Technical problems vs moral problems

Technical problems are addressed directly and first in order; if it can be done somehow, we will do it. Why? Because we can. That's what it means to be human, in a large way. Moral problems are more difficult, they are tackled indirectly and second, usually utility intrudes and frames the context. Low energy morality operates within that context as best as possible, whereas higher energy morality operates in order to break free from that context, or at least to act outside of it.

A moral problem involves much more expenditure of resources and consciousness, a much higher degree of being, than a technical problem. Moral problems trace oppositional spaces where the grounds and conditions of various 'ideal' elements clash, this is why there is a natural appeal to low-energy solutions of utilitarianism. But certain organizations of the mis-overlap of ideal components preclude utility solutions, in other words higher morality becomes possible as being becomes more and more inwardly differential and non-reducible.

Synthesis in the opposite direction of reduction involves creating new links and ideal fibers, derived substances and inter-dependence. Reductive logic, such as much of science's approach now, is literally working to subvert the mind; but that subversion is only adding new differential layers that other minds elsewhere will take upon themselves the task of entering into new synthetic orders. Can technical problems be reduced to moral ones? No, but in the sense that technical problems form necessary aspects of more ideal issues and situations for individual humans we can absolve the merely technical through moral absorption or what is maybe called conscience, or the soul.

Capable wrote:

Technical problems are addressed directly and first in order; if it can be done somehow, we will do it. Why? Because we can. That's what it means to be human, in a large way. Moral problems are more difficult, they are tackled indirectly and second, usually utility intrudes and frames the context. Low energy morality operates within that context as best as possible, whereas higher energy morality operates in order to break free from that context, or at least to act outside of it.

A moral problem involves much more expenditure of resources and consciousness, a much higher degree of being, than a technical problem. Moral problems trace oppositional spaces where the grounds and conditions of various 'ideal' elements clash, this is why there is a natural appeal to low-energy solutions of utilitarianism. But certain organizations of the mis-overlap of ideal components preclude utility solutions, in other words higher morality becomes possible as being becomes more and more inwardly differential and non-reducible.

Synthesis in the opposite direction of reduction involves creating new links and ideal fibers, derived substances and inter-dependence. Reductive logic, such as much of science's approach now, is literally working to subvert the mind; but that subversion is only adding new differential layers that other minds elsewhere will take upon themselves the task of entering into new synthetic orders. Can technical problems be reduced to moral ones? No, but in the sense that technical problems form necessary aspects of more ideal issues and situations for individual humans we can absolve the merely technical through moral absorption or what is maybe called conscience, or the soul.

Can technical problems be reduced to moral ones

By technical, do you mean:

involving, or concerned with applied and industrial sciences.
3.resulting from mechanical failure

or did you mean -
.... according to a strict application or interpretation of the law or rules.

Either one might apply.

Anything that involves merely machinic computations and solutions or is approached simply as "can it be done?" without any concern for if or why it should be done. So both of your examples could fit that.

This kind of technical problematizing occurs often in philosophy as well, and has more or less wrapped an entire ethos and personality around itself by now.

Another interesting thing I got from this topic is how morality is structural as deep-seated inabilities to reconcile mental and-or emotional elements to a common reductive framework. Morality is kind of the self-integrity of that soul whose depths of living and experience have been varied enough o prevent epistemic and self-valuing closure into a small number of habituated pattern-responses. Morality is ontologically secondary-derivative but subjectively primary-prescriptive.

Capable

Quote :

Anything that involves merely machinic computations and solutions or is approached simply as "can it be done?" without any concern for if or why it should be done. So both of your examples could fit that.

So that would be the first step in problem solving - seeing it and remaining disinterested in a sense?

Quote :

This kind of technical problematizing occurs often in philosophy as well, and has more or less wrapped an entire ethos and personality around itself by now.

So you might be speaking here about some particular perspective - like for instance - "Can the existence of god really be proven" Is that what you mean by "technical problematizing"?

Quote :

Another interesting thing I got from this topic is how morality is structural as deep-seated inabilities to reconcile mental and-or emotional elements to a common reductive framework

.

I understand what you're saying here but at the same time, wouldn't you admit that for many, morality is purely based on automatic belief andnot so much of a struggle to define what is really right and good? Or is that what you are in actuality saying?

Quote :

Morality is kind of the self-integrity of that soul whose depths of living and experience have been varied enough to prevent epistemic and self-valuing closure into a small number of habituated pattern-responsesn . Morality is ontologically secondary-derivative but subjectively primary-prescriptive.

I suppose that the term "morality" also works here but I myself would prefer the word "ethics" for some reason.


What do you mean by this:

Quote :

varied enough to prevent epistemic and self-valuing closure into a small number of habituated pattern-responses

Do you mean for instance "not jumping the gun" and judging something before one has the time to really observe and evaluate it for what it is in all of its reality? And/or having an open mind?

Quote :

Can technical problems be reduced to moral ones? No, but in the sense that technical problems form necessary aspects of more ideal issues and situations for individual humans we can absolve the merely technical through moral absorption or what is maybe called conscience, or the soul.

Can you give me a real-life example of what you mean here? I'm probably not understanding what you're really saying  but it seems to me that you're reducing "morality" to conscience. Perhaps as a positive force you can say that conscience influences our moral thinking and  behavior BUT - then what?







I'll be back.

Another concern is that moral problems are often rendered falsely as simply technical problems, that issues of fundamental conflict of values, ideals, meaning or philosophic necessity can be approached only by looking to the particular situational conditions in which the momentary representation of the problem has arisen and focusing exclusively on those conditions, perhaps ameliorating some minor issue or working to move those conditions slightly toward a state in which the moral problem becomes easier to ignore given our pathological inclinations. Thus moral problems can be made to disappear to a mind assuming this kind of approach, which vanishing of the moral sphere behind the image of the material-momentary conditions that mind takes as a sign the problem has been addressed, even solved.

This idiocy has found a good home among common thought, perhaps most easily seen in approach to political issues; the idiocy has also, regrettably, found just as good a home in philosophy.

Capable wrote:

Another concern is that moral problems are often rendered falsely as simply technical problems, perhaps ameliorating some minor issue or working to move those conditions slightly toward a state in which the moral problem becomes easier to ignore given our pathological inclinations.

This idiocy has found a good home among common thought, perhaps most easily seen in approach to political issues; the idiocy has also, regrettably, found just as good a home in philosophy.

I don't know if the above post was in response to mine.

Quote :

that issues of fundamental conflict of values, ideals, meaning or philosophic necessity can be approached only by looking to the particular situational conditions in which the momentary representation of the problem has arisen and focusing exclusively on those conditions,

I wouldn't say ONLY but wouldn't you agree at least in part that certain issues - moral/ethical problems need to be evaluated and judged on particular situational conditions? Unless I'm not understanding you here.
After all, when it comes to human behavior and thought, one size does not necessarily fit all.

Quote :

Thus moral problems can be made to disappear to a mind assuming this kind of approach, which vanishing of the moral sphere behind the image of the material-momentary conditions that mind takes as a sign the problem has been addressed, even solved.

Wouldn 't you call this Lying To One's Self or sweeping the dirt under the carpet?
For someone who truly cares about particular issues and would want to get to the bottom of it/them, this wouldn't be the case.
For others, they become like the ostrich with his/her head in the sand.