Materealism and morality

[JetLeg]

Materealism cannot provide a logical foundation for morality.

This is because for morality to happen, one needs to be able to draw a line between people, who should be treated morally, and inanimate objects that shouldn't.

Since materealism is a monistic system, it cannot draw this line.


The criteria of complexity is ridiculous - a human being is more complex than a stone, true. But a robot, in theory can be as complex than a human being. Still, it won't make him an object of morality. (Remember Asimov's first law?). The universe as a whole can be said to be as complex as a human being. Yet, it is not a moral object. (Moral object = an object that should be treated morally).

Replication is also a bad criteria - crystals are not an object of morality. Neither are computer viruses. Or memes. Or robots that can build other robots.


In fairness, any monistic system faces this problem, not just materealism. Systems that believe that "only spirit exists", or "everything is one", or "everything is god" have exactly the same problem. They are unable to draw the line.


----
To clarify, that was a philosophical point. I do not think that monists are less moral than non-monists, and that materealists are less moral than non-materealists. I do not know why this is so. But the facts show it is.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Materealism cannot provide a logical foundation for morality.

This is because for morality to happen, one needs to be able to draw a line between people, who should be treated morally, and inanimate objects that shouldn't.

Since materealism is a monistic system, it cannot draw this line.

And yet it does.

 

[The_Animus]

Many of the key words you are using could be defined a little differently by different people. Could you please define Morality, Materialism, and Monistic.

After doing that please relate more specifically why someone who believes in materialism is not able to differentiate between people and inanimate objects.

People and other living creatures can experience pain, suffering, or the removal of freedom, while inanimate objects can't. People do not judge whether to treat something well based on complexity or replication.

Ask yourself why you do not beat children. Answering because it is wrong, or immoral doesn't really give much meaning ot the answer. But because it would cause the child pain and great emotional distress, and in turn you would empathize (hopefully) with that and feel terrible for causing that pain.

However that does not apply much to a hammer or a rock.

 

[drkitten]

And yet it does.

Yeah.

It's funny how many religious arguments start by denying the possibility of what has been done routinely for hundreds of years.

"Without religion, humans will never be able to govern themselves."
"Without religion, humans will never be able to distinguish right from wrong."
"Without religion, humans will never be able to learn from their mistakes."
"Without religion, humans will never be able to distinguish people from objects."
"Without religion, the Cubs will never be able to win the World Series."

Well, maybe the last one is true.

 

[paximperium]

Materealism cannot provide a logical foundation for morality.

This is because for morality to happen, one needs to be able to draw a line between people, who should be treated morally, and inanimate objects that shouldn't.

Since materealism is a monistic system, it cannot draw this line.

And yet it does.

The criteria of complexity is ridiculous - a human being is more complex than a stone, true. But a robot, in theory can be as complex than a human being. Still, it won't make him an object of morality. (Remember Asimov's first law?). The universe as a whole can be said to be as complex as a human being. Yet, it is not a moral object. (Moral object = an object that should be treated morally).

Why?

Replication is also a bad criteria - crystals are not an object of morality. Neither are computer viruses. Or memes. Or robots that can build other robots.

So an AI that can copy itself multiple times in your little ethical world can be treated however you like?

In fairness, any monistic system faces this problem, not just materealism. Systems that believe that "only spirit exists", or "everything is one", or "everything is god" have exactly the same problem. They are unable to draw the line.

You are wrong.

To clarify, that was a philosophical point. I do not think that monists are less moral than non-monists, and that madterealists are less moral than non-materealists. I do not know why this is so. But the facts show it is.

This was not a "philosophical point". It was you making a bald face assertion with as much logical basis as "I can fly because I can flap my arms."

 

[JetLeg]

Yeah.

It's funny how many religious arguments start by denying the possibility of what has been done routinely for hundreds of years.

"Without religion, humans will never be able to govern themselves."
"Without religion, humans will never be able to distinguish right from wrong."
"Without religion, humans will never be able to learn from their mistakes."
"Without religion, humans will never be able to distinguish people from objects."
"Without religion, the Cubs will never be able to win the World Series."

Well, maybe the last one is true.

First, notice that I did not use the word "religion" even once. I am talking about monistic systems.

And, I think that the way religion distinguishes people from objects ("soul") is not a good way. "Consciousness" is much a better term.

Second, I am interested in your basis of distinguishing people from objects.

 

[rocketdodger]

This is because for morality to happen, one needs to be able to draw a line between people, who should be treated morally, and inanimate objects that shouldn't.

What is the difference between 4.0 and 4.0 + infinitessimal?

Mathematically, 4.0 is less than or equal to 4.0 and 4.0 + infinitessimal is not.

The fact that the real number system is continuous has nothing to do with whether a threshold can be established and measured against.

Your argument is tantamount to claiming that because the real numbers form a continuous system any attempt to establish threshold values based on them is invalid. Clearly, your argument is wrong.

 

[paximperium]

First, notice that I did not use the word "religion" even once. I am talking about monistic systems.

And, I think that the way religion distinguishes people from objects ("soul") is not a good way. "Consciousness" is much a better term.

Second, I am interested in your basis of distinguishing people from objects.

Once you actually define what you mean by monistic, consciousness, soul AND then actually logically justify your assertions, people will take your argument even half seriously.

 

[rocketdodger]

Second, I am interested in your basis of distinguishing people from objects.

Let S be the set of all behaviors that must be necessarily satisfied for an entity to be a person.

Let E be the set of all behaviors that an entity e exhibits.

Then e is a person if and only if S is a subset of E.

 

[The Atheist]

Materealism cannot provide a logical foundation for morality.

Having no idea what materealism is, I'll believe you.

Materialism, on the other hand, has no such issues, because a materialist can look at the world and realise that it actually exists and then do what the hell he likes as long as he doesn't make pleas to immaterial entities.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Hey JetLeg. How can any cosmology provide a basis for morality? Isn't morality based on empathy, compassion, reciprocity, and social norms? Don't the norms come from tradition and reason? How does Monism or dualism enter into it? Can you give an example of a morality based on dualism? The only thing I can think of is to claim that morality only applies to creatures with souls, but I don't see how that assertion is superior to claiming that morality is based on the capacity to make moral decisions or being able to suffer.

 

[JetLeg]

Many of the key words you are using could be defined a little differently by different people. Could you please define Morality, Materialism, and Monistic.

After doing that please relate more specifically why someone who believes in materialism is not able to differentiate between people and inanimate objects.

People and other living creatures can experience pain, suffering, or the removal of freedom, while inanimate objects can't. People do not judge whether to treat something well based on complexity or replication.

Ask yourself why you do not beat children. Answering because it is wrong, or immoral doesn't really give much meaning ot the answer. But because it would cause the child pain and great emotional distress, and in turn you would empathize (hopefully) with that and feel terrible for causing that pain.

However that does not apply much to a hammer or a rock.

I cannot strictly define, but I will give a rough explanation so we both know we are talking about the same thing.

Materealism is the belief\opinion that all that exists is matter.

I don't know how to define morality (do you?), but in our context it is sufficient to say that these are our obligations of behaviour towards people.

Monism is a philosophical view which holds that the universe consists of things that belong only in one category (i.e. matter, spirit).

People and other living creatures can experience pain, suffering, or the removal of freedom, while inanimate objects can't.

I agree with that. But lets start from the premise that all that exists is matter.

If our words are to carry meaning, they should have denotations. All that words can denote in a material world is matter.

How can you define "feelings", "suffering" using only the language of physics?

You can't. And therefore materealism cannot provide a logical basis for morality.

 

[paximperium]

I agree with that. But lets start from the premise that all that exists is matter.

If our words are to carry meaning, they should have denotations. All that words can denote in a material world is matter.

How can you define "feelings", "suffering" using only the language of physics?

You can't. And therefore materealism cannot provide a logical basis for morality.

Great; an Argument from Incredulity/Ignorance. So your entire argument is that you can't figure it out therefore it is true?

 

[nescafe]

Materealism cannot provide a logical foundation for morality.

It does not have to. Heck, morality does not "need" a logical foundation at all.

This is because for morality to happen, one needs to be able to draw a line between people, who should be treated morally, and inanimate objects that shouldn't.

Since materealism is a monistic system, it cannot draw this line.

Nope. Human-style morality is not an absolute thing. We rationalize our moral instincts, we do not create them in a logical fashion -- our sense of morality is an accident of evolutionary history.

The criteria of complexity is ridiculous - a human being is more complex than a stone, true. But a robot, in theory can be as complex than a human being. Still, it won't make him an object of morality. (Remember Asimov's first law?). The universe as a whole can be said to be as complex as a human being. Yet, it is not a moral object. (Moral object = an object that should be treated morally).

According to your moral instincts, maybe. Others probably have different criteria.

Or robots that can build other robots.

Funny -- we are robots that build other robots. That we use organic molecules and not something else is irrelevant.

 

[JetLeg]

What is the difference between 4.0 and 4.0 + infinitessimal?

Mathematically, 4.0 is less than or equal to 4.0 and 4.0 + infinitessimal is not.

The fact that the real number system is continuous has nothing to do with whether a threshold can be established and measured against.

Your argument is tantamount to claiming that because the real numbers form a continuous system any attempt to establish threshold values based on them is invalid. Clearly, your argument is wrong.

Hi, thanks for taking my argument seriously.

Ok, so you say that it is a continous system. But what does it change according to?

You progress from inanimate to animate in small steps. What are these steps "made of"? Matter? Feelings? Atoms?

Perhaps it is possible of a continous system without threshold values that establishes good criteria. But what is it that changes in continuity for the materealist?

 

[Third Eye Open]

Materealism cannot provide a logical foundation for morality.

Yes it can and does. Try reading about evolution. Very interesting stuff. Apes have empathy and a sort of morality just as we do. A mouse that is given a button to press that dispenses food, but also electrocutes a mouse in another cage will stop pressing the button, even if it means starving it's self. Do these creatures have souls and gods?

 

[JetLeg]

Hey JetLeg. How can any cosmology provide a basis for morality? Isn't morality based on empathy, compassion, reciprocity, and social norms? Don't the norms come from tradition and reason? How does Monism or dualism enter into it? Can you give an example of a morality based on dualism? The only thing I can think of is to claim that morality only applies to creatures with souls, but I don't see how that assertion is superior to claiming that morality is based on the capacity to make moral decisions or being able to suffer.

I think that the reasons why people behave morally/imorally have much to do with their upbringing, empathy, compassion, and social norms. This is perhaps why a person is often moral/immoral totally without relevance to materealism/monism/et cetera.

But philosophy is a discipline that tries to find reasons for things, morality included.



Substance-dualism, can claim that people have subjective experience; qualia; consciousness. Thus, they are in a different category that stones for example.

One version of substance-dualism, the world is (1) matter. (2) beings that are both matter and consciousness.

Because substance-dualism has two categories, it can define its terms using these two categories. It can say that inanimate belongs in (1) but animate belongs in (2). Consciousness, the ability to suffer is not matter, but a different thing.

Monistic materealism that believes there is only matter cannot give meaning to "being able to suffer". If you believe that all exists is matter, how are you going to define "being able to suffer", using the language of physics? But you can do it, if you are a dualist.

 

[JetLeg]

Hey JetLeg. How can any cosmology provide a basis for morality?

For example, solipsism, logically speaking, can't provide a basis for morality, because other people are not real according to it. Realism, the idea that other people really exist can.

 

[IMST]

For example, solipsism, logically speaking, can't provide a basis for morality, because other people are not real according to it. Realism, the idea that other people really exist can.

Materialists believe other people exist.

 

[JetLeg]

Materialists believe other people exist.

I know. My post was a reply to "Hey JetLeg. How can any cosmology provide a basis for morality? ". I gave an example of two conflicting ideas - solipsism and realism, one of which doesn't provide a basis for morality, and the other one does.