Basic E&M question

[Earatha]

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?

Honestly I don't know. This is so outside my character that it's hard to consider. It might be I'm preparing to kill the creature to eat it, but this seems an unnecessarily cruel way to go about that. I value life over death, and if death is necessary or inevitable a swift painless death over one drawn out and suffering.

Off topic, but I find this coincidental as I stopped twice on my way to work to help a turtle cross the street.

A half block away from you, a person with bright pink hair drops a $5 bill. The wind blows it to your feet. The person has now rounded the corner and is no longer visible.

I'd probably chase after them and try to give it back to them. It's THEIRS.

I value effort and a persons effort ultimately belongs to them. I value a stable society, which necessitates a security in ones person and property. And I value my own integrity. All of these necessitate at least an attempt to return the lost property.

 

[quatona]

One of the most fun and most disturbing bit of my philosophical/spiritual journey was constructing a moral philosophy. I started with an objective morality which focused on the good of the individual. But I then thought some more and had to reconsider. What did these words mean? How did I make determinations? What was the most basic set of criteria that I used?

Were they universal?

I've made my own determinations on that, and I'm satisfied for now. It seems to hold up, as uncomfortable as some of the implications are.

Thanks for your response.
I guess one of the things I am wondering is: Do people really need a deep abstract-philosophical underpinning in order to decide what to do and what not to do? (I do understand that this has a long tradition in Western thinking, so that´s probably the reason why this approach is hardly ever questioned).
IOW: I am wondering why it seems like without answering the abstract question "What is morally right or wrong?" people can´t seem to make decisions.
Me personally, I start from different questions.

 

[quatona]

I'm glad you brought this up, because I've wondered about it. You seem to ask things like this a lot:

• God? What do you mean?
• Why are you capitalizing "Rationality"?
• Can you explain what you mean by morally right or wrong?

Apart from these being questions, what do you feel they have in common? What is this "like this" that you subsume them under? Inconvenient? Surprising? Creative? Basic? Something else?

I could almost get the impression you're a primitive Amazonian jungle dweller whose last exposure to new human thought was around 10,000 B.C.

If that helps you answering my questions feel free to think of me as being such a person. Or think of me as an alien.
If you don´t want to answer them, that´s fine with me, too.

 

[Chesterton]

Apart from these being questions, what do you feel they have in common? What is this "like this" that you subsume them under? Inconvenient? Surprising? Creative? Basic? Something else?

Playing dumb.

If that helps you answering my questions feel free to think of me as being such a person. Or think of me as an alien.
If you don´t want to answer them, that´s fine with me, too.

No it doesn't help at all. If I thought you were really this way I'd want to teach you to hunt and gather before we get around to those questions.

 

[quatona]

You conduct yourself in a certain fashion as you make your way through the world.

Yes.

Would you agree that there are implicit rules that govern that conduct?

Implicit rules? No, I don´t think so, but I may not really understand what you mean by that.

Do these rules have a moral/ethical dimension?

NN

Can you consider hypothetical situations and analyze what motivates your conduct?

Yes. It´s a pretty complex bag of motives, usually.

What, if anything, governs your conduct?

First and foremost my idea of what a world I want to live in, I guess.

----------

Maybe there are some situations where you don't even act, but we can investigate your reaction. You see a large child step in dog poop and a smaller child laughs at him. The larger child then punches the smaller child in the face, knocking him down. How do you feel?

"How tragic!" would come closest.

 

[quatona]

Playing dumb.

If you feel that way about me, then there´s no basis for a fruitful conversation.
But thanks for being honest about your feelings. Much appreciated.

 

[Divide]

Morality is doing what is expected of you. The original thought was to do what's right, but it doesn't necessarily mean that nowadays. Man's morality and biblical morality do not mesh together.

Biblically, telling a "little white lie" is just as wrong as being a serial killer. You may have told the lie to make someone feel better, or to keep them from being hurt in some way...but it's still wrong and there will be no liars in heaven, nor serial killers.

I've always believed that our conscience is the Holy Spirit working within us, giving us unctions to do the right thing.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Hmm. Core to the Christian belief is "Love thy neighbor as thyself". So, we could start there as a moral foundation. It would be the opposite of "take what you can, when you can".

Love thy neighbor as thyself gets into strange territory though if we don't love ourselves correctly. If I have no respect for myself, I have no respect for others. If I am engaging in self-harming activity, then "loving my neighbor as myself" can be the equivalent of harming my neighbor as well.

So "Love thy neighbor" implies that I had better figure out what "Love" is, both for myself and others. It is a lot stronger that "treat others as you want to be treated". I used to joke with regards to my own sexual immorality, "every time I treat others as I want to be treated, someone calls the cops"

1 John 4:8

"He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love."

I think that's the bullseye for morality. The more an action is self-centered and takes from others, the more it deviates from God and from love and the more immoral it is. I don't really think of things in terms of black and white (because we live in a grey world) so much as I do a target to shoot for. I think the Greek for "sin" means literally "to miss the mark".

Hope that makes a little sense

I think this is still subjective, because it begs the question of who is considered a neighbor. It isn't an absolute - like "love red delicious apples."

In fact, it even begs the question of "What is Love?"

 

[Petros2015]

In fact, it even begs the question of "What is Love?"

Absolutely it does.

 

[Petros2015]

Biblically, telling a "little white lie" is just as wrong as being a serial killer.

I strongly disagree. Both may require grace and fall short of holiness but one is in a much more advanced state of evil. There's a difference between 'missing the mark' and shooting at the crowd when no one is looking. They are both symptoms of the same underlying condition, one is just at a far more advanced stage.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Absolutely it does.

Hmm...

I think I see what you did there.

 

[Divide]

I strongly disagree. Both may require grace and fall short of holiness but one is in a much more advanced state of evil. There's a difference between 'missing the mark' and shooting at the crowd when no one is looking. They are both symptoms of the same underlying condition, one is just at a far more advanced stage.

They both carry the same sentence...

 

[essentialsaltes]

First and foremost my idea of what a world I want to live in, I guess.

This indicates that you have values. You judge that some outcomes (or worlds) are more desirable ("I want") than others.

A more desirable outcome
A better outcome
A more moral outcome
An outcome more likely to improve the average well-being
A less evil outcome

I'm not suggesting these are all exact synonyms, but just to show the similarities. I think not much is lost if you were to interpret people's questions about 'morally right and wrong' as asking about your sense of what takes you either closer to or further away from the world you want to live in.

When faced with a problem that people generally call 'a moral dilemma', your values inform which outcome or course of action would align with the world you want to live in.

And you can translate the other way. When someone says, "It's morally right to live according to the laws of Leviticus" that's telling you about the world they want to live in.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So this is taken from another thread that I don´t want to derail.
(Lies are sinful...always?)

A poster asked me:
So how do you determine what is morally right or wrong?

Me:
I don´t.

Him:
So is nothing morally right or wrong for you?

Me:
Can you explain what you mean by "morally right or wrong", so that I can try to answer your question according to your concepts?​

Upon which he disappeared.​

It seems we (non-Christians) get questions like his a lot here (mostly from theists/Christians), and I always have the feeling they must be based on some unmentioned premises, preassumptions or concepts that I don´t share (and to be quite frank, on top I get the impression that those premise are identical with the conclusions they are about to draw), and that that´s the reason why I don´t know how to answer them.
Is anybody else here willing to explain to me from scratch what they mean when they say "morally right or wrong (to me)"?

I'd be willing to bet that like many (if not most) people, he viewed moral rights and wrongs as something objectively factual...instead of subjectively or circumstantial.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You conduct yourself in a certain fashion as you make your way through the world.

Would you agree that there are implicit rules that govern that conduct?

Do these rules have a moral/ethical dimension?

Can you consider hypothetical situations and analyze what motivates your conduct?

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you. You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?

What's a tortoise?

A half block away from you, a person with bright pink hair drops a $5 bill. The wind blows it to your feet. The person has now rounded the corner and is no longer visible.

You could conduct yourself in many different ways. You might:

continue on your way
pocket the bill and continue on your way
perform interpretive dance on the topic of wombats
pick up the bill and chase after the person
pocket the bill, continue on your way, and give it to a homeless person you encounter at random

What, if anything, governs your conduct?

I'd say self interest. For those who would keep the five, it's a monetary interest. For those who would attempt to return it, it's an emotional interest...and the same probably goes for those who would give it away. For those who would do an interpretive dance, please seek professional therapy.

Maybe there are some situations where you don't even act, but we can investigate your reaction. You see a large child step in dog poop and a smaller child laughs at him. The larger child then punches the smaller child in the face, knocking him down. How do you feel?

Indifferent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thanks for your response.
I guess one of the things I am wondering is: Do people really need a deep abstract-philosophical underpinning in order to decide what to do and what not to do? (I do understand that this has a long tradition in Western thinking, so that´s probably the reason why this approach is hardly ever questioned).
IOW: I am wondering why it seems like without answering the abstract question "What is morally right or wrong?" people can´t seem to make decisions.
Me personally, I start from different questions.

I sincerely doubt that many people consider the supposed philosophical underpinnings of their morality whenever they make the hundreds of moral choices they make throughout the day. Those philosophical considerations are, in my eyes, a post hoc rationalization of their own behavior which serves as nothing more than emotional reassurance that they have "done the right thing".

I think if it were possible to give such a person selective amnesia that erased all memory of their philosophical considerations of morality, they would behave ultimately no differently than before the amnesia.

That's not to say there aren't moral choices which people genuinely consider the "right" and "wrong" things to do before acting...I just think these types of situations are few and far between. Furthermore, I would guess that regardless of what philosophical considerations the person has before making such decisions...those considerations will bend and warp according to the actual subjective desires/beliefs/emotions/and other factors which actually do "guide" our moral choices.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You may have told the lie to make someone feel better, or to keep them from being hurt in some way...but it's still wrong and there will be no liars in heaven....

So there's no one in heaven except little babies who have yet to learn to speak and the lifelong non-verbal (either from mental deficits or physical ones)?

Or are you under the impression that there are people who have never lied?

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your response, essentialsaltes!
It seems to be pretty close to how I imagnie the process, but not quite.

This indicates that you have values. You judge that some outcomes (or worlds) are more desirable ("I want") than others.

Well, I do not see how an (abstract, explicit) value system is necessarily required for that. My (re)action can be pretty spontaneous or intuitive.
(On a sidenote, if I´d answer the questions mentioned in the OP, the follow up questions will be: "How do you know these are values? How do you do you determine these are values?"

A more desirable outcome
A better outcome
A more moral outcome
An outcome more likely to improve the average well-being
A less evil outcome

I'm not suggesting these are all exact synonyms, but just to show the similarities.

They have different levels of abstraction, though.
And I guess part of what I am wondering is: The questions that I mentioned in the OP seem to indicate that they feel one first has to have an abstract "moral" system, from which you decide how to conduct. Whereas it seems to be the other way round with me:
I see an action, ask myself "Do I find that desirable?", and at some point I might abstract these experiences into some sort of abstract system.

I think not much is lost if you were to interpret people's questions about 'morally right and wrong' as asking about your sense of what takes you either closer to or further away from the world you want to live in.

Their questions seeem to indicate otherwise. "How do you know that this helps creating the world you want to live in? How do you determine, that...?" seem comparably practical questions (whereas they seem to ask for a theoretical underpinning). But, to cover all bases, I would have to answer "I don´t know it, and I don´t determine it. A lot in that is guess work, trial and error, and unreliable abstraction/extrapolation from previous encounters."

When faced with a problem that people generally call 'a moral dilemma', your values inform which outcome or course of action would align with the world you want to live in.

And you can translate the other way. When someone says, "It's morally right to live according to the laws of Leviticus" that's telling you about the world they want to live in.

Uhmm, I honestly doubt that. I´m pretty sure they would feel being sold short.
If this were what they want to tell me, these discussions would look differently than they actually do. We would start from questions such as "What world do you want to live in?", "What are your desires?", "What are your preferences?", rather than "How do you know...?".

 

[quatona]

I'd be willing to bet that like many (if not most) people, he viewed moral rights and wrongs as something objectively factual...instead of subjectively or circumstantial.

That would explain why I feel the questions are loaded with premises we haven´t agreed upon.

 

[quatona]

I sincerely doubt that many people consider the supposed philosophical underpinnings of their morality whenever they make the hundreds of moral choices they make throughout the day. Those philosophical considerations are, in my eyes, a post hoc rationalization of their own behavior which serves as nothing more than emotional reassurance that they have "done the right thing".

I think if it were possible to give such a person selective amnesia that erased all memory of their philosophical considerations of morality, they would behave ultimately no differently than before the amnesia.

That's not to say there aren't moral choices which people genuinely consider the "right" and "wrong" things to do before acting...I just think these types of situations are few and far between. Furthermore, I would guess that regardless of what philosophical considerations the person has before making such decisions...those considerations will bend and warp according to the actual subjective desires/beliefs/emotions/and other factors which actually do "guide" our moral choices.

I sincerely doubt that many people consider the supposed philosophical underpinnings of their morality whenever they make the hundreds of moral choices they make throughout the day. Those philosophical considerations are, in my eyes, a post hoc rationalization of their own behavior which serves as nothing more than emotional reassurance that they have "done the right thing".

I think if it were possible to give such a person selective amnesia that erased all memory of their philosophical considerations of morality, they would behave ultimately no differently than before the amnesia.

That's not to say there aren't moral choices which people genuinely consider the "right" and "wrong" things to do before acting...I just think these types of situations are few and far between. Furthermore, I would guess that regardless of what philosophical considerations the person has before making such decisions...those considerations will bend and warp according to the actual subjective desires/beliefs/emotions/and other factors which actually do "guide" our moral choices.

Yes, these questions seem to indicate that there´s a very basic misunderstanding about how I approach decisions.