+165
There's a certain point where you can't use reason to explain your argument. It always comes down to emotion and base instinct, which can be just as legitimate reasons as logic and reason in some cases. For example, saying that murder is wrong is only explicable by way of emotion, but that doesn't make it less true, amirite?
That's how I feel about the incest posts lately. I don't care how "logical" it seems for other people to think it should be allowed, I still feel like it's wrong. :/
Murder is wrong because it isn't the place of one individual to end another individual's life. The first individual does not have the authority to make such a decision. I don't think ethics should be based on such a fickle and indecisive thing which a human emotion can be.
Right, but murder, or rather the ending of someone's life, IS sometimes righteous. Empathy is undoubtedly a useful tool, but I simply don't trust emotion enough to be the base of all our ethics.
Well, ideally that wouldn't happen. In fact, if it did then there's almost definitely something wrong with the thinking behind it.
But for the sake of the argument, let's say it did. You would be left with two options. One would be to deny ethical reasoning and succumb to the pursuit of happiness. The other is to say that moral perfection in and of itself transcends the importance of everyone's emotion.
The ultimate question is whether there is anything deeper and more important than our emotions, and if that thing is worth pursuing.
This is typically where I disagree with most people. Most people tend to think happiness is the final goal and object of all pursuit, but I think that's somewhat of a shallow goal.
I think happiness can be the byproduct of good, but it is not good itself. In an undoubtedly extreme example, let's say there are 20 men. 19 of them have an irrational, insatiable urge to kill the one other man. The 19 will be happy if they murder him, and unhappy if they do not. The one man will happy if he is alive, and have no emotions at all if he is killed (you know, cause death will do that to you.) If the goal is to make only happiness, then the only good thing that could happen is murder. That would make the most happiness possible, wouldn't it?
I think that happiness should be an indicator of good, but should be treated as an independent occurrence. I believe the pursuit of morality must not be compromised in the pursuit of happiness.
Yes, hopefully the two would both be found by the same course of action. But, the difference between us is that you pursue happiness hoping for morality, and I pursue morality hoping for happiness. Is that fair?
Why isn't it the place of one individual to end another's life? Why don't I have the authority?
How can you determine morality based solely on logic? You need some kind of end goal in order to use logic, and to determine the end goal you need your instincts.
As a postulate, I'd argue that all men and women are created equal. Therefore, any act between two individuals is wrong if it imposes damage (being anything undesired by the object of the act) to another. If you want an end goal, then i'd say that as many as possible of us get what we desire and avoid what we do not desire. This end goal is my perception of what good is as far as interactions between people.
Our system would plunge into chaos if the integrity of our moral decisions is based on what makes us smile and what makes us frown because those things are based largely upon environmental factors. If we only believed what we think is right, then we've opened the gate to mindless racism and hatred of all things different.
A moral compass should be observed and followed, but frequently checked.
I'm not saying that we should not use any logic at all; in fact I think that logic should be the greater portion of our reasons behind our actions. But I do believe that all our logic is based upon decisions that derive from instinct and our subconcious at work.
I think logic is based on analytic reasoning and philosophy rather than solely our instinct and subconscious. Ultimately, some of these philosophies may be rooted in innate beliefs of good and evil, but if you "can't use reason to explain your argument" then I believe you have a problem.