Re: The not-so-good Books
Reply #3 - August 06, 2011, 03:19 PM
Hassan; I'm a big fan of Qualia Soup and these videos have made me more articulate when it comes to arguing for my agnosticism. This is part 2 of a series on morality and so far the discussion has been fundamentally focused on what is not and cannot be the source of morality. I'm really looking forward to what it is morality in the 3rd video.
Morality concerns rationality and rationality isn't a fixed human trait or involuntary action like breathing. Is morality therefore like Iman unstable; increases and decreases not with work but knowledge? In other words, morality is innate but directed by an external force, knowledge. If so, is every moral action directed by actively knowing it is good? If so, how much room is left for human spontaneity? Also are all moral individuals knowledgeable by necessity and vice versa?
Qualia definitely is implying that and made science the method through which our morality can evolve. Yeah, he says 'evolves' which can only mean that he thinks it is not fixed or that at least, he treats morality and knowledge as one thing - which's very strange because it necessitates that, given science only rapidly progressed recently, those before us were less moral. By that standard, my grand children will be more moral than I am. Frightful stuff.
I find it very hard to imagine that those who cause unnecessary suffering to other people and animals lack the knowledge and understanding that they wouldn't like it being done to them too. Assuming all human adults in our society know, in principle, it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering, what is it then that makes some of us act friendly, others, in action, attack and rob others for leisure? Are some of us by "nature" perverted and able to derive joy out of other people's miseries? Why don't human principles and actions tally? And what of human will? Finally, is morality contingent and thus relative?
I only have questions that follow other questions. So you tell me.