Jump to content

Intuitive Moral Intuition And Emotions


minsocal

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Wayseer,

 

Perhaps you could start a thread on Buddhism?

 

minsocal

 

 

Why?

 

You have, apparently, demonstrated that the mind is not a blank slate - whatever you might mean by that. But in demonstrating such you effectively deny choice.

 

What you have been telling me is that I have to think like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For general use on the thread. In my first post I included the website for anyone to access and see how they compare to the research results. Has anyone tried it?

 

I did the first one ("Moral Foundations Questionnaire": "What underlies the virtues and issues you care about? Why do you have the political orientation that you do?"). I've listed my scores below (green), in addition to the average scores of all political liberals (blue) and conservatives (red) who have taken the test.

 

"Scores run from 0 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that foundation) to 5 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that foundation and build much of your morality on top of it)."

 

Harm: 4.4, 3.8, 3.2

Fairness: 3.9, 3.8, 3.0

Loyalty: 2.8, 2.0, 2.9

Authority: 3.1, 2.1, 3.3

Purity: 2.9, 1.6, 2.9

 

...Which seems to indicate I'm kind of mixed up :lol:

 

I think it's because my external morality - my political morality and my expectations of others - tends to be based on harm, and fairness, with a smaller emphasis on loyalty and authority and a much smaller emphasis on purity (especially politically speaking). This makes me a political liberal. In terms of my personal morality, however - in other words, my expectations of myself - I tend to emphasize all five, making my personal morality more conservative.

 

I think this site is interesting, I'll try to take some more of the tests if I have time! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did the first one ("Moral Foundations Questionnaire": "What underlies the virtues and issues you care about? Why do you have the political orientation that you do?"). I've listed my scores below (green), in addition to the average scores of all political liberals (blue) and conservatives (red) who have taken the test.

 

"Scores run from 0 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that foundation) to 5 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that foundation and build much of your morality on top of it)."

 

Harm: 4.4, 3.8, 3.2

Fairness: 3.9, 3.8, 3.0

Loyalty: 2.8, 2.0, 2.9

Authority: 3.1, 2.1, 3.3

Purity: 2.9, 1.6, 2.9

 

...Which seems to indicate I'm kind of mixed up :lol:

 

I think it's because my external morality - my political morality and my expectations of others - tends to be based on harm, and fairness, with a smaller emphasis on loyalty and authority and a much smaller emphasis on purity (especially politically speaking). This makes me a political liberal. In terms of my personal morality, however - in other words, my expectations of myself - I tend to emphasize all five, making my personal morality more conservative.

 

I think this site is interesting, I'll try to take some more of the tests if I have time! :)

 

Thankyou. The idea is that you are not mixed up. You have a complex system of values that suit you. Don't worry about the labels of "conservative" or "liberal". Your insights are very good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did the first one ("Moral Foundations Questionnaire": "What underlies the virtues and issues you care about? Why do you have the political orientation that you do?"). I've listed my scores below (green), in addition to the average scores of all political liberals (blue) and conservatives (red) who have taken the test.

 

"Scores run from 0 (the lowest possible score, you completely reject that foundation) to 5 (the highest possible score, you very strongly endorse that foundation and build much of your morality on top of it)."

 

Harm: 4.4, 3.8, 3.2

Fairness: 3.9, 3.8, 3.0

Loyalty: 2.8, 2.0, 2.9

Authority: 3.1, 2.1, 3.3

Purity: 2.9, 1.6, 2.9

 

...Which seems to indicate I'm kind of mixed up :lol:

 

I think it's because my external morality - my political morality and my expectations of others - tends to be based on harm, and fairness, with a smaller emphasis on loyalty and authority and a much smaller emphasis on purity (especially politically speaking). This makes me a political liberal. In terms of my personal morality, however - in other words, my expectations of myself - I tend to emphasize all five, making my personal morality more conservative.

 

I think this site is interesting, I'll try to take some more of the tests if I have time! :)

 

When I took a better look, you emphasize Harm and Fairness. The research is on the emphasis. You seem to be "liberal" by what I see. The lower scores mean lower priority, not rejection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's more that you get them to use their capacities?

 

 

That is my new philosophy. I gave them mazes and geometric pictures to play with. I had some who wouldn't even try! If they can't see the answer they immediately need help and start talking about how hard it is and how they don't know how to do it. So now we are working on frustration and not giving up just because they don't know the answer right away! Kids... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I took a better look, you emphasize Harm and Fairness. The research is on the emphasis. You seem to be "liberal" by what I see. The lower scores mean lower priority, not rejection.

 

Yes, certainly. When it comes to Loyalty, Purity, and Authority, however, my scores are closer to the average of conservatives, which is why I was hypothesizing about why this could be; and I do think it has to do with the fact that my personal morality does emphasize those 3 to a degree (though not as much as Harm and Fairness).

 

I'm curious to hear what others got as well :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, certainly. When it comes to Loyalty, Purity, and Authority, however, my scores are closer to the average of conservatives, which is why I was hypothesizing about why this could be; and I do think it has to do with the fact that my personal morality does emphasize those 3 to a degree (though not as much as Harm and Fairness).

 

I'm curious to hear what others got as well :)

 

This might help:

 

"In my cross-cultural research, I have found that the moral domain of educated Westerners is narrower—more focused on harm and fairness—than it is elsewhere." If you have an interest in other cultures and religions, this might pull your scores up on the other scales (my opinion). I think Haidt should have a third category for "progressive" myself.

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology

Jonathan Haidt

 

People are selfish, yet morally motivated. Morality is universal, yet culturally variable. Such apparent contradictions are dissolving as research from many disciplines converges on a few shared principles, including the importance of moral intuitions, the socially functional (rather than truth-seeking) nature of moral thinking, and the coevolution of moral minds with cultural practices and institutions that create diverse moral communities. I propose a fourth principle to guide future research: Morality is about more than harm and fairness. More research is needed on the collective and religious parts of the moral domain, such as loyalty, authority, and spiritual purity.

 

Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.

 

Intuition is a proper function of the normal human brain. Intuition interprets. It was not my intent to suggest intuition is acquired, but information. So intuition interprets, processes, and organizes the brains acquired information. Nonrational (irrational) information cannot be collected, interpreted, processed, or organized on any level. Much less for a conscious mind to reasonably understand.

-

Empirical work neccessarily requires the inclusion of the metaphysical. Otherwise answers will continue to be insufficent in explanations of the world and of man.

-

Jung and Kant and Haidt are asking the right questions, For example, Haidt reasonably asks about man's morality vs. his cruelty, one of the three major subjects for discussion in philosphic thought.

 

Even though Haidt concluded the insufficiency of all that had gone before him, he insists we need to continue 'future research'. He rests on the source of knowledge as being through our own experiences, research, and shared principles, true or not. Unfortunately, Haidt starts with 'existence' beginning with some impersonal source, chance. If he is correct then morals simply do not exist as morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intuition is a proper function of the normal human brain. Intuition interprets. It was not my intent to suggest intuition is acquired, but information. So intuition interprets, processes, and organizes the brains acquired information. Nonrational (irrational) information cannot be collected, interpreted, processed, or organized on any level. Much less for a conscious mind to reasonably understand.

-

Empirical work neccessarily requires the inclusion of the metaphysical. Otherwise answers will continue to be insufficent in explanations of the world and of man.

-

Jung and Kant and Haidt are asking the right questions, For example, Haidt reasonably asks about man's morality vs. his cruelty, one of the three major subjects for discussion in philosphic thought.

 

Even though Haidt concluded the insufficiency of all that had gone before him, he insists we need to continue 'future research'. He rests on the source of knowledge as being through our own experiences, research, and shared principles, true or not. Unfortunately, Haidt starts with 'existence' beginning with some impersonal source, chance. If he is correct then morals simply do not exist as morals.

 

Thank you davidk ... I agree. I have to think about your last comment a bit. Thought provoking for me and needing digestion before too rapid a response.

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you davidk ... I agree. I have to think about your last comment a bit. Thought provoking for me and needing digestion before too rapid a response.

 

minsocal

 

Ahhhh! I see your point (I think). There are self-evident moral truths that are not reducible to natural facts or properties? I'm way behind the curve on this.

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhh! I see your point (I think). There are self-evident moral truths that are not reducible to natural facts or properties? I'm way behind the curve on this.

 

minsocal

The dissection of morals is really the second part of three in an explanation of a universe with man, morals, and knowledge. Like the discussion of epistemology on another thread (the third part of the aforementioned three), there are presuppositions from the first that need to be agreed upon to form the foundation of this as well as the other thread. David had raised questions that are honest in regard to prematurely discussing part 3, but his tenor is so caustic, I'm not able to communicate with him.

I'll continue here as best I can, but you must realize some reasonings must be assumed.

-

Part 2. The moral necessity is of man and His dilemma. There are two problems. The first is: man is personal, different from non-man, and finite. Because man is finite, he has no sufficient integration point in himself.

 

(Briefly, Jean Paul Sarte put two observations correctly [i'm relaying a summation rather than quoting]: 1. The basic philosphic question is that something is there rather than something is not there. This is discussed more fully in Part 1.

2. No finite point has any meaning unless it has an infinite reference point.

#2 simply means; man being finite is not a sufficient reference point for himself. Plato had put it another way; you must have absolutes, or nothing has any meaning.)

 

Despite being finite, man's personal nature distinguishes him from non-man, but has no explanation for himself without an absloute or an infinite reference point.

 

The second problem is man has nobility, the 'good' side; and that is contrasted with his cruelty, euphamisitcally called "the Dark side". Other's have expressed it another way; man's estrangement from himself and other men when it comes to morals.

 

The first possible answer to this dilemma is an impersonal beginning. Man's finiteness and cruelty have been thought of seperately. So start with an impersonal beginning, no matter what kind, and morals will eventually turn out to be the assertion of no morals. No matter what kind of impersonal you start with; sceince and it's energy particles, or Eastern pantheism, or neo-orthodoxy, morals really do not exist as morals. Man's finiteness and cruelty are the same thing. With an impersoanl beginning everything is equal in the area of morals, and they disappear. Man's finiteness and cruelty are only one philosophic area.

 

We can talk about what society doesn't like, and what you or I don't like, but we cannot talk about what is really right, or really wrong, if we begin with the impersonal, because man's estrangement (cruelty) as he is now, is only because of chance. So man's tension is never on the moral side, if you begin with the impersonal. Extend the argument far enough and man, by having any tension at all between good and bad, has been kicked out of line with the universe as it has always been.

 

By chance man became a being of aspirations, including morals with no ultimate fulfillment in the universe. Man has been 'kicked up' in a universe with no meaning! The ultimate cosmic alienation. Man has a feeling for moral motions, yet is completely out of line with the universe.

-

Moral motions; all men have always felt that things are right or wrong. I do not mean certain norms. Even the determinist and behaviorist have feelings of moral motions. So beginning with the impersonal, neo-orthodoxy may even use Christian terms, it is only relative- nothing else, right is just as meaningless as wrong, and the universe is totally silent concerning morals.

-

Now let us look at the opposite answer. The personal beginning.

 

I'll have to continue this later. This has been somewhat abbreviated for space, so if you have any questions, please post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll continue here as best I can, but you must realize some reasonings must be assumed.

 

Oh I do realize that some reasonings must be assumed, and see no reason that they must be yours. I can do my own research and have now done so. I am not seeking a lecture, pleeeeease!

 

Sorry, my emotions just acted on me .... wonder where that came from?

 

Ahh ... fairness and reciprocity. Intuitive and affect laden.

 

The problem is "you must" ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summation of my earlier post on morals:

We have come to a place in our culture where man sees himself as coming from an impersonal beginning, whether chemical or energy particles and nothing else. As such there is no explanation for the complexity of the universe or the personality of man. We do not in reality have any answer for the metaphysical questions, and no meaning for morals. We are only a part of the machine.

-

With a personal beginning, there is a profound possibility of keeping morals and metaphysics separate. Mans cruelty separate from his finiteness. (Man's cruelty is well documented. Wars, genocide, immorality, abuse, theft, slander,... )

 

If we begin with a personal beginning, we must look at how man is. How do we regard man's cruelty? There's two possibilities. First is that man as he is now is what he has always intrinsically been. But in that we have two problems.

 

1. If man were created by a personal-infinite God, then God is cruel. A French philosopher and historian, Charles Baudelaire said, "If there is a God, He is the Devil." To be intellectually honest, if beginning with his premise of man being what he has always intrinsically been, I must agree with Baudelaire.

 

Albert Camus, another French thinker, argued, if there was a God, then we cannot fight social evil, for if we do, we are fighting God who made the world as it is. If man stands in their premise that there has always been a continuity of intrinsic cruelty, then to argue that God is a good God would go against all reason and rationality. Any optimism of God's goodness rests upon irrationality.

 

2. If man is as he has always been, then there is no hope of any qualitative change in man. We are left with endless pessimism.

 

At this point we must recognize the second philosophic possibility. Man as he is now is not what he was. Man is DIScontinuous, rather than continuous with what he has been.

 

This raises yet two more possibilities. If God changed him, or made him abnormal, God is still a bad God! The other is: that man, created by God has changed himself. That man stands at the point of discontinuity not because God changed him but because he changed himself! Man as he now is by his own choice is what he intrisically was. We can reasonably and rationally understand that man is now cruel, and God is not a bad God.

 

Philosophically these are our choices.

 

Later...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summation of my earlier post on morals:

We have come to a place in our culture where man sees himself as coming from an impersonal beginning, whether chemical or energy particles and nothing else. As such there is no explanation for the complexity of the universe or the personality of man. We do not in reality have any answer for the metaphysical questions, and no meaning for morals. We are only a part of the machine.

-

With a personal beginning, there is a profound possibility of keeping morals and metaphysics separate. Mans cruelty separate from his finiteness. (Man's cruelty is well documented. Wars, genocide, immorality, abuse, theft, slander,... )

 

If we begin with a personal beginning, we must look at how man is. How do we regard man's cruelty? There's two possibilities. First is that man as he is now is what he has always intrinsically been. But in that we have two problems.

 

1. If man were created by a personal-infinite God, then God is cruel. A French philosopher and historian, Charles Baudelaire said, "If there is a God, He is the Devil." To be intellectually honest, if beginning with his premise of man being what he has always intrinsically been, I must agree with Baudelaire.

 

Albert Camus, another French thinker, argued, if there was a God, then we cannot fight social evil, for if we do, we are fighting God who made the world as it is. If man stands in their premise that there has always been a continuity of intrinsic cruelty, then to argue that God is a good God would go against all reason and rationality. Any optimism of God's goodness rests upon irrationality.

 

2. If man is as he has always been, then there is no hope of any qualitative change in man. We are left with endless pessimism.

 

At this point we must recognize the second philosophic possibility. Man as he is now is not what he was. Man is DIScontinuous, rather than continuous with what he has been.

 

This raises yet two more possibilities. If God changed him, or made him abnormal, God is still a bad God! The other is: that man, created by God has changed himself. That man stands at the point of discontinuity not because God changed him but because he changed himself! Man as he now is by his own choice is what he intrisically was. We can reasonably and rationally understand that man is now cruel, and God is not a bad God.

 

Philosophically these are our choices.

 

Later...

 

davidk,

 

It is with deep reluctance that I have to say this. This thread has nothing to do with moral reasoning. It is a topic restricted to moral intuitions. It was intended to increase our understanding of liberal and conservative moral intuitions in an effort to break down some of the barriers. This is a social justice issue. I asked you to stop your lecturing and frame your positions as your beliefs, not in the "we must" mode. Although I disagree with almost all of what you say, I will not be drawn into a debate. As others have suggested, this content would be more appropriate in a thread you create for your own purposes.

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral motions are intuitive. Without any understanding of who man actually is, morals having any meaning are without any understanding, intuitive or not.

 

I suggest, in my defense, the philosophical groundwork for any position on our Moral necessity, whether intuitive, reasoned, or social, answers this question; Do morals exist?

 

Morals can only come from one of two perspectives, a personal or an impersonal origin. Without that determination, discussing morals and/or emotions is, to coin a word, meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moral motions are intuitive. Without any understanding of who man actually is, morals having any meaning are without any understanding, intuitive or not.

 

I suggest, in my defense, the philosophical groundwork for any position on our Moral necessity, whether intuitive, reasoned, or social, answers this question; Do morals exist?

 

Morals can only come from one of two perspectives, a personal or an impersonal origin. Without that determination, discussing morals and/or emotions is, to coin a word, meaningless.

 

I suggest, following the theory that began this thread, that morals exist and come from both a personal and an impersonal origin. When they are in accord life moves smoother. Psychology generally accepts interactionism between the personal and the social. When they conflict, something has to be resolved.

 

Haidt, the author of the theory used in this thread, also notes that the moral intuitions preferred by conservatives stand equally with those preferred by liberals. True social justice could not have it otherwise (apologies to my liberal friends). Haidt presumes that morals exist, his specialty is limited to the subject of the thread. When moral intuitions are not raised to the level of reason, they can be the cause of conflict between liberals and conservatives. And even after they are raised to the level of reason, conflicts still occur. His view of social justice research has the aim of finding ways to reduce the discord.

 

When I look to the subject of ethics (the study of morality), I find again that there is no concensus agreement in philosophy. The field is a collection of "isms" from which to choose. Popular with many progressives is the contractarianism proposed by John Rawls. It draws its inspiration from Kant's ethics and the social contract theories of Locke and Rousseau. "Moral principles represent ideal terms of social cooperation for people who live together in fellowship and regard each other as equals (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995, p. 246). See again the Eight Points. But there are many more options. Which to choose? Of the many options, which would you choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest, following the theory that began this thread, that morals exist and come from both a personal and an impersonal origin. When they are in accord life moves smoother. Psychology generally accepts interactionism between the personal and the social. When they conflict, something has to be resolved.

There is some implication here that you mean 'social' to be synonymous with the impersonal.

 

Be that as it may, either the origins of the universe and man are from a personal source or an impersonal source, it cannot be from both. Logic dictates there can only be one original source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some implication here that you mean 'social' to be synonymous with the impersonal.

 

Be that as it may, either the origins of the universe and man are from a personal source or an impersonal source, it cannot be from both. Logic dictates there can only be one original source.

 

Micah 6

 

6:8

He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

 

If you can relate your philosophical arguments to this context, then please continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micah 6:8

"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

 

Excellent verse.

Nowhere else in the Old Testament is the religious devotion that GOD wants decribed in a more succinct and elevated manner. Love of GOD and man are inextricably connected. The Old Testament message to Israel concerning their desired conduct, having been preached over several centuries, can be boiled down to this verse. This is a high-water mark of OT religious thoughts.

 

Anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Micah 6:8

"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

 

Excellent verse.

Nowhere else in the Old Testament is the religious devotion that GOD wants decribed in a more succinct and elevated manner. Love of GOD and man are inextricably connected. The Old Testament message to Israel concerning their desired conduct, having been preached over several centuries, can be boiled down to this verse. This is a high-water mark of OT religious thoughts.

 

Anything else?

 

I boldened the words "do justice" because it is the focus of this thread. Progressive Christianity places a strong emphasis on social justice. Doing ... as this verse requires. In other words, as Christians we are reguired to "do justice", to take action. Many Progressives are aware that the theme of doing justice traces through the prophetic tradition to Jesus. The Progressive Church I attend takes great pains to preserve this connection when discussing the teachings of Jesus. In fact, we sing this verse after the offering is taken.

 

If I had intended to include moral reasoning along with moral intuitions, this would have been added:

 

"... even if, as Kant argues, traditional proofs of immortality, and the teleological, cosmological, and ontological arguments for God's existence are invalid, the notions they involve can be affirmed as long as there is ... a sufficient non-theoretical, i.e., moral argument for them. When interpreted on the basis of such argument, they are transformed into ideas of practical reason , ideas that, like perfect virtue, may not be verified or realized in sensible experience, but have a rational warrant in pure practical consideration (CDP, p. 403)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, had edit error. Here is the last edit:

 

Micah 6:8

"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

 

Excellent verse.

Nowhere else in the Old Testament is the religious devotion that GOD wants decribed in a more succinct and elevated manner. Love of GOD and man are inextricably connected. The Old Testament message to Israel concerning their desired conduct, having been preached over several centuries, can be boiled down to this verse. This is a high-water mark of OT religious thoughts.

 

Anything else?

 

I boldened the words "do justice" because it is the focus of this thread. Progressive Christianity places a strong emphasis on social justice. Doing ... as this verse requires. In other words, as Christians we are also reguired to "do justice", to take action. The emphasis is on the action component over the theoretical. This verse speaks to the contemporary Christian as well as OT Israel. Many Progressives are aware that the theme of doing justice traces through the prophetic tradition to Jesus. The Progressive Church I attend takes great pains to preserve this connection when discussing the teachings of Jesus. In fact, we sing this verse after the offering is taken.

 

If I had intended to include moral reasoning along with moral intuitions, this would have been added:

 

"... even if, as Kant argues, traditional proofs of immortality, and the teleological, cosmological, and ontological arguments for God's existence are invalid, the notions they involve can be affirmed as long as there is ... a sufficient non-theoretical, i.e., moral argument for them. When interpreted on the basis of such argument, they are transformed into ideas of practical reason , ideas that, like perfect virtue, may not be verified or realized in sensible experience, but have a rational warrant in pure practical consideration (CDP, p. 403)."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I boldened the words "do justice" because it is the focus of this thread. Progressive Christianity places a strong emphasis on social justice. Doing ... as this verse requires.
This verse first requires they believe in the God of the scriptures, otherwise there would be no authority to require the DOING. That is something that has been avoided. Non believers are under no such compunction.

 

In other words, as Christians we are also reguired to "do justice", to take action.
I do certainly agree. Non believers are under no such compunction.

 

The emphasis is on the action component over the theoretical.
Where does this verse even address the theoretical?

 

This verse speaks to the contemporary Christian as well as OT Israel. Many Progressives are aware that the theme of doing justice traces through the prophetic tradition to Jesus. The Progressive Church I attend takes great pains to preserve this connection when discussing the teachings of Jesus. In fact, we sing this verse after the offering is taken.
The Christian also refers to Matthew 22:37-40. This also presupposes belief in the GOD of the Scriptures and of the scriptural Jesus Christ, for both to have the authority to require action. Non believers are under no such compunction.

 

If I had intended to include moral reasoning along with moral intuitions, this...
You did sorta leave the door open when you posted the 'yourmorals' website.

 

An essential element is determining if and why morals exist or not, and who's morals? Without true morals having a rational foundation the discussion really can't proceed.

 

It seems the dilemma between rational and irrational haunts us.

From post #1:

1 "...emotion... is intimately tied to human rationality... This is a core concept... ";

2 "...(intuition) is one of the four primary psychological functions defined by Jung and plays a key role in Kant's theory of rationality (which served as the foundation for Jung's theory).";

3 "Haidt believes that moral intuitions and moral emotion are intimately related. Jung had the same idea....";

4 "In general, emotion and intuition are non-rational... "

I'm not sure if you noticed, the 'core concept' of emotion being rational, ends up being irrational by the end of your post.

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service