Is Morality Rational?

[The Troquelet]

In other words, are moral codes, compassion, charity, etc, based on logic, or are they irrational and based on emotion?

Two opinions:

"Two things fill the mind with ever increasing wonder and awe. The more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me." - Immanuel Kant.

"`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." - David Hume.

 

[Pongui]

Mongoose vs. cobra.

 

[polymath]

I say they stem basically from evolutionary survival tactics - but our ability to rationalise takes them one step further.
To put it another way, groups that are not tuned in to helping the survival of the group will die out. Whereas those which are good at co-operation will survive. This is true of of animals without emotion or logic. Therefore, the reason is evolutionary, and nothing to do with emotion or logic. We only think it could be emotion or logic because either
a) charity makes us feel warm and fuzzy
or
b) charity makes us think 'That's a good idea!'
But they aren't the 'real' reasons we do it. We have charity etc. precisely because we are succesful social animals, that's it.

 

[philippe]

Polymath i was going to say that!
we have it becuase we are social animals.

 

[FredLC]

In a sense.

Our ancestors were very pragmatic when it comes to morality.

When you think about it, everything that we “feel” as right is somewhat obvious as rational choices from an impartial standpoint.

Don’t harm people from your community (size of community grows as humanity evolves);

Treat people as you wish to be treated;

Value people for being hard working, truthful and honest;

Etc., etc., etc.…

No one needs to be Einstein to see how those behaviors can be rapidly enunciated and, with some variations, adopted by any human community, at least in the rhetoric (after all, even now humanity still struggle to exercise those values).

So, as our mental processes evolved do adopt the best-adapted behavior, we “feel”, in an emotional level, that those are the right thing to do. So I suppose that it’s fair to say that the present human behavior is guided by a sentimental set of rules.

However, I still think that the primordial source of the most basic standards of morality lies in rational and pragmatic thinking, even if the enforcement of those values were not carried out in equally humanistic terms.

Regards .

 

[MrPresident]

This is completely off-topic but those philosophers reminded me of something;

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,

And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed.

 

[kmad]

All morality is completely subjective, so to each person everything can be moral or immoral. Subjective views tend to match the norm presented in current society, however. Remember it was once morally acceptable to own slaves.

 

[Hamlet]

Errrr, I'm not sure I understand. Surely differing moral codes can be based on either emotion, or belief, or whatever, whereas others can be pragmatic and logical?

 

[kmad]

the emotions and beliefs are imposed upon you by a social circle or a government figure. for instance, could you have a strong sense of nationalism without the goverment's interference?

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by kmad
could you have a strong sense of nationalism without the goverment's interference?

Nationalism originally arose against the opposition of Imperial governments.

Are you seriously suggesting that everybody is so thick that they derive eveything from authority?