Who cares what the truth is, just behave!

[neutrino_cannon]

Does it matter if certain human constructs, the concept of a soul, for example, are true, if they help us to better define moral values. Perhaps not the concept of an immaterial (oh, that word might cause some combustion), or otherwise not-defined-or-definable-by-science(woowoo)-concept-of-a-spirit-that-is-the-hand-inside-the-fleshy-glove-that-is-the-body-kind-of-soul-thingie, per se, but any untrue, or unverifyable human idea of the universe that simplifies making moral choices.

Clearly, the concept of a soul, and it's importance, has lead to a good deal of silliness and complications.

My thinking goes about like this, we still use Newtonian physics, even though they aren't exactly the way the universe operates (i.e. true), but they simply come close enough that nothing is gained by using more complex physics. The whole process is streamlined, and I would guess a good number of physics students are happy to use simpler, easier physics.

So, in most cases, would it not be useful to use untrue, or unverifyable ideas in reaching a conclusion if they streamline matters? We don't use Newtonian physics where we need Einsteinian ones, but we gravitate (hah!) to the simplest system of determining the solution. Couldn't the same apply to moral questions?

[Zep]

Say what...???

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


My thinking goes about like this, we still use Newtonian physics, even though they aren't exactly the way the universe operates (i.e. true), but they simply come close enough that nothing is gained by using more complex physics. The whole process is streamlined, and I would guess a good number of physics students are happy to use simpler, easier physics.



That analogy might be appropriate but for this:

We know on the one hand that newtonian equations are approximate values.

We know when those equations are not appropriate for a desired level of accuracy.

We know what the accurate equations are, and we know when to use them.

Morality on the other hand is far more murky than that.

We don't have a single agraeable and working concept of morality that is appropriate for all situations.

We're pretty (many of us) sure this whole spirituality bunk is NOT correct, but we can't always say why.

We don't necessarily have a better answer at the moment.

The current model clearly has major flaws that lead to disastrous consequences, e.g. religious wars and religious persecution, civil rights abuses due to cultural differences etcetera.

So I would say that right now to use your analogy we are in the same period we would have been before Einstein. We have the Newtonian equations which do an okay job but they clearly don't explain everything and there are some situations that don't work at all using them.

So to me, the flaw in your logic is that if we just sit back and say, "enh, we know this isn't great but it's good enough...." well... then we'll never find something better that works all the time.

We don't find the best answers by being satisfied with merely good answers.

[Keneke]

Actually, I am leaning a bit toward neutrino_cannon on this one, with the stipulation that the "simpler morality" is just what our culture, as humans, has created. There may be another dimension where the laws of physics are different, and there may be a world where kmurder is the norm instead of the exception. But within our limited world, it holds.

Also, the fact that "simpler morality" does not come from religion, but only that religion can teach and enforce it (along with its other dogmatic rules) must also be included.

[Kopji]

Does it matter if certain human constructs, the concept of a soul, for example, are true, if they help us to better define moral values… …any untrue, or unverifyable human idea of the universe that simplifies making moral choices.

What made me decide that simplifying moral choices was of value? This part seems circular by including the desired outcome (simplifying good moral choices) as a goal of the premise. Making good moral choices may indeed be a virtue, but how did I reach that conclusion?


…we still use Newtonian physics, even though they aren't exactly the way the universe operates (i.e. true), but they simply come close enough that nothing is gained by using more complex physics. The whole process is streamlined…

This is not exactly the situation described in the first part. Here, I already have a knowledge of what is “true”, and am not being deceptive about ‘shortening the journey’ for others. I only knew this way was a shortcut because I already traveled both ways. Since I am also wise and benevolent many students are grateful and follow my Way. :D Doesn’t that limit their understanding to less than mine?


…would it not be useful to use untrue, or unverifyable ideas in reaching a conclusion if they streamline matters? We don't use Newtonian physics where we need Einsteinian ones, but we gravitate (hah!) to the simplest system of determining the solution. Couldn't the same apply to moral questions?

Again, the solution is even more obviously part of constructing the premise.

However there is an artistic truth in the idea that I agree with. If I sketch a scene of snow-covered trees, it is much easier to draw only the negative space (not-white-stuff) than focus on creating trees. It may well be that sometimes focusing on what is “not” we approach a better idea of what “is”.

(aplology for the quote 'shortening', was easier for me to follow this way - k)