Logic AS morality.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I wonder. Can LOGIC itself be used as a moral theory? Do what is most logical? I was looking through my book at the different philosophies, and I just wondered

I saw. happiness, the good, virture

but what about just logic. It seems fair, standardized, objective.

[Darth Raptor]

I wonder. Can LOGIC itself be used as a moral theory? Do what is most logical? I was looking through my book at the different philosophies, and I just wondered

I saw. happiness, the good, virture

but what about just logic. It seems fair, standardized, objective.

Logic is a means, not an end. You have to have pre-determined standards and criteria in which to use that logic. Say your goal is immortality and unlimited power, logic will help you get that if you're intelligent enough, but the cold calculation of achieving your objective could leave a mountain of innocent corpses.

That's why a moral code like Secular Humanism, which defines goals and standards while embracing logic is preferable. If not, you're just a robot going after something else. Logic is a tool, not a cause, and the things you need to say to make it a good cause are kind of contrived and flimsy.

[Darth Wong]

Think of logic as being similar to mathematics: it doesn't really tell you anything, but it can tell you what stuff adds up to.

In other words, logic, like math, has to start with some kind of information in order to generate anything useful. A=35 and B=27, therefore A>B. The "therefore" part is what logic does. But logic itself doesn't come up with the A=35 or the B=27.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

ahh ok, cool.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Now. ON the subject. Was logic somethign invented/contrived, or was it something objectively "discovered" or innate?

My teacher says it's innate.

[General Zod]

Now. ON the subject. Was logic somethign invented/contrived, or was it something objectively "discovered" or innate?

My teacher says it's innate.

if logic were innate then the board wouldn't have nearly as many bannings as it usually does.

[Rye]

I'd say logic was discovered by examining the concepts that make up arguments.

[sketerpot]

Now. ON the subject. Was logic somethign invented/contrived, or was it something objectively "discovered" or innate?

My teacher says it's innate.

Are you asking if logic is universal, or if it is some sort of cultural invention? If you are, I have something for you to think about: If the only way to get to point A is to walk there, and you want to go there, what do you need to do?

Obviously you need to walk there. Now, think: was this a universal conclusion, or is it something invented and cultural?

So much of this philosophical stuff seems to be nothing more than semantic confusion. Example: all the topics in this thread.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, my teacher, for example, said Objective ethics are real just like logic is real, Logic is objective and discioved just like objective principles. That's why I was confused.

[Mayabird]

I swear, philosophers should get a good grounding in evolutionary biology before they open their mouths.

Humans evolved as social animals. As such we have a basic set of instincts about how and how not to act towards others. Groups where people had genes to attack the other members of the group tended not to last as long and end up being overwhelmed by more coherent groups. And so on. Theologians often mistake these instincts as some kind of proof of god being in our hearts, and philosophers often mistake these instincts for...well whatever substitute for god they happen to be using. Maybe laws of morality floating around in the aether like electromagnetism or something.

(My godfather-of-sorts had been a theologian before he discovered evolution and became a philosopher-of-sorts with a strong emphasis on human evolution explaining how we think and act.)

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Some of the shit gets mind-blowing that im learning. It doesn't really make sense, but since eveyone agrees I am outnumbered

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I was thinking morality was really related in large to the superstructure of a culture. My anthropology book explains that the purpose of culture was to act as an evolutionalry tool (non-biological) to aid in the spread and survival of stable, healthy human societies.

Man creates society, society has challeneges, morality is the set of guidelines devised to meet those challenges.

So I thought it was both biological and cultural as an entity, but meh. That wasn't too popular. ONe would think morality would have somethign to do with the needs, desires, and wants of a group of people (survival).

[SyntaxVorlon]

Logic is a way of defining the bounderies of philosophy as the positivists were trying to do, and which Wittgenstein did fairly well. He posited that ethics, metaphysics, and a few other things are not within the realm of rational sense. Thus nonsense, but in Wittgenstein's view, very very important nonsense. Ethics can be contrived from a study of well run societies and made so that their application in a society will make it function best. But they are not based innately on universal laws, morality and so on, or at least cannot be shown to be.

[sketerpot]

While we're on the topic of morality and biology, I recommend reading The Origins of Virtue, by Matt Ridley. It's a great counterpoint to the philosophical wanking that your teacher seems to be engaging in. It does a good job of explaining where most of our morals really come from.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Cool. I will check it out and use it as a source. Thx.

[General Zod]

Well, my teacher, for example, said Objective ethics are real just like logic is real, Logic is objective and discioved just like objective principles. That's why I was confused.

i'm not quite sure what her point would be here. in what sense of 'real' are they talking about? obviously both are 'real' as in that people have deduced them and applied them at times. if it's 'real' as in 'true', or 'accurate', then that's mere sophistry and/or another subtle application of the no true scotsman fallacy.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Oh. That was just her argument against the idea that morals are subjective.

[Rye]

Oh. That was just her argument against the idea that morals are subjective.

She's stupid then, since morals actually are subjective. I can't think of one thing that one person, perhaps even the majority of people would consider immoral that another person/people have done.

Examples: Murder, genocide, child abuse/molestation, mutilation of the living, various forms of harassment, etc etc.

Common themes don't mean that they're not subjective, but that they are norms that stem from our evolution as social animals. For every norm, there's people that have gone against them, that felt morally justified doing it.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I give up though. I think I am going to just have to placate the teacher. I am vastly outnumbered hahahah.

[Bugsby]

I give up though. I think I am going to just have to placate the teacher. I am vastly outnumbered hahahah.

Just feed her the BS she wants to hear and remain steadfast in your knowledge that she doesn't know shit. It's a terrible way to teach a course. In my ethics class last year, the teacher presented each philosophical standpoint without bias and let the class debate for themselves what they liked and didn't like. None of this "Subjectivism is wrong" BS. Doesn't she know that the whole REASON eithical debate conitnues in philosophy is that its impossible to prove any of these theories right or wrong?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't know. Most of the books and curriculae point it out ot be the worst, most vile, and weakest of the arguments of morality. Only uneducated college students and adults believe it, so says the book

[Rye]

I don't see why you should have to back down, you're right and can give examples of how rules and values change culture to culture and individual to individual, that's the very definition of subjective. There's not one universal moral rule, whereas there is one moon that orbits the Earth, the same sky, the same water.

They just don't like it because it describes morality, rather than prescribing some. Too bad they don't like it, because it's the way it is.

[Bugsby]

I don't see why you should have to back down, you're right and can give examples of how rules and values change culture to culture and individual to individual, that's the very definition of subjective. There's not one universal moral rule, whereas there is one moon that orbits the Earth, the same sky, the same water.

They just don't like it because it describes morality, rather than prescribing some. Too bad they don't like it, because it's the way it is.

You're absolutely right, but there comes a time when one should consider the grade. Boyish has been posting on this for almost a month now, and at this point the teacher might just start throwing out Fs to get some peace in the class.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I don't see why you should have to back down, you're right and can give examples of how rules and values change culture to culture and individual to individual, that's the very definition of subjective. There's not one universal moral rule, whereas there is one moon that orbits the Earth, the same sky, the same water.

They just don't like it because it describes morality, rather than prescribing some. Too bad they don't like it, because it's the way it is.

Yea. I like to make trouble in the class, but I know when it's time to just agree and shutup. Plus, I like this teacher, caue I had her in philosophy. But oh well.

I agree with your idea Rye, but the book bashes the premise of Cultural Diversity as a factor for why ethics would be subjective. Something about how you can't go from what is the case and what the majority believe tow what is morality. Just because they change, doesn't mean they were always right." Just look "at the Nazies." You can't possibly say they were moral.

I am like..fuck it. That's a bait question, and if I answer it, I know I won't make it out of the classroom alive. Since I believe in subjectivism, she said, I would have to agree that the Nazis were acting moral, just not by my moral standards, but moral nonetheless.

It makes no sense, since finding what OUGHT to be is impossible to say outside of a social context or specific wants. I still think they think morality comes from magic.


PS: Has anyone read Katian Virtue Ethics/Deontology? That guy is very confusing sometimes. The utilitarian primary source seemed much more fluid and easy to follow.

[Bugsby]

Has anyone read Katian Virtue Ethics/Deontology? That guy is very confusing sometimes. The utilitarian primary source seemed much more fluid and easy to follow.

Hell yes! My ethics course was all primary sources, no textbook, so I had to read Kant's Groundwork. It's confusing as hell, but once you get done with it you get to realize that it's all horribly wrong. He tries to use logic, but it's all sophistry, and sophistry so wrapped up in inane mumbling that it's hard to pick out where he goes wrong.

As I recall, his argument boils down to "because it is our human intellect that can conceive of good and evil, the only true good is humanity. Therefore, we can do nothing to act against another person, because to do so would be to show a lack of respect for their inherent humanity, which is wrong." That sounds really nice, but on a logical level it makes so little sense its laughable.