Philosophy Now Forum

prof wrote:"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Who said that?

chaz wyman wrote:

prof wrote:"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Who said that?

Matthew Henry, in 1708 said it. Johnathan Swift said it. And I just said it.

prof wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

prof wrote:"None are so blind as those who will not see."

Who said that?

Matthew Henry, in 1708 said it. Johnathan Swift said it. And I just said it.

It was a joke.
Like
"HOW IS YOUR HEARING THESE DAYS?"
"Did someone say something?" replied the deaf man.

SecularCauses wrote:...People simply are not rational or logical when it comes to morality.

Hi, SecularCauses

I refer you to this link:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... _willpower

And this finding too has moral implications:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic ... in_rewards

Rationality, and wanting things to make sense, are vital features of human beings.

The puzzles section of the newspapers are often the most popular sections. Why did the Sudoku become so popular suddenly and in such demand? To solve it is to do pure logic. Some folks just can't get enough of it. Logic appeals to them. {Count me among them. I need to solve at least a couple of advanced-level Sudokus a day.}

Yes, I grant you that empathy is inherent in the normal human brain. And I admit that, as you say, "some moral questions appear to be poorly addressed by these [traditional academic] systems" [most often taught in university Ethics classes].

I would prefer you spell out what those questions are that you have in mind. Perhaps the new paradigm for Ethics does address these topics; and it may simply be that you are not that well-acquainted with the new perspectives.

For example, there are critics here who raise objections about matters already adequately covered in the essays; and this shows they don't know what they're talking about.

Also see:
http://ethical-literacy.org/supporting- ... ry-skills/

SecularCauses wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:45 pm T While a culture may broaden or shrink a specific moral intuition, it cannot eliminate it or create a new one. Different individuals can give greater weight to one moral intution than another person does, and that can create moral issues among people.

And what we further find is that when it comes to moral questions, logic is primarily used to justify our moral intuitions. Logic, rational arguments, basically do not convince anyone of anything when it comes to moral questions, we just sling them out there to try to justify what we already believe is right.

I think that mistakes HOW our built in "moral calculators" work. IF TRIGGERED (by the situation) then get one answer. And yes, then logic is put into a position of trying to justify it. But if not triggered (by the details of the situation) then we are forced to use logic to decide, might come to a different decision, but since our intuitive solution did not come into play, no discomfort.

The "trolley car" problem is classic, but I am going to discuss a different choice situation where REAL. Consider this game, devised by economists interested in how rational we are. Two players, One gets to propose the division of a prize between them. If the second person accepts, that's what they both get. If the second player rejects, both get nothing. Game theory indicates the rational choice is accept anything but this situation will trigger a built in "gross unfairness must be punished/discouraged" (even at some personal cost). BTW, the exact details of "how unfair" to trigger is culturally dependent (we had to learn as children HOW to apply that built in).

Now switch the situation so that the built in not triggered. An outfit approaches a school district offering 15% off the school electric bill in exchange for using the school roof for solar panels. Because the decision has to be made by discussion and rationality, will likely be accepted even though grossly unfair (should be much more than 15%). But as the economists note, that is the rational decision.

MOST of the moral decisions we ponder are not triggering a built in intuition (if they did, we'd not stop to ponder). So we will need rational moral rules as well as our built ins. Remember, we are not now living as a band of 50 people getting by as hunter-gatherers. That is what our built ins evolved for. We will just have to accept that every now and then, for two situations that seem to us the same in what was relevant, we will get a rational answer that our intuition objects to << a difference that seemed irrelevant in moral terms was relevant to trigger/not trigger >>

SecularCauses wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:45 pm There have been numerous attempts to come up with a logical, rational system of morality. It's been going on for a damn long time, and every such effort has failed miserably. It doesn't matter if we are discussing Kantian ethics or Utilitarian principles or some other "rational" system of morality, none have been successful. There are always some moral questions that appear to be poorly addressed by these systems.

Now, along comes neuroscience, and it is discovered that babies even at six months of age like those who help others and dislike those who harm others. We also have discovered that there are a number of different built-in moral intuitions that our mind has. While a culture may broaden or shrink a specific moral intuition, it cannot eliminate it or create a new one. Different individuals can give greater weight to one moral intution than another person does, and that can create moral issues among people.

And what we further find is that when it comes to moral questions, logic is primarily used to justify our moral intuitions. Logic, rational arguments, basically do not convince anyone of anything when it comes to moral questions, we just sling them out there to try to justify what we already believe is right.

This means, those philosophers, atheist movements, politicians, etc., who rely upon reason or logic to solve moral questions are destined to fail. People simply are not rational or logical when it comes to morality. It doesn't matter if one is a socialist a libertarian a religious fundamentalist, no one will ever be able to win a moral debate, to any significant degree, through the use of logic. And since our morality is irrational, people are largely irrational. As a species, we are limited by our nature, and our ability to reason seldom governs us. In any event, we now know that all moral philosophical systems that rely upon reason are practically worthless.

Very true....maybe morality should less be an issue of "right and wrong" and more of "cause and effect" given morality is the directing of irrational value?

SecularCauses wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:45 pm And since our morality is irrational, people are largely irrational. As a species, we are limited by our nature, and our ability to reason seldom governs us. In any event, we now know that all moral philosophical systems that rely upon reason are practically worthless.

AS A SPECIES (millions of years ago to under 10,000) we lived in groups of about 50, all individuals knowing each other, and repeatedly interaction ith the same individuals. These groups all had "culture" evolving independent of biology. Cultures including rules of behavior fostering co-operation between members of the group had a competitive advantage.

We are not born "clean slate" but primed to learn our culture. Primed to learn a language. Primed to learn the "in this situation do that" rules of our culture (and some of these situations "an individual is interacting with me in a wrong way" -- so the corresponding ought choice an action intended to induce them back to compliance. I am suggesting we have an "intuitive morality" (learned as a child).

But IT (that intuitive morality only suited to those small groups in which we once lived. The problem is rules of behavior that work foir the size societies in which we live now.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 6:52 pm

SecularCauses wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:45 pm There have been numerous attempts to come up with a logical, rational system of morality. It's been going on for a damn long time, and every such effort has failed miserably. It doesn't matter if we are discussing Kantian ethics or Utilitarian principles or some other "rational" system of morality, none have been successful. There are always some moral questions that appear to be poorly addressed by these systems.

Now, along comes neuroscience, and it is discovered that babies even at six months of age like those who help others and dislike those who harm others. We also have discovered that there are a number of different built-in moral intuitions that our mind has. While a culture may broaden or shrink a specific moral intuition, it cannot eliminate it or create a new one. Different individuals can give greater weight to one moral intution than another person does, and that can create moral issues among people.

And what we further find is that when it comes to moral questions, logic is primarily used to justify our moral intuitions. Logic, rational arguments, basically do not convince anyone of anything when it comes to moral questions, we just sling them out there to try to justify what we already believe is right.

This means, those philosophers, atheist movements, politicians, etc., who rely upon reason or logic to solve moral questions are destined to fail. People simply are not rational or logical when it comes to morality. It doesn't matter if one is a socialist a libertarian a religious fundamentalist, no one will ever be able to win a moral debate, to any significant degree, through the use of logic. And since our morality is irrational, people are largely irrational. As a species, we are limited by our nature, and our ability to reason seldom governs us. In any event, we now know that all moral philosophical systems that rely upon reason are practically worthless.

Very true....maybe morality should less be an issue of "right and wrong" and more of "cause and effect" given morality is the directing of irrational value?

Directing? It's after the event. We make up morality tales to justify our hard wired moral impulses.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:38 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 6:52 pm

SecularCauses wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:45 pm There have been numerous attempts to come up with a logical, rational system of morality. It's been going on for a damn long time, and every such effort has failed miserably. It doesn't matter if we are discussing Kantian ethics or Utilitarian principles or some other "rational" system of morality, none have been successful. There are always some moral questions that appear to be poorly addressed by these systems.

Now, along comes neuroscience, and it is discovered that babies even at six months of age like those who help others and dislike those who harm others. We also have discovered that there are a number of different built-in moral intuitions that our mind has. While a culture may broaden or shrink a specific moral intuition, it cannot eliminate it or create a new one. Different individuals can give greater weight to one moral intution than another person does, and that can create moral issues among people.

And what we further find is that when it comes to moral questions, logic is primarily used to justify our moral intuitions. Logic, rational arguments, basically do not convince anyone of anything when it comes to moral questions, we just sling them out there to try to justify what we already believe is right.

This means, those philosophers, atheist movements, politicians, etc., who rely upon reason or logic to solve moral questions are destined to fail. People simply are not rational or logical when it comes to morality. It doesn't matter if one is a socialist a libertarian a religious fundamentalist, no one will ever be able to win a moral debate, to any significant degree, through the use of logic. And since our morality is irrational, people are largely irrational. As a species, we are limited by our nature, and our ability to reason seldom governs us. In any event, we now know that all moral philosophical systems that rely upon reason are practically worthless.

Very true....maybe morality should less be an issue of "right and wrong" and more of "cause and effect" given morality is the directing of irrational value?

Directing? It's after the event. We make up morality tales to justify our hard wired moral impulses.

If there is a moral impulse, than morality is quite natural.

SecularCauses wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:45 pm There have been numerous attempts to come up with a logical, rational system of morality. It's been going on for a damn long time, and every such effort has failed miserably. It doesn't matter if we are discussing Kantian ethics or Utilitarian principles or some other "rational" system of morality, none have been successful. There are always some moral questions that appear to be poorly addressed by these systems.

Now, along comes neuroscience, and it is discovered that babies even at six months of age like those who help others and dislike those who harm others. We also have discovered that there are a number of different built-in moral intuitions that our mind has. While a culture may broaden or shrink a specific moral intuition, it cannot eliminate it or create a new one. Different individuals can give greater weight to one moral intution than another person does, and that can create moral issues among people.

And what we further find is that when it comes to moral questions, logic is primarily used to justify our moral intuitions. Logic, rational arguments, basically do not convince anyone of anything when it comes to moral questions, we just sling them out there to try to justify what we already believe is right.

This means, those philosophers, atheist movements, politicians, etc., who rely upon reason or logic to solve moral questions are destined to fail. People simply are not rational or logical when it comes to morality. It doesn't matter if one is a socialist a libertarian a religious fundamentalist, no one will ever be able to win a moral debate, to any significant degree, through the use of logic. And since our morality is irrational, people are largely irrational. As a species, we are limited by our nature, and our ability to reason seldom governs us. In any event, we now know that all moral philosophical systems that rely upon reason are practically worthless.

"As a species, we are limited by our nature .."
That is the critical point.

It was not too long ago [relatively] humans were like all other animals.
Then we are evolved with proto-reason.
However, the human reasoning and rational faculty is evolving albeit slowly.
Despite our current progress of reasoning power, the critical mass is still stuck with proto-reason, the higher rational humans are merely a sliver better.
Thus limited by our current nature, the current rational moral systems has failed.

To enable the advancing of the well-being of the individuals and the flourishing of humanity, reason and rationality must dominate all human decisions eventually, i.e. including a rational moral-proper system
This is already happening to many fields of human practices, e.g. sciences, medicines, IT, AI, etc. and morality should not be an exception in the future.
Future successful moral systems will be 90% reason + rationality (empirical and scientific), 10% subjectivity and emotion.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:59 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:38 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 12, 2025 6:52 pm

Very true....maybe morality should less be an issue of "right and wrong" and more of "cause and effect" given morality is the directing of irrational value?

Directing? It's after the event. We make up morality tales to justify our hard wired moral impulses.

If there is a moral impulse, than morality is quite natural.

Absolutely, is instinctive as empathy.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 8:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:59 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 10:38 am
Directing? It's after the event. We make up morality tales to justify our hard wired moral impulses.

If there is a moral impulse, than morality is quite natural.

Absolutely, is instinctive as empathy.

Empathy is cognitive and has to be nurtured. It's sympathy that is instinctive

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 12:17 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 8:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:59 am

If there is a moral impulse, than morality is quite natural.

Absolutely, is instinctive as empathy.

Empathy is cognitive and has to be nurtured. It's sympathy that is instinctive

But it is the other way around, actually.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 12:17 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 8:02 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:59 am

If there is a moral impulse, than morality is quite natural.

Absolutely, is instinctive as empathy.

Empathy is cognitive and has to be nurtured. It's sympathy that is instinctive

And how do you differentiate that? Does one? Scientifically? Rats certainly learn empathy by suffering. Because the wiring is there.

[

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 18, 2025 4:59 am If there is a moral impulse, than morality is quite natural.

But it doesn't have to be "morality" itself that is inherent (some instinctive "moral impulse")

We have ALWAYS been social animals with culture (longer than we have been human). So what I believe the human baby starts out with is not any rules of your culture but a "learn the rules of your culture" << in any situation, learn what choices of action are "right" and which are "wrong">> By learned I mean be trained, as you were trained rules about elimination, covering your nakedness, etc. At the start, interactions with mommy, later, interactions with others. This training becomes mutual, your playmates training you as you train them.

We MAY have built in tools to aid in this learning/training. Say a quick "fairness estimator" and/or "tit for tat" (in other words, might not have to learn "there is no better strategy for repeated "prisoners dilemma" than tit for tat). The point is, that for millions of years, human survival, rather the survival of our human band, depends on co-operation and ability to predict the behavior of other members of the band in various situations. It is not just us. A pack of wolves chasing prey are not getting in each others way like Keystone Cops. A lion approaching a lone proto-human experienced a successful hunt. A lion approaching a band of proto-humans experienced all of a sudden the sky began raining rocks and sticks (and so learns, don't approach a band of protoi-humans).

I'd say THAT morality (covering interactions possible in a small group, all individuals known, repeated interactions with the same individuals) gives us an "intuitive morality", learned as opposed to innate. With it will be attached "side learnings". In other words, will have learned "cover your nakedness" + "in this way"(the culturally approved mode of dress).