There is No Morality Without God (page 3)

PSacramento

You are abandoning common sense PS

And you're not answering my question ;)

From where does this "moral outrage" come from? what is it based on?

cofty

What moral outrage are you talking about? You have ignored every point I have made so far.

PSacramento

What moral outrage are you talking about? You have ignored every point I have made so far.

Disagreeing is not ignoring.

You said the morals are directly related to the well being of a consciour creature ( or to that effect) yes?

I disagreed and point out the well being is not a suitabel yardstic from which to meaure "morals".

Here:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-09-antisocial-personality-traits-utilitarian-responses.html

A study conducted by Daniel Bartels, Columbia Business School, Marketing, and David Pizarro, Cornell University, Psychology found that people who endorse actions consistent with an ethic of utilitarianism—the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences—tend to possess psychopathic and Machiavellian personality traits.

In the study, Bartels and Pizarro gave participants a set of moral dilemmas widely used by behavioral scientists who study morality, like the following: "A runaway trolley is about to run over and kill five people, and you are standing on a footbridge next to a large stranger; your body is too light to stop the train, but if you push the stranger onto the tracks, killing him, you will save the five people. Would you push the man?" Participants also completed a set of three personality scales: one for assessing psychopathic traits in a non-clinical sample, one that assessed Machiavellian traits, and one that assessed whether participants believed that life was meaningful. Bartels and Pizarro found a strong link between utilitarian responses to these dilemmas (e.g., approving the killing of an innocent person to save the others) and personality styles that were psychopathic, Machiavellian or tended to view life as meaningless.

These results (which recently appeared in the journal Cognition) raise questions for psychological theories of moral judgment that equate utilitarian responses with optimal morality, and treat non-utilitarian responses as moral "mistakes". The issue, for these theories, is that these results would lead to the counterintuitive conclusion that those who are "optimal" moral decision makers (i.e., who are likely to favor utilitarian solutions) are also those who possess a set of traits that many would consider prototypically immoral (e.g., the emotional callousness and manipulative nature of psychopathy and Machiavellianism).

While some might be tempted to conclude that these findings undermine utilitarianism as an ethical theory, Prof. Bartels explained that he and his co-author have a different interpretation: "Although the study does not resolve the ethical debate, it points to a flaw in the widely-adopted use of sacrificial dilemmas to identify optimal moral judgment. These methods fail to distinguish between people who endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (like those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse them out of genuine concern for the welfare of others." In short, if scientists' methods cannot identify a difference between the morality of a utilitarian philosopher who sacrifices her own interest for the sake of others, and a manipulative con artist who cares little about the feelings and welfare of anyone but himself, then perhaps better methods are needed.

Provided by Columbia Business School

NewChapter

LOL---Wow, just wow.

cofty

The study you quote above says nothing at all about human well being as a basis for morality.

These methods fail to distinguish between people who endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (like those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse them out of genuine concern for the welfare of others."

The "trolley dilemma" is an interesting example but its a distraction in this context.

Define "well being" as deeply and inclusively as you can imagine and tell me there is any basis for morality that is not based on trying to maximise that condition. If you can think of such a thing then please tell me why anybody should be interested in it.

PSacramento

Uh, right here:

the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences—

PSacramento

Good ( and good morals) can't be "defined as that which increases the well-being of conscious beings” unless you have defined well being first, no?

It makes morals rfelative to well being, but the well being of WHO?

The individual? the group? socieity? culture? the world?

cofty

So what? The study says that the methods "fail to distinguish between people who endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (like those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse them out of genuine concern for the welfare of others."

Define "well being" as deeply and inclusively as you can imagine and tell me there is any basis for morality that is not based on trying to maximise that condition. If you can think of such a thing then please tell me why anybody should be interested in it.

PSacramento

I don't need to define well being because I am not the one that is saying that morals ( good morals of course) is based on well being, you are.

The well being of an individual or a people may be the end result of good morals, but are the beings well because of the morals or are the morals good because of the well being they give?

cofty

unless you have defined well being first, no?

I have explained this 2 or 3 times already. To pretend we don't know what human well being is is akin to pretending we don't know what good health means. Its just obtuse. As I just said "d efine well being as deeply and inclusively as you can". Its not hard.

It makes morals rfelative to well being, but the well being of WHO? The individual? the group? socieity? culture? the world?

How about the maximum possible number of people?

There is No Morality Without God

Share this