Life's big questions - morality?

Off-topic
1

Through ycombinator’s Hacker News, I stumbled upon a very interesting online dialog: Life’s Big Questions from the John Templeton Foundation.

In short, the foundation has posed a number of big, open ended questions to some of the world’s greatest minds. The answers are all over the map, but each one is very thought provoking. Some questions have been covered here in the forums… and now you can hear the “big heads” chiming in.

I thought we could hash or re-hash two of the questions posed on the site:

“Does moral action depend on reasoning?”

and

“Does the free market corrode moral character?”

I’ll chime in with my take on these questions as the discussion develops. In the meantime, have yourselves a read, develop your thoughts, and convince us that you can remain a being of morality despite your need for self-preservation. That is, if you’ve any morals. :slight_smile:

2

I’ll respond firstly to the first question, “Does moral action depend on reasoning?”

This is of particular interest to me, as I am currently in the process of editing my final paper for my Contemporary Analytic Philosophy course, a paper titled “Quine, Neuroscience, and Ethics.” In it, I cite a study by one of the essay authors, Joshua Greene, titled “From neural ‘is’ to moral ‘ought’: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology.” I also happened to agree with his essay the most, and I don’t suppose it’s entirely a coincidence.

I read all the essays, which approached morality from different avenues. I identified most with Joshua Greene, but was a bit troubled by what John F. Kihlstrom said at the end of one of his paragraphs: “When there is no reason to make one choice over another, it is rational to let emotion be our guide. At least we can feel good about the choice we have made.” While I feel like I tentatively agree, I feel like there’s something wrong in this characterization, perhaps that it trivializes the role of emotions. I really liked Greene’s analogy of the camera settings.

Specifically, in response to the question, my answer is “no.” While moral action may depend, at least partly, on reason, reasoning is what [I]justifies[I] our moral actions to others, after the fact.

I’ll respond further to this question, as well as the other, but for now I have to get back to working on said paper…it’s due tomorrow :frowning: I saw this thread, went to the linked site and just got sucked in…:o

3

the wording is itself ambiguous: what does “depends” mean: reasoning being the source? or part of it?
(I often say that philosophy should be conducted in more precise languages such as German :D)

4

Hmmm… Haven’t read it yet, I might chime in later. A bit tired of ethics right now as I just finished about 15 chapters of it along with my own moral code. Got a 99 in the class. If only I had finished the last few chapters…:stuck_out_tongue:
It be kinda cool to see everyones own ethical theories as well if you guys would want to do that. My last essay I wrote was pretty much about that.

Looking forward to seeing your post. I’m not as intelligent as many of you, but I think I may be able to hold my own.:smiley:

5

“Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete”

That’s my favorite question of the bunch. My reading over the past six months or so shows that.

The current book I’m reading is ‘The Edge of Science - Crossing the boundary from Physics to Metaphysics’

One of the last books I read was ‘Universe on a T-shirt - The quest for the theory of everything’ (love that title)

A while back was ‘The Fifth Miracle - The search for the origin and meaning of life’

I read two of Richard Dawkins books: ‘The God Delusion’ and ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’. (I’m not a big Richard Dawkins fan). But from him I learned that I’m what’s known as an ‘Acomadationist’. Some good thoughts on that subject here: http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/06/26/the-great-accommodationism-debate/

I also have read ‘Don’t know much about the Bible’ - funny title but good book (no pun intended) and Don’t Know Much About Mythology (that got boring fast), and Don’t Know Much About the Universe (very good).

I also have the complete collection of Calvin and Hobbs cartoon books for whatever that is worth. I would be remiss if I did not mention Lao Tzu and the silly rascals who documented the Abrahamic religions.

The question above is big topic since it spans both Faith and Science and the breadth of either one on their own is close to beyond comprehension and I wouldn’t know where to begin.

Well actually I do know where to begin (with the big bang and creation myths) but it would make this a silly long post and would range from Yin and Yang and when a hot campfire becomes cold night air to Scrhodinger’s Cat. From Newtonian physics and prisms to dark matter and Eisenstein’s “Spooky actions at a distance”, and the concept of ‘God of the Gaps’. From Emperor Constantine to the number of people on earth, the scale of geological time, and the question of self-awareness. From the Biblical ‘fall’ to if the universe is going to collapse back on itself. From Calvin and Hobbs, to the Matrix, Steinbeck’s book ‘To a God Unknown’, and to the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism. From the Matrix to Star Wars.

From the feeling you get when greeted by a favorite pet to the upside down image of that pet on the back of your eyeballs (and the question of if a half an eyeball can exist) and the synapses firing in your brain that lets you perceive the existence of that pet. I could keep going . . .

Instead I will give you my favorite quote on the subject from Carl Sagan in his book ‘The Pale Blue Dot’:

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

In short, I rephrase the question this way. Are Science and Religion mutually exclusive? I say no. Each is a framework for describing events/phenomena that each considers significant. In the approx 3,000 years of organized communication the question has not been answered to everyone’s satisfaction. I don’t see that changing anytime soon. In my belief system the increase in knowledge will always lead to just as great an amount of yet unknown/proven knowledge. Kind of like the 2nd law of metaphysics.

One last fun fact I just learned. The average amount of matter in the universe is 3 atoms per cubic meter. (that is a late 90’s estimate). A religious friend of mine asked me why does that matter, why is it significant? I told him it matters because the amount of matter (and its gravitational pull) will decide if the universe keeps expanding or will collapse back on itself. I thought that was pretty significant.

6

Great find, thanks for sharing that link. I’ve bookmarked that site for future reference.

7

Does belief in “The Big Bang” imply belief in a God?

8

Until we agree a definition of moral, the discussion is doomed to failure. The catch all word “moral” includes ideas of culture, manners, mores, conventions, taboos, and all sorts of stuff.

I think the concept of “moral” should be separated from these other things. I’d suggest a definition that involves consciously acting in a way which you perceive to be contrary to your own direct personal interests because you perceive it to be in the wider interests of your group - whether that group is a family, village, tribe, nation, or mankind as a whole. It means acting of your own volition rather than under duress or fear of detection.

9

I think of morality as being both the inner and outer laws of man. The outer being the ones created, and the inner being the ones found inside of man. As one looks across the vastly different cultures (even looking at the differences) we often find that people are very similar and even their laws are so. Of course, there are moral deviance’s in the laws, but often times there are reasons for these deviance’s that justify them.

For example most would agree it is wrong to take human life, but this is often done as a matter of self-defense or serving out justice or “equal treatment” following the eye for an eye scenario. I’m still not completely sure on my stance on capital punishment.:stuck_out_tongue:

I do agree that moral laws are meant to serve your fellow man, but I disagree in that I do not see being a “blessing” to your fellow man as being a determent to yourself, although it could certainly sometimes be perceived as so. If we lived in a world of people who served the interest of eachother instead of self, our world would be a place with very few to no problems. That is of course assuming man could ever perfectly follow moral law.

Applying this concept to a book I recently read (not sure who the quote is from) “There is enough for everyones need, but not for everyones greed.” A world of perfectly moral people would be a world of needs fulfilled. I believe most deeply in moral virtue, morals out of character, love being the key and most important virtue. Love is what my ideal morality centers around.

Sorry about that kinda choppy and I might have done a poor job with some exclamations. Please do bring up problems and or questions.

10

Carl Sagan…

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, ‘This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?’ Instead they say, ‘No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.’ A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.
Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.

I admire Carl Sagan, however, I can think of an instance in which his observation does not hold. I am not sure that it is an entirely satisfying example, yet, The Dalai Lama’s book The Universe in a Single Atom is an attempt to find possible connections between modern science and Buddhist Philosophy. There are several occasions in which the Dalai Lama concedes that Buddhism falls short, is inadequate, or needs to be restructured in light of scientific findings.

I hope I did not too greatly derail the discussion.

I was impressed by the Dalai Lama’s willingness to accept the potential inadequacies of his faith: a concession that does not happen often enough in our world.

On subject, I would like agree with Mikefule in that we need to be very careful in the way we use words like morality. The conversation can easily become obfuscated when we do not share a definition of such an unclear word.

I think this calls for a John Locke quote: “It helps not our ignorance to feign a knowledge where we have none, by making noise with sounds without clear and distinct signification’s.”

Great thread!:slight_smile:

Bryant

11

u

Good Quote! Really good quote. And I love the title of that book and have added it to my to be read soon list. I tend to flip back and forth between more scientific and more religious or philosophical books (and an occasional Calvin and Hobbs book at bed time)

I think you added some good fodder to the discussion. I think where we are going to go off the rails is that Web Site has five different questions and we are going to end up with different threads in the discussion, we already have more than one.

I think all frameworks for communication of ideas ultimately fail. If there was one (Is this where somebody brings up the inerrancy of the Bible?) that didn’t fail we would have a winner. As it stands now both Science and Faith have a horse in the race, at least until we can answer JayS’s question:

"Does belief in “The Big Bang” imply belief in a God?

I answer, it could. I know, not a very satisfying, or controversial answer.

I think this way, what happens when we blow past Relativity/Quantum like we blew past Newtonian Physics (not that we proved them wrong, we built on them and had to invent Calculus to move on).

Science (and its language mathematics) falls short. We don’t have much visibility into what happened before 10 to the negative 35 seconds after the beginning of the big bang. (if nothing can have a before) That whole creation of space-time thing leaves me glassy eyed. I guess it called theoretical physics for a reason. The book I’m reading now, the Edge of Science is showing how little math is behind many of the ideas thrown around. They, the scientists, know the ideas are incomplete, and only work in a limited set of circumstances. They settle for part of the puzzle as progress. I’m not saying right or wrong, just is.

But, But, But why so many variations on god and religion? If faith is so unified in A creator why not more similar stories of creation and codes of right living? I’m ignoring the similarities in most creation myths to make a point.

Or do the UU’s have it right, that all religions are trying to describe the same indescribable ‘thing’? That’s my description of UU, not the official one.

Deism, Theism, monotheistic, polytheistic, Saturday is the Sabbath, no Sunday is, but wait in what timezone, and how come the bible does not mention the pyramids? Jesus is the Messiah, no he’s not he is a prophet! A lot of people in the world believe that last one. Who am I to say that one Billion Islam believers are wrong because I am more conversant in the religious framework of Main St America?

My point is that my answer to JayS’s question is I don’t know and a good case can be made for either true or false. Of course our Darwin zealot, R. Dawkins says there is no evidence for True, but what fun is that kind of absolutism?

I haven’t slept in 40 hours, so you guys discuss, and I’ll catch up in 12 hours or so.

12

I don’t this morality is that difficult to define. It is simply the inquiry into how one ought to act. What exactly that entails is what is up for debate.

Saying that we should act against our own interest is already to take a position on morality, your suggestion seeming to lead to utilitarianism, or perhaps the community-oriented ethic in general.

I think one of the first distinctions that can be made about morality is the difference between a community vs. individual ideal for morality, or some mix of the two. Do the rights of the individual trump the greater good, or does the well-being of the community trump the rights of the individual?

13

Two distinct comments on distinct parts of your post:

a) Many now-defunct theories had LOTS of evidence for True at one time.

Evidence for True does not equal true; it does not even approximate True.

b) Hopefully, Persons of Faith also know their ideas are incomplete. Persons of Faith acknowledge plants perform photosynthesis, and also acknowledge Religion does not account for nor explain photosynthesis. Similarly for nuclear fusion, the automobile, reproduction, cell biology, fertilizing soil, prison management, M-16 maintenance and production, the list is endless. None of this stuff is in the Bible or the Koran or the Gita.

14

Do you see a significant difference between “True” and “true,” or if you prefer, “Truth” and “truth?” If so, what is it?

15

Personally, no. Do you know something you should let me in on?

I was just following Ezas in that.

Billy

16

Sorry BTM, I’m not much for semantics. But I follow the gist of what you are saying about true. But I’m not sure I agree the part about approximating True.

I feel like Agent Smith from the Matrix; “What is True?” But that is about as far as I can take a case for the meaning of words. It just doesn’t resonate for me. But I see there are those here who enjoy that challenge so I do my best to follow along.

Now the fact (as I read tonight) that the Big Bang does not explain Galaxies, and in fact they shouldn’t exist given what we know about the Big Bang.

That kind of stuff resonates with me.