• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materealism and morality

JetLeg said:
Materealism cannot provide a logical foundation for morality.
Click to expand...

Here's my answer: I think it doesn't need to provide a logical foundation, or at least not in the way you're thinking. "Morality" is an abstract concept, an idea. Like any other idea, the only "logical foundation" it needs is that it is a useful idea.

JetLeg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, as others have pointed out, you can draw a line. And of course, I know you realize that as well... however, I think I know what you are trying to say here. You just haven't phrased it correctly. It's not that materialism *can't* draw a line... what you are trying to say is that if we do draw a line, it is *arbitrary.* In other words, it is only for the sake of making our idea work, but there is no reason for it. Am I correct, is this what you were really trying to say?

If that is your point, then it is not a bad point. Still, I wouldn't agree. I don't think it's arbitrary, because as I said before, it was we humans who invented this idea, so of course we also set the parameters. If you think about it from this perspective, maybe you can see for yourself why it's logical to draw a line between living things and inanimate objects.

JetLeg said:
The criteria of complexity is ridiculous
Click to expand...

JetLeg said:
Replication is also a bad criteria
Click to expand...

You are correct on both points. However, your reasoning here seems to point out the mistake you are making... you are looking for physical justifications for an abstract idea. *Anything* tangible is a bad criteria. It's a little bit like trying to find a physical measurement of beauty. That is impossible.

The mistake you are making seems quite clear to me. I hope I've been able to communicate it adequately to you. Let me know if I succeeded.
 
Mister Agenda said:
1) If you are a dualist, how does that mere fact lead you to a particular morality? 2) If it can be a basis for morality, wouldn't all dualists arrive at similar moral conclusions distinguishable from those arrived at by materialists?
Click to expand...

1) Realism is a neccessary condition for morality.
But being a realist doesn't lead you to a particular morality.

2) The conclusions that people actually arrive at are irrelevant. What is relevant are the conclusions that one can logically draw from the premises. I don't think solipsists are really immoral, but logically, they should be. Did that answer it?
 
JetLeg said:
There is nothing magic about dualism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_dualism
Click to expand...

You link to a website with a dozen different kinds of dualistic beliefs.

Doesn't really help to define your terms.

There are a couple forms which simply do a semantic dance to redefine 'consciousness as the activity of the brain' into 'consciousness as an immaterial result of certain arrangements of brain matter", but even they reify the mind into a separate object.
 
In philosophy of mind, dualism is a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, which begins with the claim that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical.[1]
Click to expand...

Sounds like magic to me. Show me a mind without any physicality and I'll believe mental activities are not physical. But hey! That would be a soul wouldn't it? That would mean I could survive death! Hooray!
 
L The Detective said:
Here's my answer: I think it doesn't need to provide a logical foundation, or at least not in the way you're thinking. "Morality" is an abstract concept, an idea. Like any other idea, the only "logical foundation" it needs is that it is a useful idea.



Well, as others have pointed out, you can draw a line. And of course, I know you realize that as well... however, I think I know what you are trying to say here. You just haven't phrased it correctly. It's not that materialism *can't* draw a line... what you are trying to say is that if we do draw a line, it is *arbitrary.* In other words, it is only for the sake of making our idea work, but there is no reason for it. Am I correct, is this what you were really trying to say?

If that is your point, then it is not a bad point. Still, I wouldn't agree. I don't think it's arbitrary, because as I said before, it was we humans who invented this idea, so of course we also set the parameters. If you think about it from this perspective, maybe you can see for yourself why it's logical to draw a line between living things and inanimate objects.





You are correct on both points. However, your reasoning here seems to point out the mistake you are making... you are looking for physical justifications for an abstract idea. *Anything* tangible is a bad criteria. It's a little bit like trying to find a physical measurement of beauty. That is impossible.

The mistake you are making seems quite clear to me. I hope I've been able to communicate it adequately to you. Let me know if I succeeded.
Click to expand...


Hi there.

You seem to say a few things.

First, that morality is a useful idea, and that it doesn't need a strict logical foundation. I can't agree, because an unstated premise of my argument was that morality is objective, and not just a useful idea. (It seems nihilistic to me to say that it is just a useful idea).

Second, that it is an abstract idea, and one shouldn't look for physical justifications for it. This is more in line with my thinking. But this way leads to non-materealism! Since there are abstract ideas, and they shouldn't be justified by physical justifications, doesn't it hint that materealism is false. I believe that there are abstract ideas, and they have non-physical justifications. (Feelings are non-physical reasons to treat humans ethically).

And third, I am not sure what you mean by saying "arbitrary". Can you give an example?
 
JetLeg said:
1) Realism is a neccessary condition for morality.
Click to expand...

I think I understand your misspelling in the OP and thread title now. You seem to be conflating* "materialism" and "realism"--into "materealism".

*Completely OT derail, but a pet peeve of mine: "conflate" is not just a fancy way of saying "confuse". If you confuse A for B it means you treat B as if it were A and vice versa. If you conflate A and B, it means you combine them into a third thing that is composed of some bits of A and some bits of B. See this. That's why "materealism" is a great example--he's doing it with the ideas and with the spelling. If he had just used "materialism" when he was actually talking about "realism", I'd say he confused the two terms.
 
JetLeg said:
Since there are abstract ideas, and they shouldn't be justified by physical justifications, doesn't it hint that materealism is false.
Click to expand...

No, not even a little. Abstract ideas exist entirely inside our brains and are the result of chemical processes.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think I understand your misspelling in the OP and thread title now. You seem to be conflating* "materialism" and "realism"--into "materealism".

*Completely OT derail, but a pet peeve of mine: "conflate" is not just a fancy way of saying "confuse". If you confuse A for B it means you treat B as if it were A and vice versa. If you conflate A and B, it means you combine them into a third thing that is composed of some bits of A and some bits of B. See this. That's why "materealism" is a great example--he's doing it with the ideas and with the spelling. If he had just used "materialism" when he was actually talking about "realism", I'd say he confused the two terms.
Click to expand...

LOL.

I don't conflate, but confuse. Nice idea, though.
 
godless dave said:
No, not even a little. Abstract ideas exist entirely inside our brains and are the result of chemical processes.
Click to expand...

LOL.

This is the most unreflexive use of the word "inside" that I have ever read. How can an abstract idea exist "inside" something. "Inside" implies that it exists in space, and therefore is not abstract...
 
JetLeg said:
LOL.

This is the most unreflexive use of the word "inside" that I have ever read. How can an abstract idea exist "inside" something. "Inside" implies that it exists in space, and therefore is not abstract...
Click to expand...

Good lord, talk about a stereotypical philosopher. All your arguments so far have been purely semantic.
 
JetLeg said:
LOL.

This is the most unreflexive use of the word "inside" that I have ever read. How can an abstract idea exist "inside" something. "Inside" implies that it exists in space, and therefore is not abstract...
Click to expand...
"Inside" in this case would mean a conceptual product of brain processes.

Now will you define your version of Dualism?
 
JetLeg said:
First, that morality is a useful idea, and that it doesn't need a strict logical foundation.
Click to expand...

I think your position on this point is easily disproven. Do you think people with no exposure to formal logic are incapable of moral decisions or behavior?

(In another discussion, my mantra became the statement, "You don't need to believe in God or be a logician to be moral.")

Again, this is very similar to language. You don't need to understand grammar or linguistics in order to use language effectively. It's almost certain that humans used language for a long time before we even had ideas such as "parts of speech" and "case" and "agreement" and so on. (ETA: the subjective linguistic experience is usually stated "it just sounds right" or "sounds wrong".)

Similarly, I think moral conventions and individual capacity for learning and operating within them (and all that that entails--such as feeling guilt or remorse for a wrong action) were fully developed in humans LONG before we developed any logical approach to morality. (ETA: the subjective moral experience is usually something like, "It feels wrong" or "It feels right" or "I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I did this.")


I also think that the logical approach to morality (or anything else) for humans (symbolic logic, that is) grew out of our capacity for language. But that's another topic, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
LOL.

This is the most unreflexive use of the word "inside" that I have ever read. How can an abstract idea exist "inside" something.
Click to expand...

The same way the message you just typed and the software that displays it here and allows me to reply exist inside a computer in Florida.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think your position on this point is easily disproven. Do you think people with no exposure to formal logic are incapable of moral decisions or behavior?

(In another discussion, my mantra became the statement, "You don't need to believe in God or be a logician to be moral.")

Again, this is very similar to language. You don't need to understand grammar or linguistics how to use language effectively. It's almost certain that humans used language for a long time before we even had ideas such as "parts of speech" and "case" and "agreement" and so on.

Similarly, I think moral conventions and individual capacity for learning and operating within them (and all that that entails--such as feeling guilt or remorse for a wrong action) were fully developed in humans LONG before we developed any logical approach to morality.

I also think that the logical approach to morality (or anything else) for humans (symbolic logic, that is) grew out of our capacity for language. But that's another topic, I suppose.
Click to expand...

I agree that you don't need to believe in God or be a logician to be moral.

This is why I tried to state in the OP explicitly that materialism doesn't give logical foundations for morality. (Just like solipsism/emotivism/relativism, et cetera).

Not that materialists are likely to be less moral - precisely because morality in reality is often not based upon logic.

Whether morality should be based on logic\reason, and to what extent is a fascinating topic. Perhaps for another post.
 
JetLeg said:
Not that materialists are likely to be less moral - precisely because morality in reality is often not based upon logic.
.
Click to expand...

Of course not! Are you saying that we materialists think logic was around before morality, and that someone 'designed' morality based on it? No one is saying morality is 'based on' logic, only that it can be explained logically.
 
JetLeg said:
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.
Click to expand...

Consciousness.

I'm wondering why you have to ask.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom