Are Better Morals the Solution?

[LuisDantas]

Behavior creates judgment and vice versa.

Do you usually feel that laws have a moral meaning?

That would have very troubling implications if true.

 

[LuisDantas]

A value judgement ( improved/better ) is being made about that which serves as a foundation for value judgments ( morals ).

How does that work? By what measure does one determine that certain 'morals' are better or improved?

By their consequences. It is no big deal.

They can, but I am not sure as to what they extent they must.

The way I see it, everyone has a moral duty to the extent that their capabilities allow it.

Regardless, it is a sad state of affairs. Not agreeing on morals creates problems.

Blind following creates more, through.

 

[Quintessence]

While up to a certain extent I can agree with you that problems arise by 'oughts' and 'shoulds', I don't think you propose much of a solution. You are essentially saying: The way to solve problems is to no longer call them problems. But even if we don't call them 'problems' we still have to deal with them.

Fair enough. I suppose in a way it boils down to this: if we choose to live, we have to deal with the consequences of living (though what "deal" there is to make, I'm not sure). "Problems" are an intrinsic and inescapable part of existing in this reality, because reality does not and will never revolve around us. It makes more sense to shoot for some reasonably acceptable target rate of occurrence and believe there's such a thing as a zero risk or zero problem scenario. But I don't know; we all just make it up as we go along, myself included.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think that's appropriate to discuss on the forums, so I'm not going to comment on that specifically. And it isn't necessary to anyway, nor does it help address the point I'm trying to make. Your virtues and sense of honor is a reflection of your character and your responsibility.

What I think is important to recognize is that how we map the world around us is very much biased by our value judgements, our cultural upbringing, personal experiences, and a whole host of other messy emotional things. Typically, it's not so much an objective or impartial assessment of the empirical data or the fact of "what is." Put another way, I make a very strong distinction between the matter-of-fact of what is and what people perceive to be the case. It's the difference between "this is a problem" and "I or my culture believe this to be a problem, and you or your culture might have different traditions or understandings of the world." I think that honest recognition of this is important. It creates a space for acknowledging the diverse ways of life individuals and societies create, and also for avoiding one-true-wayism.

Personally, I'm able to strip off or broaden lenses to the point that I can see strengths and weaknesses in everything (and I do mean everything). Does it mean I personally agree with or endorse something? No. Does it mean it's part of my sense of honor or a virtue I wish to cultivate in my life or in others? No. But I assess things with as broad of a lens as possible because I like understanding things from as many perspectives as possible. I can't help it; I've always been inquisitive, curious, and poking at things with sticks.

Your thinking reminds me of the all night bull sessions I had as a college sophomore. Really. Been there. Done that. Have the T shirt to prove it.

 

[Koldo]

By their consequences. It is no big deal.

That implies some consequences are better than others.
What measure are you using to judge consequences? Certainly not morality.

The way I see it, everyone has a moral duty to the extent that their capabilities allow it.

Which may or may not be a good thing to each of us.
One's moral duty may be getting in the way of someone else's.

Blind following creates more, through.

Depends on who you ask, of course.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Do you usually feel that laws have a moral meaning?

That would have very troubling implications if true.

You might have to define "moral meaning" in this context.

 

[LuisDantas]

That implies some consequences are better than others.

Of course.

What measure are you using to judge consequences? Certainly not morality.

How do you define morality? It is obvious that it is by some concept alien to my own use of the word.

Which may or may not be a good thing to each of us.

Not really. Humans have an inherent duty and need to be moral, despite possible immediate convenience not to be.

Such is an unavoidable consequence of our capability of moral judgement and our deep interconnection. Or to put it in other words, any social and arguably rational species does have the duty and the need to seek morality.

That is what morality is, by the very definition of the word. The trick is in understanding (and in sufficiently ill environments which are unfortunately quite common, accepting) the consequences.

One's moral duty may be getting in the way of someone else's.

A moral perception may be unskilled enough to conflict with some other, but that only means that it has not been sufficiently developed.

Depends on who you ask, of course.

Until it doesn't.

 

[LuisDantas]

You might have to define "moral meaning" in this context.

Moral meaning is, so to speak, wisdom. A clear directive, a reason for being.

Law is the crudest of vessels for morality, because it can only deal with formal parameters, demands, rewards and punishments. None of those four components is very useful for the development of morality, or even for its acknowledgement.

Which goes a long way to explain why Law is such a corruptive force.

 

[Koldo]

Of course.

How do you define morality? It is obvious that it is by some concept alien to my own use of the word.

I am fine with wikipedia's definition: Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

Not really. Humans have an inherent duty and need to be moral, despite possible immediate convenience not to be.

Such is an unavoidable consequence of our capability of moral judgement and our deep interconnection. Or to put it in other words, any social and arguably rational species does have the duty and the need to seek morality.

That is what morality is, by the very definition of the word. The trick is in understanding (and in sufficiently ill environments which are unfortunately quite common, accepting) the consequences.

And? I am not sure what is your disagreement.
If someone else's morality mismatch mine this will clearly create bad consequences for me.

A moral perception may be unskilled enough to conflict with some other, but that only means that it has not been sufficiently developed.

Until it doesn't.

What? Do you happen to be a moral objectivist?
For such a person to claim knowledge over morality is rather presumptuous, I must say. Can you substantiate your moral conclusions?

 

[Koldo]

Fair enough. I suppose in a way it boils down to this: if we choose to live, we have to deal with the consequences of living (though what "deal" there is to make, I'm not sure). "Problems" are an intrinsic and inescapable part of existing in this reality, because reality does not and will never revolve around us. It makes more sense to shoot for some reasonably acceptable target rate of occurrence and believe there's such a thing as a zero risk or zero problem scenario. But I don't know; we all just make it up as we go along, myself included.

I comprehend what you mean. I am not sure what a acceptable target rate of occurence would be though. It seems to change constantly as people try to erradicate the problems.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, I do believe that moral is objective when sufficiently developed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Developing better morals is certainly a help.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I do believe that moral is objective when sufficiently developed.

And how do you determine it has been sufficiently developed?

 

[SkylarHunter]

People with better morals do less things to hurt others, so I guess that morals help a lot.

 

[Wirey]

People with better morals do less things to hurt others, so I guess that morals help a lot.

Define morals. I'd run over a nun with a steamroller if that's what it took to provide for my family. Is providing for my family moral, or flattening the nun (non-flying type) immoral? Or is the one act both? Or is it a perspective thing?

 

[SkylarHunter]

Define morals. I'd run over a nun with a steamroller if that's what it took to provide for my family. Is providing for my family moral, or flattening the nun (non-flying type) immoral? Or is the one act both? Or is it a perspective thing?

So you would take someone else's life to provide for your family and you believe that is perfectly fine. What about if that person has a family too? Should they suffer so you can provide for yours?

If someone decided to take that steamroller and run over your family with it for whatever purpose they find justifiable, would you consider that moral or immoral?

One way I find very efficient to put things in perspective, is to try to walk in someone else's shoes.

 

[Koldo]

So you would take someone else's life to provide for your family and you believe that is perfectly fine. What about if that person has a family too? Should they suffer so you can provide for yours?

If someone decided to take that steamroller and run over your family with it for whatever purpose they find justifiable, would you consider that moral or immoral?

One way I find very efficient to put things in perspective, is to try to walk in someone else's shoes.

Is it moral to just let your family die?

 

[Reverend Rick]

If there is a method to achieve it.

I would wager most people would simply need moral legal laws to hold them in place.

You can't legislate morality

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Moral meaning is, so to speak, wisdom. A clear directive, a reason for being.

Oh, then of course I think laws have moral meaning. They are directing people towards acting a certain way that is socially considered right (sometimes only because "it's the law").

Again, I don't think it's the best way of creating better morality, but it works for some.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I don't think better or a more efficient morality is a solution. Morality can become stringent and authoritarian. Paul Tillich believed that the institutions such as a strict or efficient morality which everyone should follow would eventually become Demonic and crush human freedom.