Morals

[Yerda]

My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

If my goal is stop Alice from hurting Bob, then shooting Alice in the face will further this goal. This makes it moral in your opinion?

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.

I don't believe in gods but I believe that statements like, "burning down the local school would be wrong" and "we should provide for the sick and injured" are meaningful and contain objective truth.

 

[Nakosis]

I have heard this view on morals before, usually leading up to utilitarianism. And while I don't see it as essentially false, it has to be encapsulated with so many caveats that it is worthless as a moral teaching.
You will have to question your goals and see if they are temporary or ultimate and that isn't easy to do as goals are very subjective.
With your approach you could end up with a "morality" like Gnerdel or you could fail to judge actions like Gnerdel's as immoral.

Don't you think that moral codes themselves are orientated against a set of goals?
Setup to encourage a common set of goals?

What is the purpose of morals?
Moral codes are created to benefit society.

 

[icehorse]

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

This sounds like philosophical relativism. That's a path to madness

As Sam Harris suggested, this approach would render us incapable of having any moral expertise. We couldn't say for example, that a serial killer is "bad", and the Dalai Lama is "good". really?

I reject this idea. Who are we to say we cannot have moral expertise? Seems like a dodge to me.

 

[Heyo]

Moral codes are created to benefit society.

Yep. And society's benefit can be in conflict with personal goals. Morality is what keeps your personal goals in harmony with society's goals.
My favourite tool to decide what's moral is the Veil of Ignorance. It doesn't ask for your personal goals but gives you a framework to find them.

 

[Nakosis]

The other day I got in a taxi and there was an iPhone on the seat. The other passenger had just left and gone into the hotel.

I gave the phone to the taxi driver and told him to go and find the other passenger.

I obviously thought "should I just pocket it?" but decided it was the right thing to give it back.

Giving a phone to a stranger didn't meet any goals, I wouldn't have felt guilty about keeping it as I've lost a phone in the same circumstance, didn't really feel like I'm 'good' for giving it back.

It was basically 'irrational' sentiment that "it's what you do".

If I'd thought about it in terms of goals, I'd have sold it and used the money to buy something.

So you see morals as rules which prevent you from causing harm to others?
Myself, I have a goal to not cause any unnecessary harm to others. So I would have also returned it.
This goal certainly outweighs any financial benefit.

I guess if you can't trust your own goals you need someone else to setup your morals for you.
Do you think whoever created your moral ideals that you follow had some greater goal of benefiting society at large?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Well, not being a mass murder myself, yes.
If I was though, I suspect my morals would be much different than what they are.

I find the thought that one’s goals could have some impact on one’s morals to be both interesting and quite possible.

But I think that sometimes morals may not influence one’s goals so much. In desperate times, for instance, morals may be set aside.
And desperation is different for different people.

Also, it can be hard to distinguish what the goal behind an action truly is.

Take the murderer-example: if the murderer kills because they have an uncontrollable urge; their “goal” may be to -at least temporarily- make the urge itself go away. The killing then, is not a goal but rather a “method”. Which -considering your idea here- would still allow for the murderer to share the same moral values as you.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Nakosis]

This sounds like philosophical relativism. That's a path to madness

As Sam Harris suggested, this approach would render us incapable of having any moral expertise. We couldn't say for example, that a serial killer is "bad", and the Dalai Lama is "good". really?

I reject this idea. Who are we to say we cannot have moral expertise? Seems like a dodge to me.

Why not? Why couldn't we say the serial killer is bad for our goal. While at the same time the serial killer themselves could have a completely different set of goals/morals.

Certainly I can see any number of goals being obstructed by having a serial killer running about.

 

[Augustus]

So you see morals as rules which prevent you from causing harm to others?
Myself, I have a goal to not cause any unnecessary harm to others. So I would have also returned it.
This goal certainly outweighs any financial benefit.

I guess if you can't trust your own goals you need someone else to setup your morals for you.
Do you think whoever created your moral ideals that you follow had some greater goal of benefiting society at large?

What I'm saying is morals are often not based on a rational cost/benefit calculation with regard to a hierarchy of explicitly stated goals.

They are often based off intuitive sentiment of unclear origin.

I would have got far more joy from spending that money on someone I love. The goal of making loved ones happy would outrank "doing the right thing" for some stranger who might not even be grateful.

 

[Nakosis]

I find the thought that one’s goals could have some impact on one’s morals to be both interesting and quite possible.

But I think that sometimes morals may not influence one’s goals so much. In desperate times, for instance, morals may be set aside.
And desperation is different for different people.

Also, it can be hard to distinguish what the goal behind an action truly is.

Take the murderer-example: if the murderer kills because they have an uncontrollable urge; their “goal” may be to -at least temporarily- make the urge itself go away. The killing then, is not a goal but rather a “method”. Which -considering your idea here- would still allow for the murderer to share the same moral values as you.


Humbly
Hermit

I imagine we do share many of the same goals of the serial killer. Obviously there are also goals we don't share.
I think neurology is providing insight to the goals behind our actions even though we ourselves may not be consciously aware of the "subconscious" goal.
Often our actions are the result of a desire to get a biochemical physiological reaction. We are addicted to one or more of the many chemical fixes we call feelings.

Is it fair to consider achieving our unconsciously driven desire a goal?
Is avoiding fear by getting the serial killer out of circulation a goal?

Sure, I'll set aside a moral code out of fear, greed, envy...
I just see doing so as my moral ideal of right and wrong changing to accommodate the new goal.

 

[Ella S.]

This is specifically only a consequentialist approach to ethics. It disregards ethics based on principles, such as deontology, and virtue ethics.

It also confuses ethics and morality, in my opinion. Morality, so far as I understand it, is a cultural construct of social "mores" including taboos and norms. Ethics is a philosophical and systematic approach to determining right from wrong. They're closely related but technically different.

 

[Heyo]

It also confuses ethics and morality, in my opinion. Morality, so far as I understand it, is a cultural construct of social "mores" including taboos and norms. Ethics is a philosophical and systematic approach to determining right from wrong. They're closely related but technically different.

I think you got that wrong.

"Both morality and ethics loosely have to do with distinguishing the difference between “good and bad” or “right and wrong.” Many people think of morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting." from What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?

 

[Ella S.]

I think you got that wrong.

"Both morality and ethics loosely have to do with distinguishing the difference between “good and bad” or “right and wrong.” Many people think of morality as something that’s personal and normative, whereas ethics is the standards of “good and bad” distinguished by a certain community or social setting." from What’s the Difference Between Morality and Ethics?

I've seen articles like this before. I've also seen articles arguing the other way around. These seem to be more akin to pop culture definitions.

"Morality" is a term used in social psychology, whereas "ethics" is a field of philosophy. This is how the terms are used in academic contexts. That's what I'm referring to in my post.

 

[Nakosis]

What I'm saying is morals are often not based on a rational cost/benefit calculation with regard to a hierarchy of explicitly stated goals.

They are often based off intuitive sentiment of unclear origin.

I would have got far more joy from spending that money on someone I love. The goal of making loved ones happy would outrank "doing the right thing" for some stranger who might not even be grateful.

Sure, some goals you may not be consciously privy to. No necessity of goals being rationally/consciously derived. Perhaps it was a simply unconscious fear of somehow being caught, the goal being to avoid that.

Myself, I tend to analyze the feelings behind my actions and attempt to alter them if them don't meet my conscious goals.
I suspect most morals, i.e. feelings of right and wrong, exist as subconscious goals.
Since most have little control over their feelings they see morals as something separate from conscious rationale.
We humans couldn't possible have the ability to alter the moral ideals of right and wrong.
I think we all do it, just mostly at a subconscious level.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Wouldn't that be a goal?
Having your actions result in something "good" for others?

Well sure, but 'goals" in general is too broad to set as a determination of moral or not. It could easily include Dhamer or people who believe killing others somehow reflects some overall good. In his mind he is moral so that would negate goals as a standard.

 

[paarsurrey]

My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.

" Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals. "

Are the above expressions common with the people of " Religion: Scientism" , please? Right?

Regards

 

[stvdv]

If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.

What if 2 top players play tennis?
Both have the goal to win the match
Both try to make it harder for the other

I don't call those actions bad

 

[Koldo]

My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.

This is exactly why it is important to foster empathy!

 

[Koldo]

The other day I got in a taxi and there was an iPhone on the seat. The other passenger had just left and gone into the hotel.

I gave the phone to the taxi driver and told him to go and find the other passenger.

I obviously thought "should I just pocket it?" but decided it was the right thing to give it back.

Giving a phone to a stranger didn't meet any goals, I wouldn't have felt guilty about keeping it as I've lost a phone in the same circumstance, didn't really feel like I'm 'good' for giving it back.

It was basically 'irrational' sentiment that "it's what you do".

If I'd thought about it in terms of goals, I'd have sold it and used the money to buy something.

I would say this is one of those cases of mental conditioning where a certain goal became ingrained into you, thus explaining why even though you didn't feel like you were doing a good thing you still went through with it. Many goals are not really rational per se.

 

[icehorse]

Why not? Why couldn't we say the serial killer is bad for our goal. While at the same time the serial killer themselves could have a completely different set of goals/morals.

Certainly I can see any number of goals being obstructed by having a serial killer running about.

Is it your stance then that there is no circumstance we could agree is universally "bad"? Let's imagine a virus comes into being that infects every living being in the universe, and this virus puts every living being in non-stop, excruciating pain for an extended lifetime. Every being. Could we call that universe "bad", full stop?

Now a pure relativist can make the argument that there is no way to prove that such a universe is "bad". While I understand that stance from a pure logic perspective, it strikes me as a nonstarter from any useful perspective.

It seems to me that what almost all ethical and moral systems have in common is that they strive to improve the well being of conscious creatures. (So, for example, moral and ethical systems tend not to be concerned with the well being of rocks.)

Finally, to me, there is no point in interacting with pure moral / ethical relativists. Such discussions are pointless.

 

[JDMS]

I don't think everything that goes against my goals is bad. I don't think someone is morally wrong if they are picked for a job or internship opportunity over me. I don't think most people feel this way in general.