How do you determine what is right and wrong?

[Rapier]

15 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

You're probably right. However, what you are saying doesn't necessarily contrast with what everybody else is saying here. People could follow Kantian ethics or religious ethics out of complete self-interest without it conflicting with the reasoning behind those moral views. For instance, the reasons somebody would want to become a Christian are mostly self-motivated. Things like "I don't wanna go to hell", "I wanna live a more spiritual life", "I want to be nicer to other people because being nice makes me feel good" are the reasons why people join a lot of religions, and most religions understand that and are built to appeal to your self-interest. So what you are saying could be true, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that anybody who appeals to another standard of morality would be incorrect in doing so. 

I'm a Christian. I believe that, in a world where I believe that God exists, the most logical thing to do is as He says. So I would jump in front of a bus to save a little girl out of my own self-interest in doing what God would have me do in a given situation. Thus, I ascribe to my moral standard and yours at the same time. They aren't mutually exclusive.

It wasn't meant to contrast with what others have said. Also, I didn't say they'd be incorrect in doing so. To be honest, whether they're incorrect or not varies from case to case. Selfishness by itself is not a bad thing, as we are mindful of our own preservation, unless we benefit ourselves in the expense of others (like stealing) or engage in other morally wrong deeds. I think few people would claim that being charitable because of that self-satisfying fuzzy feel (a selfish act, even if in a basic level) is wrong.

 

15 hours ago, fuccboi said:

the problem with that claim is that it's entirely unfalsifiable. i could bring up tendency towards reciprocity or things like the ultimatum game (where an "unfair" offer is often rejected despite accepting the offer being the option that maximises personal benefit) but you could always claim that that was simply due to what that specific individual values and so ultimately it was a "selfish" decision. there's always an, in popperian terms, ad hoc hypothesis that can be made. so this is no more in the realm of psychology or science, but rather philosophy. there's a fair amount of literature on the evolutionary need for humans to be, at least to a certain extent, "selfless," but you can always rationalise it within the theory of humans being inherently selfish as being on a basic level out of need for self-satisfaction, so clearly empirical evidence and science can only go so far regarding this topic.

 

there's nothing wrong with that. there is, however, a problem in trying to bring up faux-facts and pop science to make a half-assed point, imo.

I used to think the same (that it is entirely unfasifiable), and I admit that currently it is, but in the hypothesis where technology advances enough for a machine to identify certain brain signals (waves?) associated with self-satisfaction, pleasure or any other sensation/feeling associated with selfishness, wouldn't it become falsifiable and fit for the scientific method's evaluation?

To be honest, I don't think this is a stretch too far from what we've been doing with machines that detect signals from the brain corresponding to areas associated with X or Y.  We can't do it today, but it seems this is the direction where our progress on this subject is heading.

Of course, this is just a possibility, and there isn't much point in discussing how things are/would be on future possibilities that might happen or not (unless you like it, as I do). I just find it intriguing.

[Lushen]

17 hours ago, fuccboi said:

the problem with that claim is that it's entirely unfalsifiable. i could bring up tendency towards reciprocity or things like the ultimatum game (where an "unfair" offer is often rejected despite accepting the offer being the option that maximises personal benefit) but you could always claim that that was simply due to what that specific individual values and so ultimately it was a "selfish" decision. there's always an, in popperian terms, ad hoc hypothesis that can be made. so this is no more in the realm of psychology or science, but rather philosophy. there's a fair amount of literature on the evolutionary need for humans to be, at least to a certain extent, "selfless," but you can always rationalise it within the theory of humans being inherently selfish as being on a basic level out of need for self-satisfaction, so clearly empirical evidence and science can only go so far regarding this topic.

 

there's nothing wrong with that. there is, however, a problem in trying to bring up faux-facts and pop science to make a half-assed point, imo.

The problem with the claim is that it can't be proved false?  While I agree it doesn't make it true, it is free to remain a theory until it can be proven otherwise.  There are countless scientific theories that have remained theories for hundreds of years, we don't dismiss them b/c they haven't been proven.  And I led my paragraph with I believe which implies I was not stating a fact.  I'm very tired of people who think that only PHDs in the field are capable of having an opinion on it.  Einstein quit school but he still came up with theories that baffles PHD scientists today.  As a college graduate, I can tell you that 4 more years in school, while beneficial, does not instantly make someone an expert at anything.

As for sacrificing ones life for another, there's also religious beliefs in that.  I believe the majority of people believe in some kind of afterlife or reincarnation.  Even then, we've all heard "There are no atheists on the battlefield".  A lot of people may do it b/c it is what their God considers to be the right thing to do and will grant them eternal life in heaven or better standing after reincarnation. 

Edited September 10, 2017 by Lushen

[peener weener]

4 hours ago, Lushen said:

The problem with the claim is that it can't be proved false?  While I agree it doesn't make it true, it is free to remain a theory until it can be proven otherwise.  There are countless scientific theories that have remained theories for hundreds of years, we don't dismiss them b/c they haven't been proven.  And I led my paragraph with I believe which implies I was not stating a fact.  I'm very tired of people who think that only PHDs in the field are capable of having an opinion on it.  Einstein quit school but he still came up with theories that baffles PHD scientists today.  As a college graduate, I can tell you that 4 more years in school, while beneficial, does not instantly make someone an expert at anything.

As for sacrificing ones life for another, there's also religious beliefs in that.  I believe the majority of people believe in some kind of afterlife or reincarnation.  Even then, we've all heard "There are no atheists on the battlefield".  A lot of people may do it b/c it is what their God considers to be the right thing to do and will grant them eternal life in heaven or better standing after reincarnation. 

you misunderstand what falsifiable means. a falsifiable theory is one that can be proven with empiric evidence and likewise disproven. a theory that isn't falsifiable isn't just one that can't be proven false right now, but which it isn't even possible to conceive empirical evidence for that disproves it. the theories that have stood for "hundreds of years" (they usually don't, but okay) generally work on the principle that they can be proven false, even if in a hypothetical future with more advanced technology. also, many of those theories only stand because empirical observations do in fact fall in line with their predictions.

 

the problem with your theory isn't just that it can't be proven false with our current or hypothetical future technology, but it can't conceivably be proven false at all, because there can always be an abstract secondary explanation for whatever opposing evidence anyone might come up with. like i said, you explain that seflessness is only a consequence of a need for self-satisfaction. what is there to argue that has a basis in reality?

 

i'm not sure where phds or whatever came into question here, but that has nothing to do with scientific validity and falsifiability. "And I led my paragraph with I believe which implies I was not stating a fact." you weren't, that's true, so i gotta give you that one. i believe the earth is flat, by the way.

 

also, einstein wasn't a bad student. that's a myth. he graduated university at the age of 21.

5 hours ago, Rapier said:

I used to think the same (that it is entirely unfasifiable), and I admit that currently it is, but in the hypothesis where technology advances enough for a machine to identify certain brain signals (waves?) associated with self-satisfaction, pleasure or any other sensation/feeling associated with selfishness, wouldn't it become falsifiable and fit for the scientific method's evaluation?

To be honest, I don't think this is a stretch too far from what we've been doing with machines that detect signals from the brain corresponding to areas associated with X or Y.  We can't do it today, but it seems this is the direction where our progress on this subject is heading.

Of course, this is just a possibility, and there isn't much point in discussing how things are/would be on future possibilities that might happen or not (unless you like it, as I do). I just find it intriguing.

maybe? no offense, but this just kind of sounds like wild speculation. i'm not sure how you could prove humans are selfish or selfless by analysing neural activity. i mean, the reward system is kind of related to self-satisfaction, but i'm not sure why that would be associated with selfishness? i guess?

 

i know i'm being kind of a dick, but i take issue fairly personally with the sort of pseudoscientific pop psychology discourse people like to throw around when it comes to issues of human behaviour. nobody would just make an offhand baseless claim about how the body works or of how gravity works, so why is it okay when it comes to psychology?

Edited September 10, 2017 by fuccboi

[Ae†her]

I know what I want to say, and the words are coming to my head on exactly how I get my moral compass, but at the moment I can't form the entire explanation as elaborately as I want to. However, I will say this, that morality is subjective, same as with the concept of "choice". However the way I see it, people virtually do not have a "choice" when they commit a crime, everything is set to happen, and can't be returned to any given moment in time for people to undo their mistake. Any action people take is essentially just a occurrence at the quantum level, everything is affixed, happens , and keeps on happening. That's why when viewing morality I like to assume that people have a sort of free-will and choice when they commit crime. Otherwise it leaves us with a blame that goes towards everything in existence for simply being there. Our minds can only comprehend so much of the world, and so when we focus on the topic of morality and crime we have to narrow our perspective to the things we can deal with, and we need morality and laws to keep society in a state of order that allows us to continue to thrive, that much we do know. So the way I get my moral compass is by judging what laws and rules would be beneficial for society, what wouldn't, and what would just be unnecessary to exist in the first place. 

Edited September 11, 2017 by Logos

[John Denver Fan]

For me, I would determine right from wrong from the Ten Commandments in the Bible. I believed this since I was 4.

[DisobeyedCargo]

My rule is, would you want someone doing (insert what you are contemplating on here) to you.

[Phoenix Wright]

On 9/3/2017 at 8:59 AM, Rex Glacies said:

A question that's been on my mind recently. How do you know what is right and what is wrong? Like, to you, what determines what is evil and what is good? I'm not asking about what you think is morally right; I'm asking how you found your "moral compass." Do you believe in a deity that governs over right and wrong? Or karma, and plan and act accordingly? Maybe you think right and wrong is different for each person, and everyone has to find out what they stand for on their own? Or perhaps do you think good and evil are just human constructs in a universe that doesn't actually care?

Edit: My own personal view is that good and evil can only come from religion, or in the least, a higher power. Mankind is a species that is constantly changing and evolving; if there is not a higher power to dictate right from wrong, then right and wrong will change along with society. And if what is right and wrong changes over time, then can we be certain that that is truly the correct foundation of morals? Therefore, logically, to me, there has to be a higher presence that can judge our actions, and sets bounds for good and evil. I have found that higher power to be in the Bible, namely Jesus's teachings followed by God's laws, but I am still interested in what others think on the matter.

1

the problem with these statements is that they're either demonstrably false (former statement) and demonstrably true (latter statement). most people who are not religious behave morally. morality certainly evolves with time. morality has borders: different nations have different standards. hell, different states in the us have different standards.

my original sense of right and wrong stem from my immediate family. then from reading and watching vids on the subject.

[The_antithesis]

I am a hedonist, which means that, in my view, the most moral action is the one that causes the most happiness for the most people for the longest time. If you make people happy, especially in the long term, you're doing the right thing. The reason why I have these beliefs is that they're useful in that I can easily tell what is right and what is wrong, with no need for any complicated/arbitrary rule systems.

That being said, I do know that my moral compass is flawed. For example, how much happiness does a dead person have, and is it different from a person who does not exist because they were never born? Also, as there are new ways to manipulate a person's thoughts and hormonal balance, the "experience machine", where happiness is created artificially, is moving closer to reality. Finally, there is  the problem of whether or not animal happiness counts (I say it doesn't, unless the animal is a pet whose happiness directly affects that of a human)

I also believe that morals are inherently relative to the recipient of your actions, just like the laws of physics. For example, I would say it is morally OK to inflict harm in the context of a boxing match, as there is more happiness to be gained from the thrill of competition than there is sadness to be inflicted by the actual punches being thrown. With morals, there are exceptions to practically EVERY rule.

(Note: I am agnostic, so I do not believe that there is a higher power anything like what is portrayed in religion, though I do think it's likely there is a creator of some description who brought our universe into existence. As such, I feel morality is a strictly human concept, and that our creator had no hand in making the rules of society.)

[blah the Prussian]

18 hours ago, The_antithesis said:

I am a hedonist, which means that, in my view, the most moral action is the one that causes the most happiness for the most people for the longest time. If you make people happy, especially in the long term, you're doing the right thing. The reason why I have these beliefs is that they're useful in that I can easily tell what is right and what is wrong, with no need for any complicated/arbitrary rule systems.

That being said, I do know that my moral compass is flawed. For example, how much happiness does a dead person have, and is it different from a person who does not exist because they were never born? Also, as there are new ways to manipulate a person's thoughts and hormonal balance, the "experience machine", where happiness is created artificially, is moving closer to reality. Finally, there is  the problem of whether or not animal happiness counts (I say it doesn't, unless the animal is a pet whose happiness directly affects that of a human)

I also believe that morals are inherently relative to the recipient of your actions, just like the laws of physics. For example, I would say it is morally OK to inflict harm in the context of a boxing match, as there is more happiness to be gained from the thrill of competition than there is sadness to be inflicted by the actual punches being thrown. With morals, there are exceptions to practically EVERY rule.

(Note: I am agnostic, so I do not believe that there is a higher power anything like what is portrayed in religion, though I do think it's likely there is a creator of some description who brought our universe into existence. As such, I feel morality is a strictly human concept, and that our creator had no hand in making the rules of society.)

That isn't hedonism, though. Hedonism holds that it is most moral to seek happiness for YOU SPECIFICALLY. Your beliefs sound like positive utilitarianism; utilitarianism holds that the best course of action is that which leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and you seem to define good as how happy people are. 

Your system does seem to have another problem, additionally. What about situations where you can't be certain of the facts of the situation, or results? What if, for example, a classmate jokes about shooting up a school? You could report it, in order to avoid a massacre, but you can't be certain if they actually intend to do it; if they didn't, you'd be ruining the life of someone basically just because they made a joke in bad taste. 

Personally, I essentially support Kant's system of ethics. Before taking any action, ask: what the results would be if everyone took this action. For example, you could lie in court to protect someone you think is innocent, but if everyone lied in court we would have no way to find criminals. It's when following our moral principles hurts others that it's most important to follow them; corruption and evil always starts with evil acts the perpetrators believe are necessary.

[The_antithesis]

3 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Your system does seem to have another problem, additionally. What about situations where you can't be certain of the facts of the situation, or results? What if, for example, a classmate jokes about shooting up a school? You could report it, in order to avoid a massacre, but you can't be certain if they actually intend to do it; if they didn't, you'd be ruining the life of someone basically just because they made a joke in bad taste. 

Personally, I essentially support Kant's system of ethics. Before taking any action, ask: what the results would be if everyone took this action. For example, you could lie in court to protect someone you think is innocent, but if everyone lied in court we would have no way to find criminals. It's when following our moral principles hurts others that it's most important to follow them; corruption and evil always starts with evil acts the perpetrators believe are necessary.

I have thought about the idea of risk and luck making a right action wrong or a wrong one right. In that case, I'd say multiply any consequences by the probability of them happening. For example, if you had the opportunity to make someone happy for a year, but there was a 1% chance of it failing, and making two people equally sad for 49 years: that action would have 87.7 positive happiness-hours worth of morality (on average), meaning the action is moral.

On the other hand, were the sadness to last 50 years, then the action would be worth 87.7 negative happiness-hours, and would be immoral.

Regarding Kant's system of ethics, there is a slight problem regarding specialisation. If the best situation for a group involves different people taking different actions in the same situation, the most moral path is not the best for humanity. Let's say you have a group of people, and you could either be a planner or a doer. If everyone is a planner, then no-one takes the initiative to act and nothing gets done. If everyone is a doer, everything is so inefficient that most actions lead to failure. The best scenario is for the team to  have a small group of planners commanding a large group of doers. Under Kant's system, it would always be moral to be a doer, as all doers is better than all planners. However, this applies even if your group is in desperate need of planners!

[blah the Prussian]

1 hour ago, The_antithesis said:

I have thought about the idea of risk and luck making a right action wrong or a wrong one right. In that case, I'd say multiply any consequences by the probability of them happening. For example, if you had the opportunity to make someone happy for a year, but there was a 1% chance of it failing, and making two people equally sad for 49 years: that action would have 87.7 positive happiness-hours worth of morality (on average), meaning the action is moral.

On the other hand, were the sadness to last 50 years, then the action would be worth 87.7 negative happiness-hours, and would be immoral.

Regarding Kant's system of ethics, there is a slight problem regarding specialisation. If the best situation for a group involves different people taking different actions in the same situation, the most moral path is not the best for humanity. Let's say you have a group of people, and you could either be a planner or a doer. If everyone is a planner, then no-one takes the initiative to act and nothing gets done. If everyone is a doer, everything is so inefficient that most actions lead to failure. The best scenario is for the team to  have a small group of planners commanding a large group of doers. Under Kant's system, it would always be moral to be a doer, as all doers is better than all planners. However, this applies even if your group is in desperate need of planners!

But in the real world you aren't going to have exact percentages of consequences; you aren't even necessarily going to know all the consequences. I don't think that any of the initial leaders of the French Revolution, for example, could have foreseen what would have happened later. Consequentialism will never work in a world that isn't some math equation with concrete inputs, outputs, and control variables. You also don't know how long the sadness will last, unless, I suppose, you're talking about morality in hindsight, which has basically no actual application.

Kant's philosophy is utterly unconcerned with trying to find the best act in terms of results. We cannot know what actions will have the best results, or what will be best; rather, we can know what our own morals are, and act according to them.

[SuperIb]

Okay here's a fun-fact about all those moral philosophies - they all have flaws. They attempt to sanction a set of rules that should be universally followed through and looked at in any given situation. However, they all fail to successfully apply to every situation that comes up. That being said, I personally take things case-by-case because I know not every situation is the same or even that similar situations don't always have the same context.

On 1/24/2018 at 2:50 PM, DisobeyedCargo said:

My rule is, would you want someone doing (insert what you are contemplating on here) to you.

This is basically my rule-of-thumb as well. I think that one of the most important aspects to finding what you believe to be "right" or "wrong" is to have a sense of empathy and understanding. If you don't try to understand, then what gives you the right to determine something as right or wrong in the first place?

[The_antithesis]

5 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

But in the real world you aren't going to have exact percentages of consequences; you aren't even necessarily going to know all the consequences. I don't think that any of the initial leaders of the French Revolution, for example, could have foreseen what would have happened later. Consequentialism will never work in a world that isn't some math equation with concrete inputs, outputs, and control variables. You also don't know how long the sadness will last, unless, I suppose, you're talking about morality in hindsight, which has basically no actual application.

Kant's philosophy is utterly unconcerned with trying to find the best act in terms of results. We cannot know what actions will have the best results, or what will be best; rather, we can know what our own morals are, and act according to them.

True, it is impossible to accurately determine all the consequences of one's actions (our understanding of physics and psychology isn't that good yet!) However, it is possible, easy even, to estimate these things based on how people have reacted in the past, and how people normally react. Also, the difference in consequences between the options I have at any given time is usually significant enough that it is easy to tell which action is the right one to take. As for why I like to see morals as being mathematical, it's probably due to the fact that I have Asperger's syndrome, and therefore my brain can only ever think logically, so I need a logical procedure to judge morals. "Because a book told me to" and "There isn't a way to tell, it just is" simply don't cut it for me.

On 24/01/2018 at 8:50 PM, DisobeyedCargo said:

My rule is, would you want someone doing (insert what you are contemplating on here) to you.

This is also a very good way of judging morality in almost all situations. There are only two cases where it falls apart, which is quite impressive for a morality system! Firstly, there are examples where someone would want something done to them which you wouldn't want done to you. For example, I hate eating cheese, but my friend loves it. Under your theory, it would be the most moral action to ensure that there is no cheese in her meals, when its fairly obvious that it's best to let her have what she wants. Secondly, in the setting of a competition, it is moral to put in everything you've got, even though that makes your opponent's task of winning harder to achieve. We all don't like to lose, but it is still moral to not hand your competitors a free win.

But then again, I think the real lesson to be learned here is that everyone's moral compass is different. There is no "right" or "wrong" in morality, just agreement and disagreement.

[Moblin Major General]

12 minutes ago, The_antithesis said:

I think the real lesson to be learned here is that everyone's moral compass is different. There is no "right" or "wrong" in morality, just agreement and disagreement.

This is a concept known to TV Tropes as Blue and Orange morality, where one set of morals is so wrong compared to another it's like both moral codes exist within different realities entirely, which they often do.

[blah the Prussian]

9 hours ago, The_antithesis said:

True, it is impossible to accurately determine all the consequences of one's actions (our understanding of physics and psychology isn't that good yet!) However, it is possible, easy even, to estimate these things based on how people have reacted in the past, and how people normally react. Also, the difference in consequences between the options I have at any given time is usually significant enough that it is easy to tell which action is the right one to take. As for why I like to see morals as being mathematical, it's probably due to the fact that I have Asperger's syndrome, and therefore my brain can only ever think logically, so I need a logical procedure to judge morals. "Because a book told me to" and "There isn't a way to tell, it just is" simply don't cut it for me.

On 1/24/2018 at 9:50 PM, DisobeyedCargo said:

But Kantian ethics doesn't posit that you should follow principles because they just are. It has a very clear system for defining what is moral, that being consistent generalization, or examining the results if everyone took the action one is considering.