What is the basis for moral decisions?

[McCulloch]

This is a split off from the Limits of Scientific inquiry.

Let's assume that we have been tasked with determining the position to take on some moral issue. One example might be Capital Punishment. The question for debate is not what is the correct position on that, or any other moral issue, but the deeper philosophical issue of what we use to assess the validity of such a moral issue.

To repeat, we are not debating any specific moral issue, but we are debating what are the fundamental bases for making moral decisions. What factors would you take into account in deciding if capital punishment is morally correct?

• Revelation
• Tradition
• Justice
• Societal well-being
• Economics
• Emotion
• Logic
• Compassion

How does that work? Can a rational, consistent and valid moral decision be made? Can there be any degree of confidence in the correctness of such decisions?

[cnorman18]

This is a split off from the Limits of Scientific inquiry.

Let's assume that we have been tasked with determining the position to take on some moral issue. One example might be Capital Punishment. The question for debate is not what is the correct position on that, or any other moral issue, but the deeper philosophical issue of what we use to assess the validity of such a moral issue.

To repeat, we are not debating any specific moral issue, but we are debating what are the fundamental bases for making moral decisions. What factors would you take into account in deciding if capital punishment is morally correct?

• Revelation
• Tradition
• Justice
• Societal well-being
• Economics
• Emotion
• Logic
• Compassion

How does that work? Can a rational, consistent and valid moral decision be made? Can there be any degree of confidence in the correctness of such decisions?

I think the only one of those that would be out of court would be "Revelation," since it can't be verified unless and until God sits down at Larry King's desk, e.g., and speaks to the issue live and in person. The place of "Revelation" in "Tradition" and its relative weight would depend on consensus, as mentioned below.

The very meaning of the concepts of "Justice," "Societal well-being," "Emotion," and "Compassion" are determined in large part by "Tradition," that is, by consensus over time in the context of the culture under discussion. "Economics" and "Logic" would be the only two that are objectively quantifiable, and the relative importance of "Economics" in particular might be subject to debate.

Which brings us to this: You have left out what I consider to be the key determining factor, which ought to be, and inevitably is, the consensus of rational debate over time. The relative importance and weight of ALL of these are and have been historically determined by that, and can be determined by nothing else. I don't think a formula is possible here. We just have to work out each and every moral issue individually, using all the tools we have. Sometimes it's easy; murder is bad. Sometimes it's not; is abortion murder?

I think that trying to turn our human responsibility for making moral (and other) decisions over to objective, quantifiable scientific formulae and rigid, inarguably correct and exact procedures is analogous to the fundamentalist impulse of turning over that responsibility to an infallible and inerrant Book or body of doctrine. I think it's an abdication of our basic responsibility as human beings to THINK, with the rational capacity we have evolved -- or, if you like, have been given "in the image of God."

[sickles]

This is a split off from the Limits of Scientific inquiry.

Let's assume that we have been tasked with determining the position to take on some moral issue. One example might be Capital Punishment. The question for debate is not what is the correct position on that, or any other moral issue, but the deeper philosophical issue of what we use to assess the validity of such a moral issue.

To repeat, we are not debating any specific moral issue, but we are debating what are the fundamental bases for making moral decisions. What factors would you take into account in deciding if capital punishment is morally correct?

• Revelation
• Tradition
• Justice
• Societal well-being
• Economics
• Emotion
• Logic
• Compassion

How does that work? Can a rational, consistent and valid moral decision be made? Can there be any degree of confidence in the correctness of such decisions?

This is a split off from the Limits of Scientific inquiry.

Let's assume that we have been tasked with determining the position to take on some moral issue. One example might be Capital Punishment. The question for debate is not what is the correct position on that, or any other moral issue, but the deeper philosophical issue of what we use to assess the validity of such a moral issue.

To repeat, we are not debating any specific moral issue, but we are debating what are the fundamental bases for making moral decisions. What factors would you take into account in deciding if capital punishment is morally correct?

• Revelation
• Tradition
• Justice
• Societal well-being
• Economics
• Emotion
• Logic
• Compassion

How does that work? Can a rational, consistent and valid moral decision be made? Can there be any degree of confidence in the correctness of such decisions?

My stance on this issue is that one cannot accurately assess the validity of a position on moral issue. Every action that is not in a natural context(meaning, eating, extcreting, reproducing, etc) is good for some and bad for others. For example:

capital punishment. Good for some (society, family of victims, tiny bit less population) Bad for some (final judgement on criminal, society because its an institution that is a drag on freedom and tends to promote the idea that punishment undoes criminal behavior, religious people who believe it is wrong).

So how do you know if it a decision worth carrying out? I do not think that any of those human constructs should come into play.(justice, tradition, logic, etc). If a criminal does something that is worth executing him over, who determines where that line is located? Is rape executable, or just murder? treason? corporate espionage? We all come to a popular consensus and arbitrate "justice" from there.

But look at it this way. Imagine you were walking down a street at night and you happen across a stranger lying in a pool of blood on the sidewalk. Imagine your horror! You know something sinister and wrong has happened here. Now I want you to imagine a duck strolling by the scene. In fact the duck has walked on top of the body, jumped back onto the sidewalk, continued on his merry way.
Notice, the duck didnt reel in horror. Nor does the duck think something sinister or wrong happened.

My point is this: We cannot know all of the reprecussions of any given action (moral or otherwise), so we cannot claim to have knowledge of right and wrong. You cant (philosophically speaking)claim that murder is wrong, as you could not possibly know all the circumstances of that murder. You cant read all the ripples that a pebble makes when dropped into a pond. Maybe the murderer unknowlingly prevented a charles manson from being born. who knows? I dont, and neither do you. This is the knowledge of good and evil, and it is required to rule this planet. And we dont have it. The gods do, if anyone does. And if no one does, then no one rules.

[McCulloch]

My stance on this issue is that one cannot accurately assess the validity of a position on moral issue.

How then should we live? While we might not assess the validity of any particular moral issue with precision, be can be accurate in our assessments.

But look at it this way. Imagine you were walking down a street at night and you happen across a stranger lying in a pool of blood on the sidewalk. Imagine your horror! You know something sinister and wrong has happened here. Now I want you to imagine a duck strolling by the scene. In fact the duck has walked on top of the body, jumped back onto the sidewalk, continued on his merry way.
Notice, the duck didn't reel in horror. Nor does the duck think something sinister or wrong happened.

Then we should all behave as if there is no morality? You take the amoral stance?

[fredonly]

To repeat, we are not debating any specific moral issue, but we are debating what are the fundamental bases for making moral decisions. What factors would you take into account in deciding if capital punishment is morally correct?

• Revelation
• Tradition
• Justice
• Societal well-being
• Economics
• Emotion
• Logic
• Compassion

How does that work? Can a rational, consistent and valid moral decision be made? Can there be any degree of confidence in the correctness of such decisions?

Revelation - nope (unless you regard the criminal law to be "revelation"

Tradition - Worth looking at as a starting point, but not a determining factor

Justice - That's the overarching objective, the other factors should be considered in terms of justice.

Societal Well Being- Sort of. I'd reword it to: what's best for society. Lynch-mobs contributed to Societal Well-Being, in that they satisfied urges and made the lynchers think they were serving justice.

Economics - Yes. Economics should be considered. Is it worth the cost to execute someone? If it costs the government millions to go through the process of appeals, why do it?

Emotion - Yes, but as something to try to avoid as a determinant. If your child was murdered, you may have an emotional urge to execute murderers. Keep this in mind and try to avoid being ruled by such emotino.

Compassion - Yes, along with empathy.

[sickles]

My stance on this issue is that one cannot accurately assess the validity of a position on moral issue.

How then should we live? While we might not assess the validity of any particular moral issue with precision, be can be accurate in our assessments.

We can know how to live. We cannot be sure of precision with moral quandries, so we should proceed with caution. This is acceptable. The problem comes in when one decides that the belief that "abortion is wrong" is the RIGHT way to the think, and all other points are wrong. You simply cannot know this. You cant know if abortion is right or wrong, so you cannot presume that is is always wrong.

But look at it this way. Imagine you were walking down a street at night and you happen across a stranger lying in a pool of blood on the sidewalk. Imagine your horror! You know something sinister and wrong has happened here. Now I want you to imagine a duck strolling by the scene. In fact the duck has walked on top of the body, jumped back onto the sidewalk, continued on his merry way.
Notice, the duck didn't reel in horror. Nor does the duck think something sinister or wrong happened.

Then we should all behave as if there is no morality? You take the amoral stance?

I take the "i dont know" stance. We may delude ourselves into thinking that we know right and wrong. And with this delusion in hand we go about making laws and punishments. Im fine being ruled by society, however , i am not fine with the delusion. I would be much happier if we were ruled by an informed and educated society.

[Vince]

Can a rational, consistent and valid moral decision be made?

Yes I think it can, and I agree with this statement as to why.

...the consensus of rational debate over time. The relative importance and weight of ALL of these are and have been historically determined by that, and can be determined by nothing else.

Can there be any degree of confidence in the correctness of such decisions?

No, I don't think so, not yet at least. A study of morality is in its infancy the tools we have to judge morality are limited to our own empathy, social and religious institutions, family traditions etc. Our tools for determining morality are not quantitative which robs us of the ability to be certain of our decisions. Yet moral decisions must be made, even inaction can have moral consequences that affect each one of us. I think we should take the tools we have and make our best guess, while also trying to develop better tools for determining morality.

I really liked Sam Harris The Moral Landscape which dealt with mainly this issue.

[ChaosBorders]

My stance on this issue is that one cannot accurately assess the validity of a position on moral issue.

I think a logically valid system may be possible to develop. But if it is objectively sound, it is merely by sheer coincidence.

[sickles]

My stance on this issue is that one cannot accurately assess the validity of a position on moral issue.

I think a logically valid system may be possible to develop. But if it is objectively sound, it is merely by sheer coincidence.

Then you enter the conundrum of who shall define "valid" or "successfull". As it stands, its almost a popular vote.

[ChaosBorders]

My stance on this issue is that one cannot accurately assess the validity of a position on moral issue.

I think a logically valid system may be possible to develop. But if it is objectively sound, it is merely by sheer coincidence.

Then you enter the conundrum of who shall define "valid" or "successfull". As it stands, its almost a popular vote.

Yes, which if you admit your sense of morality is basically subjective, is about the best we can actually hope for. Unfortunately, most people feel the need to objectify their sense of morality even though there's no way to actually show that it is objectively right.