That's how I see the world. It's fairly easy to see why people did things if you know all the details and facts. No. This would never be the case. The human body has many built in "safety" functions that allow it to keep itself alive, even if I am unable to keep up. It also prevents me from killing myself (which can definitely be circumvented). These are not morals, but biological functions. As for other actions (jumping in front of a bullet for a loved one) these would be judged based on quick rudimentary pro/cons that I have somewhat pre-calculated before hand. It starts to get a bit complicated, as it all depends on whether I think that action is "inherently" (in most cases) be good (pro) or bad (con). Jumping in front of a bullet is generally a bad idea, so I probably wouldn't do it. If there were a particular reason I needed to protect something or someone, I might consider it. In no way is this a "moral instinct". Just slow/fast pro/con weighing. As I said, I may regret my decision afterward as I finish calculating, or recalculate with new data. Also as I mentioned, I get this feeling a lot, usually because of said new data. The only time I'd ever do such a thing is either accidentally, or in self-defense. Every other scenario would involve some sort of pre-calculated (or calculated on the fly) pro/con. Just knowing who Mr X is, is enough to give him a general pro/con for killing. If I didn't know, then as I mentioned, it would be inherently bad because of potential of use. Breaking/destroying anything is "bad" (a con) because it has a potential use. If there were too many pros/cons to look at before I must make a decision, I'd go with whatever was "winning" at the time. Getting to live (as I mentioned earlier) is a biological function in many cases. And naturally I've put it under the "heavy pro" category. However, there have been times where I have indeed sectioned it under "con". These were times that are normally called "depression". In normal cases it's a pro. Staying alive is usually a pretty big goal of mine. It's on my mind the majority of the time when I'm outside of my comfort area. Walking on the side walk? I need to watch out for any potential poisonous bugs/spiders/pests. Need to watch out for any cars that swerve along the road. Keep an eye out for anyone that might have a gun. Etc. I think about this stuff daily. Needless to say, I'm pretty on edge when I go outside. I usually have a good idea of what will benefit me if I ever do need to make split-second decisions. But sometimes it's not possible, and I make bad ones. I am then disappointed with those choices. If I wanted to, I could continually choose what does not benefit me. I see no "moral" difference. As I said, it's not good or bad, just what entertains me and makes me live longest. So if acting in my self interest and striving to live is a moral code, then so be it. That's a very loose definition and tends to go back to the whole "morality is subjective" thing I was talking about earlier. What's in my self interest obviously isn't what is in Mr. X's self interest. Neither of us are morally right or wrong. We just want different things. So if I killed Mr X. that's obviously a con for him (unless he wanted to die) and generally a pro for me (saved my life). But if Mr X kills me, then it's a pro for him (he's a serial killer) and a con for me (I die). So if that's morality, it's subjective. Which is what I stated at the beginning.it just sounds so emotionless and static.
Would you ever say you act upon instinct when faced with a 'moral decision'?
Perhaps you subconsciously and quickly "weigh the pros and cons" in your head because you don't have much time to physically act. Would you consider that acting upon moral instinct? Or just physical instinct?
You didn't have any time to think about it, you just did it.
ou didn't have time to weigh the pros and cons of killing him and there is one pro that stands out: you get to live. Surely that action is like a "default action" in given any situation in where you're about to be murdered. And would that "default action" be the same as a "moral code"?
I think you summed it up here quite well, but I do think this is sorta divulging a little into semantics because I'm having trouble separating what you consider "fast pro/con weighing" from "having an instinct", which may rely on some sort of moral fiber, but doesn't always have to. I've always agreed that morality is subjective, but I've never really looked into the "morals do not exist" perspective. Would you describe the "no morals" approach as sort of like a 'naturalist' or 'clean slate' way of thinking? As in, if you stripped all the influence of religion, society, culture, etc. from any average human, they would be more naturally inclined to your nihilist perspective? This discussion has definitely gotten me thinking more like the budding philosophy student I once was, so I'd just like to say thanks by the way.
When I say "no morals" exist, I mean that there isn't an objective "thing" morals. There's no rule or natural law that says "this is right and this is wrong". It's a human concept. If you look at just the physics behind it, what is "good"? You'd be arbitrarily applying "good" to things. Is gravity "good"? That's why I say my "morals" is just pro/cons. Of course, some people do get "morals" from other things (like religious books). But it baffles me as to why there is so much emotional baggage attached to it. I can only fathom it as pros/cons for that person. Attaching emotional weight to arbitrary events is weird. I don't understand the logistics of it. Well yes and no. I purely look at pros/cons. This is what most animals do naturally. Since it's the best way to survive. If the animal/organism chose something that didn't benefit it in some way, it'd obviously die out. And thus that particular favoring wouldn't be chosen to continue on in the lineage. After millions of years of evolution, humans have come up with a general idea of whats "right". But really, it's just what's most beneficial to us. We keep people alive because nature has showed teamwork give you an advantage. In collecting food, in fighting, and in a bunch of other stuff. So we said "letting someone live and help is beneficial, thus it is 'good'". So I'd say, yes. Looking at it objectively, if you stripped religion, society, and culture from the picture, you'd get early humans before those things evolved. Nature would choose the people who managed to "re-find" the best way to survive. Society and general "good" behavior is so far deemed the best way of doing that. But if the best chance at survival was just to kill everything, then that'd be what our species did. I guess the best way to think about it would be to try and imagine morals from a non-human perspective. Do bacteria decide that eating something (but not something else) "good"? No. It just is. That's how it lives. You can arbitrarily (or semi-logically, or even logically) define "good" and "bad" into categories and put each action into them, but you need a discrete definition. And (I'm not philosophy major so I don't know how often this is done) people have started to do that. There's different "schools of morals" if you will. Perhaps one could be: what is "good" is anything that allows more computers to be made. While what is "bad" is anything that allows more humans to be made. As you can see, the definitions are pretty much arbitrary and pointless. Instincts are things the body does automatically with no conscious input. Touching a hot stove and instinctively removing your hand, for example. Or instinctively removing your hands/grip if you try to choke yourself (or hold your breath for too long). "fast pro/con weighing" requires memories. No memories means you can't quickly weigh pros/cons (you have no memories of related things). Instincts don't require memories. They are biological functions. So I wouldn't instinctively jump in front of a bullet for someone. My body wouldn't do that. Regardless, 99% of events allow at least a couple seconds of decision making.Would you describe the "no morals" approach as sort of like a 'naturalist' or 'clean slate' way of thinking? As in, if you stripped all the influence of religion, society, culture, etc. from any average human, they would be more naturally inclined to your nihilist perspective?
I'm having trouble separating what you consider "fast pro/con weighing" from "having an instinct", which may rely on some sort of moral fiber, but doesn't always have to.