Submitted by beforesunset1010 t3_za96to in philosophy
cutelyaware t1_iyls8ml wrote
Reply to comment by Tinac4 in How to solve moral problems with formal logic and probability by beforesunset1010
> How do they draw the line without using numbers on at least some level?
You can't use numbers to justify your morality. You can only optimize it if your morality happens to be purely utilitarian.
Tinac4 t1_iylss65 wrote
I didn’t say anything about using numbers to justify morality, and neither did the OP. My point is that a lot of real-life moral dilemmas that involve uncertainty, and it’s very hard to resolve them if your moral framework isn’t comfortable with probabilities to some extent. For instance, how would you respond to the two scenarios I gave above?
[deleted] t1_iylzkab wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iym2mex wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_iyn76pb wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
MightyTVIO t1_iylw6nl wrote
If you can describe a precise way of determining what is most moral or even just more moral of 2 choices then you have an algorithm. If it is not precisely defined then it's ambiguous in which case it's not justified I'd argue? Since you haven't even defined what it even is.
cutelyaware t1_iylyu0s wrote
A person's morality is simply their sense of right and wrong behaviors. It doesn't matter if you have an algorithm or not. That would only let you be more consistent with your actions. My point is that you don't get to choose your morality any more than you get to choose your sexual orientation.
MightyTVIO t1_iym5j0l wrote
If you're arguing for lack of free will then I'd agree but it makes the whole point moot. A moral theory is generally independent of any specific persons so not sure why that's relevant? Furthermore you absolutely could reduce a persons actions to an algorithm just maybe a complicated one.
autonomicautoclave t1_iymm2tq wrote
If that is true then philosophers have been wasting our time with moral arguments. If you can’t choose what morality to believe in, it’s no use trying to convince someone to follow your morality. It would be like trying to convince a heterosexual person to become homosexual.
cutelyaware t1_iyooqnt wrote
Can you give me an example of how you've changed your mind and adopted a different morality, or convinced someone else to change theirs? For example I see plenty of arguments of the form "If you believe killing is wrong, then..." I've never seen someone decide "Yes, I suppose killing is fine". I've only seen them decide that it's OK or not OK to kill in some specific situation.
VitriolicViolet t1_iyt2gmk wrote
>If you can’t choose what morality to believe in, it’s no use trying to convince someone to follow your morality.
does anyone 'choose' which moral theory to follow?
i would argue the one you pick is merely the one that you feel is best ie you wont be convinced by a rational argument since you never reasoned yourself into your belief in the first place.
logic works from emotion ie if you think utilitarianism is best its because you feel its best, reasoning and logic happen after the fact.
i never reasoned myself into my morals, i pick and choose based on context and use my emotions to guide my reasoning (you cannot determine which is 'better' without use of emotion)
Wizzdom t1_iymx5r7 wrote
Except information can change your sense of right and wrong. Take smoking/drinking while pregnant. It didn't feel wrong until we learned it's harmful to the baby. You can absolutely change your sense of right and wrong by studying and thinking about it.
cutelyaware t1_iyomja5 wrote
The moral position involved in your example is that it's wrong to harm fetuses. If you learn that drinking harms fetuses, then you haven't changed your position by then concluding that's wrong behavior. You started off believing it was wrong to harm fetuses, and you ended up still believing that. You've just updated your opinion based on new information.
VitriolicViolet t1_iyt343x wrote
and? i knew smoking was harmful before i tried it (read the studies) and yet ive been doing for 10 years with no intention to stop.
some people value different things, resulting in different morals. personally safety and security arent even in my top 3 values (honesty, integrity and personal freedom) hence why smoking being factually bad hasnt changed my behavior.
what is more moral? allowing children to teach their kids anything or having the state determine what age certain concepts like sexuality and religion should be taught? your answer will 100% be determined by your values and if you ask 10 people all will be different and none will be wrong.
Wizzdom t1_iytga9f wrote
First of all, that has nothing to do with what I said. Second, I was talking about smoking while pregnant. Surely you at least value not harming others unnecessarily. If you don't, then you are immoral.
enternationalist t1_iyngww6 wrote
Huh? You've never changed your mind on what you think is morally acceptable??
cutelyaware t1_iyokehg wrote
I've had new situations come to light that cause me to rethink my proper responses to moral questions, but I can't think of anything that changed my morality. For example I still think that it should be a woman's right to choose abortion, but I've come to believe that pro-life people have a point.
How have you changed your morality?
enternationalist t1_iyq1glb wrote
How is changing your answer to a moral question distinct from your morality changing? Per your own definition, your sense of right and wrong has shifted to give you a different answer.
I used to believe making others happy as a priority was the moral choice, now I think people should generally be more self centered. I used to oppose any sort of violence; now I believe it is sometimes necessary or justified. By what definition are these not a change in morality?
cutelyaware t1_iyq2kx1 wrote
I suppose it's fine to call such a shift a movement in one's morality.
VitriolicViolet t1_iyt3hz2 wrote
not that i can think of.
personally everything is morally permissible in context (no system of morality ever conceived actually works, any system that has inflexible rules is destined to failure ie is genocide always wrong? if a nation tries to genocide you and will not stop no matter what, collectively, then surely killing them all is morally correct?).
theft, murder, lies, all are moral in certain scenarios.
enternationalist t1_iyt85ro wrote
Sure, but changing your mind about scenarios they are acceptable in counts.
experimentalshoes t1_iymj8p8 wrote
Probability is part of what makes us human though, as with the ability to describe our odds of survival somewhere rather than simply feeling it in our bodies.
Our awareness of uncertainty and risk are rooted in emotion, or basic drives, and they later became quantitative disciplines, similar to psychology. Likely or unlikely outcomes have always shaped our actions and our beliefs, sometimes also in contrast to the odds, where things may become heroic, irresponsible, etc.
You might look to numbers not to justify your morality, which is a precise form of argument, but to investigate it. Numbers can bring you back in touch with basic human drives we may have forgotten in the realm of abstract thought. Justification can then be built on top of the findings of that investigation.
cutelyaware t1_iyoq1g1 wrote
> You might look to numbers not to justify your morality, which is a precise form of argument, but to investigate it.
Certainly, math is very useful in lots of moral situations, but I'm making a different claim which is that it can't be used to decide your moral foundation. If you feel that you've done that, then please tell me how it happened.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments