Formulating your own scientific morality?

Number of posts: 14 Registration date: 2007-11-25

Here are a few choice scientific findings to consider when formulating your own scientific code of morality.

When reading these, try bearing in mind the purpose of individual human life and how these findings might enhance its broader social utility. These ideas aren't as dangerous as we've been taught to believe. The true danger lies in what society has taught us to believe about human nature and the conclusions these beliefs have led us to, Stefan included.

http://www.slate.com/id/2162998/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

http://www.citeulike.org/user/oamg/article/1182078

http://parrcenter.unc.edu/ask/EIN15.html

Number of posts: 43 Registration date: 2007-11-25

Hormesis wrote:

Here are a few choice scientific findings to consider when formulating your own scientific code of morality.

When reading these, try bearing in mind the purpose of individual human life and how these findings might enhance its broader social utility. These ideas aren't as dangerous as we've been taught to believe. The true danger lies in what society has taught us to believe about human nature and the conclusions these beliefs have led us to, Stefan included.

Hormesis,
Being someone who operates almost exclusively in the land of emotions, as you know, I'm confused as to the conclusion you are inferring from a synthesis of these articles. I skimmed through them all quickly, but will need to read more in depth later. The first one horrified me with the implication that we can surgically alter humans to become more utilitarian, and that this would be a good thing.

I revel in my senses, and have no desire to lose touch with how my empathy with others influences the moral decisions I make. More than likely, I'll need to examine my thought processes more closely, and then ask you a lot of questions in order to understand your point of view. However, from a sensory standpoint, I can experience the 'utilitarianism' described in that first article by 'feeling' what is described, and it chills me to my core. I don't want to live in that world.

Why do you use the term "scientific code of morality," rather than the simpler "moral code?" What do you think "the purpose of individual human life" is, and is it the same for every single person? Exactly what "ideas" are you referring to with regard to "what we've been taught to believe?"

This discussion is a difficult one for me, and I'm both eager and apprehensive to delve into it; more than likely this means that there is something for me to discover within myself with regards to this topic of utility and more importantly, my deepening relationship with you.

Whew, now off to indulge myself in the realm of the senses (softly falling rain, cloudy skies, waves greedily reaching up the beach to snatch at my bare feet running on the sand) in order to shake off this feeling of dread!!

Number of posts: 14 Registration date: 2007-11-25

Libertine wrote:

Hormesis,
Being someone who operates almost exclusively in the land of emotions, as you know, I'm confused as to the conclusion you are inferring from a synthesis of these articles. I skimmed through them all quickly, but will need to read more in depth later. The first one horrified me with the implication that we can surgically alter humans to become more utilitarian, and that this would be a good thing.

Why would it be a bad thing for humans to become more utilitarian? What bothered you more, the utilitarianism or the potential loss of empathy and emotion?

Libertine wrote:

I revel in my senses, and have no desire to lose touch with how my empathy with others influences the moral decisions I make.

Do you think becoming more utilitarian means losing sensation and empathy?

Libertine wrote:

More than likely, I'll need to examine my thought processes more closely, and then ask you a lot of questions in order to understand your point of view. However, from a sensory standpoint, I can experience the 'utilitarianism' described in that first article by 'feeling' what is described, and it chills me to my core. I don't want to live in that world.

Why do you think you get that chill only when considering the negative consequences of your proactive physical action and not, when you contemplate the far greater negative consequences of your inaction? Could this just be enother emotional/conceptual block imprinted on us by evolution and designed to override our rational mind in all but the most deliberative situations?

Libertine wrote:

Why do you use the term "scientific code of morality," rather than the simpler "moral code?" What do you think "the purpose of individual human life" is, and is it the same for every single person? Exactly what "ideas" are you referring to with regard to "what we've been taught to believe?":

A scientific code of morality should be based on human behavior and preferences. It should conform to ALL observations, regardless of circumstances, just as any other valid scientific theory should. If it does not, it should be reformulated so that it is does conform. It should not be constrained by arbitrary rules like "if everyone can't act the same way or according to the same preference at the same time, then the preference or act is logically invalid." It would be great for soceity if it could generally conform to a rule like that, but it is not a requirement.

The purpose of individual human life is to act in accordance with your preferences, or in other words, do what you want. For a rational individual capable of operating in a more intellectual manner (versus acting primarily off of instinct and emotion like lower lifeforms) this will generally result in the individual attempting to achieve a more preferred state by acting in a manner that not only maximizes his present *happiness* (since he is doing what he presently wants to do) but also according to his analysis offers the greatest probabily of maximizing his total projected lifetime *happiness* (or whatever his preferred state value is, be it joyful full being fulfillment or masichistic misery). Intrinsic biological/evolutionary programing and cultural condition will invariable cause the individual to err in that analysis, usually towards short term pleasures and social altruism, from a strictly objective rational sense (i.e. plug the odds and parameters into a computer). But in another sense, that conditioning and programing are part of the parameters the individual is working with, so it is not appropriate to say that his calculation is in error since it basically just is what it is in a very deterministic sense.

Libertine wrote:

This discussion is a difficult one for me, and I'm both eager and apprehensive to delve into it; more than likely this means that there is something for me to discover within myself with regards to this topic of utility and more importantly, my deepening relationship with you.

Whew, now off to indulge myself in the realm of the senses (softly falling rain, cloudy skies, waves greedily reaching up the beach to snatch at my bare feet running on the sand) in order to shake off this feeling of dread!!

All wonderful selfish sensual delights that I too wish to accurately incorporate into my scientific code of morality (i.e. choice making methodology). I also might know of other ways that to get that dread shaken right out of you. Wink

Subject: Re: Formulating your own scientific morality? Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:18 pm

the last article is also a good summary of the first three:

Quote:

As was reported in two recent New York Times articles, morality and ethics are currently studied not only by moral philosophers and theologians, but also by neuroscientists, biologists, and psychologists. Recent scientific results raise the question of the extent to which human morality is a product of evolution and thus a kind of biological phenomenon.

If this is how we should think of morality, then the best view of ethics may be very different from the kind of rationalistic view held by such influential philosophers as Immanuel Kant, according to whom the basic principles of morality are deliverances of pure reason. That, at least, is what some scientists and philosophers have recently argued. But, as with so much else, the truth may lie somewhere between the two extremes, and the best view may be neither purely biological and naturalistic nor purely reason-based and rationalistic.

Consider first some of the relevant scientific findings. One study involved patients with a damaged ventromedial prefrontal cortex, a region of the brain that gives rise to social emotions. This area evolved before the higher brain regions that are responsible for rational activities like analysis and planning. These patients, due to their brain damage, did not have social gut reactions, reactions that were found in those with undamaged brains. Their lack of these reactions seems to have affected their ability and propensity to make the kinds of judgments about hypothetical moral situations that most people make.

Thus, whereas most people say that they would not even think of suffocating an infant or pushing somebody in front of a runaway train in order to save a greater number of people, many patients with damage to the prefrontal cortex said that they would willingly do this. In this way, these patients do not respect some of the almost universally accepted constraints on what it is morally permissible to do to an individual. They can, however, still engage in the kinds of cost-benefit analyses that lead them to judge that they should suffocate a baby or push somebody to his or her death to save some group of people. Most people consider such actions to be deeply immoral even though a greater number is saved.

Another kind of scientific finding that has been judged to be highly relevant to the question of the origin of morality concerns behavior exhibited among non-human primates, for example chimps. Chimps and other monkeys have been observed risking their own lives to save one of their own kind, starving themselves to avoid having to harm others, punishing those who transgress what seem to be primate norms, and attempting to get fighting males to reconcile their differences. These kinds of behaviors, when performed by humans, are usually considered to be paradigm examples of moral actions.

Some experiments also suggest to some scientists that monkeys can have something akin to a sense of fairness and decency. Thus when one monkey received a less desirable reward, a piece of cucumber, while another monkey was rewarded with a grape for performing the same task, the former clearly showed how it was not pleased with the situation. Before the former knew about the rewards the latter was getting, it did not seem to mind the cucumber as a reward for performed tasks.

Based on these different kinds of scientific results, the primatologist Frans de Waal concluded in his 1996 book Good Natured that “Morality is as firmly grounded in neurobiology as anything else we do or are.” On Dr. de Waal’s view, natural selection favors organisms that can engage in complex kinds of social interaction and this, he writes in his Primates and Philosophers, is the main reason that we have what seems to be “a compass for life’s choices that takes the interest of the entire community into account, which is the essence of human morality.”

In other words, Dr. de Waal contends that the kinds of behavior that many of us consider especially human, namely moral behavior, can be found in other animals, that this behavior has a plausible evolutionary explanation, and that it seems to be based partly or wholly on emotional reactions located in the prefrontal cortex of the brain.

The compass for life’s choices to which Dr. de Waal refers may be what some philosophers call our moral faculty or our ability to make intuitive judgments about what is right and wrong in different situations. As he suggests, it is very tempting to think that many of these moral intuitions are the result of natural selection. If that is how we should think of these intuitive judgments about what we ought to do in different situations, then should we conclude that morality is wholly based on emotional responses and that it has nothing to do with reasoning and rationality?
This conclusion may be too quick. This is because even if we grant that moral intuitions are the result of natural selection, we must not forget or ignore the intricate ways that we can relate and react to these intuitive moral judgments. For example, using John Rawls’ reflective equilibrium method, we can systematize these responses and see whether they can constitute the basis for a coherent system of moral judgments from which further conclusions about novel cases can be drawn and justified. This is one activity that goes beyond having gut reactions.

Moreover, the mere existence of such elaborate moral systems as that of Immanuel Kant shows that while one way of thinking about moral questions consists in making intuitive judgments about different actual and hypothetical situations, we can also use more abstract kinds of reasoning when thinking about moral questions. The same conclusion is supported by the fact that, while patients with prefrontal cortex damage do not make some of the judgments that others make, they can still engage in the kind of utilitarian cost-benefit analysis that most moral philosophers take to be one of the most important types of ethical reasoning. In other words, even if some parts of human morality may be based on evolutionarily grounded gut reactions, ethics also involves different kinds of abstract and reason-based thinking.

April 12, 2007

Subject: Re: Formulating your own scientific morality? Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:32 pm

Hormesis wrote:

Libertine wrote:

Hormesis,
Being someone who operates almost exclusively in the land of emotions, as you know, I'm confused as to the conclusion you are inferring from a synthesis of these articles. I skimmed through them all quickly, but will need to read more in depth later. The first one horrified me with the implication that we can surgically alter humans to become more utilitarian, and that this would be a good thing.

Why would it be a bad thing for humans to become more utilitarian? What bothered you more, the utilitarianism or the potential loss of empathy and emotion?

naturally i can't speak for Libertine, but the thing that bogs me about utilitarianism is that in order to be moral you cannot have those things that make people people: you can't have friendships, partnerships, lovers where you trust the other to be there for you, because the moment the other thinks that a rational calculation tells him it's better to push you off the cliff you're doomed. and the other wouldnt' feel guilty or nothing. and i wouldn't want to treat people that way.
of course the thing that makes it so difficult is that more people would live in certain types of situations.
moreover, e.g. politicians when they decide where to spend money constantly make utilitarian decisions

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

I revel in my senses, and have no desire to lose touch with how my empathy with others influences the moral decisions I make.

Do you think becoming more utilitarian means losing sensation and empathy?

i think it would risk losing empathy at least for the above-mentioned reason

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

More than likely, I'll need to examine my thought processes more closely, and then ask you a lot of questions in order to understand your point of view. However, from a sensory standpoint, I can experience the 'utilitarianism' described in that first article by 'feeling' what is described, and it chills me to my core. I don't want to live in that world.

Why do you think you get that chill only when considering the negative consequences of your proactive physical action and not, when you contemplate the far greater negative consequences of your inaction? Could this just be enother emotional/conceptual block imprinted on us by evolution and designed to override our rational mind in all but the most deliberative situations?

excellent point, yeah the chill will likely have at least partly biological origins. i dont know if there have been children who have grown up in an environment where utilitarianism ruled, and how these children turned out.

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

Why do you use the term "scientific code of morality," rather than the simpler "moral code?" What do you think "the purpose of individual human life" is, and is it the same for every single person? Exactly what "ideas" are you referring to with regard to "what we've been taught to believe?":

A scientific code of morality should be based on human behavior and preferences. It should conform to ALL observations, regardless of circumstances, just as any other valid scientific theory should.

but a moral theory is prescriptive and not descriptive. so people may make moral errors whereas nature can't make physical errors. Does that not have implications for the idea of universality in theories in ethics vs. those in physics, chemistry and biology?

Quote:

If it does not, it should be reformulated so that it is does conform. It should not be constrained by arbitrary rules like "if everyone can't act the same way or according to the same preference at the same time, then the preference or act is logically invalid." It would be great for soceity if it could generally conform to a rule like that, but it is not a requirement.

i think this at least partly comes back to my previous point about differences between prescriptive and descriptive rules. if they are to be prescriptive then what you call arbitray rules may no longer be seen as arbitrary but as essential

Quote:

The purpose of individual human life is to act in accordance with your preferences, or in other words, do what you want. For a rational individual capable of operating in a more intellectual manner (versus acting primarily off of instinct and emotion like lower lifeforms) this will generally result in the individual attempting to achieve a more preferred state by acting in a manner that not only maximizes his present *happiness* (since he is doing what he presently wants to do) but also according to his analysis offers the greatest probabily of maximizing his total projected lifetime *happiness* (or whatever his preferred state value is, be it joyful full being fulfillment or masichistic misery).

I think I understand your point. However, you can wonder what is left of the concept of happiness when such things as emotional instincts and empathy etc. are seen as obstacles at best. I mean, what is there to be happy about still when these are not primary? it would seem to lead to colder people...

Quote:

Intrinsic biological/evolutionary programing and cultural condition will invariable cause the individual to err in that analysis, usually towards short term pleasures and social altruism, from a strictly objective rational sense (i.e. plug the odds and parameters into a computer).

but that computation needs certain values as inputs and who is to assign them? especially since the idea of 'demonstrated preference' goes down with the bath water if people are not free to choose

Quote:

But in another sense, that conditioning and programing are part of the parameters the individual is working with, so it is not appropriate to say that his calculation is in error since it basically just is what it is in a very deterministic sense.

but if you accept that, what do you mean with your point directly above then?

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

This discussion is a difficult one for me, and I'm both eager and apprehensive to delve into it; more than likely this means that there is something for me to discover within myself with regards to this topic of utility and more importantly, my deepening relationship with you.

Whew, now off to indulge myself in the realm of the senses (softly falling rain, cloudy skies, waves greedily reaching up the beach to snatch at my bare feet running on the sand) in order to shake off this feeling of dread!!

All wonderful selfish sensual delights that I too wish to accurately incorporate into my scientific code of morality (i.e. choice making methodology). I also might know of other ways that to get that dread shaken right out of you. Wink

ha! I'll stay out of this one ;-)

Number of posts: 43 Registration date: 2007-11-25

Hormesis wrote:

Libertine wrote:

More than likely, I'll need to examine my thought processes more closely, and then ask you a lot of questions in order to understand your point of view. However, from a sensory standpoint, I can experience the 'utilitarianism' described in that first article by 'feeling' what is described, and it chills me to my core. I don't want to live in that world.

Why do you think you get that chill only when considering the negative consequences of your proactive physical action and not, when you contemplate the far greater negative consequences of your inaction? Could this just be enother emotional/conceptual block imprinted on us by evolution and designed to override our rational mind in all but the most deliberative situations?

There's much in your response to address, as well as incorporating Conrad's insights which assisted me a great deal in my understanding. I want to answer everything but right now I can't let this one go past without asking for clarification. If I understand this correctly, you're saying that if I don't act to smother the baby, then it's my fault that all of us get killed by the killers running amok? Talk about getting a bigger chill! The implication of this statement almost does me in. I think this is the premise upon which the movie "Sophie's Choice" was based. I do not accept responsibility for someone else's inhumanity and error, and being forced into a false choice is no choice at all. Did I understand this correctly, or can someone point out where I missed it?

Number of posts: 14 Registration date: 2007-11-25

Conrad wrote:

Hormesis wrote:

Libertine wrote:

Hormesis,
Being someone who operates almost exclusively in the land of emotions, as you know, I'm confused as to the conclusion you are inferring from a synthesis of these articles. I skimmed through them all quickly, but will need to read more in depth later. The first one horrified me with the implication that we can surgically alter humans to become more utilitarian, and that this would be a good thing.

Why would it be a bad thing for humans to become more utilitarian? What bothered you more, the utilitarianism or the potential loss of empathy and emotion?

naturally i can't speak for Libertine, but the thing that bogs me about utilitarianism is that in order to be moral you cannot have those things that make people people: you can't have friendships, partnerships, lovers where you trust the other to be there for you, because the moment the other thinks that a rational calculation tells him it's better to push you off the cliff you're doomed. and the other wouldnt' feel guilty or nothing. and i wouldn't want to treat people that way.
of course the thing that makes it so difficult is that more people would live in certain types of situations.
moreover, e.g. politicians when they decide where to spend money constantly make utilitarian decisions

It's common for people to look at utilitarianism in the way you describe, but it's actually a distortion. People already act according to utilitarian principles… the only variance is in how much their intrinsic emotional pain overrides their other desires. A utilitarian can recognize these varying forces within himself and learn how to use them to his best advantage so that he can have intense empathetic and emotional friendships and partnerships where trust is highly valued and yet at the same time avoid making horrendously irrational decisions based on split second emotional reactions and/or blinding one to one's own rational decision making process and purposes. A utilitarian relationship can also often be superior to a give-110%-all-the-time relationship because it recognizes the nature of happiness and human action and allows both parties to cooperate more rationally towards their cumulative greatest happiness. By establishing such a partnership, both parties when out even though it appears that altruism is involved in each individual choice. For example, if it's easier for you to accomplish some task than it is for your partner, you'll spontaneously offer to do it… provided that there is a realization that your partner is also similarly looking for opportunities where they might be able to provide more happiness to you at a lower cost.

As for politicians, yes… they do often make utilitarian decisions in making small choices given the information available to them. This allows them to retain their jobs and helps prevent the government from collapsing sooner (i.e. the ends they desire). You make similar choices everyday to achieve your desired ends. However, if the politicians applied utilitarian principles more rationally in their life, I'm sure they would more often than not find through an investment in personal intellectual and emotional exploration that there are better ways to spend their time and energy, not just for their own longterm happiness, but for the vast majority of other individuals as well. And if your comment was meant to imply that government is a valid utilitarian conclusion… I'ld have to object… with the remotely possible exception of a concerted private reward based drive to vastly extend human lifespan.

And what about having empathy for those that may not be of more immediate value in your life but whose lives you may be dramatically negatively impacting with your decision. It's always struck me as rather strange how people view utilitarianism as being the unempathetic philosophical model. The reverse has always struck me as true. The empathy they seem to speak of has more to do with dealing with one's own feelings of guilt, sadness, and discomfort than it has to do with caring about others feelings and happiness. Utilitarian thought in my opinion can help one learn to gain even greater empathy for others as well as one's self.

Conrad wrote:

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

I revel in my senses, and have no desire to lose touch with how my empathy with others influences the moral decisions I make.

Do you think becoming more utilitarian means losing sensation and empathy?

i think it would risk losing empathy at least for the above-mentioned reason

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

More than likely, I'll need to examine my thought processes more closely, and then ask you a lot of questions in order to understand your point of view. However, from a sensory standpoint, I can experience the 'utilitarianism' described in that first article by 'feeling' what is described, and it chills me to my core. I don't want to live in that world.

Why do you think you get that chill only when considering the negative consequences of your proactive physical action and not, when you contemplate the far greater negative consequences of your inaction? Could this just be enother emotional/conceptual block imprinted on us by evolution and designed to override our rational mind in all but the most deliberative situations?

excellent point, yeah the chill will likely have at least partly biological origins. i dont know if there have been children who have grown up in an environment where utilitarianism ruled, and how these children turned out.

There's a difference between unenlightened and unaware utilitarians and enlightened self-aware utilitarians. Most parents in my opinion fall into the former category and merely preach other moral codes fundamentally for the sake of utility, usually for their own utility/comfort although they may have consciously believed they had other more altruistic reasons. My parents did. Do you think your parents weren't fundamentally utilitarian in their choice making methodologies? Bear in mind that this doesn't mean that such utilitarians aren't allowed to act blindly and instinctually on the basis of internal emotional pressures.

Conrad wrote:

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

Why do you use the term "scientific code of morality," rather than the simpler "moral code?" What do you think "the purpose of individual human life" is, and is it the same for every single person? Exactly what "ideas" are you referring to with regard to "what we've been taught to believe?":

A scientific code of morality should be based on human behavior and preferences. It should conform to ALL observations, regardless of circumstances, just as any other valid scientific theory should.

but a moral theory is prescriptive and not descriptive. so people may make moral errors whereas nature can't make physical errors. Does that not have implications for the idea of universality in theories in ethics vs. those in physics, chemistry and biology?

I don't think a valid moral theory (i.e. a choice methodolgy) should ever be prescriptive, merely conditional on one's nature and the resulting preferences it generates (as Stefan would seem to agree). The implication is that an accurate description of human behavior and choice (i.e. moral theory) should be every bit as universal as any other theory.

Conrad wrote:

Quote:

If it does not, it should be reformulated so that it is does conform. It should not be constrained by arbitrary rules like "if everyone can't act the same way or according to the same preference at the same time, then the preference or act is logically invalid." It would be great for soceity if it could generally conform to a rule like that, but it is not a requirement.

i think this at least partly comes back to my previous point about differences between prescriptive and descriptive rules. if they are to be prescriptive then what you call arbitray rules may no longer be seen as arbitrary but as essential

Quote:

The purpose of individual human life is to act in accordance with your preferences, or in other words, do what you want. For a rational individual capable of operating in a more intellectual manner (versus acting primarily off of instinct and emotion like lower lifeforms) this will generally result in the individual attempting to achieve a more preferred state by acting in a manner that not only maximizes his present *happiness* (since he is doing what he presently wants to do) but also according to his analysis offers the greatest probabily of maximizing his total projected lifetime *happiness* (or whatever his preferred state value is, be it joyful full being fulfillment or masichistic misery).

I think I understand your point. However, you can wonder what is left of the concept of happiness when such things as emotional instincts and empathy etc. are seen as obstacles at best. I mean, what is there to be happy about still when these are not primary? it would seem to lead to colder people...

They are not obstacles most of the time. Most of the time they do lead to more efficient decision-making and happiness maximizing choices… with the added benefit of adding tension and passion in one's mental life.

Conrad wrote:

Quote:

Intrinsic biological/evolutionary programing and cultural condition will invariable cause the individual to err in that analysis, usually towards short term pleasures and social altruism, from a strictly objective rational sense (i.e. plug the odds and parameters into a computer).

but that computation needs certain values as inputs and who is to assign them? especially since the idea of 'demonstrated preference' goes down with the bath water if people are not free to choose

Quote:

But in another sense, that conditioning and programing are part of the parameters the individual is working with, so it is not appropriate to say that his calculation is in error since it basically just is what it is in a very deterministic sense.

but if you accept that, what do you mean with your point directly above then?

I was trying to show two sides of the same coin and made a confusing mess of it in the process. An individual's choices may look like an error to a computer or an outside observer assuming a desired end and the ability to think rationally, but they ARE correct for the individual making them from his reference frame since those assumptions don't always apply and since only individuals can make such calculations for themselves. Luckily, the individual is usually in possession of much more internal and external information than even an insightful outside observer could possess, so the individual's happiness calculations and resulting choices will usually end up yielding more happiness for him than if the insightful outside observer were somehow able to forcibly choose for him (i.e. the government, church, parents…etc).

Number of posts: 14 Registration date: 2007-11-25

Libertine wrote:

Hormesis wrote:

Libertine wrote:

More than likely, I'll need to examine my thought processes more closely, and then ask you a lot of questions in order to understand your point of view. However, from a sensory standpoint, I can experience the 'utilitarianism' described in that first article by 'feeling' what is described, and it chills me to my core. I don't want to live in that world.

Why do you think you get that chill only when considering the negative consequences of your proactive physical action and not, when you contemplate the far greater negative consequences of your inaction? Could this just be enother emotional/conceptual block imprinted on us by evolution and designed to override our rational mind in all but the most deliberative situations?

There's much in your response to address, as well as incorporating Conrad's insights which assisted me a great deal in my understanding. I want to answer everything but right now I can't let this one go past without asking for clarification. If I understand this correctly, you're saying that if I don't act to smother the baby, then it's my fault that all of us get killed by the killers running amok? Talk about getting a bigger chill! The implication of this statement almost does me in. I think this is the premise upon which the movie "Sophie's Choice" was based. I do not accept responsibility for someone else's inhumanity and error, and being forced into a false choice is no choice at all. Did I understand this correctly, or can someone point out where I missed it?

I never mentioned anything about "fault" or "responsibility," both are moral words that only you can give meaning to. ...But there is a reason why that is the one thing that suddenly pops up in your mind and provokes that bigger chill.

Number of posts: 43 Registration date: 2007-11-25

Hormesis wrote:

Libertine wrote:

Hormesis wrote:

Why do you think you get that chill only when considering the negative consequences of your proactive physical action and not, when you contemplate the far greater negative consequences of your inaction?

I do not accept responsibility for someone else's inhumanity and error, and being forced into a false choice is no choice at all. Did I understand this correctly, or can someone point out where I missed it?

I never mentioned anything about "fault" or "responsibility," both are moral words that only you can give meaning to. ...But there is a reason why that is the one thing that suddenly pops up in your mind and provokes that bigger chill.

What is it?

Number of posts: 215 Registration date: 2007-08-18

You can not make morallity scientific!

Subject: Re: Formulating your own scientific morality? Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:49 am

prove it!

(will respond to Hormesis in a bit)

Number of posts: 1399 Location: CA Registration date: 2007-09-07

Thanks for the links to those articles, Hormesis. I found them very interesting. And this thread is also very interesting. I look forward to Libertine's and Conrad's more detailed responses (I hope they're coming!). I'm still trying to figure out my own position.

Subject: Re: Formulating your own scientific morality? Sat Dec 01, 2007 12:24 pm

Hormesis wrote:

Conrad wrote:

Hormesis wrote:

Libertine wrote:

Hormesis,
Being someone who operates almost exclusively in the land of emotions, as you know, I'm confused as to the conclusion you are inferring from a synthesis of these articles. I skimmed through them all quickly, but will need to read more in depth later. The first one horrified me with the implication that we can surgically alter humans to become more utilitarian, and that this would be a good thing.

Why would it be a bad thing for humans to become more utilitarian? What bothered you more, the utilitarianism or the potential loss of empathy and emotion?

naturally i can't speak for Libertine, but the thing that bugs me about utilitarianism is that in order to be moral you cannot have those things that make people people: you can't have friendships, partnerships, lovers where you trust the other to be there for you, because the moment the other thinks that a rational calculation tells him it's better to push you off the cliff you're doomed. and the other wouldnt' feel guilty or nothing. and i wouldn't want to treat people that way.
of course the thing that makes it so difficult is that more people would live in certain types of situations.
moreover, e.g. politicians when they decide where to spend money constantly make utilitarian decisions

It's common for people to look at utilitarianism in the way you describe, but it's actually a distortion. People already act according to utilitarian principles… the only variance is in how much their intrinsic emotional pain overrides their other desires. A utilitarian can recognize these varying forces within himself and learn how to use them to his best advantage so that he can have intense empathetic and emotional friendships and partnerships where trust is highly valued and yet at the same time avoid making horrendously irrational decisions based on split second emotional reactions and/or blinding one to one's own rational decision making process and purposes. A utilitarian relationship can also often be superior to a give-110%-all-the-time relationship because it recognizes the nature of happiness and human action and allows both parties to cooperate more rationally towards their cumulative greatest happiness. By establishing such a partnership, both parties when out even though it appears that altruism is involved in each individual choice. For example, if it's easier for you to accomplish some task than it is for your partner, you'll spontaneously offer to do it… provided that there is a realization that your partner is also similarly looking for opportunities where they might be able to provide more happiness to you at a lower cost.

okay, I understand and agree with this, but either I am misunderstanding you or you are using the word 'utilitarianism' in a different way than is common in moral philosophy. You seem to say that people can try to live their lives so that they become freed of irrationality and emotional obstacles to true desires and then arrange their lives so as to optimize happiness, right? whereas the standard definition (and the articles) talks about e.g. sacrificing one person to save 10. Is there a distinction between your meaning of the word and the standard meaning? then I know what I have to think about

Quote:

As for politicians, yes… they do often make utilitarian decisions in making small choices given the information available to them. This allows them to retain their jobs and helps prevent the government from collapsing sooner (i.e. the ends they desire). You make similar choices everyday to achieve your desired ends. However, if the politicians applied utilitarian principles more rationally in their life, I'm sure they would more often than not find through an investment in personal intellectual and emotional exploration that there are better ways to spend their time and energy, not just for their own longterm happiness, but for the vast majority of other individuals as well.

that's a crucial point, the balance between personal happiness and other people's happiness

also because preference is subjective and interpersonal comparisons of happiness are impossible, which is a fatal blow to utilitarianism as commonly understood

Quote:

And if your comment was meant to imply that government is a valid utilitarian conclusion… I'ld have to object…

no, fortunately that wasn't my point. I mentioned it to show that utilitarian decision are made all the time, no matter how gross we may find it to explicitly think about it ('how much is a human life worth?' when thinking about health care budgets for example)

Quote:

with the remotely possible exception of a concerted private reward based drive to vastly extend human lifespan.

can you say more about this?

Quote:

And what about having empathy for those that may not be of more immediate value in your life but whose lives you may be dramatically negatively impacting with your decision. It's always struck me as rather strange how people view utilitarianism as being the unempathetic philosophical model. The reverse has always struck me as true. The empathy they seem to speak of has more to do with dealing with one's own feelings of guilt, sadness, and discomfort than it has to do with caring about others feelings and happiness. Utilitarian thought in my opinion can help one learn to gain even greater empathy for others as well as one's self.

yeah I see what you mean. In a way anti-utilitarianism (as commonly understood) is like a psychological defense: we don't want to think about those things (and therefore call it immoral to do so), at the expense of other people's lives
still, if you killed yourself right now you could likely save half a dozen people through your organs. how would you argue against this?

Quote:

Conrad wrote:

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

I revel in my senses, and have no desire to lose touch with how my empathy with others influences the moral decisions I make.

Do you think becoming more utilitarian means losing sensation and empathy?

i think it would risk losing empathy at least for the above-mentioned reason

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

More than likely, I'll need to examine my thought processes more closely, and then ask you a lot of questions in order to understand your point of view. However, from a sensory standpoint, I can experience the 'utilitarianism' described in that first article by 'feeling' what is described, and it chills me to my core. I don't want to live in that world.

Why do you think you get that chill only when considering the negative consequences of your proactive physical action and not, when you contemplate the far greater negative consequences of your inaction? Could this just be enother emotional/conceptual block imprinted on us by evolution and designed to override our rational mind in all but the most deliberative situations?

excellent point, yeah the chill will likely have at least partly biological origins. i dont know if there have been children who have grown up in an environment where utilitarianism ruled, and how these children turned out.

There's a difference between unenlightened and unaware utilitarians and enlightened self-aware utilitarians. Most parents in my opinion fall into the former category and merely preach other moral codes fundamentally for the sake of utility, usually for their own utility/comfort although they may have consciously believed they had other more altruistic reasons. My parents did. Do you think your parents weren't fundamentally utilitarian in their choice making methodologies? Bear in mind that this doesn't mean that such utilitarians aren't allowed to act blindly and instinctually on the basis of internal emotional pressures.

can you say more about the difference between unenlightened and enlightened libertarians? what methodlogy do the latter use?

Quote:

Conrad wrote:

Quote:

Libertine wrote:

Why do you use the term "scientific code of morality," rather than the simpler "moral code?" What do you think "the purpose of individual human life" is, and is it the same for every single person? Exactly what "ideas" are you referring to with regard to "what we've been taught to believe?":

A scientific code of morality should be based on human behavior and preferences. It should conform to ALL observations, regardless of circumstances, just as any other valid scientific theory should.

but a moral theory is prescriptive and not descriptive. so people may make moral errors whereas nature can't make physical errors. Does that not have implications for the idea of universality in theories in ethics vs. those in physics, chemistry and biology?

I don't think a valid moral theory (i.e. a choice methodolgy) should ever be prescriptive, merely conditional on one's nature and the resulting preferences it generates (as Stefan would seem to agree). The implication is that an accurate description of human behavior and choice (i.e. moral theory) should be every bit as universal as any other theory.

Conrad wrote:

Quote:

If it does not, it should be reformulated so that it is does conform. It should not be constrained by arbitrary rules like "if everyone can't act the same way or according to the same preference at the same time, then the preference or act is logically invalid." It would be great for soceity if it could generally conform to a rule like that, but it is not a requirement.

i think this at least partly comes back to my previous point about differences between prescriptive and descriptive rules. if they are to be prescriptive then what you call arbitray rules may no longer be seen as arbitrary but as essential

Quote:

The purpose of individual human life is to act in accordance with your preferences, or in other words, do what you want. For a rational individual capable of operating in a more intellectual manner (versus acting primarily off of instinct and emotion like lower lifeforms) this will generally result in the individual attempting to achieve a more preferred state by acting in a manner that not only maximizes his present *happiness* (since he is doing what he presently wants to do) but also according to his analysis offers the greatest probabily of maximizing his total projected lifetime *happiness* (or whatever his preferred state value is, be it joyful full being fulfillment or masichistic misery).

I think I understand your point. However, you can wonder what is left of the concept of happiness when such things as emotional instincts and empathy etc. are seen as obstacles at best. I mean, what is there to be happy about still when these are not primary? it would seem to lead to colder people...

They are not obstacles most of the time. Most of the time they do lead to more efficient decision-making and happiness maximizing choices… with the added benefit of adding tension and passion in one's mental life.

how to determine from a utilitarian point of view which emotions are healthy and which aren't? what ultimate standard do you use?

Quote:

Intrinsic biological/evolutionary programing and cultural condition will invariable cause the individual to err in that analysis, usually towards short term pleasures and social altruism, from a strictly objective rational sense (i.e. plug the odds and parameters into a computer).

but that computation needs certain values as inputs and who is to assign them? especially since the idea of 'demonstrated preference' goes down with the bath water if people are not free to choose

Quote:

But in another sense, that conditioning and programing are part of the parameters the individual is working with, so it is not appropriate to say that his calculation is in error since it basically just is what it is in a very deterministic sense.

but if you accept that, what do you mean with your point directly above then?

I was trying to show two sides of the same coin and made a confusing mess of it in the process. An individual's choices may look like an error to a computer or an outside observer assuming a desired end and the ability to think rationally, but they ARE correct for the individual making them from his reference frame since those assumptions don't always apply and since only individuals can make such calculations for themselves. Luckily, the individual is usually in possession of much more internal and external information than even an insightful outside observer could possess, so the individual's happiness calculations and resulting choices will usually end up yielding more happiness for him than if the insightful outside observer were somehow able to forcibly choose for him (i.e. the government, church, parents…etc).

i think I dig: people's mental lives and desires are so complex and nuanced that it is kind of presumptuous for an outsider (or a computer-programmer) to asign a specific value and map the best road thereto?

Number of posts: 43 Registration date: 2007-11-25

mike barskey wrote:

Thanks for the links to those articles, Hormesis. I found them very interesting. And this thread is also very interesting. I look forward to Libertine's and Conrad's more detailed responses (I hope they're coming!). I'm still trying to figure out my own position.

HO!!! As you can imagine, this conversation sparked quite a wild weekend. Yes, I do intend to get back over here and respond, but it's going to take me a little while more. I've had some major insights and shifts in my perception and thinking as a result of what Hormesis wrote here and what we've been discussing in person.

» The objectivity of morality
» Microscopes and the Scientific Revolution (NFR)
» Scientific evidence on the most Powerful Forms of Reiki.
» Scientific Errors in the Bible
» Scientific explanation (ONE LAST TIME!)

Formulating your own scientific morality?

Formulating your own scientific morality?

Similar topics

Similar topics