Morality and Belief

[Prometheus_ash]

I am going to go out on a limb here, and make a claim. I dont think it is too radical, but sometimes my perspective is a bit sqewed compared to the average person. So prepare yourself, 'cause here it comes: <I>What you believe is important.</I>

Not too bad, right? IN fact, most people would agree with that statement without too much in the way of argument. But for the fellow philosophers out there allow me to rationalize it before you begin to quibble.

If a person truly believes something, then that belief will cause them to act upon it. Those actions then have the potential to affect other peoples lives, even if it is only clearing the path for similar beliefs of a similar nature. If a person does not believe something, then they will not act upon that belief, and their lack of belief will casue them to take another action instead.

So because our actions can affect the rest of the world, it becomes imperitive to examine them, to make sure that the belief that does not cause undue harm to others or society in general. That is why what people believe is important, because those beliefs influence other peoples actions which influence other peoples lives.

Lets say you own an airplane that carries passengers across the atlantic. You have owned this airplane for twenty years, and it is getting up there in age, and perhaps it might be time for you to have it looked over, to make sure it is in good enough condition to fly. Instead, you rationalize that because you have owned the plane for so long, and never has there been a problem, it would be ok for you to let it go just one more time before the check.

Now imagine the plane crashes and everyone inside the plane dies a horrible death, because you have ignored reasons to doubt, and formulated a belief (that the plane would finish it's trip ok) based on insuficient evidence. Most people would agree that you are morally responcible for those peopels deaths, because it was your actions (caused by your belief) that led to their deaths.

Now imagine that the plane did not crash, and everything went fine. Is this situation any different form above. The only difference was the outcome, but a morally wrong action is always morally wrong regardless of outcome. So in each case, the surpression of doubt was determined to be morally wrong.

In the words of William Kingdom Clifford, "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficiant evidence."

However, it is not enough to say that that it is wrong to believe on insufficient evidence, without first describing what the grounds for belief, and on what grounds to go on on the testomony of others.

Fisrtly, in order to accept the testonomy of another, the individual must first meet these reuirments:

1) Have veracity and integrity, in so far as they are willing (and going) to speak the truth, so far as they know it.

2) Knowledge. They must be actually have knowldge about the subject at hand.

3) Judgement, that they have made proper use of their knowldge, and in their study to aquire it on the subject at hand.

These questions must always be asked in the regards to testomony. Is he dishonest, or is it possible for him to be mistaken? If the answer is yes, then it cast doubt on their testomony itself, and stalls belief accepting those that allready wish to believe.

So, when a chemist is spekaing in reagrds of chemistry, and we have no reason to doubt his words, it would be moral to believe it, for it is a person of integrity, speaking of a subject of a field that they themselves are an expert in. But when speaking to the average layman about, say biology, in matters of law, there exists no reason to believe, for they have no uncommon expertise in those fields.

In regards to evidence itself, it must also meet some requirments, to garentee its veracity. Evidence must be verifiable, fallsifiable, and external, that is to say, physical in nature such that it can be observed, and possibly measured.

There is one thing I will allow you to believe, without requiring any evidence whatsoever to support it, for purposes of survival only, which is that we may believe in the uniformity of nature, that the past shall resemble the future. Because many beliefs of this world (even very basic beliefs) require this inference, and because it so obviously helps us, then it is reasonable to believe it. Indeed, for many of us, i is part of our very nature, for once burned by fire, we <I>assume</I> that fire will continue to cause pain in the future, despite the fact that our experience of fire is limited indeed.

Hakuna Matata all.

PS. If you are interested in this idea, search for the writings of William Kingdom Clifford whose far more eloquent writings inspired my own.

 

[kedaman]

I'd like to say that mere belief is not enough to result in action, and that you need faith to succeed.

Morality can give an impression of that it is about "Do not's" that are imposed for a social system to work. In that sense I would say it is about ethics and laws. But ethics is weaker than morality because it is partial, sufficient, a framework for morality. there is no aim of ethics, but it needs to be rooted in morality, much like society function must be rooted in the individual function.

Society teaches us that indidivuals must conform to society, that our knowledge must conform to the object. But this is not at all essential, but what is essential to us, is how society conforms to the individual and how knowledge shapes the object. Why? Because morality is what we ought to do, and what we would do without such an imposed framework, and independent of knowledge.

Knowledge is only a description of what is the case, and we cannot derive therefrom what should be the case, without an ideal condition, which we derive of pure (practical) reason, not from knowledge.

If something only becomes imperative because of a circumstance, then your action does not conform to your intention, but your intention is conformed to your action - which sounds perverse, but that is the sign of hypocricy, the man who has given up his moral integrity and become a slave of his bodily tendencies.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

Faith signifies that which is required for one to succeed in pursuit of any ideal, and that is an unconditioned substance - hence not seen, but imposed on the object by the subject. To retain objectivity - that is we talk about the object as something distinct from any subject, morality is only possible if there is final cause to all - the will of God, and the power to accomplish it - the Word of God.

 

[Norea]

Keda, that is areally not a logical position for Morality to be in. Morality from the objectivist view is predicated on the concept of egoism, or that all things that you do you do for yourself. It may seem odd to think of yourself and etc when considering morals but it makes the most sense since all our faculties of judgement center on our sense of self. You don't do things to others because you have VALUES. Values formulate what your morals become. If you value your fellow human you formulate the idea that honesty and etc are the best route to express your valuing of people. Murder, thief, assault all get excluded from morality because they are things you do not do to what you value, people. Then you value other things too. You value your property and thus you maintain it to its highest quality. And since you value property in general you know that others must value their properties as well and share in respecting others property.

So morality from the objectivist position is about expressing and supporting your values. NOT about telling you not to do such and such, which essentially implies you cannot formulate values on your own...Which I find abhorent.

-- Bridget

 

[kedaman]

Keda, that is areally not a logical position for Morality to be in.

If you find any inconsistency in my argument, I'd be happy to know.
Rand's objectivist egoism is consequentialistic: Types of actions are good or bad based on the consequence they have relative to ends of the subject. As such there is nothing in the moral act in itself that is good, which differs from deontology.
My argument against consequentialists, including objectivist egoism, is that a person acting in such manner either has inconsistent values or cannot fullfill some end. In the former case the agent will pursue one set of values which undermine the pursuit of another, for instance, if I value pizza and icecream, but only have money enough for one of them, then buying one will exclude the other. In the latter case the agent has unachievable values. Proof:
Deontology is the position that moral good is intrinsic in the act, and thus always achievable. Consequentialism is the antithesis, that moral good depends on an end beyond the act, thus the action in itself will never achieve the goal, but depends on a certain external (contingent) condition/medium. Since the medium is not always present, all values cannot be achieved. If Neither case (some cannot be achieved or values are inconsistent) are true, then all values are achievable. Since all values are not achievable, either case is true.
In the former case there are always actions that undermines some of ones values, ie. Hypocricy, and in the latter case there will always be a lack of fullfillment.
Specifically against egoism, I would like to argue, that it is not beneficial - You could support this argument with the darwinian prisoners dilemma, even though I do have an argument against it as well, egoism is always worse off as a survival strategy.

 

[Norea]

My argument against consequentialists, including objectivist egoism, is that a person acting in such manner either has inconsistent values or cannot fullfill some end. In the former case the agent will pursue one set of values which undermine the pursuit of another, for instance, if I value pizza and icecream, but only have money enough for one of them, then buying one will exclude the other. In the latter case the agent has unachievable values.

Because icecream and pizza-hut are not really individual values, more like preferences. And preferences can be scaled lower and included into values. Like you value food because you need it to survive. You want either-or but can only have what you can get and you still fulfill the value/moral issue.

Proof:
Deontology is the position that moral good is intrinsic in the act, and thus always achievable.

Same with egoism, because you really can only do certain things a certain number of ways.

Consequentialism is the antithesis, that moral good depends on an end beyond the act, thus the action in itself will never achieve the goal, but depends on a certain external (contingent) condition/medium. Since the medium is not always present, all values cannot be achieved. If Neither case (some cannot be achieved or values are inconsistent) are true, then all values are achievable. Since all values are not achievable, either case is true.

Values are very specific in their structure. Like I stated before, preferences cannot be equal to values. If you prefer A over B but they both satistfy your value structure they both are good.

In the former case there are always actions that undermines some of ones values, ie. Hypocricy, and in the latter case there will always be a lack of fullfillment.

Not so, because values are very different from preferences I as I said before.

Specifically against egoism, I would like to argue, that it is not beneficial - You could support this argument with the darwinian prisoners dilemma, even though I do have an argument against it as well, egoism is always worse off as a survival strategy.

Not really since we always act from the position of self/ego. Not from the position of what some Superman thinks of us. Your position is really no different than the objectivist morality system. Objectivism proclaims there is good and evil, and so values will align as such. For example a car-jacker may value taking your car at gunpoint but from the objectivist position it is wrong even though he satistfied his value system by the act by virtue what is owned by another cannot be taken by force.

And so on.

-- Bridget

 

[FadingWhispers3]

"insufficiant evidence"... insufficiant for who? The person who debates whether to hold a belief? To Billy down the street?

I disbelieve that belief can be moral or immoral, but only what is done with that belief.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

"insufficiant evidence"... insufficiant for who? The person who debates whether to hold a belief? To Billy down the street?

I disbelieve that belief can be moral or immoral, but only what is done with that belief.

If your beliefs cause your actions, and you actiosn can be judges to be immoral or moral, then a belief itself (the cause of actions) can also be judges to be immoral or moral.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Judged by whom? Yourself? You? Some god?

 

[kedaman]

Because icecream and pizza-hut are not really individual values, more like preferences. And preferences can be scaled lower and included into values. Like you value food because you need it to survive. You want either-or but can only have what you can get and you still fulfill the value/moral issue.

Perhaps that was a poor example, but let me ask you, how are then values different from preferenses when food is not an end in itself, but a means to survival?

 

[rstrats]

Prometheous_ash,

re: "In the words of William Kingdom Clifford, ‘It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.’"

Do you think there is any implication in that statement that a person has the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone or something does or doesn’t exist or that a certain proposition is or isn’t true?

 

[Prometheus_ash]

Judged by whom? Yourself? You? Some god?

Evidence is constituted as empirical, falsifiable, testable, observable. For these peices of data, trained individuals can formulate an idea from these peices of data, whihc can then be fallsified, tested, and observed by other trained individuals. Obviously, this only works within a legitimate feild of knowledge, because things like philosophy and theology depend too much on conjecture and opinion for a hrad and fast answer to ever be examined.

e: "In the words of William Kingdom Clifford, ‘It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.’"

Do you think there is any implication in that statement that a person has the ability to consciously CHOOSE to believe that someone or something does or doesn’t exist or that a certain proposition is or isn’t true?

Te implication is that people can change their beliefs, or remain in a state of flux untill such a time as more evidence comes to the table.

If I may, I would like to add that people (once they reach a rational adult hood) have a certain amount of predispositions and baises because of their upbrining, that can make the changing of beliefs difficult or easy.

For example, it is very easy for a christain to disbeleive in Shiva, Allah, or Zeus because of their upbrining, while for those raised within a specific tradtion (even when not of that tradition) the switching to that tradition is almost always a possibility.

-Ash

 

[rstrats]

Prometheus_ash,

re: "The implication is that people can change their beliefs..."

But can they/you do it on a conscious level? Can they/you consciously CHOOSE to believe things?

 

[Prometheus_ash]

Prometheus_ash,

re: "The implication is that people can change their beliefs..."

But can they/you do it on a conscious level? Can they/you consciously CHOOSE to believe things?

Weather or not people are free to choose does not matter. The fact that people have the ability to change their beliefs is what is important for this argument, not weather they can choose to.

As tio the ability to consioculy choose, I think that people can. I have changed my beliefs in the past, and I have also met other people that have changed thiers. The process of doing so is often long and difficult, but it can be done, and the fact that people change at all is testemont to this.

-Ash

 

[rstrats]

Prometheus_ash,

re: "Whether or not people are free to choose does not matter. The fact that people have the ability to change their beliefs is what is important for this argument, not whether they can choose to."

I don’t understand. If people can consciously cause themselves to believe something , why isn’t the choice to do so always involved?



re: "As to the ability to consciously choose, I think that people can. I have changed my beliefs in the past..."

Perhaps you can help me then. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that - for example to effect a belief in a supreme being or to believe that it is possible for me to become a more compassionate person. Since you seem to be saying that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your lack of belief to belief?

 

[rstrats]

bump

 

[rstrats]

bump