# Does reason lead to morality?



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

Thoughts?

I found this:

http://www.templeton.org/reason/


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2015)

Yes. It can get you to "Do unto others...etc."


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yes. It can get you to "Do unto others...etc."



Your old sickly mother and a child that you don't know fall into the icy water.  You can save one of them.  Which one does reason lead you to save?


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2015)

The child.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2015)

The child.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2015)

But emotion has me attached to my mother, regardless of her age.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Your old sickly mother and a child that you don't know fall into the icy water.  You can save one of them.  Which one does reason lead you to save?



Closest one first and depending on what I have around me. If I have no choice but to get into the water myself then I'm just as likely to become a victim myself, then it's definitely closest first, and only the second one if I honestly think I can get there. 

If they're equidistant, then the one I don't have to get in the water for first.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

I asked my mom this and she said that she would sink to the bottom.  

What if the kid is a sociopath?  There's not enough info to make a rational decision.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> The child.





drippin' rock said:


> But emotion has me attached to my mother, regardless of her age.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Closest one first and depending on what I have around me. If I have no choice but to get into the water myself then I'm just as likely to become a victim myself, then it's definitely closest first, and only the second one if I honestly think I can get there.
> 
> If they're equidistant, then the one I don't have to get in the water for first.



For the benefit of the exercise they should be equally life threatening for you to save and you can only save one.

There's a lot of these scenarios.  I think they're cool.

There's one called The Breakman's Dillemma.  I'll try to find it.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/killing-one-person-to-save-five-11-12-03/


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

I hope some deists chime in with their god given wisdom.  Maybe they're praying for an answer.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/killing-one-person-to-save-five-11-12-03/



I suppose I would kill the one person. What does this say though?  Is there a good reason to let the 5 perish?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

It's interesting to tweak some of the conditions also.  What if the child in the water is horribly disfigured?

Stanley Fish (From the link in the OP) states:
_
 If the question is "Do those who make moral decisions have reasons at the ready when asked to justify them?," the answer is "sometimes yes, sometimes no." Many people report that they come to a decision without engaging in any self-conscious reasoning; they just feel instinctively that a certain action is the right one._

Does this observation support a naturalistic explanation for behavior or a supernatural one.  I say neither.  I think more questions need to asked.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I hope some deists chime in with their god given wisdom.  Maybe they're praying for an answer.



I don't think a belief system would change these answers. Do you?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I suppose I would kill the one person. What does this say though?  Is there a good reason to let the 5 perish?




That's interesting that you would "own" the ramifications of the decision so confidently.  A lot of people have a hard time with the notion of willfully deciding to kill someone by their actions.  I'd pull it too.  For me it's a numbers game.  

Did you read the other variation of the dilemma where there is a fat man standing next to you and if you throw him on the tracks it will stop the train (assuming your own mass would not be enough)?

What if you know the single victim? What if they are a relative?  In those scenarios I think preservation of the self, genetically speaking would win out.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't think a belief system would change these answers. Do you?




I'm waiting anxiously for an answer to that.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 9, 2015)

The child.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I suppose I would kill the one person. What does this say though?  Is there a good reason to let the 5 perish?



Yea. This one is pretty easy. Assuming a pure numbers game. 1 vs 5 is easy. 
We were actually 'taught' that in self defense, against a firearm on an airplane. During the disarm, the gun could discharge once. One for 250 or so is acceptable.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> The child.



Always?  Under any circumstances?

What if the child is horribly deformed or has known sociopathic tendencies?

And most importantly, why?

Thanks for your response.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

660griz said:


> Yea. This one is pretty easy. Assuming a pure numbers game. 1 vs 5 is easy.
> We were actually 'taught' that in self defense, against a firearm on an airplane. During the disarm, the gun could discharge once. One for 250 or so is acceptable.



How about in the other scenarios where the one is a relative or a fat man standing next to you that you have to push onto the tracks?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Always?  Under any circumstances?
> 
> What if the child is horribly deformed or has known sociopathic tendencies?
> 
> ...


Or better yet what if the child was gay?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Or better yet what if the child was gay?



I don't think that would change anything to the regulars here.  Maybe to some of those kooks in the PF....

..."or black, or Democrat, or non-Stock of the Founders......"


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Or better yet what if the child was gay?



Some Christians would say, if the child was under the 'age of reason', he/she cannot be gay as this is a choice that has not been made yet.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think that would change anything to the regulars here.  Maybe to some of those kooks in the PF....
> 
> ..."or black, or Democrat, or non-Stock of the Founders......"


I think it would make a big difference to a few regulars in here and I think their answers in here differ from a "what if" to a "real world" scenario.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2015)

Would I throw myself on the tracks to save 5? Nope. 
My wife and two daughters?  I want to say yes, but I also know my self preservation gene is pretty strong.  I guess that is a scenario that would need to play out in real life to find out.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2015)

Push a relative onto the tracks to save 5? No. A fat man? No. Who am I to get in the way of predestination?


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2015)

Or better yet, whatever happens was predetermined, so it doesn't matter what we do.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Would I throw myself on the tracks to save 5? Nope.
> My wife and two daughters?  I want to say yes, but I also know my self preservation gene is pretty strong.  I guess that is a scenario that would need to play out in real life to find out.



I don't see that.



drippin' rock said:


> Push a relative onto the tracks to save 5? No. A fat man? No. Who am I to get in the way of predestination?





drippin' rock said:


> Or better yet, whatever happens was predetermined, so it doesn't matter what we do.



Slow your roll......


----------



## gtparts (Jan 9, 2015)

I suspect that "where the rubber hits the road", reflex would hold sway over reason/logic. Behavior is (dare I type it?) never fully informed, whether gay, sociopath, or any other distinguishing characteristics are at play. To delay action for the sake of attempting to weigh the true makeup of the individuals or spending precious time evaluating the consequences might be seen as immoral.

All that aside, the answer(s) to the question of morality arising from reason seems inconclusive. at best. While some might arrive at a position that is considered moral by a preponderance of the local population, it does not allow for the possibility that a sense of "morality" might arise from an individual whose actions oppose the idea of morality.

For instance, a serial rapist might come to the conclusion that killing his victims not only makes his apprehension less likely, but spares the victim from fear, humiliation, mental anguish, and public scrutiny. Merciless on the one hand, yet merciful on the other? How kind! 

Ultimately, we generalize a "global" position, yet we struggle when we get to specific cases. If life is messy (and we know it is... or can be), then morality is similarly messy, like nailing jello to a tree. 

BTW, the surest way I know to sorting out the issues concerning morality is to submit to a loving, benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign God.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

I misspelled "morality" in my title.  Anyone know how to fix it?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 9, 2015)

gtparts said:


> BTW, the surest way I know to sorting out the issues concerning morality is to submit to a loving, benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign God.


Truly an individual thing at best.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

bullethead said:


> Truly an individual thing at best.



He did say "the surest way I know..." without providing such a critter.


----------



## 660griz (Jan 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> How about in the other scenarios where the one is a relative or a fat man standing next to you that you have to push onto the tracks?



I may push both. Depends on the relative. 
Some are easier to push than a fat man.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Always?  Under any circumstances?


Not necessarily. If they are being mauled by unicorns, they both are goners. 


ambush80 said:


> What if the child is horribly deformed or has known sociopathic tendencies?


Deformity would not weigh on my decision. The child is unknown to me, so the sociopathic tendencies are not a factor.


ambush80 said:


> And most importantly, why?


It is what my mother would have me to do.


----------



## drippin' rock (Jan 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I don't see that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course I would move mountains to save my family.   The other stuff I was just funnin'.  I can't stay serious in these threads long.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Not necessarily. If they are being mauled by unicorns, they both are goners.
> 
> Deformity would not weigh on my decision. The child is unknown to me, so the sociopathic tendencies are not a factor.
> 
> It is what my mother would have me to do.




Mine too.


----------



## TTom (Jan 9, 2015)

If I saved my sickly mother or grandmother (assuming this happened before they each died) then save the child is a no brainer.

1. Value of innocence / youth / potential
2. Self Preservation ( both of those women would toss my butt back in the water if I chose them over the child to save).


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 9, 2015)

TTom said:


> If I saved my sickly mother or grandmother (assuming this happened before they each died) then save the child is a no brainer.
> 
> 1. Value of innocence / youth / potential
> 2. Self Preservation ( both of those women would toss my butt back in the water if I chose them over the child to save).




It gets interesting when you modify your relation to the victims.  Wife or strange child?  One of your children over another one?  Pretty girl over ugly girl?  Sister over wife?  Brother over sister?  

All the answers reveal something about our values.  I'm sure the answers would differ across cultural borders.  It hardly seems an indicator of an ultimate morality instilled by a deity.


----------



## Israel (Jan 10, 2015)

It took a lot of words and people being ground through his reasonings for Hitler to get to the capsule he put in his mouth and the bullet through his head.
Happy hunting to you all for the real killer.


----------



## Israel (Jan 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I misspelled "morality" in my title.  Anyone know how to fix it?



Go to your first post, click "edit". Click "go advanced"...it should give you a shot at thread title.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 10, 2015)

Israel said:


> Go to your first post, click "edit". Click "go advanced"...it should give you a shot at thread title.



Thanks, my man.


----------



## Day trip (Jan 10, 2015)

Does it matter if you save the unknown child or your mother?  Either way you're a hero and there are too many factors to consider to really decide based on just the question.  

I wonder, who would jump in and save either one, knowing that you may also die in the freezing water?  Is there an unwritten formula that describes how much danger you will put yourself in to save another?  Is there a point of diminished returns when it's just not worth it?


----------



## Israel (Jan 10, 2015)

What if you slip and fall in...and understand as long as you are there...there's really nothing else to do...but seek to save?


And having saved watch as everyone now parades your name as hero and wishes they could be like you. Would you be able to tell them...

 And yet I have not come of my own accord; but there is One who has sent me, an Authority indeed, of whom you have no knowledge.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 10, 2015)

Israel said:


> And yet I have not come of my own accord; but there is One who has sent me, an Authority indeed, of whom you have no knowledge.



Ok great.
Who sent you? Can you prove it to us?
What Authority? Please show us.
Does anyone have any knowledge of this person? Can you provide some credible information?


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 10, 2015)

Israel said:


> What if you slip and fall in...and understand as long as you are there...there's really nothing else to do...but seek to save?
> 
> 
> And having saved watch as everyone now parades your name as hero and wishes they could be like you. Would you be able to tell them...
> ...





bullethead said:


> Ok great.
> Who sent you? Can you prove it to us?
> What Authority? Please show us.
> Does anyone have any knowledge of this person? Can you provide some credible information?




Isreal,

I like you and wish that we could have a meaningful discussion.  Something happened to you that set you off.  I'm really curious to know about it.  It's fascinating. I simply wish, like Bullet, that you would substantiate these claims you incessantly make a bout "Him" or "The One" and what "He" does.   We really can't have a conversation until you do that and that's a shame.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 10, 2015)

bullethead said:


> I think it would make a big difference to a few regulars in here and I think their answers in here differ from a "what if" to a "real world" scenario.


Perhaps. 

My answer is compelled, in part, by my epistemology. I have actually saved the unknown child before, in a similar scenario, although the water was not icy... but shark infested. The other individual was my 8 yr old son. After saving the unknown child, I watched my son disappear into the dark depth of the ocean.

This occurred in the "dream world" and was real in that "world".


----------



## TTom (Jan 10, 2015)

Ambush within a homogenized culture one could expect similar enough values and thought process that you could get fairly similar results/ answers. However the more heterogeneous the culture or sub group the less likely you are to find the values set organized the same way.

Take 100 people on this board and have them rank 1-10 their values and you'll get 5 or 6 that are pretty universally present in that top 10, but, the order they are in within that top 10, will vary.

Even more fun is to take the same 100 people and have them do that exercise a year later and see what shifts you see in the results based on the random stuff that happens to us.


----------



## Israel (Jan 11, 2015)

Ambush, you are correct, something "set me off".
Being.
It fascinates me, too, considering the infinite other possibilities I cannot entertain in being not.
Yet, I am.
One can say it's infinitely unlikely that such a simple thought "I am" could lead anywhere but to derangement. But sanity is just a construct of two weak beings to marginalize a third one. How to "be" amongst those other two is something all are thrust into.
I met a man who in the midst of it all, kept his being.
Voices try to multiply themselves in their addition to one another, but they remain just ones. Singles, alone.
Their math is flawed. Ever so.
But it all gives way in the meeting of "I am".

Some marvel at talking donkeys, but will try to carry on a conversation with this:


----------



## 660griz (Jan 12, 2015)

Israel said:


> Some marvel at talking donkeys, but will try to carry on a conversation with this:



There are folks that marvel at talking donkeys?

Carry on a conversation with a picture of sperm meeting egg? 

I don't get it.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 12, 2015)

660griz said:


> There are folks that marvel at talking donkeys?
> 
> Carry on a conversation with a picture of sperm meeting egg?
> 
> I don't get it.


Me neither.  Cryptic as ever....


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2015)

Sorry I missed this thread.

Doesn't the answer evolve with the amount of information given?

Old woman or child, easy, child.  My mother or unknown child, still easy, unknown child (as others have stated, mama would whoop me otherwise).  My mother or a child who is a known schizophrenic......becomes complicated, but still, most likely, child.  Same with gay child, deformed child......because my morality values youth and hope.

All these assume I have the courage to make such action.  But, the answer to all question depends on the information given.

I did not follow the link to the breakman's dilemma.....will follow up after I read the wiki link.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2015)

Trolly problem seems easy again until you add information.  What if the one person was your child and the 5 were unknown......I think most, probably myself included, would determine inaction to be the most moral action, even though in reality we could not knowingly doom our own child.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 12, 2015)

Are these questions of right and wrong?   Can either choice, or inaction, be determined immoral universally?

Self preservation would likely be the most naturalistic response.  Don't think a majority of humans would go that route.  Evidence of reason/soul/etc beyond what we witness in the animal kingdom.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 13, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> Are these questions of right and wrong?   Can either choice, or inaction, be determined immoral universally?
> 
> Self preservation would likely be the most naturalistic response.  Don't think a majority of humans would go that route.  Evidence of reason/soul/etc beyond what we witness in the animal kingdom.



I would think all this variation would point away from a single moral arbiter.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 13, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I would think all this variation would point away from a single moral arbiter.



But, aren't most basics accepted by most, at least in civilized societies?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Jan 13, 2015)

JB0704 said:


> But, aren't most basics accepted by most, at least in civilized societies?



To some degree, but justification washes nearly all of them, morals, away; at least their legalese counterparts.


----------



## outdooraddict (Jan 14, 2015)

I'm jumpin in the discussion late (no pun intended). I would like to be an evolutionist if the answer is personal preference, then there's no moral choice to make and if they were both stupid enough to fall in they should both die. I'll save myself and stay out of the water


----------



## 660griz (Jan 15, 2015)

outdooraddict said:


> I would like to be an evolutionist if the answer is personal preference, then there's no moral choice to make and if they were both stupid enough to fall in they should both die. I'll save myself and stay out of the water



Are you a theist evolutionist or an atheist evolutionist? 
Either way, morality evolved.


----------



## Israel (Jan 15, 2015)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> To some degree, but justification washes nearly all of them, morals, away; at least their legalese counterparts.


Ineed.
One may be surprised as to what justification washes away...in every sense.


----------



## outdooraddict (Jan 15, 2015)

660griz said:


> Are you a theist evolutionist or an atheist evolutionist?
> Either way, morality evolved.



Neither, I'm just saying if I am going to "chose"(and even here its a bit of a misnomer since from an evolutionary standpoint I can't see how I really "chose" anything, I'm just programmed this way genetically) a personal preference, I would chose a naturalistic evolution position because my instinct is to look out for myself just as Dawkins would point out in The Selfish Gene. We are using morality to mean different things if you are saying morality evolved. A typical definition of morality would imply a behavior that defies instincts and "rises above" to do something other than our instinct such as jumping in the water. On the other hand if the emphasis of your point is that it evolved then it isn't the classic definition of morality, you are talking simply about behavior, guided by survival and reproductive improvement. Given the way I understand morality, "morally evolving" is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp, it's either evolved behavior or morality that rises above instinctual behavior but can't be both.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jan 15, 2015)

outdooraddict said:


> Given the way I understand morality, "morally evolving" is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp, it's either evolved behavior or morality that rises above instinctual behavior but can't be both.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 16, 2015)

outdooraddict said:


> Neither, I'm just saying if I am going to "chose"(and even here its a bit of a misnomer since from an evolutionary standpoint I can't see how I really "chose" anything, I'm just programmed this way genetically) a personal preference, I would chose a naturalistic evolution position because my instinct is to look out for myself just as Dawkins would point out in The Selfish Gene. We are using morality to mean different things if you are saying morality evolved. A typical definition of morality would imply a behavior that defies instincts and "rises above" to do something other than our instinct such as jumping in the water. On the other hand if the emphasis of your point is that it evolved then it isn't the classic definition of morality, you are talking simply about behavior, guided by survival and reproductive improvement. Given the way I understand morality, "morally evolving" is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp, it's either evolved behavior or morality that rises above instinctual behavior but can't be both.



Start at 1:12:26 To inform yourself better.


----------



## outdooraddict (Jan 16, 2015)

*Thanks and let me help you also, from the* *Athiest Ethicist:*



_Athiest Ethicist-A view of right and wrong, good and evil, in a universe without gods.
FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2007
Richard Dawkins Part II: Morality and the Selfish Gene

"I am, as many of you know, spending my weekends commenting on the presentations made at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference. I have reached the end of Session 7, where Richard Dawkins is our presenter. Dawkins actually talked about two different subjects. The first subject was “Consciousness Raising” (which I discussed last weekend). This week, we are looking at what was billed as a discussion of “Morality and the Selfish Gene”.

In fact, Dawkins did not discuss morality much at all. He gave an interesting account of how a selfish gene can select for what he called ‘altruistic’ behavior. However, altruism is not the same as morality. The two have some things in common (certain types of altruism are called moral), but they also have a long list of significant differences.

Dawkins does get around to making a few claims about morality. However, this is toward the end of his presentation. About the only thing he says on the subject is that whatever it is, it does not come from religion.

The situation surrounding Dawkins’ presentation was something like going to a lecture where the speaker said he was going to talk about stellar physics, only to have him spend his time instead talking about the standard combustion found in a camp fire. There are some similarities between stars and campfires – both put out heat and light. However, there are also some important differences. The differences are important enough that it is simply not true that a presentation on campfire combustion can taken for a presentation on stellar physics.

Dawkins’ Case

First, let me explain what Dawkins said about the relationship between ‘morality’ and the selfish gene.

The Selfish Gene

Dawkins is (or, perhaps, was, until recently) most widely known among both professional and lay scientists for his idea of conceptualizing of evolutionary forces by imagining a ‘selfish gene’. This gene is interested in only one thing; its own replication. Of course, genes do not actually ‘care’ about anything. Dawkins does not say that they do. What he says is that we can best explain and predict events in the biological world is by thinking in terms of a selfish gene.

For example, a selfish gene would have reason to select for a host that has the ability to detect others with the same gene. In protecting those others and helping them reproduce, it is succeeding in its task to replicate itself. Replicating a copy of itself and replicating itself both have the same value in this way of thinking. Thus, we get behavior like that of a mother nurturing its young. This is the way that the mother’s ‘selfish genes’ help to ensure that copies of themselves continue into the future."_



The Athiest Ethicist's conclusion about Dawkins position- _"Conclusion

By the end of his presentation, even though Dawkins claimed that he was going to talk about morality, he never actually accomplished this. He talked about a Darwinian account for altruism. Some of what he talked about does not even qualify as altruism and, even if it did, altruism is not morality. “That which we are disposed to value for Darwinian reasons” does not count as morality either.

It is also not the case that studying what people think has moral value is not the study of morality itself, any more than a study of what people think is true about the origin and change of living organisms over time is the same as the study of evolution itself.

With all of his words, Dawkins never once talked about morality.

One of these days I actually would like to hear, or read, what Dawkins thinks about the relationship between morality and the selfish gene. But that is not this day."
_





*Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Dawkins as correct AND remember the above was an ATHIEST critique. I simply agree with this athiest and with the athiest Michael Ruse that Dawkins out to stick with biology when he wanders into these other catagories he's "a bloody disaster". This is what happens when we try to defend that "morals evolve"*


*Hope I've helped educate you also!*


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 16, 2015)

outdooraddict said:


> *Thanks and let me help you also, from the* *Athiest Ethicist:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's an interesting synopsis.  It's not what I got from Dawkins' talk.  I just finished watching Beyond Belief coincidentally.  I/we can review what he said in his talk if you like and then discuss what WE think Dawkins actually said.  

As for the link to the talk he gave at Kennesaw State this year, I provided it because it clarifies, straight from the horses mouth, what I feel you oversimplified in the prior post.


----------



## Israel (Jan 17, 2015)

Man's reason ends at the point of reason why he is.
So far, but no farther.


----------

