Morals that are not backed by reason are on shaky grounds.
I'd say that's exactly what the moral realm is-- the area where reason fails us. Like you, I don't see much point in arguing about non-rational propositions; it's just two people contradicting each other.
I disagree with you about "white lies," though. In the limit, sure, I'd lie to save my brother from kidnapping, or that sort of thing. But most of the time, I'd rather deal in the truth, even if it makes people a little unhappier in the short term. For example, I'd rather hear "Your startup has serious problems X, Y, and Z that you had better fix before you launch," than "Looks great. I'm sure it will be bigger than Google," if the problems are really there.
My position is rather more stark than I made it out to be. I cannot agree with you that the decision between right and wrong must necessarily not be made with the rational mind.
Don't forget, emotions are just rationality in a different guise, in an evolutionary context. Take the extreme examples of love and hate: love help ensures the survival of genetic material close to your own lineage, while hate binds you to act - possibly violently (i.e. "irrationally") - if wronged, even if that is harmful to your own material position, in a kind of logic of mutually assured destruction. And of course, MAD is one of the more supremely rational approaches to the nuclear question, and is the primary reason why there hasn't been a WW3.
The problem with abandoning reason with respect to morals is that you will no longer be swayed by rational argument. For example, if you take your morals from the dead scripture of an old religion, you're locking yourself into a rational system of laws designed (largely) for agricultural societies which often didn't have an independent strong rule of law. If your attachment to this dead writing is strong, it will lead to profoundly unjust positions and outcomes, such as supporting the suppression of females in society, or discrimination against people "not like you" (gay, other religions, etc.).
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I agree enthusiastically that taking your morals from the dead scripture of an old religion is a terrible idea. I also think that we should try to make all of our decisions as rationally as we can.
But I also think that there are certain questions that I answer irrationally, but with great certainty. The best example I can think of is torture. (Sorry to be gruesome.) When I think about whether the torture is justified, my immediate answer is no. I am not certain, but I don't think a rational argument could convince me otherwise. I could probably be convinced that mild forms aren't always bad, but the more extreme stuff-- no way.
I think my position could be summarized as "There is a subset of decisions that I can't make rationally, even though I think it would be better if I could."
Sure, but 30 seconds before you pitch that startup is it more beneficial to hear "Pingswept you look great!" or "Pingswept that zit on your nose really detracts from your presentation."
I realize that there are people who are motivated by that kind of vapid encouragement, or discouraged by superficial criticism. I'd rather hear the truth, even if it's painful.
I'm not saying that right before an important presentation, I'd like to hear the recitation of an index of my shortcomings-- I'd rather hear a list of my strengths. But I don't think false praise is helpful.
Comments
Morals that are not backed by reason are on shaky grounds.
I'd say that's exactly what the moral realm is-- the area where reason fails us. Like you, I don't see much point in arguing about non-rational propositions; it's just two people contradicting each other.
I disagree with you about "white lies," though. In the limit, sure, I'd lie to save my brother from kidnapping, or that sort of thing. But most of the time, I'd rather deal in the truth, even if it makes people a little unhappier in the short term. For example, I'd rather hear "Your startup has serious problems X, Y, and Z that you had better fix before you launch," than "Looks great. I'm sure it will be bigger than Google," if the problems are really there.
My position is rather more stark than I made it out to be. I cannot agree with you that the decision between right and wrong must necessarily not be made with the rational mind.
Don't forget, emotions are just rationality in a different guise, in an evolutionary context. Take the extreme examples of love and hate: love help ensures the survival of genetic material close to your own lineage, while hate binds you to act - possibly violently (i.e. "irrationally") - if wronged, even if that is harmful to your own material position, in a kind of logic of mutually assured destruction. And of course, MAD is one of the more supremely rational approaches to the nuclear question, and is the primary reason why there hasn't been a WW3.
The problem with abandoning reason with respect to morals is that you will no longer be swayed by rational argument. For example, if you take your morals from the dead scripture of an old religion, you're locking yourself into a rational system of laws designed (largely) for agricultural societies which often didn't have an independent strong rule of law. If your attachment to this dead writing is strong, it will lead to profoundly unjust positions and outcomes, such as supporting the suppression of females in society, or discrimination against people "not like you" (gay, other religions, etc.).
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I agree enthusiastically that taking your morals from the dead scripture of an old religion is a terrible idea. I also think that we should try to make all of our decisions as rationally as we can.
But I also think that there are certain questions that I answer irrationally, but with great certainty. The best example I can think of is torture. (Sorry to be gruesome.) When I think about whether the torture is justified, my immediate answer is no. I am not certain, but I don't think a rational argument could convince me otherwise. I could probably be convinced that mild forms aren't always bad, but the more extreme stuff-- no way.
I think my position could be summarized as "There is a subset of decisions that I can't make rationally, even though I think it would be better if I could."
Sure, but 30 seconds before you pitch that startup is it more beneficial to hear "Pingswept you look great!" or "Pingswept that zit on your nose really detracts from your presentation."
White lies have a certain social utility.
I realize that there are people who are motivated by that kind of vapid encouragement, or discouraged by superficial criticism. I'd rather hear the truth, even if it's painful.
I'm not saying that right before an important presentation, I'd like to hear the recitation of an index of my shortcomings-- I'd rather hear a list of my strengths. But I don't think false praise is helpful.