I just saw this video and found it pretty interesting.
What do you think about it? Can we say that the Western moral is better than the one for example of the Talibans? Is there a real answer (in Science)? Is it possible to answer questions about moral without religion?
Why would ya need something as silly as religion to come up with morals? I'd like to throw in a quote here:
In practice, social morals appear to be the result of evolution iteratively applying possible solutions to game theory. Chimpanzee society involves a lot of what looks remarkably like human morality, for example. And politics.
What do you think about it? Can we say that the Western moral is better than the one for example of the Talibans?
I don't really think that any set of morals which allows a society to function safely and effectively can be 'better' than any other.
Is there a real answer (in Science)? Is it possible to answer questions about moral without religion?
I don't know what "answer" you are looking for, so I can't answer the first part. However we observe moralistic behavior in many social animals, many very similar to our own. This is either proof that these animals also receive their morals from God, or that morals are a necessary trait in complex social structure.
As we would first have to prove that God exists before we can even contemplate any further on what did or did not come from God, I can say with great confidence that morality is actually an evolutionary instinct which allows for complex symbiotic societal behavior.
Also, there is a great series on the evolution of morality on YouTube by youtube user AronRa. You can find the series on his page.
"A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality. " -Winston Churchill
My new favourite quote. I believe it's self explanitory.
In practice, social morals appear to be the result of evolution iteratively applying possible solutions to game theory. Chimpanzee society involves a lot of what looks remarkably like human morality, for example. And politics.
I like that one.
I don't really think that any set of morals which allows a society to function safely and effectively can be 'better' than any other.
but what is safe? What is effective? Again the same example: Is the set of morals of the Talibans good? Is it right what they do? They think that they make the world a better place but is that really true? Is there an objective answer? For example an answer from science?
I don't know what "answer" you are looking for, so I can't answer the first part.
I mean answers to questions about what is moral and what's not?
[quote]1. Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions?
Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this worldâ"and there clearly areâ"then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.
As I try to show in my book, it is not a sign of intolerance for us to notice that some cultures and sub-cultures do a terrible job of producing human lives worth living.
Anyone who thinks that gay marriage is the greatest problem of the 21st century, or that women should be forced to live in burqas, is not worth listening to on the subject of morality.
think it is generally an unhelpful one. Religious ideas about good and evil tend to focus on how to achieve well-being in the next life, and this makes them terrible guides to securing it in this one.
The problem with religious morality is that it often causes people to care about the wrong things, leading them to make choices that needlessly perpetuate human suffering. Consider the Catholic Church: This is an institution that excommunicates women who want to become priests, but it does not excommunicate male priests who **** children.
How is it that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are opposed to slavery? You donât get this moral insight from scripture, because the God of Abraham expects us to keep slaves.
I don't think that the morality answers are in science, but from an evolution of the sociological aspect of human society; e.g. we went from completely owning slaves to a ban of slaves and a ban of open discrimination in half a millennium.
A lot of morality is subjective because while it can be argued it cannot be measured. Morality deals with good and evil which can often be intangible and are impossible to measure with anything except opinion.
A lot of morality is subjective because while it can be argued it cannot be measured.
--->
9. What is the difference between there being no answers in practice and no answers in principle, and why is this distinction important in understanding the relationship between human knowledge and human values?
There are an infinite number of questions that we will never answer, but which clearly have answers. How many fish are there in the worldâs oceans at this moment? We will never know. And yet, we know that this question, along with an infinite number of questions like it, have correct answers. We simply canât get access to the data in any practical way.
There are many questions about human subjectivityâ"and about the experience of conscious creatures generallyâ"that have this same structure. Which causes more human suffering, stealing or lying? Questions like this are not at all meaningless, in that they must have answers, but it could be hopeless to try to answer them with any precision. Still, once we admit that any discussion of human values must relate to a larger reality in which actual answers exist, we can then reject many answers as obviously wrong. If, in response to the question about the worldâs fish, someone were to say, âThere are exactly a thousand fish in the sea.â We know that this person is not worth listening to. And many people who have strong opinions on moral questions have no more credibility than this. Anyone who thinks that gay marriage is the greatest problem of the 21st century, or that women should be forced to live in burqas, is not worth listening to on the subject of morality.
Morality deals with good and evil which can often be intangible and are impossible to measure with anything except opinion.
But what if you define morality as how we can flourish in this world? Then maybe there aren't answers what's correct, but what's surely false.
e.g. we went from completely owning slaves to a ban of slaves and a ban of open discrimination in half a millennium.
Unfortunately not everywhere in this world. So our morals say that open discrimination is wrong. But there are countries where this is tolerated or even usual. Who's right? Many scientist say that you can't say who's right. Both opinions are equal (if seen objetivly). But Sam Harris claims something different: There is a right answer.
True, true. Are we talking worldwide morality though? Some of this stems from certain aspects of problems, plus the beliefs of their faith. I don't think we can accurately pinpoint morality on a worldwide basis.
I don't think we can accurately pinpoint morality on a worldwide basis.
I don't think so too. But I think that we can surely say that some things are NOT moral (objectively seen) even if other people think so. Like Sam Harris says: Many answeres (to a question about moral) are true but also many are wrong. We can't exactly what's the best, but we can say what's wrong. For example the question: "Should it be legal for women to vote?" --> The answer is clear: Yes! Or: "Should priests who **** children be punished"? --> Surely yes! Or: " What's the best form of government"? --> Here you can't really say, what's right. But you can say that it surely isn't a dictatorship where women are second class people...
Also, you must keep in mind that humans, and other primates, are not globally social animals, but tribal animals. Our morals evolved to allow us to function as a tribe, not as a global society. Like your example of the Taliban. Sure, their morals are effective. They keep the group functioning, provide for common goals and security, and keep their traditions and culture prevalent in their society. "Good" and "Bad" are relative terms from the point of view of the observer, so what I may find good or bad is not necessarily what another person may view the same way.
The Western culture is the (most) dominating culture nowadays, ergo the Western morals are the ascendant morals. The question is: Are the dominating morals obligatory better than the others? No, in my opinion they aren't, they are just more advertised and pushed, plus, how do we objectively define better? The best morals are the ones who control the people the most or whatever?
I suppose theoretically there is an answer to everything, therefore I am going to say "yes" there is an answer. However I have no bloody idea what this answer is and where you will find it.
Is it possible to answer questions about moral without religion
? Sure it is possible to answer questions about morality without religion. A religion is just a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader, therefore the religious morals are manmade. Consequently there is no need to involve the supernatural with the purpose of explaining something that is prima facie natural. Personally I think that the "supernatural" should be used only to explain the occult.
"Good" and "Bad" are relative terms from the point of view of the observer, so what I may find good or bad is not necessarily what another person may view the same way.
But what if it's not about "good" and "bad"? What if it's about "right" and "wrong"? I know, I'm repeating myself but here's again what Sam Harris said:
Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world -and there clearly are -then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.
Experience and observation can clearly show that some ways of seeking happiness are completely wrong. And isn't science about experience and observation?
The question is: Are the dominating morals obligatory better than the others? No, in my opinion they aren't, they are just more advertised and pushed, plus, how do we objectively define better?
--> More and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world.
But what if it's not about "good" and "bad"? What if it's about "right" and "wrong"?
They are one and the same. What is 'bad' is 'wrong' and what is 'good' is 'right'. Our ideas of right and wrong (our morals) determine what we find to be good and bad. We don't find wrong things good, or good things bad. If we did, we would have to alter our ideas of right and wrong.
I know, I'm repeating myself but here's again what Sam Harris said:
Then don't repeat yourself.
Experience and observation can clearly show that some ways of seeking happiness are completely wrong. And isn't science about experience and observation?
No, not wrong. Less efficient, perhaps, but not wrong. Right and wrong are not objective terms so you cannot accurately apply them in the manner that you are stating. All we can say is that some behaviors are more effective at promoting a safe, pleasant social structure than others, which is really all our morals have evolved to allow us to do.
All we can say is that some behaviors are more effective at promoting a safe, pleasant social structure than others,
So aren't these behaviors better if they are more effective? And what if something is destructive? Doesn't that mean that it's wrong (or bad if you want)?
So aren't these behaviors better if they are more effective?
Yes, that's basically what 'more effective' means. However you still cannot apply a right/wrong value to these, as right/wrong are personal opinions, no matter how many people may agree.
And what if something is destructive? Doesn't that mean that it's wrong (or bad if you want)?
Only if your morals state that something destructive is bad. You keep trying to apply subjective moralistic terms to an observation of an objective and neutral situation, and it just doesn't work like that.
