Submitted by beforesunset1010 t3_za96to in philosophy
cutelyaware t1_iylyu0s wrote
Reply to comment by MightyTVIO in How to solve moral problems with formal logic and probability by beforesunset1010
A person's morality is simply their sense of right and wrong behaviors. It doesn't matter if you have an algorithm or not. That would only let you be more consistent with your actions. My point is that you don't get to choose your morality any more than you get to choose your sexual orientation.
MightyTVIO t1_iym5j0l wrote
If you're arguing for lack of free will then I'd agree but it makes the whole point moot. A moral theory is generally independent of any specific persons so not sure why that's relevant? Furthermore you absolutely could reduce a persons actions to an algorithm just maybe a complicated one.
autonomicautoclave t1_iymm2tq wrote
If that is true then philosophers have been wasting our time with moral arguments. If you can’t choose what morality to believe in, it’s no use trying to convince someone to follow your morality. It would be like trying to convince a heterosexual person to become homosexual.
cutelyaware t1_iyooqnt wrote
Can you give me an example of how you've changed your mind and adopted a different morality, or convinced someone else to change theirs? For example I see plenty of arguments of the form "If you believe killing is wrong, then..." I've never seen someone decide "Yes, I suppose killing is fine". I've only seen them decide that it's OK or not OK to kill in some specific situation.
VitriolicViolet t1_iyt2gmk wrote
>If you can’t choose what morality to believe in, it’s no use trying to convince someone to follow your morality.
does anyone 'choose' which moral theory to follow?
i would argue the one you pick is merely the one that you feel is best ie you wont be convinced by a rational argument since you never reasoned yourself into your belief in the first place.
logic works from emotion ie if you think utilitarianism is best its because you feel its best, reasoning and logic happen after the fact.
i never reasoned myself into my morals, i pick and choose based on context and use my emotions to guide my reasoning (you cannot determine which is 'better' without use of emotion)
Wizzdom t1_iymx5r7 wrote
Except information can change your sense of right and wrong. Take smoking/drinking while pregnant. It didn't feel wrong until we learned it's harmful to the baby. You can absolutely change your sense of right and wrong by studying and thinking about it.
cutelyaware t1_iyomja5 wrote
The moral position involved in your example is that it's wrong to harm fetuses. If you learn that drinking harms fetuses, then you haven't changed your position by then concluding that's wrong behavior. You started off believing it was wrong to harm fetuses, and you ended up still believing that. You've just updated your opinion based on new information.
VitriolicViolet t1_iyt343x wrote
and? i knew smoking was harmful before i tried it (read the studies) and yet ive been doing for 10 years with no intention to stop.
some people value different things, resulting in different morals. personally safety and security arent even in my top 3 values (honesty, integrity and personal freedom) hence why smoking being factually bad hasnt changed my behavior.
what is more moral? allowing children to teach their kids anything or having the state determine what age certain concepts like sexuality and religion should be taught? your answer will 100% be determined by your values and if you ask 10 people all will be different and none will be wrong.
Wizzdom t1_iytga9f wrote
First of all, that has nothing to do with what I said. Second, I was talking about smoking while pregnant. Surely you at least value not harming others unnecessarily. If you don't, then you are immoral.
enternationalist t1_iyngww6 wrote
Huh? You've never changed your mind on what you think is morally acceptable??
cutelyaware t1_iyokehg wrote
I've had new situations come to light that cause me to rethink my proper responses to moral questions, but I can't think of anything that changed my morality. For example I still think that it should be a woman's right to choose abortion, but I've come to believe that pro-life people have a point.
How have you changed your morality?
enternationalist t1_iyq1glb wrote
How is changing your answer to a moral question distinct from your morality changing? Per your own definition, your sense of right and wrong has shifted to give you a different answer.
I used to believe making others happy as a priority was the moral choice, now I think people should generally be more self centered. I used to oppose any sort of violence; now I believe it is sometimes necessary or justified. By what definition are these not a change in morality?
cutelyaware t1_iyq2kx1 wrote
I suppose it's fine to call such a shift a movement in one's morality.
VitriolicViolet t1_iyt3hz2 wrote
not that i can think of.
personally everything is morally permissible in context (no system of morality ever conceived actually works, any system that has inflexible rules is destined to failure ie is genocide always wrong? if a nation tries to genocide you and will not stop no matter what, collectively, then surely killing them all is morally correct?).
theft, murder, lies, all are moral in certain scenarios.
enternationalist t1_iyt85ro wrote
Sure, but changing your mind about scenarios they are acceptable in counts.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments