Materialism of the Gaps sub-discussion: the morality debate

Done (hopefully OK!).

Sorry, is there a new link to this thread?

[Laird]

Sorry, is there a new link to this thread?

You're in it! But for reference, the new thread is Materialism of the Gaps sub-discussion: the morality debate.

Perhaps we might move it into the Philosophy sub-forum though.

You're in it!

Ah thanks -> My reality transformed and I didn't even know it!

But for reference, the new thread is Materialism of the Gaps sub-discussion: the morality debate.

Perhaps we might move it into the Philosophy sub-forum though.

Ah, that might be good...

I don't know what 'prove' means, but I can't see in principle why it shouldn't be possible to eventually conceive a satisfying explanation for logic and/or morality.

What do you think this satisfying explanation will be like?

However my point was that logic and morality are different. So trying to claim they are the same thing within an argument, just raises a red flag for me.

I agree they aren't the same thing, though I think they share interesting similarities.

Done (hopefully OK!).

Many thanks. Now I just need to gather my thoughts and try to remember where I was going with those suggested discussion points.  

[Laird]

Perhaps we might move it into the Philosophy sub-forum though.

Ah, that might be good...

Done.

I'm trying to get my head around what has already been discussed here so far but I feel like I am on shifting sands with my understanding of the issues, so I'll just say what comes to mind.

I feel that morality is, in humans, somewhat subjective and contingent upon circumstances. There might, or might not, be absolutes - I'm not sure - but generally people use different criteria by which they justify their opinions and actions. For example, some will claim that the death penalty is just and morally correct while others, myself included, will say that it is wrong to take a life in retribution - that this only compounds the immorality. Using the deterrent argument doesn't work for me either because we (society) are then punishing someone, at least in part, for what someone else might do in the future. So my view clearly disagrees with others yet we might both claim a moral basis for those views.

The self-interest claim also does not wash with me. To say that all altruism, kindness, generosity and empathy is motivated by self-interest seems entirely cynical and frankly insulting to those to whom those qualities seem to come so naturally and without a second thought. I really doubt whether the young man in the supermarket car park who helps the old lady to her feet and collects her scattered shopping is thinking "this should score me a few points in St. Peter's ledger". Or the person who dies saving a drowning child is thinking "Heaven is a cinch now!". Again - to assume so would be sadly cynical but I've also noticed that there seems to be a lot of cynicism about these days - especially now that scepticism and cynicism have become so closely associated.

And the darwinian argument is also trendy it seems - perhaps it is the constant barrage of "science good - religion bad" messages that we are bombarded with these days and the popularity of books by Dawkins, Hitchens and others. So how does this go? That we are conditioned by evolutionary pressures to be kind and compassionate because these qualities help us all get along and thus helps the species survive? Surely that would result in behaviour that is universal among humans but we know all too well that kindness and compassion are not universal and that we, as a species, are often unkind, cruel and prone to killing each other for selfish gain. It seems to me that neither compassion nor selfishness are genetically programmed universal traits.

So, morality seems to be a personal thing. Something that is based on feelings such as empathy and compassion but also conditioned by judgement - a kind of moral code that might be personal or might be imposed by religious, philosophical, political or popular media and peer conditioning. What it has to do with materialism, I'm not sure, but I do think that the cynicism I mentioned earlier might be more prevalent among materialists and atheists. Just my impression though.

So, morality seems to be a personal thing. Something that is based on feelings such as empathy and compassion but also conditioned by judgement - a kind of moral code that might be personal or might be imposed by religious, philosophical, political or popular media and peer conditioning.

I'd agree with this, it makes sense to me there is both something transcendent (Love in empathy/compassion) and cultural in morality.

Morality includes attractive and repelling feelings, these attractive and repelling feelings have something to do with understanding differences between individuals and groups. Unlike Morality, Logic doesn't appear to have attractive or repelling feelings associated with it. That's either because Logic is agreed upon by individuals and groups, or because logic is a reflection of something more fundamental about reality that is already shared by individuals and groups. I'm favoring the latter.

Do you think there are some aspects of this attraction/repulsion that would be accessible/applicable to all individuals/groups - say the "rights of sentient beings"?


I like the idea of attractive/repelling feelings - do you see this as related to a dual-aspect reality where these group feelings on the mental side correspond to fields on the material side? Really just curious how this ties into your ideas of time/space/information?