NationStates Jolt Archive

Which is superior, logic or morals? I argued vehemently for logic in the last few pages of this thread:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=539395&page=17&highlight=should+terrorists+executed

I consider Ethos to be merely a high-bred of Logos and Pathos. Who agrees?

I believe logic is superior. Ethics trumps morals in my opinion. As ethics is typically grounded it reasoned assertions, whereas morals are typically biased assertions without thought.

Example: I believe homosexuality is wrong (personal moral); but I believe homosexuals deserve the right to marriage as any other (personal ethic)... My moral belief is a biased assertion, which I do not believe should be universally applied; my ethics are logically derived, and may be applied universally.

Which is superior, logic or morals? No.

Morality is derived from logic.

We use logic to determine what ethical/moral. I don't see a tension between the two. Take for example the problem of whether to tell a killer where his intended victim went if one has a duty to tell the truth and a duty to save the lives of others. Using logic most people would decide that saving a life is more important than telling a truth. Therefore, one should lie in this situation.

I believe logic is superior. Ethics trumps morals in my opinion. As ethics is typically grounded it reasoned assertions, whereas morals are typically biased assertions without thought.

Example: I believe homosexuality is wrong (personal moral); but I believe homosexuals deserve the right to marriage as any other (personal ethic)... My moral belief is a biased assertion, which I do not believe should be universally applied; my ethics are logically derived, and may be applied universally.
I’d disagree; ethics and morals are just different names for the same thing.

As to your example, I’d say that you have two ethical/moral rules here: Firstly. that homosexuality is wrong. Secondly, that one’s beliefs about sexuality shouldn’t be forced upon everyone.

Creating a false gap between ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ only confuses things, IMO.

To the OP: I'd say morals/ethics trumps logic, as logic (at least philosophical logic) faces an insurmountable difficulty translating into standard language that morals/ethics does not.

I’d disagree; ethics and morals are just different names for the same thing.

As to your example, I’d say that you have two ethical/moral rules here: Firstly. that homosexuality is wrong. Secondly, that one’s beliefs about sexuality shouldn’t be forced upon everyone.

Creating a false gap between ‘ethics’ and ‘morals’ only confuses things, IMO.

To the OP: I'd say morals/ethics trumps logic, as logic (at least philosophical logic) faces an insurmountable difficulty translating into standard language that morals/ethics does not.

Well, in the realm of philosophy they are different concepts. Ethics is a logical extrapolation, whereas morality is a series of externally mandated precepts.

Well, in the realm of philosophy they are different concepts. Ethics is a logical extrapolation, whereas morality is a series of externally mandated precepts.
I’m not talking about morality, but moral philosophy, aka morals, aka ethics.

This may well be down to different classifications in different countries, but the way I’ve been taught philosophy, moral philosophy is a synonym for ethics. All the textbooks, treatises and tracts that I’ve read, both on and off my courses, seem to use the two terms interchangeably.

True, we can split ethics or moral philosophy (a term I prefer), very generally, into metaethics and normative ethics, but ‘ethics’ isn’t a subset of ‘morals’, nor vice versa.

One can quite obviously, have an individual morality derived from ethics/moral philosophy, but I don’t believe that’s what we are talking about. If we are indeed arguing over nothing, then I apologise. :p

Well, in the realm of philosophy they are different concepts. Ethics is a logical extrapolation, whereas morality is a series of externally mandated precepts.

I've never heard this before unless your quoting specific philosophers making this distinction for semantic purposes. As far as I've learned, ethics and morals are interchangeable, thus why you often see the field of Ethics also labeled Moral Philosophy. But *shrug* I'm by no means an expert so maybe I'm wrong.

On to the topic, any valid moral code is logically derived so logic trumps morality. Hell, most of Western Moral Philosophy for the past few centuries has held by this stance steadfastly.

Morality is derived from logic.

Rarely

I think rights, and therefore the part of morality that says "don't violate them" can only be identified through logic.

I think emotions and the like that suggest "be nice to people" are also important (and risking gross false definitions here, might lead to personal ethics) but can't be used to base rights and claims on others on.

Rarely

For instance, it is illogical to force women to wear tops.

:D

Ethos, pathos and logos aren't separable.

Take "You shouldn't kill" for instance.

You shouldn't kill people because it's morally wrong (Ethos). It's morally wrong because that person reminds you of yourself, also a person (Pathos). It's also wrong because the person's relatives would attack you or try to have a revenge (Logos, due to the Pathos of others).

You can't separate these three concepts and claim one is better or worse than the other. They each are based on other things.

Logos can be based on ethos (Applying wrong logic X is ethically wrong because that logic has led to bad things).

Logos can be based on pathos (You don't attack your brother because you like him).

Ethos can be based on logos (Avoid doing X, it would cause the downfall of society).

Ethos can be based on pathos (Don't do X, it makes me feel uncomfortable and you will feel guilty afterwards).

Pathos can be based on logos (They're setting off an event that will kill millions! DAMN THEM!)

Pathos can be based on ethos (I feel guilty after I stole).

And so on.

For instance, it is illogical to force women to wear tops.

:D

Don't start that again! :p

Morality is derived from logic.

I've yet to see (convincing) proof for this.

For instance, it is illogical to force women to wear tops.
People wearing tops are less likely to suffer from sunburn and/or hypothermia, therefore it is illogical that we allow men not to wear tops.

Ethics are simply cultural and personal prejudices that have become rationalized, so they should carry no more weight than any other personal preference. Logic on it's own can't tell you what should be done, only how best to bring it about.
Therefore, the OP is completely wrong, and pathos is where it's at, baby.

Ethics are simply cultural and personal prejudices that have become rationalized...
I’m afraid I can’t get into a protracted debate about this (beer, smokes and Halo 3 are a-calling :p), which is a shame, as it’s one of my favourite subjects in moral philosophy.

However, it’s fair to say that cultural/moral relativism isn’t obviously correct.

And with that contentious remark, I bid you adieu.

Logic on it's own can't tell you what should be done, only how best to bring it about.
Except if what should be done is obvious, like trying not to starve, or transforming a bit of rubble into shelter.

The two things are the same in my opinion. They both "feel" right in the same way. Or at least the back of my mind feels very similar when using one or the other. It's like anger without the bite, (I think, I'll try getting angry and compare).

Except if what should be done is obvious, like trying not to starve, or transforming a bit of rubble into shelter.

Neither of those are remotely dictated by logic.

Maybe I want to starve. Maybe I don't want shelter.

I think rights, and therefore the part of morality that says "don't violate them" can only be identified through logic.

I think emotions and the like that suggest "be nice to people" are also important (and risking gross false definitions here, might lead to personal ethics) but can't be used to base rights and claims on others on.

I would be very surprised to see a credible derivation of morality from reason that allows us to say "Don't steal" but doesn't allow us to say "Help others in need."

Neither of those are remotely dictated by logic.

Maybe I want to starve. Maybe I don't want shelter.
In which case you will die. I don't really see the point of a moral system that would require its adherents to die, and I think that neither do you.

I would be very surprised to see a credible derivation of morality from reason that allows us to say "Don't steal" but doesn't allow us to say "Help others in need."
Well, I could link you to various wiki articles on objectivist epistemology and the ethics that follow from it, but I have a feeling you wouldn't consider them credible.

But making it extremely simple: there are certain things which a being must do in order to survive. The things that allow it to survive can hardly be called evil.

Helping others in need is not a bad thing in and for itself, and I'm a great advocate of doing it. It becomes a problem when people build moral laws out of that concept which end up putting the interests and happiness of others above my own. Because once you do that, you can't build a reasonable threshold. If I'm a millionaire and some homeless guy's interests are above my own, then you can't suddenly say that this doesn't hold true anymore if I'm a homeless guy myself.

And if I'm starving, and need food in order to survive, but you say that the interests of others are above my own, then keeping food to myself would be evil, meaning my survival is evil, meaning my entire existence is evil. Not a particularly attractive way of looking at life.

But if you said that it was okay to steal in order to survive, then you're just building a contradiction, because you suddenly hold the thief's interests above those of the victims. The victim would be evil for wanting to keep his or her property and for defending it. There is only one way in which one can allow people to live and not be evil for doing so, and that is if everyone earns their own living.

i prefer legos.

I've never heard this before unless your quoting specific philosophers making this distinction for semantic purposes. As far as I've learned, ethics and morals are interchangeable, thus why you often see the field of Ethics also labeled Moral Philosophy. But *shrug* I'm by no means an expert so maybe I'm wrong.

On to the topic, any valid moral code is logically derived so logic trumps morality. Hell, most of Western Moral Philosophy for the past few centuries has held by this stance steadfastly.

It's mostly in the Aristotelian thoughts on virtue ethics, as well in Plato... Later philosophers used the terms interchangeably, but after doing some reading I preferred the Aristotelian approach to ethic philosophy.

In which case you will die.

So?

I don't really see the point of a moral system that would require its adherents to die

"Point" (the reasons for something) doesn't meaningfully exist in a prescriptive sense prior to articulating a conception of good reasons: that is, morality.

If something is right, there is obviously a "point" to it. If something is wrong, any "point" to it is insufficient for committing the action.

But making it extremely simple: there are certain things which a being must do in order to survive. The things that allow it to survive can hardly be called evil.

Why not? That seems a pretty baseless assumption to me.

In fact, there are numerous theories which command us to sacrifice our lives in certain circumstances. I fail to see the illogic of it. For that matter, even Objectivism would rather have us die than, say, deprive someone else of life so that we can live... right?

And remember, you were talking about logic. Your personal feeling that your survival trumps everything else proves nothing whatsoever.

Helping others in need is not a bad thing in and for itself, and I'm a great advocate of doing it. It becomes a problem when people build moral laws out of that concept which end up putting the interests and happiness of others above my own.

Actually, at most they tend to argue that the interests and happiness of others are as worthy as yours are--not more so.

Even theories which do not prescribe altruism tend to suggest that sometimes our interests should be restrained for the sake of others: again, take Objectivism and violating other people's rights.

Because once you do that, you can't build a reasonable threshold. If I'm a millionaire and some homeless guy's interests are above my own, then you can't suddenly say that this doesn't hold true anymore if I'm a homeless guy myself.

No, the other person's interests were never above yours.

But the other person was in need: an equal evaluation of interest gives his need a priority over your desire for additional luxury (just as your own private desire for food trumps your private desire for a yacht). As a millionaire, you are not in need. As a homeless guy, you are.

And if I'm starving, and need food in order to survive, but you say that the interests of others are above my own, then keeping food to myself would be evil, meaning my survival is evil, meaning my entire existence is evil.

Slippery slope.

Not a particularly attractive way of looking at life.

Emotion. Not reason.

But if you said that it was okay to steal in order to survive, then you're just building a contradiction, because you suddenly hold the thief's interests above those of the victims.

No, you don't.

The thief has a right to steal when that is his only option to survive, as long as she doesn't deprive others of the capacity to survive in the process.

Her victims have a right to steal when that is their only option to survive, as long as they don't deprive others of the capacity to survive in the process.

Equality.

The victim would be evil for wanting to keep his or her property and for defending it.

Indeed he would be, at least if he knew the full circumstances, because to be consistent he would have to accept that if he were in the thief's situation, he would not have the right to secure his survival... and generally we do not will our own deaths.

(Of course, there may be OTHER exceptional considerations that triumph over survival. But protecting someone's property, as such, hardly seems to be one.)

Logic? My God, the man's talking about logic! We're talking about universal armageddon!

But making it extremely simple: there are certain things which a being must do in order to survive. The things that allow it to survive can hardly be called evil.

Ummm..... most people would call some things that a being needs to survive evil. Say is vampires really existed and needed to drink the blood of humans to death in order to survive. Most people would consider killing humans, even if one needs to kill them to survive, evil.

Helping others in need is not a bad thing in and for itself, and I'm a great advocate of doing it. It becomes a problem when people build moral laws out of that concept which end up putting the interests and happiness of others above my own. Because once you do that, you can't build a reasonable threshold. If I'm a millionaire and some homeless guy's interests are above my own, then you can't suddenly say that this doesn't hold true anymore if I'm a homeless guy myself.

And if I'm starving, and need food in order to survive, but you say that the interests of others are above my own, then keeping food to myself would be evil, meaning my survival is evil, meaning my entire existence is evil. Not a particularly attractive way of looking at life.

But if you said that it was okay to steal in order to survive, then you're just building a contradiction, because you suddenly hold the thief's interests above those of the victims. The victim would be evil for wanting to keep his or her property and for defending it. There is only one way in which one can allow people to live and not be evil for doing so, and that is if everyone earns their own living.

Most altruistic philosophies are egalitarian, ie they see everyone as being equals in some way. They don't see other as having more rights than others. They see people as having equal rights and equal innate moral worth

Also, saying that thiefing, if one needs to do so to survive, is evil when all actions that are necessary for one's survival aren't evil is a moral contradiction

As far as Aristotle was concerned Ethos wasn't really ethics as much as it was "reputation". Of course he felt that a good reputation should come from doing ethical things. The problem is in today's society reputation seems to come from celebrity rather than ethics. We see people selling things that they don't have a clue about just because they are famous. Aristotle somehow didn't envision such a time when reputation would simply refer to someone that made the news for good or ill and people trusted their word based only on the fact that they are well known.

While Aristotle recognized that people liked to think that they are logical. He always demanded that some logic should be inserted in rhetoric to fulfill that human desire. In fact, very few human decisions are based on logic. In the end it is the appeal of emotion (pathos) that will win the argument.

In Soviet Russia, morals are logical you!

As far as Aristotle was concerned Ethos wasn't really ethics as much as it was "reputation". Of course he felt that a good reputation should come from doing ethical things. The problem is in today's society reputation seems to come from celebrity rather than ethics. We see people selling things that they don't have a clue about just because they are famous. Aristotle somehow didn't envision such a time when reputation would simply refer to someone that made the news for good or ill and people trusted their word based only on the fact that they are well known.

While Aristotle recognized that people liked to think that they are logical. He always demanded that some logic should be inserted in rhetoric to fulfill that human desire. In fact, very few human decisions are based on logic. In the end it is the appeal of emotion (pathos) that will win the argument.

Assuming you're right (I honestly have no idea...I keep away from Aristotle like a STD...that shit just makes my eyes wither and my brain melt), this surprises me a great deal considering Socrates/Plato definitely did predict people only assuming the illusion of moral behavior rather than actual moral behavior.

And you can easily push a moral theory that is credible and disallows thievery and charity at the same time. Just argue it from a utilitarian stance with the claim that while thievery has a net weakening effect on society, charity does as well by encouraging codependent tendencies. The argument could be made tighter but, honestly, I think it's ridiculous so I'd rather not try defending it.

Just argue it from a utilitarian stance

Which still mandates mutual aid, when it actually helps the recipient.

Whether or not a particular instance of mutual aid actually helps the recipient is an empirical question, not a moral one.

Which still mandates mutual aid, when it actually helps the recipient.

Whether or not a particular instance of mutual aid actually helps the recipient is an empirical question, not a moral one.

Not necessarily true. If you can prove that aid is detrimental to society as a whole (and this also depends on how you take the aggregate of that...society over time or society at that exact moment? This is why I often think Utilitarianism is useless since we rarely see frameworks actually address this issue), regardless of how it helps the recipient, then it fits snugly within the utilitarian framework. Though, in general, it'd have nothing to do with helping the recipient...it could be the biggest help ever given to a recipient in the history of recipients receiving assistance but if it has a net detrimental value to society it's fubared.

Not necessarily true.

Yes, the benefit to the recipient must exceed the cost of the giving. I ignored that condition because Neu Leonstein and I were discussing cases of radical inequality, where the cost is trivial relative to the (seeming) benefit.

(and this also depends on how you take the aggregate of that...society over time or society at that exact moment?

Over time.

This is why I often think Utilitarianism is useless since we rarely see frameworks actually address this issue)

Utilitarianism does address this. Intensity and duration remaining constant, all preferences are equal: whoever has them and whenever they are had.

Though, in general, it'd have nothing to do with helping the recipient...it could be the biggest help ever given to a recipient in the history of recipients receiving assistance but if it has a net detrimental value to society it's fubared.

Yeah, but generally charity only has strong effects on two people: the giver and the recipient.

Because, in the examples being discussed, the cost to the giver is relatively minor, the important question is whether the recipient receives significant benefit.

Assuming you're right (I honestly have no idea...I keep away from Aristotle like a STD...that shit just makes my eyes wither and my brain melt), this surprises me a great deal considering Socrates/Plato definitely did predict people only assuming the illusion of moral behavior rather than actual moral behavior.


There is a difference between what all three argued in favor of and the reality of what they observed. All three argued strongly for ethics, truth, morality, etc. but observed that this wasn't what happened. (I guess maybe they had celeb advertising also)

It's really interesting to read them, especially Aristotle, because in so many ways humans haven't changed. (Aristotle actually argued in favor of women's lib.) I would recommend a good translation that uses modern English. My professor used "The Rhetoric of Aristotle" translated by Lane Cooper.

It's really interesting to read them, especially Aristotle, because in so many ways humans haven't changed. (Aristotle actually argued in favor of women's lib.) I would recommend a good translation that uses modern English. My professor used "The Rhetoric of Aristotle" translated by Lane Cooper.

Did he really? I know Plato allowed women to be part of the guardian class and possibly even one one of the philosopher kings, but he didn't think many would be up to the challenge.