It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reason or Morality?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   
You would be surprised how much you can find out about a person's way of thinking if you ask them one simple questions before divulging into any serious discussion with them:

In your opinion, what is ultimately more important: Reason or Morality?

For those who pick Reason

You are most likely working towards building (or hoping to build) a world where the best possible scenario is that every living creature functions to the best of its ability without needing to be modified in any form. The worst possible scenario for you is contributing towards a world where there is an eternal state of every creature needing the most support necessary in order to flourish.

For those who pick Morality

You are most likely working towards building (or hoping to build) a world where every creature prospers regardless of any modification of any kind. The worst possible scenario for you is contributing to a world where every creature suffers for eternity.

Pick wisely which value you hold more dearly and explain it in the context of what I have written above. Think deeply before you answer. It is not meant to be an easy choice that you can answer accurately after 5-10 seconds. I would recommend at least 1 minute to think about it, but that's just me.


edit on 3/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
You don't really need a long explanation for this one.

Reason should lead to morality.

Morality doesn't have to lead to reason.




posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
"A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."


The three laws show that morality can't be legislated. At least thats how it turned out in Dick's book.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost


In your opinion, what is ultimately more important: Reason or Morality?

Two sides of the same coin.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

This is actually one of those dynamite question's, sometime's Reason trump's and sometime's Morality trump's.

But to see reason without morality look no further than the unethical experiment's conducted by the NAZI Scientist and Doctor Joseph mengele, he conducted many cruel and inhumane experiments upon innocent people without there consent upon people whom were being murdered anyway, his reason was sound if cruel but his absolute and even demonicly evil lack of morality makes that reason on that case utterly wrong, this was a heinous breach of morality.

Reason also continued to over rule morality were his research was concerned because after the war despite the vile manner in which that butcher had collated his data it continued to be used as a scientific resource and indeed still is today though it's origin is hidden from most even that use it.

Reason withouth Morality is cold, pityless and ultimately sterile and devoid of human value.

Morality without reason can lead to weakness and the loss of your home to strangers because you sheltered the wrong people.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   
You're asking someone to spend at least a minute thinking about something and then to offer a reason. Therefore, reason will be found to be the foundation of one's concern with morality.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
You're asking someone to spend at least a minute thinking about something and then to offer a reason. Therefore, reason will be found to be the foundation of one's concern with morality.

Mmmm, we reason out our actions based on whatever direction our moral compass is pointing.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
You're asking someone to spend at least a minute thinking about something and then to offer a reason. Therefore, reason will be found to be the foundation of one's concern with morality.

Mmmm, we reason out our actions based on whatever direction our moral compass is pointing.


I don't think I use morality in determining whether I'm going to order a hamburger or a chicken breast.

I use morality a lot, but not then.
There are some people who feel the need to make that a decision grounded in morality. I don't know how they do it. I need to save that energy for the important things in life.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

Reason is more important. The reason that reason is more important is that only reason can produce a reasonable moral code with which to live by and correct reasoning will always lead one to the reason that one should have a moral code in the first place and then to a correct one to follow. Without reason one ends up with moral codes like "it is moral to kill the nonbeliever," or "it is moral to throw gays from rooftops." Reason is senior to and governs morality.

Moreover, on my view you are presenting a false dichotomy. It is not "reason or morals;" it is "reason or not reason, morals or not morals"(see Aristotle's Law of Excluded Middle.) Reason always leads to a moral code and the correct one at that; morality based on whim and opinion only gives us madhouse silly opinions backed up by the brute force of a despot or revolutionary.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Balance .



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I choose morality. I try to do good, to be helpful, to be kind, to the most people, for as long as possible. Some of those choices might go against reason. It might be inconvenient. It might be hard. It might be costly - but I try anyways.
edit on 4/3/2017 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TarzanBeta


I don't think I use morality in determining whether I'm going to order a hamburger or a chicken breast.

Those poor cows...



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack

I would choose moral too if it were not for the two stupid angels on my shoulders fighting with each other all the time:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

That is like asking, "what is more important: color or green?"

Green is a kind of color and morality is a kind of reasoning. (Morality is God's reasoning of the justifiably of will.)

Reasoning doesn't exist in and of itself like color doesn't exist as a color. (Reasoning exists within the spectrum intelligence.)

When we reason we reason by conceiving of things logically, ethically (the reasoning of an action's moral value), intuitively (by feelings), etc.

Edit: Just out of curiosity, what do you think reason/reasoning is? It's comparing and contrasting in order to find what quality/value?
edit on 4/3/2017 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TREESNAKE1111
Balance .


Justice (understanding, by using all of our faculties, why something is right or wrong).
edit on 14CDT11America/Chicago033111130 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Some brilliant answers so far, thanks for those participating.

Just to add: the key point of this exercise is to demonstrate to yourself that while a balanced approach is objectively best for everyone, there are important issues where you cannot equally weight reason with morality. Even if you make a decision that is 51% based on reason and 49% based on morality, you are still technically favouring one concept over the other.

This is NOT a false dichotomy because there are important issues where you WILL need to at least show more reason than morality or issues where you will need to show some more morality than reason.



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Some brilliant answers so far, thanks for those participating.

Just to add: the key point of this exercise is to demonstrate to yourself that while a balanced approach is objectively best for everyone, there are important issues where you cannot equally weight reason with morality. Even if you make a decision that is 51% based on reason and 49% based on morality, you are still technically favouring one concept over the other.

This is NOT a false dichotomy because there are important issues where you WILL need to at least show more reason than morality or issues where you will need to show some more morality than reason.

It is a false dichotomy though. It isn't "reason or morality," because you can be reasonable about morality. Morality should be a subset of reason not a disjunctive of it. It is "reason or not reason, morality or not mortality," not "reason or morality."



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
It is a false dichotomy though. It isn't "reason or morality," because you can be reasonable about morality. Morality should be a subset of reason not a disjunctive of it. It is "reason or not reason, morality or not mortality," not "reason or morality."


The ONLY, and I really do mean only, occasion where a genuine dichotomy can exist is if we compare a perfect existence against an imperfect existence. (By existence, I mean everything that has, can and does exist). There is no possible grey area. As soon as a 100% perfect system deviates negatively, no matter how small the change, it becomes an imperfect system.

At present, every time we speak about concepts such as Reason or Morality, we do so within a particular framework of knowledge that we are aware of. This does not confirm that there is nothing beyond our comprehension, but it does mean we are limited by what we can presently know. Keeping that in mind, within the human framework of knowledge on planet Earth it is more reasonable to assume planet Earth is an imperfect existence than it is a perfect existence.

Reason is a word that is inherently beneficial in an imperfect existence. Morality is a word that is "inherently" neutral in an imperfect existence. Both words are detrimental in a perfect existence.

So yes, Reason vs. Morality is not an "objectively" genuine dichotomy if you consider everything we might not know, but considering everything we do currently know, it is a very real dichotomy within the human framework of knowledge.

Do you agree?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Aristotelian1
It is a false dichotomy though. It isn't "reason or morality," because you can be reasonable about morality. Morality should be a subset of reason not a disjunctive of it. It is "reason or not reason, morality or not mortality," not "reason or morality."


The ONLY, and I really do mean only, occasion where a genuine dichotomy can exist is if we compare a perfect existence against an imperfect existence. (By existence, I mean everything that has, can and does exist). There is no possible grey area. As soon as a 100% perfect system deviates negatively, no matter how small the change, it becomes an imperfect system.

At present, every time we speak about concepts such as Reason or Morality, we do so within a particular framework of knowledge that we are aware of. This does not confirm that there is nothing beyond our comprehension, but it does mean we are limited by what we can presently know. Keeping that in mind, within the human framework of knowledge on planet Earth it is more reasonable to assume planet Earth is an imperfect existence than it is a perfect existence.

Reason is a word that is inherently beneficial in an imperfect existence. Morality is a word that is "inherently" neutral in an imperfect existence. Both words are detrimental in a perfect existence.

So yes, Reason vs. Morality is not an "objectively" genuine dichotomy if you consider everything we might not know, but considering everything we do currently know, it is a very real dichotomy within the human framework of knowledge.

Do you agree?

Disagree, my friend.

Dichotomy-"a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different."
Reason is not opposed to morality and is not entirely different; not inherently at least.

It is true that some people's moral codes are not reasonable, but that doesn't make reason and morality inherently contrasted or entirely different. Proper morality is firmly rooted in reason. There is no dichotomy. If there was, morality would be inherently unreasonable(see definition of "dichotomy,") which it is not.
edit on 5-4-2017 by Aristotelian1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join