creating a moral order

[B.H.]

Can there be a moral code or moral order without using emotion in the building of such a said code or moral order?

[DMB]

In answer to the OP, I would say "no", for the simple reason that, however much we may delude ourselves, we are not capable of decoupling our emotions from our thinking. In any case, there is evidence that animals apart from us have something approaching simple morality, and we don't normally assume that they operate without emotion.

[Hevvin Machine]

Can there be a moral code or moral order without using emotion in the building of such a said code or moral order? Yes, in fact I would argue that emotion is a hindrance. (Assuming you mean the same thing by emotion that I do. This is not the first thread where you've used the word emotion in a way that strikes me as curious. Like maybe English isn't your first language, I don't know. :dunno:)

Moral orders must be clear eyed rational responses to the human situation. Emotion clouds your thinking. Humans are inherently emotional creatures, so eliminating emotional moral judgements completely is likely impossible. But reducing the emotional component as much as possible is crucial. Decide what is the right thing to do then do it, no matter what emotional reactions you have to one particular event. If it is not OK to kill people, then it is still not OK to kill someone even if he just raped your wife. Although the emotional response is perfectly understandable, actually murdering him is still a crime.
Hev

[Alex]

A moral code is a cultural artifact. It probably evolves as an advantage to survival. It is not the result of an inquiry concerning the principles of morals by a committee of thinkers.

[David B]

A moral code is a cultural artifact. It probably evolves as an advantage to survival. It is not the result of an inquiry concerning the principles of morals by a committee of thinkers.

Further to that, I agree that most moral codes depend largely on evolved emotions like sympathy, empathy, and, in the face of things seen as bad, anger.

When moral codes have been imposed by people who take what they see as absolute goods as axioms on which to build moral systems, then they tend to be pretty bad, IMV. Examples being Soviet Russia, Maoism, theocratic middle age Catholicism and the Taliban.

David

[B.H.]

Can there be a moral code or moral order without using emotion in the building of such a said code or moral order? Yes, in fact I would argue that emotion is a hindrance. (Assuming you mean the same thing by emotion that I do. This is not the first thread where you've used the word emotion in a way that strikes me as curious. Like maybe English isn't your first language, I don't know. :dunno:)

Moral orders must be clear eyed rational responses to the human situation. Emotion clouds your thinking. Humans are inherently emotional creatures, so eliminating emotional moral judgements completely is likely impossible. But reducing the emotional component as much as possible is crucial. Decide what is the right thing to do then do it, no matter what emotional reactions you have to one particular event. If it is not OK to kill people, then it is still not OK to kill someone even if he just raped your wife. Although the emotional response is perfectly understandable, actually murdering him is still a crime.
Hev

Without using emotion how do you decide what the right thing to do is?

[David B]

Can there be a moral code or moral order without using emotion in the building of such a said code or moral order? Yes, in fact I would argue that emotion is a hindrance. (Assuming you mean the same thing by emotion that I do. This is not the first thread where you've used the word emotion in a way that strikes me as curious. Like maybe English isn't your first language, I don't know. :dunno:)

Moral orders must be clear eyed rational responses to the human situation. Emotion clouds your thinking. Humans are inherently emotional creatures, so eliminating emotional moral judgements completely is likely impossible. But reducing the emotional component as much as possible is crucial. Decide what is the right thing to do then do it, no matter what emotional reactions you have to one particular event. If it is not OK to kill people, then it is still not OK to kill someone even if he just raped your wife. Although the emotional response is perfectly understandable, actually murdering him is still a crime.
Hev

Without using emotion how do you decide what the right thing to do is?

Well, one could come up with some moral axioms, and decide according to the logical consequences of them.

Or, then again, one could decide that some bronze age text or other reflects some sort of absolute reality, but that would be a silly thing to do.

For myself, I include some sort of emotional ick factor as an input into moral decisions, as well as making the best compromise I can between the often conflicting moral rules of thumb the acquisition of which seems to me to be a part of the human condition.

David.

[Hevvin Machine]

Without using emotion how do you decide what the right thing to do is? By using our intellectual abilities to observe, process, and reason. Look around you and think "What would be in my best interests?" (Do it when your thinking isn't clouded by emotions, for best effect.) A rational person will realize that the right thing to do is the thing that is best for the whole human family, because we are all part of it. A rational person will realize that taking an action that degrades the whole human situation is the wrong thing to do even if it means a small and temporary advantage personally. A rational person will realize that they will not escape the long term deletorious effects of people making degrading choices, even if it is them making it.

This sort of rational moral thinking does not take place when one is in the grip of a strong emotion. Emotions are the feelings that are the result of our evolutionary history, and are more likely to cause us to decide things on the basis of what will spread our genes rather than what will produce a good life.
Emotions must be kept out of the moral decision making process at all costs.
Hev

[David B]

Without using emotion how do you decide what the right thing to do is? By using our intellectual abilities to observe, process, and reason. Look around you and think "What would be in my best interests?" (Do it when your thinking isn't clouded by emotions, for best effect.) A rational person will realize that the right thing to do is the thing that is best for the whole human family, because we are all part of it. A rational person will realize that taking an action that degrades the whole human situation is the wrong thing to do even if it means a small and temporary advantage personally. A rational person will realize that they will not escape the long term deletorious effects of people making degrading choices, even if it is them making it.

This sort of rational moral thinking does not take place when one is in the grip of a strong emotion. Emotions are the feelings that are the result of our evolutionary history, and are more likely to cause us to decide things on the basis of what will spread our genes rather than what will produce a good life.
Emotions must be kept out of the moral decision making process at all costs.
Hev

I invoke Orgell's second rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule

David

[JamesBannon]

Moral orders cannot be created or imposed, they have to grow. We all know what happens when moral orders are imposed, tyranny of the worst kind. Besides, who gets to decide what moral order to impose is just as important as the moral order itself.

[Hevvin Machine]

I invoke Orgell's second rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule

David Orgell's second rule looks like exactly what morality is intended to counteract.
"Evolution is cleverer than you are."

Orgel's Second Rule is intended as a rejoinder to the argument by lack of imagination. In general, this rule expresses the sometimes experienced fact that "trial and error" strategies are better than centralized intelligent human planning.
Evolution is clever at spreading our genes effectively, but not so good at creating a good quality life experience. If all humans wanted was to spread their own genes we'd still be living in caves. What makes us different from other creatures is our ability to want a better life than just reproducing. That is the essence of morality, deciding for ourselves instead of letting Evolution decide for us.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

Moral orders cannot be created or imposed, they have to grow. Why? I can understand why morality had to "grow" back when humanity was relatively primitive. Humans didn't have the language, social, or logical skills to vet a moral assertion. But that was then and this is now.

We all know what happens when moral orders are imposed, tyranny of the worst kind. No, when the founding fathers of the USA "imposed" their new moral order it did not create a tyranny of the worst kind. Hugely imperfect, I will agree. But it included the ability to change without war or violence. The Constitution can be amended. Moral assertions that weren't taken seriously at the time wind up in Law. The leaders get elected into and out of office. But there is no doubt that their "new moral order" was imposed upon a great many citizens of the colonies. If there had been a free and fair vote at the time they probably would have lost.

Besides, who gets to decide what moral order to impose is just as important as the moral order itself. No it isn't. The voters of California just voted to add blatant discrimination to their State Constitution in a free and fair election. It doesn't matter how a poor moral decision gets made, it's still a poor moral decision.
Hev

[Alex]

The founding fathers didn't impose a "new moral order" by means of the Constitution of the United States. It's a political document informed by traditional moral values that Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, and the others had acquired through cultural inheritance.