It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
@Nope Also, a good parent and/or teacher is just as good at punishing as they are at rewarding.
I am ~92% sure you got that from Sam Harris as he's a prominent pseudo-philosopher who is nothing more than an anti-Arab propaganda machine who supports whoever serves his sponsorss agenda(s) at the time.The issue with his premise is that he states that a universe of pain is undeniably better than a universe of pleasure.He has forgotten two things here:1) If you can't experience absence of pleasure (which in its extreme is 'pain') then you'll never have any suffering to compare your current sensation to be PLEASED by it hence no pleasure. In other words, we only feel 'good' when we are happy or 'good' when we orgasm because we know what it is to be without joy and orgasm.2) In reverse of point 1, there actually HAS TO BE PAIN and HAS TO BE SUFFERING if there is pleasure. Even if you are in the most communistic universe imaginable, maybe for them pain becomes not having a million dollars as $999,999 is very poor since there's only one-dollar variance in people's income brackets... No matter how tiny a difference there is, the lower end is always suffering and pain. It's actually why people born into harsh childhoods end up much more resilient and why spoilt brats are so easy to anger or make upset; it's not their fault, their threshold of what suffering even is is preset during their upbringing so by adulthood it can't be altered as their brain has formed its subconscious around their scale of experienced pleasure and lack of it.
I will be posting in your persuade me later today, but I would also like to extend morality to ideas and thoughts being immoral as well. While they may bring up harm along the way, it is not what they cause, we are questioning about the nature of the idea because of the harm it causes when judging an idea for morality. Again, I'll post later today, but this will kind of resemble my backbone.
The evolution of a moral code of conduct is a function of the “Golden
Rule” driven by a “universal morality,” through the interaction
of life’s “unalienable Rights,” which is an outgrowth of the physical constructal law.
Good question. I’ll try to answer your question in steps concerning
the evolution of a moral code of conduct. Before getting into the weeds, let’s
see if we agree on some foundational concepts and their traceability to thermodynamics.
In the pursuit of happiness (bio-positive feedback for life in
general), the audible dynamics of life’s unalienable
rights (life’s bio-primitives, traceable to the physical constructal
law a law in thermodynamics) begin at birth. When a distressed infant cries
(a non-verbal form of inter-specie communication), the symmetry of that sound is
recognizable to many species whether the cry comes from nest, den or cradle,
In contrast, any method used to soothe that cry results
in the perception of happiness (positive
feedback). The difference between happiness and distress are the tenets of right (positive feedback) and wrong (negative feedback): the primitives of a universal morality.
@Nope Inflicting harm on 49 or 50 persons without good reason would be unnecessary. I thought I was clear that I would prefer to avoid unnecessary harm.
@Nope If someone aims to inflict harm they demonstrate they have no regard for reducing harm/suffering (at that time) and deserve no such consideration from others.
SkepticalOne said:I hold morality to be based on a principle of minimizing harm/unnecessary suffering. Does anyone disagree with this definition? If so, how do you define morality and why is this applicable to humanity?
In this comment you admitted that being fair is some time morally excaptable even if it causes more suffering. Your first comment does not allow this.
@Mike Some of that might be applicable to the dawning of proto-morality in our evolutionary past, but it cannot explain certain aspects of our modern moral understanding: Moral actions aren't necessarily those which make us happy. So, I'm struggling to understand the relevance of your post to this thread.
“Moral actions aren’t necessarily those which make us happy.” Good
When two or more humans form a group, the group comes alive as a
separate civil social entity having its own unalienable
rights resulting from the aggregate of its members. The objective of a universal morality is the genesis as well
as the evolution of a subjective moral code of conduct, while following a code
of conduct becomes a moral event preserving the life and norms of the group.
The conservative evolution of these norms flows from one generation to the
next, establishing society’s culture. A moral order guides individuals in the prudent exercise of judgment relative
to those norms. An individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly,
to be virtuous, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing
the unalienable rights of others relative to those tested norms (the moral code
of conduct) in the attempt to keep the society alive and civil.
Since an individual
strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous implies, not all “moral actions
aren’t necessarily those which makes us happy,” because it is the struggle to
keep a civil society alive.
Mike said: The objective of a universal morality is the genesis as well as the evolution of a subjective moral code of conduct, while following a code of conduct becomes a moral event preserving the life and norms of the group.
objective of morality is the preservation of life.” Bingo! That there my friend
is the objective of a universal morality found throughout all
species of life in group formation (genetic and/or social). For humans in group
formation, the life of a civil society is dependent on the evolution of a moral
code of conduct that is a function of a universal morality.
No “horse before the cart” here! And on that
note, I think we beat this “horse” of a subject to death; I must move on.
@Nope Ok, why is it necessary to inflict pain on the 50th person? If it is not necessary, then it's malicious. In this comment you admitted that being fair is some time morally excaptable even if it causes more suffering. Your first comment does not allow this.No, at worst, I might have shown I am not always morally correct in my actions. Besides, defending myself against two attackers does not mean I introduce more harm into the world. Death is the most possible harm that can be inflicted, and in your scenario I am at a much greater risk of it than my two attackers especially if I make myself more vulnerable.