• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Technology will replace Morality

Like, whoa dude.

J/k this premise is bullshit. Technology will undoubtedly affect morality, but as some moral dilemmas are solved by technology, others will be created. We have progressed to a point that many of our technological advances have the potential to destroy us, and as it continues to progress we will begin to harness still more powerful forces. Think about the significant advances of the past 100 years and all the moral implications they have had. Weapons, electricity, splitting the atom, lasers, the fucking Internet, cloning and genetic manipulation, and most other significant advances have forced society to confront various moral issues concerning how that technology should be applied. We have yet to face nano-technology, cybernetics, artificial intelligence, and many other moral problems. By the time technology solves those I'm sure there will be completely unforeseen issues.
 
Last edited:
artic said:
Like, whoa dude.

J/k this premise is bullshit. Technology will undoubtedly affect morality, but as some moral dilemmas are solved by technology, others will be created.
Click to expand...

But how does this prove that the premises is bullshit? Sure tech innovations have open more doors to more problems, but to say that both morality and technology will not equal each other is missing the point.

I can see how this statement can be misunderstood as a Utopian pipe dream, but it doesn't promise the dissolution of problems. What I think this statement is getting at is that in the future any question of morality will be also a question of technology. SO for example, if there is an issue with someones morality, the way to solve it will be using technology to understand them, and not only punishing them.

So this statement doesn't affirm that technology will get rid of problems, but rather that as time goes on, problems of morality will be completely linked with problems of technology. So that answer to a moral problem is technology and vice versa.
 
nope, still a massive leap bewteen "technology will help us understand" and "technology equals morality". one does NOT lead to the other.

the premise remains bullshit until you can explain otherwise.
 
L2R said:
nope, still a massive leap bewteen "technology will help us understand" and "technology equals morality". one does NOT lead to the other.

the premise remains bullshit until you can explain otherwise.
Click to expand...

If they are so different then why does innovations in one cause issues for the other?

Can you explain how one does not lead to the other?
 
lol and i didn't understand when you said before that:
"it is an interesting topic on its own and without that absurd assertion you're stubbornly sticking to"

How do you find the topic interesting when you are so put off at my position, when that itself is the topic?
 
future uses of simulation is an interesting concept.

"technology equals morality" is rubbish


Quantum Perception said:
If they are so different then why does innovations in one cause issues for the other?

Can you explain how one does not lead to the other?
Click to expand...

severe weather causes issues for building structures, does that mean severe weather equates to building structures? of course not.
 
How does it show that problems of morality are becoming more and more linked/equal with problems of technology is rubbish?+

"severe weather causes issues for building structures, does that mean severe weather equates to building structures? of course not."

Buildings are shaped according to weather/climate patterns, so their structures are determined by the local climate. 0_o So we can say that the building is a reflection of the local climate.

And as for simulation, if one were to build a virtual reality program indistinguishable form reality on every level (its that life like) then it becomes one and the same with reality because of the rule A=A.
 
no matter how realistic a simulation gets, it will still be artificial. it is not A=A.

the climate is only one of the many factors in building creation. in the enclosed environment we live in, with everyone and everything relating directly and indirectly in some form, you could use your logic to argue anything is equal to anything else by that relationship. everything is shaped by everything else.
 
L2R said:
no matter how realistic a simulation gets, it will still be artificial. it is not A=A.

the climate is only one of the many factors in building creation. in the enclosed environment we live in, with everyone and everything relating directly and indirectly in some form, you could use your logic to argue anything is equal to anything else by that relationship. everything is shaped by everything else.
Click to expand...

Yeah because all is one :)

The environment and whats in it (if that makes sense) is all one thing. But I singled out morality to argue that its problems will be fused more and more as time goes on with problems of technology. SO when one observed a moral problem, it will be one and the same with a technological problem. This does not mean utopianism, only that our society will becomes a electronic saturated culture (more so then now) with an ever increasing array of technology to deal with moral issues.
 
there will always be more to life than technology. i think you greatly overstate this "fusion" of technology in order to prop up the case.
 
L2R said:
there will always be more to life than technology. i think you greatly overstate this "fusion" of technology in order to prop up the case.
Click to expand...

What makes human life unique is because of technology and the minds that develop it.
I single out (what you call overstate) morality and technology, because in a time of political and religious unrest, I wanted to stress that today's moral issues will over time be one and the same as issues of technology, meaning that technological innovation will be used in helping deal with it.
 
1- animals also use tools, technology is not unique to humans.
2- repeating that same leap again and again doesn't bridge the gap i've been highlighting.

until you can bring forth more information to support that assertion, we'll continue to go in circles.
 
This is ridiculously pointless. This might be even more pointless than Dedbeet's usual threads. Sorry, I hate just being a downer like that, but come on...
 
What makes it pointless??

What is so hard to understand? My point(less) point is, as time goes on problems of morality will be linked up with problems of technology. So in order to deal with problems of that sort, we will use technological innovations. What is so hard about understanding this?

Sure you may not agree, but to call this pointless is not doing anything.

And as for animals and tools, sure monkeys can use a twig to fish out some termites(if they were smart they would just open up the tree bark), but that tools use hasn't evolved. Our technology in conjunction with culture evolves and that is what makes us unique. To say we are not is just ignorant.

Lol to everyone who calls an argument pointless if they don't agree with it. If it had no point, there would be no way to disagree with it because a point of disagreement is adjacent to another point, not to a pointless point lmao.

And if you don't like pondering abstract concepts and going in circles discussing them, then don't discuss philosophy; just do some sort quietism
 
Technology will take a greater role in the future. When was that ever doubt? I just don't see why it even needed to be pointed out. I disagree with the necessity of the thread, and I disagree with the particular wording that you're defending, not the fact that we'll have more technology in the future. Circular arguments should be recognized and eliminated from rigorous philosophy, that's their only purpose as far as I can tell.
And I'm sorry this particular thread of yours never took flight like you had hoped, but sometimes you just have to pack it up and move on lol
 
Last edited:
Take flight?
I post threads like this so i can better understand these ideas by passing them though people and seeing what they have to say about it. So this thread went good IMO.

And you do agree so I'm not sure why you claim this argument to be circular? But I pointed it out because I saw it in the painting and it made a lot of sense to me. But I guess some of you here don't feel that way, and I cant do anything about that.

But to come here and call it pointless or say that it is invalid or circular is just plain shallow in terms of discussion. And I don't know why you say it is circular or that you don't like the wording when you just agreed to the point, yet feel that there is no need to bring it up.

Lol your saying you agree with the premise yet you don't like my wording and singling out of it. That's your argument against this assertion....

There no need to continue with this thread if no one else is going to contribute anything else constructive to say. Thanks to everyone who gave their two cents.
 
I think the problem people take is that you acted as if there was something more to say than just "there will be more tech in the future," and if that's all that you're saying I don't see the need to point that out, and I don't see how it has anything to do with philosophy in particular. That's why I said this thread is pointless. Obviously there will be more tech in the future. Technology is, and always has been, a result of a problem of some kind. People usually don't just invent things that are totally uncalled for. So, in saying that there will be more technology in the future, you are already implying that it will be used to solve more problems, moral problems being one of them. Didn't everyone already know that there will be more tech in the future?

The phrase "Technology will replace morality" makes no sense really. It's the word "replace" that is causing all the fuss here. That made it seem like there was some deeper point than just "technology will be used to solve more problems." You don't seem able to justify the use of the word "replace" in a convincing way, and until you do, the thread is pointless. That's all I was saying.

I'm not saying this argument is circular I was just responding to "and if you don't like ... going in circles discussing then, then don't discuss philosophy." Going in circles isn't what philosophy is supposed to do, IMO...going in circles doesn't do anyone any good.

EDIT: and the words "replace" and "equal" are basically synonymous in this instance, so that doesn't clear anything up. 8)
 
Last edited:
The word is not replace, it is equal. That was a fuck up on my part.
They are different because replace means one instead of the other, while equal means both are one and the same. So there is a difference, and I am sorry for that confusion.

So ok you don't feel the need to bring it up, that's your point. But I posted this in the philosophy section because i though of it as way of rethinking this notion. Just like another similar post about anxiety as freedom.
As for going in circles, I should have said discussing back and forth. And I do think philosophy is aided by discussion going back and forth, because the ideas are purified and ever more perfected, yet they never really reach any ultimate state.

With that said, moral problems (IMO) will be equal with technological problems. <-- My point :) This may be obvious for some but for others it isnt. But I acknowledge your disagreement.
 
your point has no significant meaning. repeating it adnauseum is not making it any more meaningful. give it up, man.

And as for animals and tools, sure monkeys can use a twig to fish out some termites(if they were smart they would just open up the tree bark), but that tools use hasn't evolved.
Click to expand...

re-read this to yourself. think about it some.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top