What is morality

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 199
#121
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Lowering your dopamine levels would make you chronically depressed. Would we be acting morally for stopping our body's natural production of this evil chemical?

Would we be acting morally for taking medication that increases our levels of serotonin (common in antidepressants)?

And in other news, I guess sex is evil. 

#122
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Excessive (beyond the normal range) dopamine = EVIL (leads to addictive and often anti-social behaviors).

Excessive (beyond the normal range) serotonin = GOOD (leads to social bonding and a strong sense of contentment).

We all have a normal range of both dopamine and serotonin that is normally normal for normally normal normal people.

I'm not talking about the normal range.  Nobody is suggesting we cut off all dopamine production.

#123
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
So sex is evil? Loading up on antidepressants is morally good?
#124
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Morality is a survival mechanism and is totally subjective. Have you ever read the morality espoused by the ignorant, primitive superstitious savages who wrote the bible?
#125
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Not according to your scenario, don't move the goal posts.
and weren't bothered by your conscience

Topic's author
#126
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I would put it this way; morality is not a 'thing' nor is it a 'property'.  That is murder does not manifest evil and charity does not manifest good. Rather 'good' and 'evil' are labels for our mental responses to such things as murder and charity, which reflects the level and mix of hormones that
perception and/or conemplation of murder and charity induces in our brains.


That is morality does not exist in the same way colour does not exist - they are both purely perceptual.

I am not saying that is the best way to put it!

#127
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
So if a pedophile's mental response reacts positively to raping children, but your mental response is negative, neither of you are more right than the other in determining whether raping children is morally good or morally wrong? 
Topic's author
#128
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
So if a pedophile's mental response reacts positively to raping children, but your mental response is negative, neither of you are more right than the other in determining whether raping children is morally good or morally wrong?
You are getting the wrong end of the stick.  If a child is raped then that child suffers mental and physical damage.  Rape does not have the property of evil (or of immorality) because 'evil' and '(im)morality' do not exist.  

Rape causes suffering, and our brains recognise that.  It reacts by secreting hormones which cause us to feel negatively towards rape (I'm talking about non-rapists here for simplicity).   We erroneously ascribe our negative feeings towards rape as being due to rape possessing the property of immorality, as if evil/morality was an actual thing or stuff that attaches to acts such as rape and murder and 'good' is stuff attached to charity.

That is to say the harm caused by rape is real - however the immorality/evil of rape is not real; it just seems to be.

#129
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
So sex is evil? Loading up on antidepressants is morally good?
Nobody suggested that sex itself is evil.  Dopamine addiction is evil.  Overproduction of Dopamine causes measurable brain damage.

Developing healthy levels of Serotonin is easy.

Connect, Contribute, Cope, Cook (CCCC).




#130
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
So if the child is too young to remember the sexual abuse, or wasn't physically harmed by it, and as long as neither of their brains secreted chemicals that would make them feel bad about it, there's nothing to consider immoral about sexually abusing young children? 
#131
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Before you were saying that "excessive dopamine" was evil but now saying that "dopamine addiction" is evil. I would consider our brains to have "excessive dopamine" levels during sex, especially during the grand finale. Nothing evil about it and no permanent brain damage.

#132
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Look,

"Excessive Dopamine" would be "beyond normal levels attained by normal human activities" and specifically that trigger brain damage, of which withdrawal is a symptom.

I agree that normal "sex" (between loving partners) by itself does not constitute "excessive dopamine" because "sex" (between loving partners) is a normal human activity and does not cause brain damage.

However, "sex addiction" triggers similar maladaptive behaviors (and brain damage) that other addictions contribute to including "alcohol addiction", "gambling/money addiction", "caffeine and nicotine and sugar addictions".

You're still missing the boat.

It is not the activity itself that is "good" or "bad".

It is the person conducting the activity that is "good" or "bad".
Topic's author
#133
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
So if the child is too young to remember the sexual abuse, or wasn't physically harmed by it, and as long as neither of their brains secreted chemicals that would make them feel bad about it, there's nothing to consider immoral about sexually abusing young children? 
Did you read my post #128?

3RU might not see things as I do.  Releasing hormones are how our brains signal its judgement on - or estimate of - the harm/benefit of stuff.   That is the brain uses one hormone to encourage certain behaviours and suppress others.

That is when I think about child-rapists my hormone levels produce a feeling of 'mental nausea' which we habitualy interpret as due to child rape being 'immoral'.  That is what it means for something to be immoral - it induces negtive mental attitude.  It is not so that 'immorality' is some sort of stuff that rape has that giving to charity doesn't have.
 
#134
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Yes my reply was in response to your post # 128. If the child is too young to remember or isn't physically harmed, then the implication is that in these instances sexually abusing young children wouldn't be immoral and could actually be considered morally good if the abuser's brain had a positive response to it and the baby or young child had no negative brain response. It is irrational.
#135
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
"too young to remember" is an invalid condition.

Everything that happens to a child affects the basic development of their (unique) brain structures.

Conscious memory is a very poor indicator of "harm".

But if I understand what you're trying to say, (IFF) a hypothetical action triggers serotonin production in the actor, but triggers serotonin depletion (cortisol production) in the receiver (THEN) such a hypothetical action could simultaneously be considered "good" by the actor and "bad" by the receiver.

This hypothetical is perhaps conceivable but your chosen example does not qualify.

PLEASE NOTE THAT "GOOD" AND "BAD" ARE PROPERTIES OF PEOPLE AND NOT PROPERTIES OF ACTIONS.

Molestation does not trigger serotonin production in the actor.  It triggers dopamine production.

War is probably a better example.  What is "good" to one side is automatically considered "bad" to the opposition (and vice versa).
Topic's author
#136
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
You wrote "wouldn't be immoral and could actually be considered morally good"

I think that indicates how easy it is to conflate 'morality' (be) and 'moral judgement' (be considered).

My position is that morality does not exist, we make 'moral judgements'.
 
The image I think is faulty is that morality is real, like electric charge.  Some people talk as if rape has a negative moral charge and charity has positive moral charge and moral judgements are the result of sensing the moral charge something has.

That image is wrong because electric charge is part of physical reality; ie it exists.   However morality is not part of physical reality; ie it does not exist.

When we (ie normal folk!)think about, say, rape it feels as if we can sense the immorality of rape, as if its 'negative moral charge' was real and we are fitted with a 'morality meter' to detect it.   That is only nearly true!  We can't detect morality because it doesn't exist.   What is really going on in our heads is a neural circuit combines inputs from our senses and memories to produce an output that has been honed a million years of evolution to encourage advantageous behaviour and suppress inimical behavour.   

According to 3ru, hormones are used to signal the result - I'll take his word for that!   The main point is the result appears in consciousness in a way we have all learned to describe using a 'morality scale', thus falling into the trap of thinking that morality is a thing-in-itself.





#137
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
If "morally good" is defined in terms of having certain brain chemicals that make you feel good, then my point was that if someone were to sexually abuse young children, provided the young child had had no negative brain chemicals and the abuser had positive brain chemicals resulting from it, this would BE morally good under this framework.



#138
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
If "morally good" is defined in terms of having certain brain chemicals that make you feel good, then my point was that if someone were to sexually abuse young children, provided the young child had had no negative brain chemicals and the abuser had positive brain chemicals resulting from it, this would BE morally good under this framework.
In other words, is it immoral to molest a plastic doll?
#139
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
No, I'm referring to an infant or young child. Sexual abuse has many forms and not all of them are physically harmful.
#140
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
No, I'm referring to an infant or young child. Sexual abuse has many forms and not all of them are physically harmful.
Your example has multiple false conditions.

Number One, a molester does not generate serotonin.  Therefore can never be considered "good".  Serotonin = GOOD

Number Two, a child is ALWAYS harmed by molestation (axiomatically), therefore, "not being harmed" is an invalid condition and self-contradictory.

Your hypothetical is logically incoherent.
#141
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Our brains have natural levels of seretonin. How did you come to the conclusion that a molester, who enjoys molesting children, "does not generate seretonin" by doing this?

A self-evident truth, like an axiom, has no effect on the framework you've put forth to determine moral or immoral behavior. All that matters, under your framework, are seretonin and dopamine levels.



Topic's author
#142
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
If "morally good" is defined in terms of having certain brain chemicals that make you feel good, then my point was that if someone were to sexually abuse young children, provided the young child had had no negative brain chemicals and the abuser had positive brain chemicals resulting from it, this would BE morally good under this framework.
Yes, but that isn't the framework I'm using - it might or might not be what 3RU uses!  
If I measure the hormone levels in your brain when you are thinking about a child-rapist and again when you are thinking about someone giving to charity the levels will not tell me how moral rape and charity are  - they will tell me what your moral judgements on rape and charity are.  Of course I don't usually do chemical assay to do that!   I just ask you - your responses will indicate the hormone levels.

You may not be quite grasping that I don't deny the existence of moral judgments or that somethings are benificial and other things are harmful.  I am denying the existence of morality as a thing-in-itself.

#143
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Our brains have natural levels of seretonin. How did you come to the conclusion that a molester, who enjoys molesting children, "does not generate seretonin" by doing this?
A self-evident truth, like an axiom, has no effect on the framework you've put forth to determine moral or immoral behavior. All that matters, under your framework, are seretonin and dopamine levels.
Certain behaviors trigger serotonin production (not all behaviors, see earlier example of CCCC).  These behaviors (that trigger serotonin production) are associated with social cohesion and empathy.

Molestation is not one of these behaviors (that produce serotonin).  Molestation may trigger dopamine production in the brain of the molester, but this does not make the actions "good" because, according to my hypothetical proposal, serotonin = good (AND) excessive dopamine = bad.

"Molestation" is, by its very definition, "harmful".  This is axiomatic.  To propose a hypothetical where "molestation is not harmful" is logically incoherent.
#144
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Okay, so how our brain feels in reaction to certain situations determines whether we judge that situation to be morally good or morally wrong. There is nothing about morality that is actually being described except the feel-good or feel-bad chemistry in our brain when we say that something is morally good or morally wrong. 
#145
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Just because social cohesion and empathy increases production of seretonin in our brain does not mean that we can only increase production of seretonin through social cohesion and empathy. You made the claim that someone who is molesting young children would not generate seretonin by doing so which is a claim awaiting evidence.

Seretonin and dopamine levels determine whether someone behaves morally or immorally. Scrap the word abuse or molestation if you want to, let's just say that someone is touching or doing something to a young child or infant in a sexual way for their own sexual pleasure. Your only defense is to hope that the accuser doesn't get an increase in seretonin levels. As long as the person doing the touching doesn't get "excessive" dopamine levels from it, they're doing nothing morally wrong. You've already confirmed that sex isn't evil, so climax is still below the threshold of "excessive" dopamine.


Topic's author
#146
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Okay, so how our brain feels in reaction to certain situations determines whether we judge that situation to be morally good or morally wrong. There is nothing about morality that is actually being described except the feel-good or feel-bad chemistry in our brain when we say that something is morally good or morally wrong. 
Very, very close!   But that summary suggests there is an ethereal, Platonic 'morality' which is not described.  Presumably you'd say it exists but I'm leaving it to one side!   But I hold morality doesn't exist.

Apart from that I think you understand the basic idea.   I don't require you to accept moral nihilism, but it's something to think about!

#147
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
You made the claim that someone who is molesting young children would not generate seretonin by doing so which is a claim awaiting evidence.
I've already provided evidence.  Look up the definition of serotonin.  Look at the list of behaviors that contribute to its production.  None of these are compatible with molestation.  You are making a naked appeal to ignorance (a counter-claim based on lack of and or no data).  You are moving the goalposts (raising the bar/burden of proof).  Please provide even one counterfactual.  My claim is perfectly uncontroversial.

Dopamine production is compatible with molestation and compulsive behaviors (such as molestation) are strongly correlated with addiction.

If someone derived sexual climax by playing with and or interacting with an infant in what would be considered a normal manner (in full view of protective family members of the infant), and the cortisol levels of the infant were never raised, then the interaction would be at worst morally neutral and would certainly not qualify as "molestation".

Here's another example.  Imagine that a person with an acute foot-fetish works at a shoe store.  Even the slightest contact between the person's fingers and the customer's foot produces a pronounced rush of dopamine and often results in sexual climax.  Imagine this person is able to suppress the more obvious (visible/audible) signs of this (internal brain chemistry) and remains apparently professional and polite to these customers.

While most people would probably be repulsed by the thought of this, it would be at worst morally neutral to the participants. 

The customers in this scenario are not "molested".
#148
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
It makes more sense when viewed from the paradigm that consciousness arose from matter rather than vice versa. Obviously our moral judgements express nothing tangible so you could say that morality is imagined and that only the things we can physically measure exist and are real. Is still contradicts basic human intuition that there's a moral dimension. If nihilism is true, all of the following statements must also be factually true:


(1) moral progress is impossible.

(2) there can never be a moral highground

(3) people's moral judgments can never be incorrect

(4) in the case of two competing moral views on something, one person can never be more right than the other.

(5) compassion and cruelty are neither moral nor immoral

(5) fairness and unfairness are neither moral nor immoral

(6) killing another person without sufficient justification is not morally wrong

(7) punishing an innocent person is not morally wrong

(8) raping an infant is not morally wrong

(9) moral discussions are a 0 sum exercise

(10) cowardice and courage are neither moral nor immoral.

#149
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
If nihilism is true, all of the following statements must also be factually true:
I'm pretty sure nobody is arguing in support of nihilism.

Empirical, consensus morality is what we are trying to nail down.
#150
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
But you made the claim that the molester would not experience increased seretonin levels as a result of the molestation, a claim that requires evidence in order to be accepted as true.

The worst would be considering the sexual interactions as morally good. At best, it would not be morally wrong because climax is below the threshold of "evil" levels of dopamine release.

There's also a huge amount of subjectivity in determining "excessive" levels of these chemicals.

For me, when your moral theory entails that climaxing on babies isn't morally wrong, that's enough for me to pass on it.