Morality Made Simple

[Nakosis]

But morality tends to become so ingrained into us that we are often unaware of it.

For examples, what's your reaction to the thought of child molestation? having sex with your children? walking nude downtown? [these are obviously rhetorical questions]

Sorry to butt in but...

I've for as long as I can remember have questioned my feelings. Why the hell am I feeling sad or guilt. Often I couldn't find a real reason for it. So many things influence why we feel what we feel. Some of it I'm aware of some not.

I always felt I was wasting my time feeling angry or sad. There's lots of fun things I could be doing but I'm stuck here feeling angry or sad and I can't even precisely identify why. What a waste.

I got so pissed off about being controlled by my feelings, I decided I wasn't going to be controlled by them anymore.

As far as your questions, generally society decides what behavior is acceptable and what is not. In most cases, going against society is too much of a hassle. I'm usually happy to adapt to whatever those norms happen to be.

 

[joe1776]

Last point first, that's Catholic which is much more strict than general Christianity. I would guess you meant pre-marital sex and that leads to the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Or one uses the other for sex, i.e. the parties had different ideas of what it would lead to or meant. We aren't honest in our dealings. What rules apply to this?

No. 2. An act is immoral if it intentionally harms an innocent person.

What I was getting at was does it lead to a final judgment that most religions have in some form. It implies some kind of an afterlife. Or are you treating this like trying to be just or fair in moral dealings with people such as we have business, criminal or civil law?

The seven guidelines are, I think, all anyone would need to make the right moral judgments. They ought to align with the intuitive judgments of conscience made case-by-case.

 

[joe1776]

I don't see a need for universal morality.

You don't have to see a need for it. The question is "Does it exist?" Although, science hasn't proved it yet, here is an except from the presentation of Harvard's Moral Sense Test:

"As in every modernly held view, there are significant historical antecedents. The origins of our own perspective date back at least 300 years to the philosopher David Hume and more recently, to the political philosopher John Rawls. But unlike these prescient thinkers, we can now validate the intuitions with significant scientific evidence. Over the past twenty years, there has been growing evidence for a universally shared moral faculty based on findings in evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, anthropology, economics, linguistics, and neurobiology. This evidence has created a powerful movement directed at the core aspects of human nature. It is a movement that has the power to reshape our lives by uncovering the deep structure of our moral intuitions and showing how they can either support or conflict with our conscious, often legally supported decisions.

Edge: THE MORAL SENSE TEST

 

[LukeS]

Ok we have a moral faculty, but is your list of intuitions derived from actual studies of such?

 

[joe1776]

Ok we have a moral faculty, but is your list of intuitions derived from actual studies of such?

No, the list is the product of a logical exercise that began with -- all knowledge derives from an observation of the senses. Since our ancestors did not see, hear, smell, or taste right from wrong when they encountered a murder in the tribe, they must have felt something.

 

[metis]

I don't have children, that I'm aware of, but I also see having sex with family members as just something that is plain wrong. I don't get hung up on the moral implications. It's just wrong.

But that is my point, namely that it's "wrong" because it has been ingrained into you one way or another, whether it be by nurture or nature. Therefore, it tends to get into your subconscious.

 

[metis]

I've for as long as I can remember have questioned my feelings. Why the hell am I feeling sad or guilt. Often I couldn't find a real reason for it. So many things influence why we feel what we feel. Some of it I'm aware of some not.

I always felt I was wasting my time feeling angry or sad. There's lots of fun things I could be doing but I'm stuck here feeling angry or sad and I can't even precisely identify why. What a waste.

I think that's a rather natural reaction but I've always felt that "to err is human", so "live and learn" [sorry about the cliche's] and I need to move on. I've screwed up enough times to write a book but I never really dwelt on them. My wife, otoh, has a much more difficult time dealing with her goofs, whereas she periodically suffers from depression.

So, I tell this to my grandkids: learn from your mistakes and not dwell on them, and then move on.

 

[james bond]

No. 2. An act is immoral if it intentionally harms an innocent person.

The seven guidelines are, I think, all anyone would need to make the right moral judgments. They ought to align with the intuitive judgments of conscience made case-by-case.

I'm not criticizing your seven moral guidelines. They seem pretty solid. What's difficult is finding out how the other person thinks and feels. If the other person was okay with just sex, then it doesn't violate the rule. Or what if the other person didn't want more than that? The initiator wanted a relationship, but ended up becoming the victim. It would be in the minority. What women claim is, "Women fake orgasms, but Men fake relationships."

So, I'll assume these moral guidelines are secular in nature and could fit under philosophy.

 

[joe1776]

I'm not criticizing your seven moral guidelines. They seem pretty solid. What's difficult is finding out how the other person thinks and feels. If the other person was okay with just sex, then it doesn't violate the rule. Or what if the other person didn't want more than that? The initiator wanted a relationship, but ended up becoming the victim. It would be in the minority. What women claim is, "Women fake orgasms, but Men fake relationships.".

Human acts are as unique as snowflakes, moral situations are not an exception. So, any of these relationships could turn out to involve an immoral act and become an exception to the rule that they are mostly OK.

So, I'll assume these moral guidelines are secular in nature and could fit under philosophy

I wouldn't classify what I've done as philosophy but I'm explaining an aspect of human nature, so the guidelines apply to everyone.

 

[pearl]

2. An act is immoral if it intentionally harms an innocent person.

Any act is immoral that inflicts unjustified evil on another.

You should not kill, (See #1) when interpreted as a general rule is useless when we need guidance in a specific case which could be an exception. And when interpreted as an absolute rule -- You should never kill -- it becomes a bias which will send judgment off course when we are presented with a clear case of self-defense (See #3).

Any confusion can be eliminated but stating instead,
'you should not murder'.

 

[joe1776]

Any act is immoral that inflicts unjustified evil on another..

I like mine better because it guides..Your version leaves one asking "What is unjustified?"

Any confusion can be eliminated but stating instead,
'you should not murder'

That's true. But since murder is the word we use to describe a wrongful killing, and it doesn't tell us what is wrongful, that translation offers no guidance when we need it.