'Can Science answer Moral questions

[TheStatutoryApe]

Moral values are created subjectively but contested through multiple discourses of power. Claiming that your morality prohibits killing won't stop someone else from killing you if their morality allows it, or if they simply disregard their moral prohibition. Therefore, if you're going to accept that someone is going to kill you or someone else on the basis of their own moral/ethical values, why wouldn't you accept that you or anyone else has the right to a morality/ethic in which they push their values on other people? At least moral paternalism can be discussed, unlike killing (and intimidation by violence) which is what people generally exercise in protection of their right to cultural freedom.

This seems to invoke the old "murderer/self defense" argument which is a false dichotomy. The logic seems to run something like "If you except all ethical propositions as equally valid then you must allow the person who wishes to kill you to do so because defending yourself would necessitate invalidating the ethical proposition that this person has the right to kill you." This fails, though, to take the logic to its fullest conclusion, that being "If all ethical propositions are equally valid then the proposition that I have the right to defend myself is equal in validity to the proposition that the murderer has the right to kill me."

The argument disingenuously purports to deconstruct relativism based on relativist logic when in fact it cuts in and uses objectivist logic for its final conclusion. It bases the conclusion on the principle that two mutually exclusive propositions may not be simultaneously valid but this principle only holds true if we are considering objective validity. Relativist logic states that the objective validity of any ethical proposition is exactly zero. If we consider the validity of any ethical proposition as subjective only the mutual exclusion principle does not apply and the dichotomy disappears.

 

[JoeDawg]

Now I'm seeing that you view context as somehow factual.

Every fact, has a context. We can group similar facts together and create rules, or generalizations. We can also call these facts, but they are not 'universal'. They exist within a context.

An apple falls on Newton's head.
Apples fall.
Objects move according to a law of gravity.
Gravity describes how mass curves spacetime.

All follow from the context of Newton who is a conscious human being residing on earth. This is not to say that 'existence' is all in Newton's head, but knowledge of existense is.

These are observations of what is. Any discussion of morals, goes beyond that, and deals with counterfactuals and future events.

Truth is about the correspondence, between knowledge and observation. If you can't observe the universe as a whole, you can't have knowledge that corresponds to the universe as a whole. No universals.
There can certainly be facts about societies and one's place in society.

It sort of implies that conformity is the basis of all knowledge and truth, which is troubling to me.

We don't create knowledge as individuals, if that is what you mean.

Your experience as a secular-nut?

I like to think of myself more as a cashew.

I would say that empiricism is not so much about subjective experience as it is about sensory experience.

All sensory experience is subjective. But individuals can share similar subjective experiences.

It is simply observable in the form in which it emerged.

Modern neuroscience disagrees, the thoughts we have are heavily filtered and constructed, separating a thought from the process of thinking, would be highly problematic.

For you to claim that relativism is valid, you have to recognize some basis for validating it. Until you recognize that basis as itself relative

Of course it is, I'm the subject, it is an experience I have, therefore it is a subjective experience. In fact, I can't even conceive of an experience that is not subjective.

If you were truly relativistic, why would you value relativism for being useful?

Because I choose to. You seem to equate relativism with randomness, it is not about assigning random value to things, its about context. Within the context of my subjective experience certain things have value. I don't claim they have objective, or absolute value.

As I said, you could only ever demonstrate something as being universal if it was possible for you to have access to unlimited contexts. Since you don't, universalism is a "tentative proposition" that leaves itself open for falsification.

I have no problem with methodological naturalism, but that has nothing to do with universals. I have no access to unlimited contexts, so I think you are abusing falsification. Falsification is only useful if you can 'practically' falsify something.

my universalist hypothesis stands and remains a tentative-proposition for yet another round of testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot"

That's nonsense, because it is empirically clear that IT IS possible to think universality despite the constraints of material limitations.

It is possible to generalize from observations. Universals are a different thing.

 

[brainstorm]

This seems to invoke the old "murderer/self defense" argument which is a false dichotomy. The logic seems to run something like "If you except all ethical propositions as equally valid then you must allow the person who wishes to kill you to do so because defending yourself would necessitate invalidating the ethical proposition that this person has the right to kill you." This fails, though, to take the logic to its fullest conclusion, that being "If all ethical propositions are equally valid then the proposition that I have the right to defend myself is equal in validity to the proposition that the murderer has the right to kill me."

The argument disingenuously purports to deconstruct relativism based on relativist logic when in fact it cuts in and uses objectivist logic for its final conclusion. It bases the conclusion on the principle that two mutually exclusive propositions may not be simultaneously valid but this principle only holds true if we are considering objective validity. Relativist logic states that the objective validity of any ethical proposition is exactly zero. If we consider the validity of any ethical proposition as subjective only the mutual exclusion principle does not apply and the dichotomy disappears.

You're correct that your relativism allows you to take an ethical position that allows you to commit violence (physical or cultural) toward others regardless of your recognition of cultural difference. So cultural relativism is to you not a moral basis for respect but merely a recognition on the way to colonization and ethnocentric domination?

Where I think you fall short of strong relativism is that you negate the possibility of objective validity. Absolute relativism allows you to construct objective validity from your subjective, culturally-specific position. This is possible because strong relativism should not recognize any such thing as a possibility of objective validity. So from the perspective of strong relativism, objective validity and objectivism generally were never anything more or less than another relative cultural expression.

Where relativism fails, imo, is when truth-power is exercised by making claims of one position's validity versus another's. At point, the invalidated position can simply claim cultural relativism and maintain its own truth according to its own culture - but what happens if the critic continues to assert invalidation? At that point there is conflict to deal with, which requires the cultural relativist either resort to some form of repressive violence to avoid responding to the criticism OR it has to engage in a reasonable defense through appeal to universal reason. When a cultural standpoint is willing to engage in repression or violence to silence critique, I favor the use of violence in favor of universal reason because at least with universal reason, cultures have a chance to defend their legitimacy verses others, while in total cultural relativism no culture can respond to critique EXCEPT through repressive violence toward difference.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You're correct that your relativism allows you to take an ethical position that allows you to commit violence (physical or cultural) toward others regardless of your recognition of cultural difference. So cultural relativism is to you not a moral basis for respect but merely a recognition on the way to colonization and ethnocentric domination?

Where I think you fall short of strong relativism is that you negate the possibility of objective validity. Absolute relativism allows you to construct objective validity from your subjective, culturally-specific position. This is possible because strong relativism should not recognize any such thing as a possibility of objective validity. So from the perspective of strong relativism, objective validity and objectivism generally were never anything more or less than another relative cultural expression.

I am not actually a cultural relativist. You might say that I subscribe to an ethically relativist individualism. I do not believe that intellectual abstractions such as "culture" can be held ethically accountable, only individuals, so it would seem meaningless to frame my perceptions around "culture".
Perhaps my arguments regarding historical interpretation of the constitution in another thread have led you to believe I am a cultural relativist?

 

[brainstorm]

I am not actually a cultural relativist. You might say that I subscribe to an ethically relativist individualism. I do not believe that intellectual abstractions such as "culture" can be held ethically accountable, only individuals, so it would seem meaningless to frame my perceptions around "culture".
Perhaps my arguments regarding historical interpretation of the constitution in another thread have led you to believe I am a cultural relativist?

Regardless of whether you focus on all culture or just ethical culture, your relativism seems to presume that you have the right to avoid other people holding you accountable to their ethics. The problem with that is how can you claim them pushing their ethics on you is unethical without having your own ethics to claim that?

If I consider it ethical to intervene in the unethical behavior of others, how are you going to assert that it is actually unethical to intervene, if you don't allow yourself to hold others accountable to your ethics?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Regardless of whether you focus on all culture or just ethical culture, your relativism seems to presume that you have the right to avoid other people holding you accountable to their ethics. The problem with that is how can you claim them pushing their ethics on you is unethical without having your own ethics to claim that?

If I consider it ethical to intervene in the unethical behavior of others, how are you going to assert that it is actually unethical to intervene, if you don't allow yourself to hold others accountable to your ethics?

I do not perceive "rights" as objective "Truths", therefore I do not perceive myself, or anyone else, as being possessed of any "right" to avoid accountability. As well accountability (in my perception) is merely the objective circumstance of consequences (consequences which include other persons perceptions of your actions and their resulting choice of action) and, beyond that, perhaps the accountability that one holds themselves to.

As far as the ethics of intervention vs non-intervention it has nothing to do with relativism. Relativism does not feature any ethical proscriptions or prescriptions. As I pointed out in a previous post, while those who subscribe to relativism may derive meta-ethical propositions from the philosophy these are not inherent in the philosophy itself.

 

[brainstorm]

I do not perceive "rights" as objective "Truths", therefore I do not perceive myself, or anyone else, as being possessed of any "right" to avoid accountability. As well accountability (in my perception) is merely the objective circumstance of consequences (consequences which include other persons perceptions of your actions and their resulting choice of action) and, beyond that, perhaps the accountability that one holds themselves to.

As far as the ethics of intervention vs non-intervention it has nothing to do with relativism. Relativism does not feature any ethical proscriptions or prescriptions. As I pointed out in a previous post, while those who subscribe to relativism may derive meta-ethical propositions from the philosophy these are not inherent in the philosophy itself.

Your empirical approach to culture and subjectivity is very lucid. I guess if you define relativism the way you are, you are right. The problem is that, you're also right, that relativism is often conflated with an ethical stance of mutual respect for cultural autonomy and avoidance of critical engagement by reference to the claim that contesting something relative to one cultural context with something derived from another is unreasonable and logically impossible.

That may be a reasonable argument in some cases, but there's no generalizable incommensurability. Culture-commensurability is a question of applying (truth-)power. I don't know what the separatists of this world are going to do if you succeed in taking away cultural relativism as a basis for them legitimating conflict-avoidance, though. They may be provoked into striking like a snake whose rock has been taken away leaving them exposed to the light of day. (sorry if that is too harsh-sounding an analogy)

 

[JoeDawg]

I don't know what the separatists of this world are going to do if you succeed in taking away cultural relativism as a basis for them legitimating conflict-avoidance, though.

Cultural relativism really has nothing to do with whether one takes political action or not, its about the difficulties inherent in 'understanding' another culture, due to one's own cultural prejudices. Many would argue that its important to understand a culture before you try and change it, but whether one seeks change is a different question.

Cultural imperialism is the desire to impose one's cultural norms on another culture. And whether one is for and/or against it, and under what circumstances, all is perfectly within the scope of relativism.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Is this question really any different than asking if science can answer what is beautiful? What is more beautiful than something else. Can science answer which one of Shakespeare's works is the best, or if they are good at all?

 

[magpies]

What do you mean by answer? So far the only thing science has answered imo is that science is interesting. Every thing changes with time even science stuff like theories to why the universe began. Like think of it what if humanity did make it to an live past an eon the big bang theory would be gone from the popular view by then even if it was just because all scientists were bored with it.

 

[brainstorm]

Cultural relativism really has nothing to do with whether one takes political action or not, its about the difficulties inherent in 'understanding' another culture, due to one's own cultural prejudices. Many would argue that its important to understand a culture before you try and change it, but whether one seeks change is a different question.

Cultural imperialism is the desire to impose one's cultural norms on another culture. And whether one is for and/or against it, and under what circumstances, all is perfectly within the scope of relativism.

The term "cultural imperialism" has a pejorative tone, and it is often used to decry one imperialist culture while denouncing another. This is what happened as a result of the discourse about "globalization." Global Anglo-American culture was/is decried as "cultural imperialism" in defense of national cultures, but people forgot that nationalism was the a form of cultural imperialism in the first place.

The fact is that all culture spreads. Children learn culture by it spreading from their parents, school teachers, peers, etc. Individuals do self-determine their own culture, but they do so in dialogue with hegemonic forces.

The real kicker comes from asking how it is possible for people to identify two cultural practices or values as being part of the same or different cultures. This is the issue of cultural identity. If I tell my child that in our family we eat asparagus to celebrate birthdays and we wear open toed shoes with socks, why are those two cultural practices part of "the same culture?" Maybe we are a multi-ethnic family and the shoe-thing is derived from one ethnicity and the birthday asparagus from another. Drawing boundaries between cultural identities is itself a cultural practice.

You say it is important to understand culture before trying to change it, but how many people do you think understand even their own culture? In reality, the transmission, practice, and adaptation/modification of culture happens pretty subconsciously. Taking an approach to culture that is 1) conscious of the culture and its identity and 2) orthodox in the sense of understanding it and resisting change is highly disciplined, and nevertheless a form of appropriation/adaptation of culture to specific circumstances and needs.

I agree that it's worth figuring out what something is good for before rejecting it or modifying it, but some form of cultural imperialism is always present. Even children learning language and culture for the first time resist on the basis of their own ethnocentrism as babies. It's called whining or throwing a temper tantrum. They are basically saying, "eating vegetables is an inferior culture to eating whatever I feel like, and it is my culture as a baby to whine and cry until I get what I want."

 

[Freeman Dyson]

What do you mean by answer? So far the only thing science has answered imo is that science is interesting. Every thing changes with time even science stuff like theories to why the universe began. Like think of it what if humanity did make it to an live past an eon the big bang theory would be gone from the popular view by then even if it was just because all scientists were bored with it.

Well science has been successful and accurate enough to quantifiably improve the conditions of the human race. It has spectacular practical value and is the bedrock of human progress. It is more than just "interesting".

I mean can science tell us which to prefer? Yes, but only when based on accuracy. It can tell us to prefer The Big Bang because it is closer to the natural evidence. It is closer to what is. It doesn't tell us to prefer it for any other reason. So with morality, what are we testing the accuracy of? What makes one moral theory more accurate than another? What falsifies one and makes the other the law? How is any theory of morality falsified at all?

 

[brainstorm]

Well science has been successful and accurate enough to quantifiably improve the conditions of the human race. It has spectacular practical value and is the bedrock of human progress. It is more than just "interesting".

I mean can science tell us which to prefer? Yes, but only when based on accuracy. It can tell us to prefer The Big Bang because it is closer to the natural evidence. It is closer to what is. It doesn't tell us to prefer it for any other reason. So with morality, what are we testing the accuracy of? What makes one moral theory more accurate than another? What falsifies one and makes the other the law? How is any theory of morality falsified at all?

If you have a conscience, you should have the experience that when you do something bad, you feel guilty. If you learn to study your conscience and heed its warnings, you can avoid guilty feelings.

I think that theologians and saints are people who studied their consciences intensively and tried to teach what they learned to others in the hope of helping them to lead happier and more guilt free lives. I think they also studied how people harm each other and tried to teach people how to harm others less.

You could say that this is a subjective art, but the fact is that these people did/do the best they can because part of their conscience is the calling to help others by sharing what they have discovered. It may not be an exact science, but by learning from one person's reflections, another person makes gains and then builds onto these by going further and sharing what they learn. The result is an evolving discourse which, while potentially flawed for any number of reasons, also holds the potential to improve people's lives and help them treat each other better.

Ethical/moral beliefs can be falsified the same way any scientific proposition can. You simply deduce a specific proposition or hypothesis and test it. If theft is a sin, you can test it by studying how it is expected to harm others and why it does or doesn't have the predicted effect. You can also look at the effect stealing has on the thief. Does stealing make someone happier or not? Why and why not? Are the benefits worth the consequences? etc.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you have a conscience, you should have the experience that when you do something bad, you feel guilty. If you learn to study your conscience and heed its warnings, you can avoid guilty feelings.

I have lately been watching the old episodes of the show 24. Its mostly a rather ridiculous show but perhaps one of its more worthwhile aspects is the constant question "What is the right thing to do?" Its quite likely that many ethical decisions will leave a person feeling guilty no matter what they choose and a person merely attempting to avoid guilt may make a poor decision or simply find themselves unable to make one.

One might also consider that what we feel guilty about may often be what we have in some fashion or another been programmed to feel guilty about. I am perhaps not the pinnacle of mental fitness but I have often felt guilty about things that perhaps I ought not have.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

If you have a conscience, you should have the experience that when you do something bad, you feel guilty. If you learn to study your conscience and heed its warnings, you can avoid guilty feelings.

I think that theologians and saints are people who studied their consciences intensively and tried to teach what they learned to others in the hope of helping them to lead happier and more guilt free lives. I think they also studied how people harm each other and tried to teach people how to harm others less.

You could say that this is a subjective art, but the fact is that these people did/do the best they can because part of their conscience is the calling to help others by sharing what they have discovered. It may not be an exact science, but by learning from one person's reflections, another person makes gains and then builds onto these by going further and sharing what they learn. The result is an evolving discourse which, while potentially flawed for any number of reasons, also holds the potential to improve people's lives and help them treat each other better.

Ethical/moral beliefs can be falsified the same way any scientific proposition can. You simply deduce a specific proposition or hypothesis and test it. If theft is a sin, you can test it by studying how it is expected to harm others and why it does or doesn't have the predicted effect. You can also look at the effect stealing has on the thief. Does stealing make someone happier or not? Why and why not? Are the benefits worth the consequences? etc.

But you can't answer the question that precedes it. Why is theft a sin? Falsify that. I agree that science could guide us to a society to minimize theft. But we don't want it to be too accurate. If we really wanted to minimize theft we could just have some kind of curfew and massive police presence. So it isn't about accuracy. Other things are more important and take precedence over accuracy. Weird notions like freedom and dignity.

Your talk of the natural good in our hearts reminds me of religions. There is no "good" and people aren't born with it. What feels good is an appeal to nature fallacy.

 

[JoeDawg]

The term "cultural imperialism" has a pejorative tone,

That is largely because it is descriptive, and most people don't like it when others do it to them.

Global Anglo-American culture was/is decried as "cultural imperialism" in defense of national cultures, but people forgot that nationalism was the a form of cultural imperialism in the first place.

I never specified it was one culture's issue. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend poor anglo-america. China, Russia, France and Germany... to name a few, all have a long history of cultural imperialism. Its nothing new.
But the fact others have done it, doesn't then justify Anglo-america doing it.
Your entire argument is based on poor logic.
You see, this is the real problem with your 'analysis' of my arguments, you don't read what I write, you read into what I write.

The fact is that all culture spreads.

Now you're being obtuse.
Cultural Imperialism generally refers to spreading one's own culture, using some type of force, at the expense of some one else.

Drawing boundaries between cultural identities is itself a cultural practice.

So what? The fact some cultural practices are complex doesn't mean there aren't more simple ones. There are many easily identifiable traditions and culture specific practices from many cultures.

You say it is important to understand culture before trying to change it, but how many people do you think understand even their own culture?

No, that is not what I said. And until you start reading what I wrote instead of trying to foist arguments on me, we're done here.

 

[brainstorm]

I have lately been watching the old episodes of the show 24. Its mostly a rather ridiculous show but perhaps one of its more worthwhile aspects is the constant question "What is the right thing to do?" Its quite likely that many ethical decisions will leave a person feeling guilty no matter what they choose and a person merely attempting to avoid guilt may make a poor decision or simply find themselves unable to make one.

One might also consider that what we feel guilty about may often be what we have in some fashion or another been programmed to feel guilty about. I am perhaps not the pinnacle of mental fitness but I have often felt guilty about things that perhaps I ought not have.

Part of becoming a scientist involves learning to approach questions of knowledge systematically and interest-free. In studying and developing ethics, this can mean becoming aware of one's "programming" in order to reflect consciously and systematically about it. At that point, one may conclude that learned morality and ethical prescriptions are unethical or ethical for other reasons than first thought. I have come to believe that morality and ethical notions that are accepted as programmatic, without reflection, are not ultimately an ethical route to choosing ones ethics. They can be a basis for reflection and reasoning, but to eschew reasonable consideration on the basis of dogma is not ethically responsible, imo.

But you can't answer the question that precedes it. Why is theft a sin? Falsify that. I agree that science could guide us to a society to minimize theft. But we don't want it to be too accurate. If we really wanted to minimize theft we could just have some kind of curfew and massive police presence. So it isn't about accuracy. Other things are more important and take precedence over accuracy. Weird notions like freedom and dignity.

You have to reason and operationalize the notion of "sin" to be able to answer why anything would or wouldn't be a sin, and in what sense. One way of looking at sin is anything that harms oneself or others. Does theft harm others? Does it harm oneself and one's sense of dignity? You can say that dignity is subjective and arbitary, but it may have something to do with the inherent ability to identify with others and empathize with things that happen to oneself. This is why "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a handy general formula for ethical reflection. The theory of karma, that what you do to others will happen to you, makes it even more concrete.

Your talk of the natural good in our hearts reminds me of religions. There is no "good" and people aren't born with it. What feels good is an appeal to nature fallacy.

People are born from a warm womb where they are completely cared for in terms of nutrients and protection. From that point they try to interact with mommy and others in a way that reproduces that state of bliss. People automatically worship and emulate power, and they recognize power in the ability to create happiness.

That is largely because it is descriptive, and most people don't like it when others do it to them.

I never specified it was one culture's issue. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend poor anglo-america. China, Russia, France and Germany... to name a few, all have a long history of cultural imperialism. Its nothing new.
But the fact others have done it, doesn't then justify Anglo-america doing it.
Your entire argument is based on poor logic.
You see, this is the real problem with your 'analysis' of my arguments, you don't read what I write, you read into what I write.

The idea that one's individual culture is a determined subsidiary of a group culture is a fiction. Individuals interact with each other to acquire and develop their own culture through emulation and individuation. Identifying group patterns is an analytic exercise which can be useful to self-determining one's culture, ethics, and morality - but it can also be detrimental in that ones conscience and personal authority may be rejected in favor of group conformity. If everyone was jumping off a cliff, does that mean it's good to?

Now you're being obtuse.
Cultural Imperialism generally refers to spreading one's own culture, using some type of force, at the expense of some one else.

I'm questioning assumptions about "cultural imperialism" because they're questionable and misleading.

So what? The fact some cultural practices are complex doesn't mean there aren't more simple ones. There are many easily identifiable traditions and culture specific practices from many cultures.

Yes, but the practice of identifying various cultural practice under a common identity "umbrella" and exerting prescriptive expectations based on that is a culture unto itself. Individual cultural freedom is also a cultural practice done by every individual in some way or other regardless of ethnic or other cultural identity.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Part of becoming a scientist involves learning to approach questions of knowledge systematically and interest-free. In studying and developing ethics, this can mean becoming aware of one's "programming" in order to reflect consciously and systematically about it. At that point, one may conclude that learned morality and ethical prescriptions are unethical or ethical for other reasons than first thought. I have come to believe that morality and ethical notions that are accepted as programmatic, without reflection, are not ultimately an ethical route to choosing ones ethics. They can be a basis for reflection and reasoning, but to eschew reasonable consideration on the basis of dogma is not ethically responsible, imo.

"My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof." Bad Religion - Prove It

Pardon if quoting song lyrics seems rather sophomoric.
The possibility that our natural aversions to certain actions and circumstances is programmed really brings into question any idea that we can rely on "instinct" or "guilt" to pave the way for ethical understanding and decisions. Complete disregard for such feelings can also disconnect us from the "human condition" rendering ethics down to mere computation and seemingly forgetting the whole point. This is where I feel that relativism offers a practical solution if one actually abides the intellectual conditions of the philosophy rather than simply using it as a justification. In the stead of any comfort in "knowing" one is "right" or an axiomatic rule that one ought, on occasion, reconsider and revise their ethics based on new circumstances the relativists very perception of ethical propositions forces one to reflect on one's ethical opinions at every turn in the light of circumstance including a tentative legitimization of the ethical propositions of other individuals. In this way I ought not, though may still, fall prey to ethical hubris and the dismissal of propositions that I may have yet to consider.

 

[brainstorm]

"My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof." Bad Religion - Prove It

Pardon if quoting song lyrics seems rather sophomoric.
The possibility that our natural aversions to certain actions and circumstances is programmed really brings into question any idea that we can rely on "instinct" or "guilt" to pave the way for ethical understanding and decisions. Complete disregard for such feelings can also disconnect us from the "human condition" rendering ethics down to mere computation and seemingly forgetting the whole point. This is where I feel that relativism offers a practical solution if one actually abides the intellectual conditions of the philosophy rather than simply using it as a justification. In the stead of any comfort in "knowing" one is "right" or an axiomatic rule that one ought, on occasion, reconsider and revise their ethics based on new circumstances the relativists very perception of ethical propositions forces one to reflect on one's ethical opinions at every turn in the light of circumstance including a tentative legitimization of the ethical propositions of other individuals. In this way I ought not, though may still, fall prey to ethical hubris and the dismissal of propositions that I may have yet to consider.

If this is all part of your personal path of ethical discovery, then it is. My ethics just tell me that I should note that if, for whatever reason, you fail to listen to your conscience, you could fall prey to guilt and sorrow at some point in the future, regardless of how reasonable it may be to do so.

A safer path that doesn't completely eschew relativistic inquiry would be to reflect on and know your own conscience in a way that allows you to apply and adapt it in your exploratory process of researching and comparing different cultures of morality and ethics to each other and to those "programmed" into your own conscience.

You never know, there may be a way for you to become master of your own programming without betraying your own good faith to your conscience in the process.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If this is all part of your personal path of ethical discovery, then it is. My ethics just tell me that I should note that if, for whatever reason, you fail to listen to your conscience, you could fall prey to guilt and sorrow at some point in the future, regardless of how reasonable it may be to do so.

A safer path that doesn't completely eschew relativistic inquiry would be to reflect on and know your own conscience in a way that allows you to apply and adapt it in your exploratory process of researching and comparing different cultures of morality and ethics to each other and to those "programmed" into your own conscience.

You never know, there may be a way for you to become master of your own programming without betraying your own good faith to your conscience in the process.

This is more or less my reason for the quotation.
"My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof."
I am possessed of feelings and opinions, and I may well act on them, but I am sorry that I can not offer you any proof of their righteousness much less their mere existence.

I am not sure if you may or may not enjoy punk rock and may very well be skeptical of any philosophical merit in punk rock lyrics but to expand...
"Hit the road in wander mode, inquire along the way
Savoir faire in full despair while living day-to-day
My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof
I don't ever need to prove myself to you

Looking back I've off the tracks more times than I recognize
Mistakes are another opportunity to refine
My heart is not a cold cauldron of proof
I don't ever need to prove myself to you

There's no such thing as hell
But you can make it if you try
There might come a day
when emotion can be quantified
But as of now there's no proof necessary
There's no proof necessary
it's only in your mind"
Bad Religion - Prove It (slightly abridged for repetitiousness)

Again I realize the likely perception of quoting song lyrics as part of an argument but I think that they rather aptly illustrate my point and opinion if in a metaphoric fashion.

 

[brainstorm]

There's no such thing as hell
But you can make it if you try
There might come a day
when emotion can be quantified
But as of now there's no proof necessary
There's no proof necessary
it's only in your mind"
Bad Religion - Prove It (slightly abridged for repetitiousness)

Again I realize the likely perception of quoting song lyrics as part of an argument but I think that they rather aptly illustrate my point and opinion.

Since you are sharing your personal beliefs, allow me to offer my own:

Hell is a state of the living, imo. If reincarnation occurs, it may be a state of the living that extends through multiple lifetimes. Hell may also be a state of conscience, which includes the guilt, despair, and sense of hopelessness and cynicism that comes with losing faith in humanity because you've lost faith in yourself to choose ethics and hope for others to do the same. I must avoid discussing scripture in any depth due to forum rules, but I can tell you that I've read in the bible that King Herod found himself in such a state of hell of conscience after ordering the head of John the Baptist severed to appease the request of a dancing girl who amused him. Betrayal of conscience in Christian philosophy is also known as "blasphemy of holy spirit" (my interpretation). Again, I'm not trying to preach - just citing mythological sources of reference for the same idea.

Proof or quantification of emotion or conscience is not necessary for these things to affect you in practice. Conscience and emotions hold you accountable for your self-perception whether your mind can rationalize something or not. I keep trying to tell you that you don't need objective proof to reason about ethics and take your emotions and conscience into account. You can question your own morality and ethics, and I think that doing so actually makes you more lucid in reflecting on what is good and bad and why it might be or not be valid to think so. I just think it's very important to point out that your conscience and emotions will not stop or go away because of what your mind rationalizes.

If you truly believe that you have acted on your best ethical judgment in a given situation, your conscience should forgive you if you turned out to have been mistaken at a later point. The point is, though, that reasoning has to take place in good faith for your conscience to forgive itself when things go wrong and people get hurt. If you act with a shadow of doubt in your heart that you could be making a better choice, and suffering takes place as a result, don't you think you'd feel terrible as a result?

This is why I understood why air traffic authorities were so cautious with allowing flights to resume with the volcanic ash. So many people thought that it wasn't a big deal, but someone wasn't completely convinced and they weren't willing to bet on it with other people's lives. That makes sense, doesn't it?