-->
@3RU7AL
Can you quantify how much well-being you have? That hasn't stopped moral philosophers from corralling around the idea.
What is morality
Posts
Total:
199
-->
@keithprosser
Am I correct in my assessment that 3RU7AL would have stronger moral character if he cared about people having their pencils stolen and being lied to about it?
-->
@Fallaneze
Has anyone figured it out yet?Can you quantify how much well-being you have? That hasn't stopped moral philosophers from corralling around the idea.
Probably because the premise is fundamentally flawed.
-->
@keithprosser
Refreshingy honest, 3RU! How do you feel about you stealing Fallaneze's pencil? :)
I have no earthly idea where this fabulous glitter encrusted pencil came from.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well surely you would admit that people can have more or less wellbeing?
-->
@Fallaneze
There have been extensive happiness/well-being studies/surveys and the only fair way to measure such a thing is by self-reporting.Well surely you would admit that people can have more or less wellbeing?
People who live with no technology in small villages consistently report higher and more sustained levels of happiness/well-being.
What conclusions do you draw from that?
Technology = Evil?
-->
@3RU7AL
i'd conclude - tentatively - that modern life is not what humans evolved for. What worked for small bands of hunter-gatherers does not work for a global village of 7 billion.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well we can draw the conclusion that people perceive themselves as having well-being and having more or less of it. If this isn't a problem, same thing goes for love.
-->
@keithprosser
"its obvious" = common sense, and Bru7 says "common sense is meaningless".Of course I'm not denying that "it's obvious" but philosophy - if it anything at all - is all about deconstructing the 'obvious'.
-->
@mustardness
"common sense is meaningless" X 100,000,000,000
I still don't see how evolution, or any other mindless process, can have aims or goals. When we discuss things that are the result of evolution we can't say that those things have certain aims or goals.
-->
@Fallaneze
I can imagine quantifying (or semi-quantifying)well-being more easily than i can imagine quantifying 'love'
-->
@Fallaneze
And now what?Well we can draw the conclusion that people perceive themselves as having well-being and having more or less of it. If this isn't a problem, same thing goes for love.
-->
@keithprosser
I agree. But that doesn't determine which one explains morality better. The problem with "well being" is that people committing acts of evil can gain wellbeing and people committing acts of good can lose wellbeing.
Consider a scenario where two people privately mock someone for being disabled. They both feel pretty good about themselves afterward, feeling a sense of superiority. They both gained wellbeing and the victim lost none. What they did should be good using a standard of wellbeing. But is what they did something that added or subtracted from pure love?
-->
@keithprosser
@Fallaneze
You are both really overthinking this.
Dopamine (in high doses) = EVIL
Serotonin = GOOD.
These are quantifiable substances.
-->
@Fallaneze
I still don't see how evolution, or any other mindless process, can have aims or goals. When we discuss things that are the result of evolution we can't say that those things have certain aims or goals.
You are correct of course. Evolutionists do use idioms suggestive of aims and goals which are dead wrong if taken literally. The problem is that avoiding such idioms can result in prose that is turgid and pedantic. Eyes did not evolve to allow critters to see, but I defy anyone to express things in a more technically correct, non-telelogical way that is not a drag to read or write. I could describe the evolution of eyes avoiding aims and goals here and now, but I really can't be bothered!
I suppose some less well informed people - including some 'evo-fans'- do think Darwinism is literally teleolgical and things evolve 'to' or 'for' some future purpose and using teleological idioms can muddy the water. But the use of teleological language is due to its convenience and is never technically correct. Unfortunately It can be avoided only by writing a lot more words!
-->
@3RU7AL
Dopamine (in high doses) = EVILSerotonin = GOOD.These are quantifiable substances.
So inside our heads is a bunch of neurones that picks out certain features of things and - depending on the inputs - pumps out either dopamine or seratonin. Over millions of years it has evolved to pump dopamine when it picks up what is negative (from a Darwinian perspective)and seratonin when it recognises something as positive.
Morality is the subjective manifestation of the objective dopamine/seratonin level in our brain.
-->
@keithprosser
Under this framework, would it still be morally wrong to cheat on your significant other if you could get away with it and weren't bothered by your conscience?
-->
@keithprosser
Yes, unless evolution is just a means towards an end by some higher intelligence, like God. How hard is it to believe that our eyes have no aims or goals? "To see" seems so much more intuitive.
But the key problem here is that if evolution has no aims or goals, you can't tie in morality with some overarching neo-darwinian aim or goal. If morality has some sort of purpose it must either come from a moral authority or from ourselves.
Well surely you would admit that people can have more or less well being?
Sam Harris comes at this topic from the opposite direction. Imagine the worst possible suffering for everyone and try to work away from that. That, he concludes, is the fundamental basis for an objective morality.
-->
@Fallaneze
In this framework there is no such thing as morally right or morally wrong. Following 3RUs chemical version, if cheating on a spouse causes your brain to secrete one homone you will judge it as moral, screte a different hormone and you'll judge it as immoral. And that is all there is to 'morality'.Under this framework, would it still be morally wrong to cheat on your significant other if you could get away with it and weren't bothered by your conscience?
Anythng else about morality is imaginary or may be wishful thinking.
-->
@TwoMan
"Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures."
-->
@TwoMan
6 months ago I would - and probably did - have supported Harris' position. I've certainly defended obective morality vigorously in the past, if not on DA then on DDO. Nowadays I am not nearly so sure.
-->
@keithprosser
That doesn't seem practical. If someone were cheating on their spouse, during sex while they felt pleasurable, it follows that they would believe that they're doing something morally good. In the guilt that follows, let's say the day after, they would believe that what they did was morally wrong. What makes more sense is acknowledging that what they were doing was wrong all along but also acknowledging feeling pleasure and guilt.
-->
@Fallaneze
He must be making multiple claims then. I was just listening to a podcast where he used my exact words regarding "the worst possible suffering for everyone".
-->
@Fallaneze
I thnk its more to do with how your brain responds to the notion of cheating/rape/murder/charity that matters. Maybe when you think about infidelity in the abstract you dopamine level rises?
I'm going to have to think about this!
-->
@Fallaneze
Raping is not more immoral than stealing. Morality isn't relative in that fashion.
-->
@Plisken
That goes against most people's prevailing views on this. What makes you say that?
-->
@keithprosser
Bingo.Morality is the subjective manifestation of the objective dopamine/seratonin level in our brain.
Please let me know if you watched the lecture. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sRsb0a30Y
-->
@Fallaneze
That doesn't seem practical. If someone were cheating on their spouse, during sex while they felt pleasurable [EVIL DOPAMINE], it follows that they would believe that they're doing something morally good. In the guilt that follows, let's say the day after, they would believe that what they did was morally wrong. What makes more sense is acknowledging that what they were doing was wrong all along but also acknowledging feeling pleasure and guilt.
Excessive dopamine = EVIL.
Excessive serotonin = GOOD.