Philosophy...

[SarahC07 0]

I am enrolled in a contemporary moral issues (philosophy) class and today we discussed the following quote. First we analyzed it. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Are you completely lost?

To give a little more background, we are learning about dilemmas and differing philosophers solutions to solving dilemmas.

Here it is... All serious thoughts/comments are welcomed
"The moral convictions of thoughtful and well-educated people are the data of ethics just as sense-perceptions are the data of a natural science." ~Ross

[quade 4]

Quote

"The moral convictions of thoughtful and well-educated people are the data of ethics just as sense-perceptions are the data of a natural science." ~Ross

I think it's an untenable position.

The statement essentially equates opinions with facts.

Morals and ethics are, among other things, matters of opinion.
Science is, among other things, a collection of facts.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zenister 0]

Several terms seem to be assumed here that should not be. Define ‘well educated’?

'ethics' certainly includes the actions of the instinctive and the ignorant, as well as the vague ideals of "thoughtful and well educated" or even "moral convictions" so the analogy is only partially true and contains an underlying discrimination. "Sensory perception" on the other hand, is fairly easily agreed apon by every human vs a single conception of 'ethics’ which will vary more widely between each individual and certainly each culture.

homework?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[SarahC07 0]

Thanks for the feedback... and No, this is not homework. I absolutely love my philosophy class and am considering minoring in philosophy.... I posted out of sheer interest.

The definitions of words also posed a problem to us as well. "Thoughtful" and "well educated" are defined differently from person to person.

In an article written by Jean-Paul Sartre, Sartre writes about a student of his who is torn between staying at home with his mother or joining the French fighting forces. This is the dilemma he faces. There are many factors (for both sides) that he considers before approaching Sartre with his question. How do I know which to choose?

Sartre tells his student to go with his feelings or instincts.

Another philosopher, W.D. Ross, would (based upon his article) tell this student to go with the duty he feels 'weighs' the most. As stated in my quote, Ross suggests you look to the 'moral convictions' of those you find to be 'thoughtful' and 'well-educated' to determine this. Essentially, he says- Find a role model and do what you think they would do.

Being morally good is like being a good artist. ~ Relates the closest to Sartre's thinking.

Being morally good is like being a good scientist. ~ Relates the closest to W.D. Ross,

The use of the word 'scientist' seems to express conflicting ideas...

thoughts? (I'm probably just rambling... but this stuff really interests me )

[quade 4]

Quote

Being morally good is like being a good scientist. ~ Relates the closest to W.D. Ross,

Being morally good means you will conform without question to the beliefs of others.

Being a good scientist means you will question the beliefs of others.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Being morally good is like being a good scientist. ~ Relates the closest to W.D. Ross,

Being morally good means you will conform without question to the beliefs of others.

Being a good scientist means you will question the beliefs of others.

Your statement indicates you are willing to cede the term "morality" to the religious right, Islamic fundamentalists, and other purveyers of doctrinaire adherence to belief. Are you sure you want to do that?

In its pure form, morality has to do with an individual's struggle to distinguish right from wrong. As such, questioning other's beliefs in this pursuit is totally appropriate.

Wayne

[quade 4]

What I'm saying is that by definition morality requires an agreement with a group. Morality, in and of itself, does not exist without a group. It -may- be a very small group, say one man and one woman, but there must be an agreement to conduct yourselves in a particular manner.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

At it's most basic, morality is nothing but a system of right and wrong. I need no group to tell me the difference. While comforming to a larger standard is often easiest, it is not necessary to be morally sound.


A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct
Virtuous conduct
Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong


I would say what you were describing is ethics. Similar, but not the same, as morals.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Zenister 0]

Quote

At it's most basic, morality is nothing but a system of right and wrong. I need no group to tell me the difference. While comforming to a larger standard is often easiest, it is not necessary to be morally sound.

you absolutely need a group, your 'social peers'. You would not have the concepts of 'right and wrong' that you do without the social group you were raised with. The 'moral' system only exists because of the beliefs of group that defined it. Where as 'science', the study of sense perceptions as defined here, needs no agreement from an outside group or even the individual scientist. It is based completely on an arbitrary system dictated by the observations of 'sense perceptions' and changes based on the conclusions of those perceptions, not on the changing beleifs of a group...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[likearock 2]

Quote

What I'm saying is that by definition morality requires an agreement with a group. Morality, in and of itself, does not exist without a group. It -may- be a very small group, say one man and one woman, but there must be an agreement to conduct yourselves in a particular manner.

The issue we were discussing is whether "morality" is the exclusive provision of people who don't question belief.

There may be a general agreement between people that forms the basic tenets and language of morality. However, it is up to the individual alone to make the ultimate choice in a given situation. And the ability to choose in this way certainly does not require uncritical belief.

Wayne

[quade 4]

Quote

And the ability to choose in this way certainly does not require uncritical belief.

Sure it does. Maybe not by the person making the choice, but certainly by the people that agreed that doing activity X was "immoral". I can eat pork and it's not a moral issue for me at all, but there are some folks that believe it is.

How would the person making the choice even know if something was or was not moral unless there was an agreement to that effect?

Just take a look at the concept behind original sin.

Let's say for a moment that God had NOT told Adam and Eve that they were not allowed to partake of the fruit. If they had eaten it -before- he told them, would that have been a sin? No, because there was no agreement as to what was and was not allowed.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

And the ability to choose in this way certainly does not require uncritical belief.

Sure it does. Maybe not by the person making the choice, but certainly by the people that agreed that doing activity X was "immoral". I can eat pork and it's not a moral issue for me at all, but there are some folks that believe it is.

How would the person making the choice even know if something was or was not moral unless there was an agreement to that effect?

Just take a look at the concept behind original sin.

Let's say for a moment that God had NOT told Adam and Eve that they were not allowed to partake of the fruit. If they had eaten it -before- he told them, would that have been a sin? No, because there was no agreement as to what was and was not allowed.

You're still just talking about one interpretation of what morality is, the interpretation of the religious true believers. Can't you see morality is larger than that?

Suppose you happen to find a wallet with money in it as well as ID. You decide whether or not to keep the money based on a moral choice and that choice may or may not be dictated by any unquestioned belief. A fanatically religious person may decide to give back the money based solely on the uncontested tenets of a religion while a less religious person (perhaps like yourself) might make that decision in a more critical way. But either way, it's still a moral choice.

Wayne

[quade 4]

Quote

But either way, it's still a moral choice.

Again, it's ONLY a moral choice because of the total agreements you've made with everyone over the course of your entire life. Somewhere along the line somebody said it's the equivilent of stealing and you either agreed to that concept or not.

If a dog found the wallet, picked it up and burried it in the yard, would -that- be a moral decision? I don't think so.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

But either way, it's still a moral choice.

Again, it's ONLY a moral choice because of the total agreements you've made with everyone over the course of your entire life. Somewhere along the line somebody said it's the equivilent of stealing and you either agreed to that concept or not.

Are you speaking for yourself here? Are you saying if you found such a wallet, you'd decide whether or not to keep it based on a dogma that you have personally never questioned?

Wayne

[quade 4]

Quote

Are you speaking for yourself here? Are you saying if you found such a wallet, you'd decide whether or not to keep it based on a dogma that you have personally never questioned?

No. You're confusing the issue.

Or just being argumentative for the sake of an argument (which is fine if that's what you want -- just let me know).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Are you speaking for yourself here? Are you saying if you found such a wallet, you'd decide whether or not to keep it based on a dogma that you have personally never questioned?

No. You're confusing the issue.

Or just being argumentative for the sake of an argument (which is fine if that's what you want -- just let me know).

Not at all. Again, the issue we are discussing is whether making a moral choice requires unquestioning belief. I simply gave an example of such a choice and asked whether it would require unquestioning belief if you were the one making that choice.

Wayne

[quade 4]

Quote

Again, the issue we are discussing is whether making a moral choice requires unquestioning belief.

Ok, let's go with it then.

Let's say you really -want- to make a post that would violate the rules of the Forum. Basically, you either agree to the rules or you don't. Fine. YOU can make any choice you want to, BUT it will be viewed upon in the context of what the group has agreed to. Further, the -group- will attempt to maintain order by enforcing the rules.

Now, you can say that Sangiro made the rules and he's not a group, but if no one followed them then they would not have any effect so, it's a -group- decision to follow them and as to what is and is not allowed.

The individual can take whatever actions he chooses, but it is the agreement of the group that decides the morality of those actions.

There simply can not be morals without a group belief in them. And just to attempt to make my statements clear . . . it is the -group- that does not question the definition of what is or is not moral.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[InflightSupv 0]

I think it may help you guys to post the entire quote from Ross.

“It would be a mistake to found a natural science on ‘what we really think,’ .... For such opinions are interpretations, and often misinterpretations, of sense-experience; and the man of science must appeal from these to sense-experience itself which furnishes his real data. In ethics no such appeal is possible. We have no more direct way of access to the facts about rightness and goodness and about what things are right or good, than by thinking about them; the moral convictions of thoughtful and well-educated people are the data of ethics just as sense-perceptions are the data of a natural science”

What I get out of this is that there is no way to "quantify" the rightness of a particular decision unlike science that is for the most part black and white. Because it is only right to whomever made the decision, but may not be right to anyone else.

Ross is emphasizing that this decision making "ethics" is gleaned through experience. He says a couple of pages earlier,

“In this respect the judgement as to the rightness of a particular act is just like the judgement as to the beauty of a particular natural object or work of art. ... Both in this and in the moral case we have more or less probable opinions which are not logically justified conclusions from the general principles that are recognized as self-evident”

But what do I know???????????????

[Zenister 0]

Quote

[ And just to attempt to make my statements clear . . . it is the -group- that does not question the definition of what is or is not moral.

your slightly off, it is the group that defines what is moral, the individual either agrees or disagrees, however 'morality' is still defined by the group.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[quade 4]

Like I said, I was attempting to make myself clear.

That said, I do not see where either of our statements are in disagreement with each other.

When I said, " . . . it is the -group- that does not question the definition of what is or is not moral." By that I meant that they agree on the definition and therefore do not question it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[likearock 2]

Quote

When I said, " . . . it is the -group- that does not question the definition of what is or is not moral." By that I meant that they agree on the definition and therefore do not question it.

But that's not even true. Take the example of the U.S. Presbyterians. Last year, they actively questioned the existing ban on gay clergy and eventually decided to abolish it.

However, I still maintain that it is the individual who makes the moral choice. That choice may be viewed as moral or immoral by a number of different groups, many of which will disagree with the others. But in the end it's the individual who does the choosing and it's the individual who has to live with that choice.

Wayne

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

"The moral convictions of thoughtful and well-educated people are the data of ethics just as sense-perceptions are the data of a natural science." ~Ross

In laymans terms - (tell me if I get this right) - Ross is saying that what the so-called "best and brightest" imagine and hold true to thier hearts to live by are to be taken as much as fact as opinions are taken in a science where perception is a control?

I wonder if he was trying to be ironic?

It would seem to me that this is a self conflicting statement. Reality, though, contradicts its self often though.

So - on one hand - you have a true statement(as the author believes it) remarking on the convictions v. perception, while on the other hand you have reality that can emulate this statement - if you look for it to.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

"The moral convictions of thoughtful and well-educated people are the data of ethics just as sense-perceptions are the data of a natural science." ~Ross

The "moral" convictions of philosophers are rarely of any value. Therefore, they are equal in value. (Let's see ya tell your phil. prof. that ).

They discuss levels of morality that can only be obtained by people who never face moral dilemmas.