Another Thread on Morality

[The Sum of Awe]

Why's it hypocritical? I have a sense of what I consider to be acceptable behavior that I want myself and others to live according to. Others may have a different sense, and so we will disagree. That's morality in a nutshell. My sense of morality is certainly not pointless and irrational to me; maybe yours is to you.

But you are pretty much promoting "If you disagree with what I think is right and wrong you'll go to prison, because my ethics say it is right for you to go to prison." It's an entire contradiction, it's like using the Bible as evidence of the Bible.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Morality is a code of conduct. If you act by certain standards and criteria then that's your code of conduct/morality. Of course, not all sets of morality are the same or equal. Some are more evolved and rational than others.

Yes, and today we have people calling people evil for having a different ethic system than they do, and throwing them in prison for it.

How can you rationalize what is right and wrong? It's like rationalizing if coffee tastes better than tea.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Can you explain how?

Mainly because they don't like themselves, they are the doormat for society, and they expect others to be doormats themselves.

Why is there an "ought"? Again, it simply is.

What IS is not necessarily an OUGHT, and morality is all about what you ought to do.

 

[9Westy9]

Because what a majority of a group votes on does not mean what the entire group wants.

Let's say 100 out of 150 want everyone to drive Chevy, 50 want Ford, how does it, by logic, equate that everyone in the group should drive Ford?

hence why one is most valued.

Let's go with a better example since Ford isn't like murder.

What if 800 out of 1,000 people say they want knowledge, the other 200 want ignorance. The 200's ignorance vote would include making their children ignorant, and their children's children ignorant, etc until the majority of the world is ignorant. It will affect the world greatly, their ignorance would so the 800 lock them up for being ignorant, to protect the world.

Just because 800 say yes, you are ignoring 200 people say no, and excluding them for it. To make it fair, let's say there is nothing excluding people from getting knowledge or being ignorant, there's no rules at all. The 800 can teach ignorant people and the ignorant people can tell them to stop listening. There are no rules.

The ignorant can be ignorant if they want to. Their ignorance has little effect on the 800 who want to learn

Why is empathy or respect for other people good?

because it's a sign that you're human

 

[Alex_G]

I've said this many times, I've been arguing it for quite a while, and see a few people have agreed with this idea themselves on this forum. I know I wasn't the first who come up with it, but I did come up with it on my own, still don't want to acknowledge it but acknowledging it more and more everyday:

This was a debate with myself (X believes in morality, Me doesn't):

X:"Nazis were evil weren't they?"
Me:"I don't agree with the Nazis, nor do I like them but that doesn't mean they were evil."
X:"They killed thousands."
Me:"Why is killig evil?"
X:"Because it is morally wrong."
Me:"Says who?"
X:"Well, do you really want a guy coming into your house and killing you?"
Me:"No, but who says what I don't want and what I do want is the universal truth of what we should and shouldn't do?"
X:"Ninety-nine percent of people wouldn't want to get killed either, so it is wrong by law."
Me:"And yet, murderers are allowed to get killed without it being wrong?"
X:"Because they did something wrong..."
Me:"You're contradicting yourself. Why does the guy who wants to kill me get no say in wanting to kill me? I'm sure a majority of people would like to kill someone."
X:"Because the killer is not a majority."
Me:"So? As I said, I'm sure a vast majority of people have had murdering dreams or dreams to not go to work and get free money, why isn't that legal?"
X:"Because if nobody has jobs, there'd be no production and there'd be no electricity or anything."
Me:"So?"
X:"We'd all be suffering."
Me:"And?"
X:"That's bad"
Me:"Why?"
X:"There would be no happiness in the world if everyone could kill."
Me:"Why is happiness good?"
X:"Well, everyone wants to be happy, they want what they want, if they want pain it'll make them happy."
Me:"Okay? But because for the certain fact that people want different things and get happy for different things, it proves there can be happiness with anarchy or a world with no morality or ethics. All you'd gotta do is do what you want to do. If you want to smell good, take a shower. If you want to live, kill the murderer before he kills you, etc."

Couldn't think of anymore arguments further.


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?

When I think of morality I see it as describing a form of hypocrisy. Such that person A acts in a way that infringes upon or coerces certain rights and freedoms of another, of which person A assumes in his/her own life. It's acting in a way that assumes the person on the other end is somehow less than yourself. To objectify them and overlook their existence as a conscious feeling creature like yourself.

I do think you can look at an exchange between 2 people and quite meaningfully see the moral failings of one party. What I think is key is that one can't really claim moral height over another's actions for arbitrary reasons. Opinion isn't enough on its own. Having an argument that is relevant and not founded on something arbitrary does have weight. There are real facts to be known about human flourishing and well being, which is the core subject of all things moral giving us something we can use to evaluate the legitimacy of different opinions.

We all have opinions, but not all opinions are equal. Those with relevant arguments are more powerful, and can justifiably challenge a competing opinion on the grounds of it being arbitrary with regards to the subject matter. One opinion doesn't just cancel out another simply because they are both opinions.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Social animals cooperate for mutual benefit as it aides the survival of the group.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness respect for the rights of others. Altruism is self-sacrifice, self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction thus it is saying the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

So the altruists are not social animals, they think everyone that isn't selfless is evil.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, and today we have people calling people evil for having a different ethic system than they do, and throwing them in prison for it.

The only time someone should be imprisoned is if they victimized the innocent. So it's more than simply having a different ethic system, it's how their actions impacted other people.

How can you rationalize what is right and wrong? It's like rationalizing if coffee tastes better than tea.

Simply by cause and effect. We should protect other peoples rights and freedoms so that our own are protected in turn. And we should refrain from restricting or violating other peoples rights and freedoms so that our own aren't restricted or violated in turn. Again, it's all about rational self-interest and mutual benefit. Civilization cannot exist without stability and cooperation, and civilization provides us with comforts and conveniences that being cave dwelling hermits would not.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The ignorant can be ignorant if they want to. Their ignorance has little effect on the 800 who want to learn

But the 800 have affect on what the 200 want to avoid.

because it's a sign that you're human

How is it a sign that you're a human? And why is being a human good and not being one evil?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

When I think of morality I see it as describing a form of hypocrisy. Such that person A acts in a way that infringes upon or coerces certain rights and freedoms of another, of which person A assumes in his/her own life. It's acting in a way that assumes the person on the other end is somehow less than yourself. To objectify them and overlook their existence as a conscious feeling creature like yourself.

I do think you can look at an exchange between 2 people and quite meaningfully see the moral failings of one party. What I think is key is that one can't really claim moral height over another's actions for arbitrary reasons. Opinion isn't enough on its own.

Agreed.

Having an argument that is relevant and not founded on something arbitrary does have weight. There are real facts to be known about human flourishing and well being, which is the core subject of all things moral giving us something we can use to evaluate the legitimacy of different opinions.

Why is human flourishing and well-being good?

We all have opinions, but not all opinions are equal. Those with relevant arguments are more powerful, and can justifiably challenge a competing opinion on the grounds of it being arbitrary with regards to the subject matter. One opinion doesn't just cancel out another simply because they are both opinions.

But what is more powerful in the moral arguments?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

The only time someone should be imprisoned is if they victimized the innocent. So it's more than simply having a different ethic system, it's how their actions impacted other people.

That is still an ethic system, saying you cannot victimize the innocent. You also would have to define innocent.

Simply by cause and effect. We should protect other peoples rights and freedoms so that our own are protected in turn. And we should refrain from restricting or violating other peoples rights and freedoms so that our own aren't restricted or violated in turn. Again, it's all about rational self-interest and mutual benefit. Civilization cannot exist without stability and cooperation, and civilization provides us with comforts and conveniences that being cave dwelling hermits would not.

Why should we protect others people rights and freedoms? Why should we be protected in turn? Unless you want to be protected in turn, which is fine with me, you don't "have" to protect others, you can't tell everyone that they should want to be protected, and that they should protect others.

 

[Songbird]

Mainly because they don't like themselves, they are the doormat for society, and they expect others to be doormats themselves.

Who are you talking about? People who sacrifice their lives for an altruistic cause? That leads to survival as much as other methods, on the species scale.

What IS is not necessarily an OUGHT, and morality is all about what you ought to do.

Yes, you've got it! Morality is just a term for principles and rules groups and individuals have. It doesn't mean we all agree on what's moral. Living in a group means living by that group's rules. The group's social contract tells you what you ought to do and not do, and as we know, conflict occurs when groups with different social contracts and morals interact with each other. Conflict also occurs when your morals differ from your group's. It doesn't mean there's an overarching list of mores coming from some source which dictate what you ought to do - it just means you experience effects from your actions.

It also doesn't mean I have a cold view of the range of severity of actions. It's just that "ought" or "good" or any other judgment only exist according to my agenda.

 

[Father Heathen]

That is still an ethic system, saying you cannot victimize the innocent. You also would have to define innocent.

You don't see why successful societies require functional ethic systems?

Why should we protect others people rights and freedoms? Why should we be protected in turn? Unless you want to be protected in turn, which is fine with me, you don't "have" to protect others, you can't tell everyone that they should want to be protected, and that they should protect others.

Of course you can choose and disobey the rules of a society, but at the same time you accept the risk and consequences of doing so. Again, it all boils down to rational self-interest and mutual benefit. Of course a person can decide not to act in a way that's not mutually beneficial or in their best interest, but they should expect others to protect themselves from the results of such actions.

 

[CarlinKnew]

But you are pretty much promoting "If you disagree with what I think is right and wrong you'll go to prison, because my ethics say it is right for you to go to prison." It's an entire contradiction, it's like using the Bible as evidence of the Bible.

What's the contradiction? Using Bible quotes as evidence that the Bible is the word of God cannot be compared to following your own sense of morality. If your sense of morality tells you that criminals should go to prison, and you put criminals in prison, then you are being consistent with your own sense of morality. I don't understand your position; maybe you can clarify it.

 

[Songbird]

That is still an ethic system, saying you cannot victimize the innocent. You also would have to define innocent.

Why should we protect others people rights and freedoms? Why should we be protected in turn? Unless you want to be protected in turn, which is fine with me, you don't "have" to protect others, you can't tell everyone that they should want to be protected, and that they should protect others.

Sum, I'll stop reiterating this point, because I don't want to be annoying. But you're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Or I misinterpreted your OP. I thought you were asking why morality exists at all - on the most basic, fundamental level. But after seeing your posts to others, it looks like you're asking why certain people take certain actions to enact certain morals. Even then, it can be traced back to survival, even though we can be largely unaware of that motive.

In fact, the imperative to survive doesn't need us to be aware of it at all in order to operate.

If you're interested, try out some readings about philosophy of the mind, behaviorism, and the self.

 

[Alex_G]

Agreed.

Why is human flourishing and well-being good?

This sort of echos my hypocrisy view of morality.
I think they can be seen as good because they are adopted and embraced by people, and what makes the moral failings of an individual is to deny another those same things that you have in your own life for no good reason. I mean if there is a hypothetical psychopath who is so disconnected from life that he is totally incapable of engaging with or recognising such things as happiness, fulfilment freedom peace etc in his own life, one does question whether he is capable of acting morally at all as he doesn't know any better. But that's a bit different.

But what is more powerful in the moral arguments?

What's more powerful is that the arguments are relevant. Why is torturing people for fun wrong? Well because human beings seek to be happy and free from pain, and the torturer knows this of himself, (you dont see him getting that treatment) and yet he does it anyway. Someone pointing out that has a stronger argument than him just claiming that simply by virtue of it being his opinion that it's ok to do it.

 

[9Westy9]

But the 800 have affect on what the 200 want to avoid.

Only if they try to force knowledge down the throats of the 200

How is it a sign that you're a human? And why is being a human good and not being one evil?

They're human characteristics. Being a human is what we are and what we strive to be. This conversation ultimately comes down to 'What are we trying to achieve and how do we get there' If we strive for peace and harmony then teh murderers must be ignored

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Who are you talking about? People who sacrifice their lives for an altruistic cause? That leads to survival as much as other methods, on the species scale.


Yes, you've got it! Morality is just a term for principles and rules groups and individuals have. It doesn't mean we all agree on what's moral. Living in a group means living by that group's rules. The group's social contract tells you what you ought to do and not do, and as we know, conflict occurs when groups with different social contracts and morals interact with each other. Conflict also occurs when your morals differ from your group's. It doesn't mean there's an overarching list of mores coming from some source which dictate what you ought to do - it just means you experience effects from your actions.

It also doesn't mean I have a cold view of the range of severity of actions. It's just that "ought" or "good" or any other judgment only exist according to my agenda.

And excluding a murderer's "ought".

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You don't see why successful societies require functional ethic systems?

Define successful. Hitler's society was not successful and it had functional ethic systems.

Of course you can choose and disobey the rules of a society, but at the same time you accept the risk and consequences of doing so. Again, it all boils down to rational self-interest and mutual benefit. Of course a person can decide not to act in a way that's not mutually beneficial or in their best interest, but they should expect others to protect themselves from the results of such actions.

Consequences because people make these consequences by calling them immoral.

They don't have to expect anything, but yes.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What's the contradiction? Using Bible quotes as evidence that the Bible is the word of God cannot be compared to following your own sense of morality. If your sense of morality tells you that criminals should go to prison, and you put criminals in prison, then you are being consistent with your own sense of morality. I don't understand your position; maybe you can clarify it.

Your morality tells you who the criminals are and they should go to prison because of your moral system.

"If you don't like mountain dew you are going to prison, and you're going to prison because my morality says your evil, and my morality says your evil because you don't like mountain dew." It goes in circles.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Only if they try to force knowledge down the throats of the 200

Or imprisoned them for having different opinion of what is good.

They're human characteristics. Being a human is what we are and what we strive to be. This conversation ultimately comes down to 'What are we trying to achieve and how do we get there' If we strive for peace and harmony then teh murderers must be ignored

Not all of us strive for peace and harmony though, in fact I found the idea of it impossible and unnecessary, and those that do branch off into different types of peace and harmony themselves: some prefer human peace and harmony, some prefer world peace and harmony, some prefer just cultural peace and harmony, some prefer race peace and harmony, others gender, etc.

What makes them the characteristics of us? It seems very unlikely that it could be a characteristic of an apex predatory primate that dominates the world with pollution, not sharing money among starving humans, having political problems all of the time.