2+2=5: A Case For Agnostic-Atheism

[Lee]

Ahhh Sinister ji,

Nope I still disagree. Let me just say you have my wrong, of course I understand the role emotions play for humanity. In a real sense we humans act on both intelect and emotion, and this is all right and proper.

Morality though should be free of emotion. You example is a good one and so I'll carry on with it if you don't mind?

Morality is concerned with what is right or what is wrong, in your example I can still reach the same conclusions that the man reached and act accordingly without being motivated by any of the emotions you have named.

According to my own cold, rational moral measure the man should have helped the woman as the woman was clearly not able to defend herself against the attacker. It is moraly wrong for the strong to oppresed the weak becuase to do so would take choice form the one being oppresed.

Fear nor anger, nor guilt is required to reach this conclusion. Indeed are we not told to endevour not to give in to such emotions anyway?

If we twist your example a little bit and decie that the woman was a martial artist, but of course her would be saviour can have no way of knowing this. Would it still be the moraly correct thing to do to re-act in anger and attack the man you witness attacking the woman?

I would have to say no. The woman is capable of protecting herself, and so the man who witnesses the woman being attacked, gives way to his anger and wades in unnessacirly.

Not needed and not moral as in this example the woman is not being oppresed.

Let me just reiterate for you that I belive it is far better to apply cold rational morality than for anybodies moral stance to be govenend by their emotions.

This of it like this. The death penalty is wholey immoral under any circumstances. This is a very strong moral stance that I take. Not becasue I nessicarily belive in any form of sancticity of life.(death and killing is part of the natural order), but becuase I belive that for one human to limit or disregard anothers choices(God given free will) is amongst the worst of sins. Death takes all choices from, you, the killer of a human then takes all choies away from that human.

So we can't kill a killer., or we do exactly what they have done.

Yet the death penalty is a highly emotive concept, and people will forego their intelect and thus their morality because of it. Emotions simply cannot be part of the dealth penalty debate. It clouds thought, and it clouds morality, it makes us say and do things that in normal circumstanes we would not do or say.

Emotions are very important for us humans, they serve no good in moral issues though, none at all.

 

[Sinister]

You can disagree till the cows come home it will not change the fact that emotions make up humanity.


What is fundamentally different in your posts is you are trying to discus what ‘ought to be’ and I am telling you what ‘is’.

Take for example the feeling of empathy…which is a binding emotion you completely left out of the discussion and is central for morality…and in all fairness it was discussed in the aforementioned post.

You only mention, for the sake of convenience, fear and anger…the negative emotions that do not bind us together. (but are nonetheless also needed for survival)..a very selective and incomplete critique.

Ahhh Sinister ji,

Nope I still disagree. Let me just say you have my wrong, of course I understand the role emotions play for humanity. In a real sense we humans act on both intelect and emotion, and this is all right and proper.

Morality though should be free of emotion. You example is a good one and so I'll carry on with it if you don't mind?

Morality is concerned with what is right or what is wrong, in your example I can still reach the same conclusions that the man reached and act accordingly without being motivated by any of the emotions you have named.

According to my own cold, rational moral measure the man should have helped the woman as the woman was clearly not able to defend herself against the attacker. It is moraly wrong for the strong to oppresed the weak becuase to do so would take choice form the one being oppresed.

BUT WHY Would you help her? What impulse would allow you to make such a decision? Why is the strong oppressing the weak amoral according to your rationality? and couldnt you help her by just contacting the authorities rather than becoming a vigilante? wihtout emotions you cannot become partial and you cannot make decisions.
[FONT=border=]<?"urn:

So the impulse of decision would come from the fact that someone felt empathy, sympathy, compassion and guilt? [/FONT]

Let me just reiterate for you that I belive it is far better to apply cold rational morality than for anybodies moral stance to be govenend by their emotions.

yes this is called sociopathy. and plenty of such people exist out there.

This of it like this. The death penalty is wholey immoral under any circumstances. This is a very strong moral stance that I take. Not becasue I nessicarily belive in any form of sancticity of life.(death and killing is part of the natural order), but becuase I belive that for one human to limit or disregard anothers choices(God given free will) is amongst the worst of sins. Death takes all choices from, you, the killer of a human then takes all choies away from that human.

So we can't kill a killer., or we do exactly what they have done.

Yet the death penalty is a highly emotive concept, and people will forego their intelect and thus their morality because of it. Emotions simply cannot be part of the dealth penalty debate. It clouds thought, and it clouds morality, it makes us say and do things that in normal circumstanes we would not do or say.

Now lets take your scenario of the death penalty
I could find the death penalty highly immoral through the feeling of empathy.
Or I could even try to justify the death penalty through the feeling of empathy. Or I could just be carrying it out on the basis of rage and anger (like you said).

However in your model, death penalty is just plain wrong and could not rationally be carried out and is ONLY the result of impulsive negative emotions.

Not to mention I could make the argument that the death penalty is a highly rational concept…after all its cheaper just to get rid of em and make more room than to lockem up, feed, clothe and expend energy in rehabilitation for up to 30 years with no gaurentee of successful re-integration into society. In fact, COLDLY & RATIONALLY, a person could make the case that all long-term hard prisoners should be executed in the most cheapest and effecient manner…yet what blocks this?…empathy
(and don’t give me that “death penalty is really expensive” jargon…cause the developing world just does it with a rope or a bullet to the back of a head)

Morality is not cold hearted analysis of external stimuli (nor should it be)…quite the opposite.

Morality without emotion is just sociopathic behaviour (a person who has no affection or empathy)…sociopath’s do things for the sake of doing them. And that is NOT how society, culture, science, religion and laws were made. They were born through feelings.

No human can function without emotion. And no human can be moral without emotions. And proof of this is diseases that correspond with inhibitions in the emotional centers of the brain, that lead to psychopathy when there is no emotion and when sensation of emotions is carried to extreme cases…you get autism.

 

[Sinister]

Sinsiter ji,
Guru fateh.
No body could have explained this better than you. You have a natural knack for going deeper in to the ocean of human psyche like a perfect
pearl hunter of the within.

Tejwant ji, Like I said before; Only those who hear the music will dance
And if I can carry a catchy tune through my posts and make someone dance…I would consider it well worth the effort!

<FONT size=3><?"urn:

HA! Pearl hunter…perhaps not :crazy:


For consistencies sake, just call me an entertainer.

 

[Lee]

You can disagree till the cows come home it will not change the fact that emotions make up humanity.

*Sigh* And again sir you have me wrong. I have already adressed this, but to clarify yes I agree that emotions make up a large part of what a human is, this though is not the point that I am addressing.

What is fundamentally different in your posts is you are trying to discus what ‘ought to be’ and I am telling you what ‘is’.

Well yes and no Sinister ji. If I for instance make a claim that my own morality is deviod of emotion and instead works only on reason, then this is how I am. Or to use your own phrasology for me this is 'what is' Now we can belive that I am the only one, do not think it would be true though. So you are half right and half wrong. You are correct that I view my own moral stance as being the correct way to view morality and so you are correct that I urge others to emulate me. Or 'Ought to be'.

Take for example the feeling of empathy…which is a binding emotion you completely left out of the discussion and is central for morality…and in all fairness it was discussed in the aforementioned post.

You only mention, for the sake of convenience, fear and anger…the negative emotions that do not bind us together. (but are nonetheless also needed for survival)..a very selective and incomplete critique.

Again you have me wrong. You are guesing my motives for saying what I do and getting them wrong my freind.

BUT WHY Would you help her? What impulse would allow you to make such a decision? Why is the strong oppressing the weak amoral according to your rationality? and couldnt you help her by just contacting the authorities rather than becoming a vigilante? wihtout emotions you cannot become partial and you cannot make decisions.
[FONT=border=]<?"urn:

So the impulse of decision would come from the fact that someone felt empathy, sympathy, compassion and guilt?

[/FONT]

Again I have already answered this, but here it is agian.

It is moraly wrong for the strong to oppresed the weak as in doing so negates the choices for the oppresed

yes this is called sociopathy. and plenty of such people exist out there.

Whooooa there fellow. Are you here equating a morality deviod of emotion and instead based on reason as socialpathic? Remember I have twice agreed that emotions are normal and needed for us humans, and that I talk only of how I see a persons morality should be?

Now lets take your scenario of the death penalty
I could find the death penalty highly immoral through the feeling of empathy.
Or I could even try to justify the death penalty through the feeling of empathy. Or I could just be carrying it out on the basis of rage and anger (like you said).

However in your model, death penalty is just plain wrong and could not rationally be carried out and is ONLY the result of impulsive negative emotions.

Not to mention I could make the argument that the death penalty is a highly rational concept…after all its cheaper just to get rid of em and make more room than to lockem up, feed, clothe and expend energy in rehabilitation for up to 30 years with no gaurentee of successful re-integration into society. In fact, COLDLY & RATIONALLY, a person could make the case that all long-term hard prisoners should be executed in the most cheapest and effecient manner…yet what blocks this?…empathy
(and don’t give me that “death penalty is really expensive” jargon…cause the developing world just does it with a rope or a bullet to the back of a head)

Morality is not cold hearted analysis of external stimuli (nor should it be)…quite the opposite.

Well you say that I disagree. As you say using emotion, specificaly empathy you can't make up your mind on what is moraly correct the death penalty(empathy for the victim and family) or no death penalty(empathy for the criminal).

Using only reason, we can see the crime of killing is moraly wrong. If this is true then we cannot perfom an immoral act in killing the killer. That is reasonable without emotions. Now if we throw emotions into the mix then we get people baying for the blood of the murder. Or put another way, moral confusion as people call for the killing of the killer, thereby making themselves inplicit in the same imorral act!

Morality without emotion is just sociopathic behaviour (a person who has no affection or empathy)…sociopath’s do things for the sake of doing them. And that is NOT how society, culture, science, religion and laws were made. They were born through feelings.

No human can function without emotion. And no human can be moral without emotions. And proof of this is diseases that correspond with inhibitions in the emotional centers of the brain, that lead to psychopathy when there is no emotion and when sensation of emotions is carried to extreme cases…you get autism.

Completely wrong and quite ad homine if you ask me. Morality devoid of emotion is merely morality devoid of emotion. Socialpathy is the lack of emotional attachment to others specificly empathy.

The rest is of course rubbish. My morality IS devoid of emotion, I am not a socialpath, I feel massive empathy towards the plight of my fellow man, I am married with children have many many many freinds.

 

[Sinister]

*UGH*…O.K look, I don’t want to hijack this thread but scientifically/rationally you are absolutely wrong.
f
Your premise “Emotion is the enemy of morality. Morality needs to be approached coldly and rationally, sans emotion” is illogical, in and of itself. It is illogical because you lack an understanding of the physiological role emotions play in the workings of the human mind.
<FONT size=3><?"urn:

Emotions are not phenomena within the brain itself but involve physiological changes of the whole body (look at the post you made at the beginning of this thread…it agrees with this premise). Humans are given two tools, emotion and reason that help make a moral decision.

The limbic system (Paleomamalian brain), which includes; the hippocampus, amygdala and anterior thalamic nuclei support a variety of functions that include initiating and realizing emotions, behaviour and memory.

In fact, memory and context is impossible without emotional arousal. You would not even recall a moral decision if not for being aroused emotionally. In fact ‘selectivity of attention’ is an emotional process as well. Without emotions and firing of your limbic system someone like you and me cannot even narrowly define spatio-cognitive cues. You wouldn’t even be able to read my post.

The basolateral amygdala is the part that is essential for ‘emotional memory’ consolidation via the stria terminalis pathway to the nucleus basalis and nucleus accumbens…the stress hormones adrenaline and glucocorticoids – in low, acute concentrations, not sustained high levels – act in basolateral amygdala to enhance memory consiladation. As always synaptic potentiation requires NMDA receptors and a coincidence of pre- and postsynaptic depolarization. However, the potentiation process is greatly facilitated by the local release of dopamine. The amygdala is not the storage site of long-term emotional memories, and may not even be needed for their recall. It is however necessary for the initial consolidation of the memory itself.

If indeed, which I highly doubt, your moral decisions were free from emotions (like you say), it would also entail that you did not learn your morals and each decision you make is independent of your memory centers (which physiologically I could prove wrong by sticking you in an functional MRI and yelling unpleasantaries to you for wasting my time).

Have you ever experienced emotions while you slept?…truth of the matter is only the dreams that are most potently emotionally experienced are the only ones that are remembered…and only the things that are remembered are of any consequence because anything that is not a memory does not exist…and the weird thing is, the only way things in dreams can be constructed is by regurgitating long term memories which were imprinted in a Hebbian synapse by emotions themselves.

Pretty wild, eh?


Even in Sikhism, something like Langar and Seva were not cold rational experiments of morality conducted by the guru’s. The origins of Langar and Seva come from emotional states...born from love, empathy and compassion.

“In light of these general functions, we may describe three moral functions of emotions:
1. Emotions have an epistemic role of initially indicating moral salience and hence the general moral response. Emotional sensitivity helps us to distinguish the moral features of a given situation, and as such serves as an initial moral guide.
2 Emotions have a motivating role of supporting moral behavior and opposing immoral behavior. In accordance with their general mobilizing role, emotions help us to mobilize the resources needed for moral behavior, which is often not the most convenient course of action.
3. Emotions have a communicative role of revealing our moral values to others and to ourselves. Since emotions express our profound values, emotional experiences can reveal these values. Taking care of another person with sympathy and compassion can reveal our evaluation of the person to ourselves and to the person himself Sometimes we do not know how much we care for someone until emotions such as jealousy, fear, or compassion are generated.”
From: Emotions and morality


If you still have not fundamentally grasped the neurophysiological and philosophical importance of emotions in constructing morality, then I am afraid there is not much to say other than you disagree for all the wrong reasons.

Do me a favour and go to the above link, read, understand and evaluate it until you know what you want to say, because you sound confused and coldly irrational.

And why is rationality cold by the way? You weren’t using emotion to describe rationality were you?…cause that would be very very ironic

 

[Sinister]

The rest is of course rubbish. My morality IS devoid of emotion, I am not a socialpath, I feel massive empathy towards the plight of my fellow man, I am married with children have many many many freinds.

Morality is a slave to emotion | COSMOS magazine

if you do indeed feel empathy; what is to say that you use rationality to govern your morals and not emotions?

 

[Lee]

Sinister Ji,

You keep telling me what it is that I don't understand, you are wrong my friend.

Let me find a differant way of saying this then.

As Sikhs we are warned by Guru ji of the 5 thieves, the problems these can cause and we are told we must strive to control them.

It is clear then that emotions can be suppresed or in other ways ignored.

This then is all I say. It is far, far better to approach moral question within an emotional viod.

Emotions and morality mixed gives unclear and clouded morality.

Lets take a real world and personal example.

I have many siblings and the next one down from me (a brother) has a 20 year old daughter who still lives with him. A few months back her boyfreind beat her up.

What is the moraly correct response to such a thing?

The very first thing that my brother thoughtof, was right lets get the *******. A normal human emotional response right? Yes it is, I defy anybody to not feel the same in the same prediciment.

However when his anger had subsided he instead called the police.

Emotionaly speaking thoughts of doing violence to thoes who do violence is generaly the first thing that is thought. Logicaly we see that if we do this, we then engage in the behaviour that we have found immorral in others.

The moraly correct thing to do would be to call the police, have him arrested and then charged, which is in fact what happend.

If you like lets me have an example from you, and well bash it out and see what happens?

 

[Lee]

Morality is a slave to emotion | COSMOS magazine

if you do indeed feel empathy; what is to say that you use rationality to govern your morals and not emotions?

Hah Narayanjot ji, well you'll just have to take me at my word on that score.

Humanity is a social creature, a certian amount of empathy towards others of your species is unaviodable. It doesn't though necisarly follow that because one feels empathy that this is the grounding for his morality, does it?

 

[spnadmin]

Hah Narayanjot ji, well you'll just have to take me at my word on that score.

Humanity is a social creature, a certian amount of empathy towards others of your species is unaviodable. It doesn't though necisarly follow that because one feels empathy that this is the grounding for his morality, does it?

Lee ji

I do not know why the question is directed at me because I have been staying out of the conversation of late.

But I will answer. The answer is - according to the field of developmental, cognitive and social psychology - A RESOUNDING YES! To be more specific. A certain level of intellectual development is needed to "take the perspective another human being" to see experiences the way someone else sees it. This psychosocial milestone is reached for most between the ages of 6 through 8, of course with individual differences. Moral development ensues at this point.

When that happens, when the milestone is reached, then one is able to recognize that "pain" felt by YOU is not unlike "pain" felt by ME. We are able to map the feeling of our own pain onto the experience of someone else because we can now see things from their vantage point. Up to that point, the idea, Do unto others as you would have others do unto you (pardon my borrowing of this Christian notion) makes no sense to a child.

This recognition is the onset of "empathy" and from that point we are able to identify with the misfortunes of others and show sympathy and even altruism. Without the experience of our own pain, what would intellect be able to make of the information of the suffering that surrounds it? So I agree with Sinister ji

One thing that has not been mentioned is that sociopaths are people who are unable to identify with the pain of someone else. They tend to be extremely intelligent people whose intelligence has run amok. They feel nothing. Intellect and emotion must temper one another in order to be able to live in harmony with other human beings.

 

[Lee]

Lee ji

I do not know why the question is directed at me because I have been staying out of the conversation of late.

But I will answer. The answer is - according to the field of developmental, cognitive and social psychology - A RESOUNDING YES! To be more specific. A certain level of intellectual development is needed to "take the perspective another human being" to see experiences the way someone else sees it. This psychosocial milestone is reached for most between the ages of 6 through 8, of course with individual differences. Moral development ensues at this point.

When that happens, when the milestone is reached, then one is able to recognize that "pain" felt by YOU is not unlike "pain" felt by ME. We are able to map the feeling of our own pain onto the experience of someone else because we can now see things from their vantage point. Up to that point, the idea, Do unto others as you would have others do unto you (pardon my borrowing of this Christian notion) makes no sense to a child.

This recognition is the onset of "empathy" and from that point we are able to identify with the misfortunes of others and show sympathy and even altruism. Without the experience of our own pain, what would intellect be able to make of the information of the suffering that surrounds it? So I agree with Sinister ji

One thing that has not been mentioned is that sociopaths are people who are unable to identify with the pain of someone else. They tend to be extremely intelligent people whose intelligence has run amok. They feel nothing. Intellect and emotion must temper one another in order to be able to live in harmony with other human beings.

Ahh Narayanjot ji,

My mistake I saw that you had appreciated Sinister ji's post and mistakenly atrributed the post below it as yours.

This is undoubtedly true. Yet I still stand by my stance.

Are you saying that those people who we call socialpaths are incapable of making moral desicions?

It is true that a socialpath will not feel much empathy, but does that disclude him from knowing intectualy right from wrong?

 

[spnadmin]

Profile of the Sociopath

This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature

 

[findingmyway]

Caspian,
I find your argument flawed as it only refers to an Abrahamic version of God. The Sikh belief of a Godlike entity is described by Mool Mantar. This is how I see things;

Why would God make 2+2=5 when God created 2+2=4? God is all powerful in order to be able to create everything -the laws of logic, the laws of math, the laws of physics etc. God is omnipresent as God is throughout that creation. Things have come together beautifully to create all the life we have here on Earth. Any number of factors being slightly different would have thrown things out and resulted in a completely different combination. Therefore, God is not pointless. Everything science discovers and explains was created in that way by God.
Secondly, 2+2=5 may well exist on another planet. We do not currently have the expertise to know whether this is the case or not so how can we possibly say it is not happening?! To rule out 2+2=5 as logical in another situation as it is not within our grasp is very elitist