Morals

[Augustus]

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.

I don't think we can call these "goals". They are more tendencies or habits.

 

[Nakosis]

Seems to me like you are overstating the case for everything being goal focused and are trying to a 'law' out of a vague orientation. It overstates our rationality and consistency.

Our beliefs and actions are not really consistent as our mind is "compartmentalised" and it ends up rather convoluted to force all things into a "it's a subconscious goal" narrative.

Morals are often capricious, and we might well make one decision today, and then the opposite one tomorrow.

I don't disagree. Feelings over rationality is the normal course of human morals.
The point of my OP was I think for myself personally, I see this as a more "reliable" way to go about it.

As you say, in the normal course, one is likely to make one moral decision one day and make the totally opposite the next.
Maybe the way is is usually done but perhaps it could be done better.

 

[Nakosis]

Of course there is no real Veil of Ignorance, it is a Gedankenexperiment. And yes, those who have the power to set rules, typically don't use the VoI. That can and frequently does result in immoral rules. But rules are not necessarily the same as "society's goals".

What are the purpose of rules if not to achieve a goal of some kind.

The speed limit is set at 55MPH with the goal of saving gas or saving lives.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't know about you, but none of my sexual activity was done in society in public. Even if I were not gay, I would not be getting it on for other people to offended by it.

I "live up to society's standards" when I am in society, because that works best for me and everyone else. I don't spit on the bus, nor eat spaghetti with my fingers in the restaurant. What I do in private is my business, not society's.

So you have your own set of morals which may not live up to society's expectations.

That's what I'm talking about.
Myself, I've never had the urge to spit on the bus, but I think you're missing out not having gone to a restaurant which allows you to eat with your hands.

 

[Heyo]

What are the purpose of rules if not to achieve a goal of some kind.

Some kind of goal it is - but often not the best interest of the society.

 

[Nakosis]

Some kind of goal it is - but often not the best interest of the society.

Often true.
Which is why I feel more confident dealing with my own morals.

 

[icehorse]

Some conscious creatures.

The well being of some conscious creatures often comes at the expense of others.

As such it does little more than rule out a system where everyone suffers. As soon as you have winners and losers we need to make further assumptions.

sad, but true.

 

[icehorse]

Ok but isn't the argument you just made relative to human well being?
Are such discussion pointless because there is no argument?

The only thing to argue is the viewpoint of the position one's morals are based on. The rest is simply how it works.

As I understand the OP, the claim is that there is no objective way to define "good" and "bad". Correct so far? If correct, then the OP is restating the stance of the pure moral relativist. If the relativist claims that there is no way to define good and bad, then I would say there is nothing to argue. That stance simply does not allow meaningful discussion.

 

[Heyo]

As I understand the OP, the claim is that there is no objective way to define "good" and "bad". Correct so far? If correct, then the OP is restating the stance of the pure moral relativist. If the relativist claims that there is no way to define good and bad, then I would say there is nothing to argue. That stance simply does not allow meaningful discussion.

I'm a moral relativist so that isn't what I got from the OP. My problem is the utilitarianism that is implied by it, especially reducing morality to personal goals.

 

[Curious George]

Well, you might have to define good.
Good for most are actions which trigger a specific biological feeling.
I mean vs rationally deciding what would be good and setting that as a goal.
However generally yes. One can decide what is "good", set it as a goal, then "good" and "bad" actions are relative to that goal.

If you can define good as other than that which furthers your goals, then it is possible that what you have defined as good will conflict with that which furthers your goals.

 

[stvdv]

Sure though some might consider how they go about it.
A companion goal might be to win without cheating

Of course, if you cheat playing tennis then it's not playing (according to the rules)

I never even think of cheating when playing tennis

 

[icehorse]

I'm a moral relativist so that isn't what I got from the OP. My problem is the utilitarianism that is implied by it, especially reducing morality to personal goals.

I have so many questions

As a moral relativist, do you act as though there are "good" actions and "bad" actions?

Are you saying that MR promotes utilitarianism? If so, how does that work, I've never heard that connection made?

How do the above reduce down to only personal goals?

I consider myself to be mostly aligned with utilitarianism, and from my perspective the goal is aggregate goals, not personal ones...

 

[Secret Chief]

Would you have had different goals if your were a German is Germany at the time?

Academic question but I would hope I wouldn't have been in favour of fascist-driven mass murder.

Is this any different from your current goals and morals?

Yes. My goals and morals do not involve mass murder.

These seem like facetious answers but your pov and questions seem rather ridiculous to me. Your original premise (good is moving towards goals) seems a very odd and dangerous idea to me.

 

[Heyo]

I have so many questions

As a moral relativist, do you act as though there are "good" actions and "bad" actions?

Yes, but I recognize that not everyone agrees with my moral primitives. (Or even if they do, they may have different priorities.)

Are you saying that MR promotes utilitarianism? If so, how does that work, I've never heard that connection made?

No, I said that the idea that only goals create morals can lead to utilitarianism.

How do the above reduce down to only personal goals?

They don't. I've taken that from the OP. @Nakosis speaks of his (=individual) goals.

I consider myself to be mostly aligned with utilitarianism, and from my perspective the goal is aggregate goals, not personal ones...

 

[Alien826]

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?

Heh. It depends who "we" are. You and I, and at least a vast majority of people, can agree that is "bad". But if it's "every living being in the universe" that has to agree, that's different. I happen to know there's a race of sentient beings on a particular planet that enjoys all extreme sensations, and particularly values pain. To be more serious, how about a human that believes that the universe is so wicked that we all deserve unending punishment?

To address the ideas raised in the OP, I find it difficult to answer, based on the use of the word "goal". I'd like to see it restated in different terms. To me, a goal can be entirely unrelated to morality, or intimately concerned with it. I would say that morals temper goals.

 

[sayak83]

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.

So what determines what goals one ought to have.

 

[Alien826]

People seem more comfortable when the goals of society at large set the morals. They fear what goals the individual might come up with.
Yet historically, I seem times when society's moral standards have been inadequate.
I'd rather it not be left to society to set the goals I based my morals on.

Allowing people to set their own goals seems a common fear among folks.
"What if Mr X set a goal for themselves I don't like?"
That is certainly a possibility.
People would rather trust society to set their goals for them instead of themselves.
I suppose I have come to trust myself enough to allow for it.
I have less trust in society's ability to do it for me.

Do you trust yourself enough to set your own goals?
If not, and many people seem not to, they'd rather society do it for them.

For me, it's best illustrated by a Venn diagram (which I'd draw if I knew how).

There are actions that are immoral by my own standards. There are actions that are moral or neutral by my standards. There are actions that are illegal*. There are actions that are legal*.

Moral/legal - do it.
Moral/illegal - do it if I can get away with it.
Immoral/legal - don't do it.
Immoral/illegal - don't do it.

* Legal/illegal should include things that are approved or disapproved of by society.

 

[icehorse]

Heh. It depends who "we" are. You and I, and at least a vast majority of people, can agree that is "bad". But if it's "every living being in the universe" that has to agree, that's different. I happen to know there's a race of sentient beings on a particular planet that enjoys all extreme sensations, and particularly values pain. To be more serious, how about a human that believes that the universe is so wicked that we all deserve unending punishment?

I'm not trying to get any universal agreement about morals, I would agree that that's a fool's errand.

What I'm trying to determine is whether any individual on this thread wants to defend moral relativism for themselves, personally.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not trying to get any universal agreement about morals, I would agree that that's a fool's errand.

What I'm trying to determine is whether any individual on this thread wants to defend moral relativism for themselves, personally.

What variant of moral relativism?
If you have already done that, then sorry.
I can defend that one of them, namely all morality is relative, but not equally good. The latter is also relative. So your morality might be good to you, but bad for me or in reverse.

 

[icehorse]

What variant of moral relativism?
If you have already done that, then sorry.
I can defend that one of them, namely all morality is relative, but not equally good. The latter is also relative. So your morality might be good to you, but bad for me or in reverse.

The variant that says there's no objective way to determine "good" vs. "bad"