lmao his first argument is a fail.... TBS has openly said that he thinks Mary J should be legalized... haha. Learn your opponent before you attack it.
@MustacheBandits You obviously missed my point. It isn't about whether or not marijuana should be legalized it's about whether or not you'd call the use of marijuana moral, immoral, or amoral. I would say marijuana should be legalized, but I would call it's use amoral. However, if I take TBS's definition of morality which is increased well being or unnecessary harm as measured by brain activity I can make a case for it being moral or immoral. I also would guess TBS would think it's an amoral act
You speak repeatedly about an EKG, but since you refer to several imaging techniques you seem to mean an EEG, which is something quite different than an electro cardiogram. Which I am sure you know.
So the real question should probably be "Why do humans apparently value cooperation as much as we do, and therefore generally act morally?" To me the answer is pretty obvious as I depend on others for almost 100% of the things I need to survive. I probably would not live through a winter if I was thrown out into the woods. The time when non-social behavior was a real option for humans passed millions of years ago.
@Gnomefro I see you're point and it's a really good one. I guess my biggest objection to TBS' argument is that it takes the idea of acting morally and it allows it to be applied to many situations that I don't think you shouldn't be overly concerned with what the most moral thing to do is. Like if you're in a relationship and your significant other doesn't want you talking to a friend for whatever reason. He or she will be hurt if you don't do what they say, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Your question "Why should your main concerns deal with being a moral person?" is a good one though. I think the answer is that in some cases you shouldn't. Morality only comes into play when you value cooperation and social aspects and when you value something, the best way to maximize what you value is to use reason - this is pretty much axiomatic.
The main reason for adopting fMRI-like studies would not be to measure individuals, but to produce *arguments* for or against specific types of proposed change in society. That is, you might be able to show people that, in the short term, they might suffer a bit, but it will eventually lead to a much better society that everyone will benefit from.
I think you're being a bit too simplistic here. A solid understanding of human mental function would mean that you would also understand the reason for the well being as well as future effects of it. In particular, learning effects like those leading to heroin addiction would be trivial to identify as highly dysfunctional and harmful in the long term. Because of this, it will be fairly easy to tell if actions are actually producing well being or not.
@Gnomefro Yeah you're right I'm being a little to simplistic, but you do have to consider the fact that every brain is different, so while the majority of people who engage in the use of hard narcotics will probably suffer addiction there is always the possibility that they might not though the chances are low. So would morality then be determined by the probability of increasing unnecessary suffering?
It’s not that I think TBS’ definition is valid, if you can’t provide an alternate definition of morality. I was just wondering if you had an alternative definition of morality which is more useful?
@jillum89 I would say it's pointless to try and define morality objectively. Ethics are subjective. You define your own ethical code but it is your and yours alone. If you need someone to tell you what makes something right you're in sense no better than those who argue for Divine Command Theory of morality. You basically saying I need some rules to tell me what to do. I think TBS' definition he uses from Sam Harris is one of the better ways to define morality, but it still doesn't really work.
lmao his first argument is a fail.... TBS has openly said that he thinks Mary J should be legalized... haha. Learn your opponent before you attack it.
MustacheBandits 3 months ago
@MustacheBandits You obviously missed my point. It isn't about whether or not marijuana should be legalized it's about whether or not you'd call the use of marijuana moral, immoral, or amoral. I would say marijuana should be legalized, but I would call it's use amoral. However, if I take TBS's definition of morality which is increased well being or unnecessary harm as measured by brain activity I can make a case for it being moral or immoral. I also would guess TBS would think it's an amoral act
AtypicalChristian 3 months ago
You speak repeatedly about an EKG, but since you refer to several imaging techniques you seem to mean an EEG, which is something quite different than an electro cardiogram. Which I am sure you know.
TheMasterLifeforger 5 months ago
@TheMasterLifeforger Yes you're right. My mistake.
AtypicalChristian 5 months ago
So the real question should probably be "Why do humans apparently value cooperation as much as we do, and therefore generally act morally?" To me the answer is pretty obvious as I depend on others for almost 100% of the things I need to survive. I probably would not live through a winter if I was thrown out into the woods. The time when non-social behavior was a real option for humans passed millions of years ago.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro I see you're point and it's a really good one. I guess my biggest objection to TBS' argument is that it takes the idea of acting morally and it allows it to be applied to many situations that I don't think you shouldn't be overly concerned with what the most moral thing to do is. Like if you're in a relationship and your significant other doesn't want you talking to a friend for whatever reason. He or she will be hurt if you don't do what they say, but that doesn't mean it's right.
AtypicalChristian 9 months ago
Your question "Why should your main concerns deal with being a moral person?" is a good one though. I think the answer is that in some cases you shouldn't. Morality only comes into play when you value cooperation and social aspects and when you value something, the best way to maximize what you value is to use reason - this is pretty much axiomatic.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
The main reason for adopting fMRI-like studies would not be to measure individuals, but to produce *arguments* for or against specific types of proposed change in society. That is, you might be able to show people that, in the short term, they might suffer a bit, but it will eventually lead to a much better society that everyone will benefit from.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
I think you're being a bit too simplistic here. A solid understanding of human mental function would mean that you would also understand the reason for the well being as well as future effects of it. In particular, learning effects like those leading to heroin addiction would be trivial to identify as highly dysfunctional and harmful in the long term. Because of this, it will be fairly easy to tell if actions are actually producing well being or not.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
@Gnomefro Yeah you're right I'm being a little to simplistic, but you do have to consider the fact that every brain is different, so while the majority of people who engage in the use of hard narcotics will probably suffer addiction there is always the possibility that they might not though the chances are low. So would morality then be determined by the probability of increasing unnecessary suffering?
AtypicalChristian 8 months ago
It’s not that I think TBS’ definition is valid, if you can’t provide an alternate definition of morality. I was just wondering if you had an alternative definition of morality which is more useful?
jillum89 9 months ago
@jillum89 I would say it's pointless to try and define morality objectively. Ethics are subjective. You define your own ethical code but it is your and yours alone. If you need someone to tell you what makes something right you're in sense no better than those who argue for Divine Command Theory of morality. You basically saying I need some rules to tell me what to do. I think TBS' definition he uses from Sam Harris is one of the better ways to define morality, but it still doesn't really work.
AtypicalChristian 9 months ago
@AtypicalChristian Very interesting. You may be the first theist I have talked to who openly defines morality subjectively. Very refreshing. :)
jillum89 8 months ago