Scientific Morality! It's about time!

[genkaus]

Psychologists have been theorizing about morality and it's development for years and years. You can find one of the original sparks of this field in Kolhberg's theory of moral development. I might be interested to pick up this book, since we've learned so much about the brain through fMRI machines.

There is a common aspect to many theories of morality - whether done by philosophers, scientists or psychologists - that I find quite disturbing. Most frequently, they focus almost exclusively on the social aspect of morality. They seem to work on the unspoken premise that your actions have a moral dimension to them only if they affect other people. And then when asked about why certain personal aspects do seem to have a moral dimension - such as working hard is considered good, while excessive drinking is considered bad - the rationalization given is that it'd ultimately affect the society.

This leads to a permanent segregation between any sort of self-consideration and morality. Whether or not an action is in your benefit has - in and of itself - no bearing on whether it is moral or immoral. We assume that most people would automatically know what's in their self-interest and act accordingly by default and thus they don't need any moral guidelines for that. Thus, developing a moral theory on this basis leads to a very narrow view of morality which is often at odds with a person's self-interest and thus becomes harder to justify why anyone should adopt it.

---

Sorry I didn't answer you before. What I mean is that western view and education is very subjective when looked at from the east (limited) but the same is true for the East (China). My personal experience is that what Sam Harris is trying to promote as a 'new idea' is a sort of normal way of thinking in China unless I completely misunderstand what they are trying to do. Many moral decisions in China are basically scientifically based whilst the west might deem those kind of decisions as being cruel or immoral (unethical). I'm thinking of the one child policy, displacement of communities, land grabs for further development etc. In China the people accept those things as being the moral thing to do.

Yes, you have completely misunderstood what Sam Harris and co. are trying to do. And no, those decisions of China are no more scientific or moral than Social Darwinism or Eugenics.

[Magnum]

Psychologists have been theorizing about morality and it's development for years and years. You can find one of the original sparks of this field in Kolhberg's theory of moral development. I might be interested to pick up this book, since we've learned so much about the brain through fMRI machines.

There is a common aspect to many theories of morality - whether done by philosophers, scientists or psychologists - that I find quite disturbing. Most frequently, they focus almost exclusively on the social aspect of morality. They seem to work on the unspoken premise that your actions have a moral dimension to them only if they affect other people. And then when asked about why certain personal aspects do seem to have a moral dimension - such as working hard is considered good, while excessive drinking is considered bad - the rationalization given is that it'd ultimately affect the society.

This leads to a permanent segregation between any sort of self-consideration and morality. Whether or not an action is in your benefit has - in and of itself - no bearing on whether it is moral or immoral. We assume that most people would automatically know what's in their self-interest and act accordingly by default and thus they don't need any moral guidelines for that. Thus, developing a moral theory on this basis leads to a very narrow view of morality which is often at odds with a person's self-interest and thus becomes harder to justify why anyone should adopt it.

---

Sorry I didn't answer you before. What I mean is that western view and education is very subjective when looked at from the east (limited) but the same is true for the East (China). My personal experience is that what Sam Harris is trying to promote as a 'new idea' is a sort of normal way of thinking in China unless I completely misunderstand what they are trying to do. Many moral decisions in China are basically scientifically based whilst the west might deem those kind of decisions as being cruel or immoral (unethical). I'm thinking of the one child policy, displacement of communities, land grabs for further development etc. In China the people accept those things as being the moral thing to do.

Yes, you have completely misunderstood what Sam Harris and co. are trying to do. And no, those decisions of China are no more scientific or moral than Social Darwinism or Eugenics.

Elaborate because this is exactly what I'm saying. Do you even know the slightest bit about how things work in China? So you would not agree that American democracy is immoral.

[genkaus]

Elaborate because this is exactly what I'm saying.

So you do accept that you don't understand what Sam Harris is saying and that the given Chinese actions are unscientific and immoral?

Do you even know the slightest bit about how things work in China?

Sure. Unlike yours, my country doesn't ban access to more knowledge and alternate viewpoints.

So you would not agree that American democracy is immoral.

I would not. Liberal democracy is a moral form of government.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I'm still confused as to the point of the thread.

[genkaus]

I'm still confused as to the point of the thread.

The point of the thread would be Attie shooting himself in the foot.

After repeatedly claiming in another thread about the golden rule that it is bullshit and that morals in China are based on scientific principles, Attie was asked to prove his case by giving example of morality based on science. I'm guessing that as a knee-jerk reaction, he searched the internet for that combination of words and started another thread with the first link he found. The shooting-himself-in-foot part is that, ironically, this article posits moral tenets that are incompatible with those being practiced by the Chinese government and actually advocates in favor of the golden rule.

[Creed of Heresy]

I am not surprised, given that he openly admitted that all he says is bullshit...

Once you've wiped the turd of your face, I'd consider feeding you less bullshit. Mate!

---

Sorry I didn't answer you before. What I mean is that western view and education is very subjective when looked at from the east (limited) but the same is true for the East (China). My personal experience is that what Sam Harris is trying to promote as a 'new idea' is a sort of normal way of thinking in China unless I completely misunderstand what they are trying to do. Many moral decisions in China are basically scientifically based whilst the west might deem those kind of decisions as being cruel or immoral (unethical). I'm thinking of the one child policy, displacement of communities, land grabs for further development etc. In China the people accept those things as being the moral thing to do.

Irony is the song of a bird that has come to love its cage.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Well, I guess it can be correct or incorrect. Though I really don't look for any basis for morals other than the fact that they're there. I have inherited a set of morals from my people. This is my only set of morals, as they are the only ones I really need. Do I need these people to tell me anything about morality? No. They ought to concern themselves with more practical issues rather than delving into matters of philosophy.

Clearly, you are not interested in matters of philosophy or practical issues. If you were, you'd need more of a basis than "its just there". You do need these people to tell you about it because apparently, you don't know anything about it. What's more, you are happy in your bubble of ignorance.

It's indeed interconnected, and there might be some scientific reasoning behind it, but the thing is, morals are there to be a guideline to society, not to be another riddle in the heads of people, they are not there to cause confusion, but to be the basis of social harmony.
So whatever basis I choose for mine, the fact is, they're there, and they tell me things that I require to be in harmony with my fellow people here.

[genkaus]

It's indeed interconnected, and there might be some scientific reasoning behind it, but the thing is, morals are there to be a guideline to society, not to be another riddle in the heads of people, they are not there to cause confusion, but to be the basis of social harmony.
So whatever basis I choose for mine, the fact is, they're there, and they tell me things that I require to be in harmony with my fellow people here.

A parochial view of morality - as expected from someone not familiar with its philosophical basis.

Morals are there to be more than just guidelines for society to preserve social harmony - they are guidelines for individuals on how to live their life and are necessary for growth and development of society, even if it means sacrificing social harmony on occasion. If social harmony was the only purpose of morality, then any revolutionary who does anything to disturb the social order - which is necessary for its eventual growth - would be considered immoral.

[Slave]

I would be more inclined to listen to what Sam Harris had to say about a scientific basis for morality, but considering he is one of the world's dumbest atheists, I'll pass.

[Magnum]

Elaborate because this is exactly what I'm saying.

So you do accept that you don't understand what Sam Harris is saying and that the given Chinese actions are unscientific and immoral?

Maybe he is afterall saying they are the only ones that are moral. I don't know. Do you think Harris and his stooges completed their findings and you know the outcome?

Sure. Unlike yours, my country doesn't ban access to more knowledge and alternate viewpoints.

This must be the biggest joke of the month. Name 5 Chinese movie stars your friends love. Name the person who is the the owner of the Lifan factory. What does Nanjing mean? What does 'Ni Ta ma de' mean?

Your country kept you under an illusion for way too long shithead!

As far as knowledge goes, at this stage, you can only speak English.

I would not. Liberal democracy is a moral form of government.

Well, I hope you understand that your immorality sucks!