I'm not sure what people mean by "Vulcans" but I once read a book by a neuroscientist who studied people who didn't have emotions due to brain damage: Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the...
I'm not sure what people mean by "Vulcans" but I once read a book by a neuroscientist who studied people who didn't have emotions due to brain damage: Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. It's been a long time since I read it, but I believe they did have trouble making decisions in daily life. I wonder what research has been done since then?
Also, the cartoon version of logic in Star Trek doesn't have much to do with actual logic. Logic deals with things that are either absolutely true or absolutely false, not nebulous stuff like clouds, society, benefits, promises, and trust. Logic works in systems that were designed to support it, such as games and computers. It applies to morality about as much as calculus does - hardly at all.
Inspired by David Chalmers' recent Zoom talk on 'Consciousness and Moral Status': consider affectless (but otherwise phenomenally conscious) vulcans. They can perceive, and think, but have no positive or negative feelings of any kind. Do they matter? Is there anything in their lives that is (intrinsically) good or bad for them?
They have feelings, but they suppress them. A lot of people today do this too. But they still have a strong moral code. Morality is not dependent on emotion.
They have feelings, but they suppress them. A lot of people today do this too. But they still have a strong moral code. Morality is not dependent on emotion.
If it were, a highly repressed person would be less capable of being virtuous. Some people are emotionally stunted, but decent people in the real world.
If it were, a highly repressed person would be less capable of being virtuous. Some people are emotionally stunted, but decent people in the real world.
I can actually make the argument that morality is inherently logical. Survival of the society and species is intrinsically beneficial to the self, because the larger the pool of people to aid you,...
I can actually make the argument that morality is inherently logical. Survival of the society and species is intrinsically beneficial to the self, because the larger the pool of people to aid you, the more likely you are to achieve your goals. Ergo, that which benefits society, benefits you. And a strong moral code is one of those things that prevents the bonds of society from collapsing. (If you break the trust, society becomes harder to maintain.)
I'm not sure what people mean by "Vulcans" but I once read a book by a neuroscientist who studied people who didn't have emotions due to brain damage: Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. It's been a long time since I read it, but I believe they did have trouble making decisions in daily life. I wonder what research has been done since then?
Also, the cartoon version of logic in Star Trek doesn't have much to do with actual logic. Logic deals with things that are either absolutely true or absolutely false, not nebulous stuff like clouds, society, benefits, promises, and trust. Logic works in systems that were designed to support it, such as games and computers. It applies to morality about as much as calculus does - hardly at all.
They have feelings, but they suppress them. A lot of people today do this too. But they still have a strong moral code. Morality is not dependent on emotion.
This seems highly debatable.
If it were, a highly repressed person would be less capable of being virtuous. Some people are emotionally stunted, but decent people in the real world.
Here you go: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral/
I can actually make the argument that morality is inherently logical. Survival of the society and species is intrinsically beneficial to the self, because the larger the pool of people to aid you, the more likely you are to achieve your goals. Ergo, that which benefits society, benefits you. And a strong moral code is one of those things that prevents the bonds of society from collapsing. (If you break the trust, society becomes harder to maintain.)
That’s a compelling argument. There are others, of course.