Another Thread on Morality

[McBell]

And beliefs are subjective, aren't they? At least when it comes to things being good and bad, since they have to do with emotion and therefore bias. "The cheesecake was good"

Who does not have a belief as to what is right and wrong?

 

[LuisDantas]

But these goals are subjective, and so how can morality not be subjective? Perhaps a better word would be relative.

Nope. Circunstantial, sure. Subjetive, as in completely arbitrary? Not at all.

At the end of the day, humans and the environment they exist in will only vary and bend so much. Morality does have a variety of, so to speak, "stable configurations". But it still is and must be shaped by very objective needs for self-preservation, social and ecological stability.

We may well find a lot of confused and even all-out insane conceptions about morality, true. But that is just that: confusion, ignorance and insanity. Morality itself is none the worse for that, although it may be harder to achieve and understand.

A good comparison is with medicine. Conceptions and legends abound, and sure, there are choices and compromises that must be made. All the same, at the end of the day it is not really very subjective at all.

 

[Straw Dog]

So... yeah, what determines killing, lying, stealing, etc. to be wrong? Unless there is a God saying "No killing!" there is only opinions on what is wrong and right, on what we ought to do.

And because they are opinions, why tell others what they ought to do?

Morality is relative to a real context rather than purely subjective. That greater context is the human condition and capacities in relationship with each other and the world. Effective moral thinking usually involves exercising empathy, compassion, critical thinking, and consensus building skills.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Who does not have a belief as to what is right and wrong?

I can't claim to know that, not sure why you're asking though.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Nope. Circunstantial, sure. Subjetive, as in completely arbitrary? Not at all.

At the end of the day, humans and the environment they exist in will only vary and bend so much. Morality does have a variety of, so to speak, "stable configurations". But it still is and must be shaped by very objective needs for self-preservation, social and ecological stability.

We may well find a lot of confused and even all-out insane conceptions about morality, true. But that is just that: confusion, ignorance and insanity. Morality itself is none the worse for that, although it may be harder to achieve and understand.

A good comparison is with medicine. Conceptions and legends abound, and sure, there are choices and compromises that must be made. All the same, at the end of the day it is not really very subjective at all.

But why label some as confusion, ignorance, and insanity? How can you be so sure that your own moral code is not of that if you do believe in said objective morality?

Why are self-preservations and social/ecological stability needed? Let alone, I'd go as far as to ask why desired in the first place? Isn't it apparent that some do not find these needs within themselves? Sure, you may consider them confused or insane, but why? Isn't it simply because they are disrupting the common need? In which case, if that's the only reason, then is circular.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Morality is relative to a real context rather than purely subjective. That greater context is the human condition and capacities in relationship with each other and the world. Effective moral thinking usually involves exercising empathy, compassion, critical thinking, and consensus building skills.

I agree to a limit.

There is no common goal, and some have replied to my subjectivism argument with moral relativism, that I'm pushing it as far as subjective rather than, as Luis termed it (in what I consider a useful word), circumstantial, and replying that these goals have certain methods of achieving them, and circulating each goal has some sort of objective code.

I disagree, yet not completely. I think something can be good for something, however, even narrowed down to the views of a single common goal, there can't be something simply good. That is irrelevant though, I don't put as much emphasis on that belief as much as I do to say there is no objective nature, in general, to morality.

 

[Sees]

But why label some as confusion, ignorance, and insanity? How can you be so sure that your own moral code is not of that if you do believe in said objective morality?

Why are self-preservations and social/ecological stability needed? Let alone, I'd go as far as to ask why desired in the first place? Isn't it apparent that some do not find these needs within themselves? Sure, you may consider them confused or insane, but why? Isn't it simply because they are disrupting the common need? In which case, if that's the only reason, then is circular.

Well the words do have meaning... If some don't want to use them or want to ignore the concepts it's ok. A lot of morality and ethics is overcomplicating simple things. It's a luxury people should be grateful for.

 

[LuisDantas]

But why label some as confusion, ignorance, and insanity?

Because some indeed are. Things are what they are. Not all so-called moral judgements are really worth of respect.

How can you be so sure that your own moral code is not of that if you do believe in said objective morality?

I can't a priori, of course. It takes observing the consequences and seeking to understand them before the fact to the possible extent.

Why are self-preservations and social/ecological stability needed?

Because morality is based on the impact of behavior and choices upon the general health of oneself and others. That means ensuring physical, ecological and social health to the best of one's capabilities.

Let alone, I'd go as far as to ask why desired in the first place? Isn't it apparent that some do not find these needs within themselves?

Yep. Many people are morally incompetent. I said as much.

Sure, you may consider them confused or insane, but why? Isn't it simply because they are disrupting the common need? In which case, if that's the only reason, then is circular.

It is rather simply non-ambiguous. Morality is not supposed to be fully arbitrary, but rather to fulfill a purpose of caring for the well-being of all.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well the words do have meaning... If some don't want to use them or want to ignore the concepts it's ok. A lot of morality and ethics is overcomplicating simple things. It's a luxury people should be grateful for.

That meaning entirely depends on the person. To some good is a loud truck, to others it is a quiet truck

 

[Sees]

That meaning entirely depends on the person. To some good is a loud truck, to others it is a quiet truck

They may like the loud truck but technically it's not as good as the quiet truck the happiness is good but it's not as healthy.

Things that lend towards producing wholeness, health, happiness, are beneficial, helpful, etc. are good. Some are naturally more good than others.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Because some indeed are. Things are what they are. Not all so-called moral judgements are really worth of respect.

How can one determine whether or not it is worthy?

I can't a priori, of course. It takes observing the consequences and seeking to understand them before the fact to the possible extent.

And upon finding the outcome undesirable, you will classify it as immoral.

Action X may bring forth the outcome Y, an outcome that pleases you. You then find the action to be moral. It is simultaneously an outcome that displeases me, and then I will find the action to be immoral.

Because morality is based on the impact of behavior and choices upon the general health of oneself and others. That means ensuring physical, ecological and social health to the best of one's capabilities.

What kind of health, and there is no evidence that suggests that there is only one set of health that everyone looks forward to. The only person's health one can be sure to satisfy would be their own. Unless you're talking in terms of physical health.

Yep. Many people are morally incompetent. I said as much.

Why consider them incompetent? They are simply competent in their own way, even if to us it may seem twisted or incompetent.

It is rather simply non-ambiguous. Morality is not supposed to be fully arbitrary, but rather to fulfill a purpose of caring for the well-being of all.

In which brings contradiction, as not everyone can be well at the same time. A leech needs to attach itself to a suffering creature in order to be well. A man who is disturbed by another's existence will not be well until that other's existence is damned. A revolutionary pauper who is disgusted by the thought of a rich family being rich will not be well until the family is no longer rich. A divorced man who wishes to reunite his family as it was will not be well until the new family is broken.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

They may like the loud truck but technically it's not as good as the quiet truck the happiness is good but it's not as healthy.

Things that lend towards producing wholeness, health, happiness, are beneficial, helpful, etc. are good. Some are naturally more good than others.

So having the redneck quiet his truck will surely fill the happiness in the annoyed man, but you cannot forget it will leave the redneck empty.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why consider them incompetent? They are simply competent in their own way, even if to us it may seem twisted or incompetent.

Were that the case, then sure, morality would be fully subjective.

It ain't so. There are plenty of behaviors that are objectively destructive. Human beings do have an inherent duty to try and protect the rights of others.

Even if most attempt to believe that it is not so...

 

[LuisDantas]

In which brings contradiction, as not everyone can be well at the same time.

Not a contradiction... a moral challenge, rather.

A leech needs to attach itself to a suffering creature in order to be well. A man who is disturbed by another's existence will not be well until that other's existence is damned. A revolutionary pauper who is disgusted by the thought of a rich family being rich will not be well until the family is no longer rich. A divorced man who wishes to reunite his family as it was will not be well until the new family is broken.

A leech has no moral discernment, and therefore no moral capability. It falls upon others to deal with its life cycle and to avoid the suffering it may bring.

A human being has the duty to learn better, or at the very least to avoid the stressors that lead him into immoral behavior.

You seem to be purposefully avoiding the decisive element for morality to exist, which is the capability for rational and abstract thought.

 

[Sees]

So having the redneck quiet his truck will surely fill the happiness in the annoyed man, but you cannot forget it will leave the redneck empty.

Some folks just like things which are not as good. I would bet most of us have a few. Country boys have lots of places to play thankfully.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Were that the case, then sure, morality would be fully subjective.

It ain't so. There are plenty of behaviors that are objectively destructive. Human beings do have an inherent duty to try and protect the rights of others.

Even if most attempt to believe that it is not so...

Where does that inherent duty come from?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Not a contradiction... a moral challenge, rather.



A leech has no moral discernment, and therefore no moral capability. It falls upon others to deal with its life cycle and to avoid the suffering it may bring.

A human being has the duty to learn better, or at the very least to avoid the stressors that lead him into immoral behavior.

You seem to be purposefully avoiding the decisive element for morality to exist, which is the capability for rational and abstract thought.

Forgive me, but I do not understand where this information is coming from. I haven't heard of such duty other than from the authority (in our modern social hierarchy) above me.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Some folks just like things which are not as good. I would bet most of us have a few. Country boys have lots of places to play thankfully.

I'm still not understanding what makes it not as good. If it's simply out of annoyance, there is no health issue involved.

How about this: When someone is able to live on on life support or to be unplugged from life, and one half of the loved ones want to keep her alive, while the other half wish to put her from her misery.

As for any other thing, I can't see how you can distinguish what is "more good" except from your own perspective of morality.

 

[Sees]

Loud noises, especially constant, are not good for your health. Objectively the loud truck is not as good as a quiet truck the obligations, responsibilities, who is involved get into variables and subjectivity. Similar to apples being better than cigarettes... It's objective unless the person has some funky health characteristics.

The life support stuff is a whole different animal.

I'm still not understanding what makes it not as good. If it's simply out of annoyance, there is no health issue involved.

How about this: When someone is able to live on on life support or to be unplugged from life, and one half of the loved ones want to keep her alive, while the other half wish to put her from her misery.

As for any other thing, I can't see how you can distinguish what is "more good" except from your own perspective of morality.

 

[McBell]

I can't claim to know that, not sure why you're asking though.

Because morality is simply the belief.
There is nothing in the definition that even implies morality has to be accepted by anyone other than the one holding the belief.

Thus everyone has a set of morals.
Problems arise when moral sets clash.