The Prejudice of Moral Judgements

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » The Prejudice of Moral Judgements

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 06:29 pm
If we humans are subject to the same deterministic laws as other animals, why do we judge ourselves differently? For example, when a lion conquers its environment we consider it to be natural, but when a human does so we consider it to be evil. Is it because we consider ourselves to transcend nature at some level? Is it because of the idea of the immaterial soul or free will?

Please don't say that we judge ourselves differently because we are rational. Rationality is also subject to determinism.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 06:33 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
If we humans are subject to the same deterministic laws as other animals, why do we judge ourselves differently?


Many believe this is because humans have a sense of morality, and other animals do not.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 06:34 pm
@hue-man,
I think you've put your finger on some good issues. I wonder whether lions experience moral feelings in regard to territory?

Determinism is an invented concept. I find it somewhat persuasive but not completely convincing. Hume made a strong argument against causality.

Just because the sun always has risen in the morning doesn't mean it always must. The law of gravity is just a mathematical description of what has been observed. We project it into the future by means of the induction of induction.

Quantum physics puts determinism into question, I think, but I'm no expert on the matter.

I do think we like to think that we transcend nature. In some ways, we true. But that hinges on what one means by certain words, including transcendence and nature.

Anyway, I like the issues. It's one of the kinds of philosophy that matters to us super-chimps.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 06:41 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;109383 wrote:
Many believe this is because humans have a sense of morality, and other animals do not. (I'm entertaining your question, but keep in mind it is uncommon to include humans as animals.)


I still don't see how that justifies the prejudice. Our sense of morality can be reduced to emotional responses to environmental stimuli. Animals also have emotional responses to environmental stimuli, and even though they do not articulate it the way we do, they also have preferences for certain behaviors based on their consequences.

It's uncommon to include humans as animals in some fields (like this one) but not in biology. I suppose that we have the tendency to separate ourselves in such a way due to convenience and vanity.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 06:46 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;109378 wrote:
If we humans are subject to the same deterministic laws as other animals, why do we judge ourselves differently? For example, when a lion conquers its environment we consider it to be natural, but when a human does so we consider it to be evil. Is it because we consider ourselves to transcend nature at some level? Is it because of the idea of the immaterial soul or free will?

Please don't say that we judge ourselves differently because we are rational. Rationality is also subject to determinism.


If you are just asking "why" then I think this is an evolutionary psychology question. Morality evolved at some point and was useful in furthering the species. Our tendency to see ourselves as distinct from the rest of the world probably evolved at some point as well.

If you are asking "should we", well, that's a harder question. But probably it is still to our benefit to do so.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 06:54 pm
@Jebediah,
The human organism is so much more complex than anything else in biology. We create biology to begin with. And man is such a cultural-conceptual animal that we must be careful to avoid reductive interpretations of him. (ourselves...)

For you must also criticize the "biological" motive of your interpretation of biological motives....
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 07:02 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;109385 wrote:
I think you've put your finger on some good issues. I wonder whether lions experience moral feelings in regard to territory?

Determinism is an invented concept. I find it somewhat persuasive but not completely convincing. Hume made a strong argument against causality.

Just because the sun always has risen in the morning doesn't mean it always must. The law of gravity is just a mathematical description of what has been observed. We project it into the future by means of the induction of induction.

Quantum physics puts determinism into question, I think, but I'm no expert on the matter.

I do think we like to think that we transcend nature. In some ways, we true. But that hinges on what one means by certain words, including transcendence and nature.

Anyway, I like the issues. It's one of the kinds of philosophy that matters to us super-chimps.


Every concept is invented by definition, but what the concept refers to is discovered (or undiscovered).

Not knowing that the sun wont be swallowed up by a black hole doesn't dismiss causality and determinism. If anything it dismisses absolute knowledge of the event, but that can be reconciled by probability.

The problem of determinism in quantum physics is a result of the ability (or inability) to predict events at the quantum level. The idea of quantum indeterminism is based on the epistemic limitations of quantum mechanics. It's an epistemic and interpretative problem. The inability to identify the position and momentum of an object at an equal rate (uncertainty principle) doesn't mean that the object's behavior isn't determined.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but what exactly do you mean when you say that we transcend nature in some ways?

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 08:08 PM ----------

Reconstructo;109399 wrote:
The human organism is so much more complex than anything else in biology. We create biology to begin with. And man is such a cultural-conceptual animal that we must be careful to avoid reductive interpretations of him. (ourselves...)

For you must also criticize the "biological" motive of your interpretation of biological motives....


Reconstructo, with all due respect, please don't fill this thread with this type of arational skepticism? Biology as a scientific field was invented, yes, but what biology refers to was discovered. It's simply a concept that describes the different structures and functions of organic matter versus inorganic matter. That's neither here or there. Let's stay on topic.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 07:08 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I still don't see how that justifies the prejudice. Our sense of morality can be reduced to emotional responses to environmental stimuli. Animals also have emotional responses to environmental stimuli, and even though they do not articulate it the way we do, they also have preferences for certain behaviors based on their consequences.


What makes you think that morality is simply emotional responses to environmental stimuli?

Quote:
It's uncommon to include humans as animals in some fields (like this one) but not in biology. I suppose that we have the tendency to separate ourselves in such a way due to convenience and vanity.


You are correct, and I removed that from my text shortly after I typed it. I'm disappointed you caught me.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 07:12 pm
@hue-man,
It depends on what we mean by "Nature," which is a concept of our creation. To the degree that man creates his culture, he arguably transcends it. But the meaning of words is context-bound.

Causality and determinism are invented by us and projected on "nature." These concepts do seem to correspond in a practical way with whatever is mind-independently there. But the story isn't finished yet. Perhaps 200 years from now they will laugh at poor us and the little prejudices we took for gospel truth. Just as Newton's concepts of space and time were superseded by Einsteins, so might Einsteins be superseded. In fact, I consider it likely.

Science should be most skeptical about its self, for that is the weak spot of the scientist, his own arrogance as priest of objective reality. I like Feyerabend's Against Method. I also like the neo-pragmatic conception of "truth."
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 07:13 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;109407 wrote:
What makes you think that morality is simply emotional responses to environmental stimuli?


Because all values are emotive in nature. Judgments of goodness and badness (pleasant or unpleasant) are based on determined physiological/psychological responses to stimuli.

Morality, as a concept, is mostly a result of social and cultural convention.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 08:21 PM ----------

Reconstructo;109408 wrote:
Science should be most skeptical about its self, for that is the weak spot of the scientist, his own arrogance as priest of objective reality. I like Feyerabend's Against Method. I also like the neo-pragmatic conception of "truth."


Once again, off topic, but scientists are usually some of most humble people that I'm aware of when it comes to knowledge and truth. I commonly find that the most arrogant people are those who consider scientists to be arrogant. They claim not to have any especially acute ability to know things and yet they make the most paradoxically absolute statements I've ever heard, such as the quote above.

---------- Post added 12-08-2009 at 08:34 PM ----------

Jebediah;109397 wrote:
If you are just asking "why" then I think this is an evolutionary psychology question. Morality evolved at some point and was useful in furthering the species. Our tendency to see ourselves as distinct from the rest of the world probably evolved at some point as well.

If you are asking "should we", well, that's a harder question. But probably it is still to our benefit to do so.


Well every behavior evolved. Even things that have no survival utility evolved as by-products of something that did have survival utility.

Some say that moral judgments evolved as a social convention to keep a certain order. Now that's probably true, but such an order could be what we now consider to be immoral, such as slavery, racism and the suppression of women. The moral order could also be used to keep a certain class of people in power. I believe that we should question our societal conventions, but we shouldn't reject them strictly on the principle that they are conventional constructs.

As for the prejudice of judgment goes, I think we should seek to understand before we condemn, just like we do with other animals. However, I don't think that we should dismiss moral judgment.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 07:36 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
Judgments of goodness and badness (pleasant or unpleasant) are based on determined physiological/psychological responses to stimuli.


Why is it, then, that humans can change what they think is good and what they think is evil? For instance, I may think the killing of another human, no matter what, is evil. A few years later I may reconsider this and believe that the killing of another human in X situation is not evil. It seems to me that what we think is good and what we think is evil is not solely based on determined responses to stimuli.

Quote:
Morality, as a concept, is mostly a result of social and cultural convention.


I don't know what you mean by this.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 07:42 pm
@hue-man,
Hue-man,

You sound every bit as arrogant as I do, in my ever-so-humble opinion. You seem to have a faith in determinism as others might have a faith in god. To say that rationality is subject to determinism is hardly "proven". And if you really believed it, you wouldn't be so passionate. You would probably just relax and watch the show.

I'm quite aware that we're all just a**holes on parade. I wonder if you are?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 08:03 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;109409 wrote:


Well every behavior evolved. Even things that have no survival utility evolved as by-products of something that did have survival utility.

Some say that moral judgments evolved as a social convention to keep a certain order. Now that's probably true, but such an order could be what we now consider to be immoral, such as slavery, racism and the suppression of women. The moral order could also be used to keep a certain class of people in power. I believe that we should question our societal conventions, but we shouldn't reject them strictly on the principle that they are conventional constructs.

As for the prejudice of judgment goes, I think we should seek to understand before we condemn, just like we do with other animals. However, I don't think that we should dismiss moral judgment.


I think culture can and does effect what we consider moral. Societies developed specific rules to fit around the instincts. It is certainly our job to understand (and the job of philosophy). Our instincts can be both good and bad. For example, we have certain moral instincts regarding purity which are useful when we avoid the bodies of rotting animals but misused when judging people for "living in sin".
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 09:24 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;109423 wrote:
Why is it, then, that humans can change what they think is good and what they think is evil? For instance, I may think the killing of another human, no matter what, is evil. A few years later I may reconsider this and believe that the killing of another human in X situation is not evil. It seems to me that what we think is good and what we think is evil is not solely based on determined responses to stimuli.


Humans can change what they think is good or evil for the same reasons that we change our stance on other things. Historical developments deliver information to the brain that causes it to change its beliefs depending on an inherited social or biological bias.

Zetherin;109423 wrote:
I don't know what you mean by this.


I mean that morality, as a formal concept, is a result of social and cultural convention versus morality as an epiphenomenon of physiological/psychological processes.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 09:59 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
Humans can change what they think is good or evil for the same reasons that we change our stance on other things. Historical developments deliver information to the brain that causes it to change its beliefs depending on an inherited social or biological bias.


Humans have a semantic capacity far greater than non-human animals; we demonstrate this with our language. Humans also have a more profound sense and understanding of emotion than non-human animals. So, even if you're going to boil down morality to some strict biological process (which I find to be a destructive perspective), we still have a greater sense of morality than non-human animals.

Quote:
I mean that morality, as a formal concept, is a result of social and cultural convention versus morality as an epiphenomenon of physiological/psychological processes.


But even if morality is an epiphenomenon of physiological/psychological processes (you could really say this about practically anything), this does not imply that it is the same epiphenomenon that is occurring in non-human animals. Many think it is not, and that is what I meant by the very first sentence I typed in this thread.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 10:18 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;109461 wrote:
Humans have a semantic capacity far greater than non-human animals; we demonstrate this with our language. Humans also have a more profound sense and understanding of emotion than non-human animals. So, even if you're going to boil down morality to some strict biological process (which I find to be a destructive perspective), we still have a greater sense of morality than non-human animals.


Indeed, but the human ability to understand the consequences of emotion depends on biological and social factors that determine it. I don't know if we have a more profound sense of emotion than animals, though. We're just the only animals that can express it through language. I would imagine that we would feel much more guilty, especially with modern sensibilities, if a chicken or cow could beg for their life through language.

Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to deconstruct or invalidate morality. I'm simply pointing out our prejudices in moral judgment.

Zetherin;109461 wrote:
But even if morality is an epiphenomenon of physiological/psychological processes (you could really say this about practically anything), this does not imply that it is the same epiphenomenon that is occurring in non-human animals. Many think it is not, and that is what I meant by the very first sentence I typed in this thread.


I'm not saying that non-human animals have a sense of morality. I'm saying that non-human animals have a sense of emotion, and emotion is the foundation of moral perspectives. I'm also saying that our behavior, which we often attribute to morality, can be attributed to the same deterministic regularities that other animals are subject to.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 10:27 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I'm not saying that non-human animals have a sense of morality. I'm saying that non-human animals have a sense of emotion, and emotion is the foundation of moral perspectives. I'm also saying that our behavior, which we often attribute to morality, can be attributed to same deterministic regularities that other animals are subject to.


All you seem to be saying is that humans have similar physiological makeups as other mammals. Who would disagree with that?

But your question, the one you wrote in your OP, is answered. It is because humans have a sense of morality that we hold them to higher standards. Whether you think the answer is justified, I don't really know how to begin to discuss with you. I don't think, however, that our having similar physiological makeups with non-humans discredits any difference in judgment of the actions of humans and non-humans (like you seem to).
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 10:47 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;109470 wrote:
All you seem to be saying is that humans have similar physiological makeups as other mammals. Who would disagree with that?


I'm saying that we are equally subject to deterministic regularities and that we should be on an equal footing in terms of judgment. I do, however, understand why people take it more personally when a human violates their rights than when an non-human animal does. However, such a bias has no metaphysical justification.

Zetherin;109470 wrote:
But your question, the one you wrote in your OP, is answered. It is because humans have a sense of morality that we hold them to higher standards. Whether you think the answer is justified, I don't really know how to begin to discuss with you. I don't think, however, that our having similar physiological makeups with non-humans discredits any difference in judgment of the actions of humans and non-humans (like you seem to).


It's not simply that we have a similar biological make up with other animals. It's that we are subject to the same causal regularities that determine their behavior.

I agree that some humans do hold other humans more accountable for their actions than non-human animals because humans understand the concept of morality. However, Morality, like beauty, is simply the abstract articulation of emotional sensibilities. Emotion is the underpinning factor that determines human and non-human animal behavior alike, not moral concepts. The awareness of moral concepts simply influences a person's inherited emotional dispositions.

I also believe that the concept of free will and the idea of the uniqueness of the human soul influences people's moral judgments of human behavior.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 10:53 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man wrote:
I'm saying that we are equally subject to deterministic regularities and that we should be on an equal footing in terms of judgment.


I'm not quite sure you what you mean by "deterministic regularities", but I'm going to go on a hunch and say that most, if not all, life-forms are subject to deterministic regularities. This said, why do you think that just because we are all subject to the same deterministic regularities, that we should judge our actions the same? One thing has nothing to do with the other.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 8 Dec, 2009 11:03 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;109477 wrote:
I'm not quite sure you what you mean by "deterministic regularities", but I'm going to go on a hunch and say that most, if not all, life-forms are subject to deterministic regularities. This said, why do you think that just because we are all subject to the same deterministic regularities, that we should judge our actions the same? One thing has nothing to do with the other.


Actually it does. You see it means that we have no more free will than any other animal (I'm a compatibilist). Yes we can understand moral concepts, and yes we have a more acute ability to rationalize our behavior, but our tendency to act or not act on our emotions and moral prescriptions is no more free than any other animal's behavior is.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » The Prejudice of Moral Judgements
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2024 at 04:28:24