tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post844551506542505719..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Relevance of Studying Environmental Influence on Moral JudgmentsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-42023162924176098632010-08-27T02:18:00.346-06:002010-08-27T02:18:00.346-06:00i'm kind of with luke. (jury) trial lawyers ha...i'm kind of with luke. (jury) trial lawyers have probably paid (repeatedly) for what Luke calls "psychology" research on environment's influence on (stated) "morality".<br />and philosophical "research" into morality is not supposed to be a popularity survey. :-)<br /><br />the psychological study of environment's effect on guessed planet surface temperatures, is similar to psych poll of morals, except that nobody will *pay* for the planet temperature research.emnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-49930183848091870432010-08-24T15:24:52.033-06:002010-08-24T15:24:52.033-06:00Alonzo,
I think you're misrepresenting what m...Alonzo,<br /><br />I think you're misrepresenting what most moral psychologists say they are doing. The problem is that 'morality' has two different meanings, one from philosophy and one from sociology/psychology. When moral psychologists say they are studying the science of morality, they are quite clear to say they are studying the science of moral judgment, moral belief, moral behavior. And that <em>is</em> what they're studying.<br /><br />There are some who say they are also studying the science of moral value itself, but that is because they have already concluded that moral value is identical to moral judgments/belief/behavior. That is, they are relativists. So if relativism is correct, then they're right to say they are studying the science of moral value by studying the science of moral judgments. The problem is that relativism is incorrect, not that these people are oblivious to the distinctions you have drawn above.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12968634190280933116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71106148706875891122010-08-24T15:06:29.475-06:002010-08-24T15:06:29.475-06:00If no real rightness and wrongness exists, then wh...If no real rightness and wrongness exists, then who does actually get to claim they are studying morality?<br /><br />If there are no real ethics, then you are equally as presumptive and equally as incorrect calling yourself an ethicist, as anyone claiming to be studying morality while asking them questions about what they think, and only Error Theorists get to actually be ethicists.<br /><br />Or perhaps, if there is no real moral rightness and moral wrongness, then morality is only a subset of psychology studying what people think about rightness and wrongness, in which case, studying what people think is right and wrong has a much claim as anything reasonably within the category.<br /><br />So while we are on the subject, would you care to rationally defend this supposed fact? I haven't seen you actually defend it anywhere. A link would be sufficient.Kaeliknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-42072002224200217252010-08-24T13:39:12.147-06:002010-08-24T13:39:12.147-06:00"To study morality you study right and wrong ..."To study morality you study right and wrong action - not people's uninformed guesses as to the moral properties of actions."<br /><br />An ethical system as applied to humans has to deal with humans' specific levels of susceptibility to various fallacies.<br /><br />To study morality you study peoples' right and wrong action - mostly their uninformed guesses as to the moral properties of actions, since (in my experience) people are generally well meaning, even people who perform the worst acts.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07476960140800201057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-33377771064608001792010-08-24T11:28:10.644-06:002010-08-24T11:28:10.644-06:00Brian
I am not questioning the legitimacy of the ...<b>Brian</b><br /><br />I am not questioning the legitimacy of the research. I am questioning the legitimacy of calling it the scientific study of morality.<br /><br />In other words, don't pretend that you are telling me anything about what is right and wrong in fact. The study of how people are convinced of something is a different field of study than the study of what is true. People are persuaded of all sorts of things using fallacies and lies. They are quite effective. Proving that a particular fallacy and lies are effective does not, in any way, prove that they are something other than fallacies and lies.<br /><br />The claim that these are "necessary steps to understanding morality" is as far off-base as saying that the studies of what influences people's guesses on the temperature of planets are "necessary steps to understanding planet formation."<br /><br />To study planet formation you study planets - not people's uninformed guesses about the properties of planets. To study morality you study right and wrong action - not people's uninformed guesses as to the moral properties of actions.<br /><br />These are two different fields of study.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59768163767966513142010-08-24T10:02:14.295-06:002010-08-24T10:02:14.295-06:00You should be more specific about what project you...You should be more specific about what project you are criticizing because I can think of legitimate reasons for a morality researcher to ask the types of questions you mention. The "...actual rightness and wrongness of certain actions..." depends on how people actually are, were they different, which actions are moral would be different. Therefore, it's important to learn about them.<br /><br />If I survey people from different cultures asking what is moral, and person A says "Treat others as you would like to be treated, don't eat cows, and accept the Vedas", B says "Treat others as you would like to be treated, don't drink alcohol, and pray five times daily", C says "Treat others as you would like to be treated, don't eat pork or shellfish, and don't shave the corners of your beard," that would be useful information, the implications of which are directly relevant for morality. One might notice a pattern in which people universally believe some things despite pressure not to (from texts they believe are divine), that they tend to do certain types of things (have eating taboos for example) without such being identical in specifics, or any number of things.<br /><br />Central to morality is figuring out how people are convinced or coerced into behaviors and influenced in their beliefs. Learning what has already done that to them seems like the best way to get the understanding of humanity that one would need to understand morality vis a vis humanity.<br /><br />You're criticizing people who are undertaking necessary steps to understand morality because those steps aren't sufficient to fully understand morality. That's not fair unless they are specifically claiming their research would be sufficient, which is something you should provide evidence for. <br /><br />Almost every researcher is doing research that has virtually no possibility of independently totally solving a great human mystery, and would be guilty of hubris to claim otherwise. It's weird to me that you neither made that abstract point nor went all the way and provided a specific, evidenced backed criticism of wrongdoing.<br /><br />You instead said that "...a group out there, made up mostly of scientists and atheists..." is acting foolishly. This halfway statement is unfair to the accused group. I am liable to make an unfair judgement about that group and by extension individuals in that group because I am a flawed human being, like many on the internet. Lifnei iver lo sitein michshol, as a wise man once wrote.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07476960140800201057noreply@blogger.com