, out in the streets with no where to go. Society can be seen as another type of prison, the person can very easily end up in a type of community that does not allow them to leave, (Gangs) without death or imprisonment. (Imagine a person who has been in prison for over 20 years, 20 years ago, cellphones didn't exist and pc's were just starting).
This is exactly what I mean, system like this take away peoples mental freedom and should therefor be fought.
In that regard, Democracy, when used for our future pursuits, does use the scientific method.
Remember im talking about a basis for morality, and thus a way to prove that the scientific method and its implications on justice are logically superiour to any other system. So yeah we do already use it and thats good, but not every person in society (or atleast in mine) is raised with these key principals.
Fear only goes so far, and eventually becomes harassment and suppression, which leads to hatred and a desire to oppose. Example: The US and it's image to 2/3rds of the world (though with the spying thing, may have grown to 3/4ths or more).
I'm not sure what your point is here. I never said that it should be used, I just said that it's powerfull
Prisoners were once part of the same group, they are then excluded from the group and justification is made in murdering them.
Well people distance themselves from criminals saying that their actions are different from the group so the groups morality doesn't apply to them.
Morals that only apply to a group, do not encompass humanity as a whole, therefore is not good for the greater. And is still a contradiction.
There is only morals that apply to the group and there is no "good for the greater". That being said there is no strict definition of the group and the group can be very big or very small.
Fear overrides moral obligations. Instilling fear to enforce desires is dictatorship, which is far from freedom.
True and I did not propose this.
You'll have to give me an example of a society that does leave all options open. Additionally, morality stresses, that not all options are right and/or should be chosen.
Morality is just a tool to control actions. You can't speak of options that are right of should be chosen. There are however options that are logicaly superiour given a certain objective.
The example you seek is a society that teaches this.
Religions have prevailed quite successfully on the basis of morality for quite a long time. The short comings of them are the same as any other structure of human power subject to decadence.
A religious society is always less efficient then a scientific one.
The first 2 are already implemented.
The second one, is opinion based, considering no 2 people have the same set of objectives, and you said yourself, the scientific method is to be used to determine how to proceed through an objective, not which objective is decided. In that case, with a Democracy, if the majority wish for world conquest, the scientific method will be applied to determining how to go about it. (As a side note, North Korea is technically a Democracy, they don't automatically equate to being a good thing.)
The second one, is opinion based, considering no 2 people have the same set of objectives, and you said yourself, the scientific method is to be used to determine how to proceed through an objective, not which objective is decided. In that case, with a Democracy, if the majority wish for world conquest, the scientific method will be applied to determining how to go about it. (As a side note, North Korea is technically a Democracy, they don't automatically equate to being a good thing.)
Totally true, so what is the point you are trying to make here?
I'll state it again here, define "freedom", because the definition I go by is "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint". To be able to act in any manner that supersede any form of established rules.
As I said, Freedom of speech, Freedom of mind and Freedom of participance.
The radical freedom of action as you think of is not needed or wanted for the scientific method in place of it we use a system of duties and rights. It's a social contract that we participate in. You can however choose to not participate in it but this would require you to live alone.
If your saying, science with such liberty is a good thing, then I redirect you to the human experimentation. While not all scientist will abandon their morality, it only takes a few to cause true harm
The scientist you refer to are illogical ones they lose track of the mega-objectives and this cannot be allowed.
A great example here is doctor strangelove (Maybe you have seen this movies) he is so obsessed with his micro-objective of making strong weapons that he fails to see how his actions are bad for his mega-objectives and he gets killed by his own weapons.
0
I like to think that "morality" is just a set of obligatory guidelines used to brainwash.
Nonetheless it's the main reason why not everybody is thrown in jail. Or the main reason why there even is jail.
Nonetheless it's the main reason why not everybody is thrown in jail. Or the main reason why there even is jail.
0
Holoofyoistu
The Messenger
I think morality is a personal limit on what you are willing to do. It's influenced by society a lot, but in the end it's personal.