Morals

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Here is a variant of the problem.
Imagine you could use all the instruments including video-recording you wanted on the following situation.
A person causes the death of another person using a knife. Now please state what the external sensory properties of "good" or "bad" are in relationship to the death of the other person. Or what instrument measures "good" or "bad".

 

[icehorse]

Here is a variant of the problem.
Imagine you could use all the instruments including video-recording you wanted on the following situation.
A person causes the death of another person using a knife. Now please state what the external sensory properties of "good" or "bad" are in relationship to the death of the other person. Or what instrument measures "good" or "bad".

The bolded ideas are yours, not mine.

Notice that in many domains we use abstract ideas to make determinations. In math and many of the sciences and the legal system and in judging the arts (and so on), we don't have instruments to measure quality or veracity or whatever. For the sake of discussion, I'll say that in all of these domains, we use expertise to make determinations.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

Morality is connected to a system of rules designed to optimize a group of humans. Morality is not designed to optimize the ego or the individual. When optimization is geared to individuals, it is better defined as relative morality.

Thou shall not steal , if applied to everyone in a group, can allow the members of that group to become more optimized. There will be little need to waste time worrying about being robbed and there will be little need to waste resources on various defensive measures. We all are better off by agreeing to this. All ten commandments add this way.

The thief may not feel the same benefit, by not being able to steal. So he/she may chose to use relative morality to justify stealing, so this ego can feel full. Not all relative morality is bad, but most of the evils of the world are justified this way.

The reason morality was designed with the team in mind is because the team can become more than the sum of its parts. A box of auto parts is not as useful as all the same parts assembled into a working automobile. It is the sam parts, but in a more optimized arrangement. They can't be going their own way and still work as an automobile.

But since the team is composed of individuals, with different parts and goals, some team members may choose relative morality, so they can become optimized. If we go back to the box of auto parts, before it is assembled, and the radiator decides it wants to become beefier. This may sound useful bit now it may not fit in the final assembly, thereby adversely impacting the final assembled team; automobile leaks and the hood will not shut.

However, if the team does become more than the sum of its parts, then all the parts get an upgrade. In other words, if you work and sacrifice the ego to became part of a champion team, even as substitute on the bench, you will always be a champion.

 

[Nakosis]

Morality is connected to a system of rules designed to optimize a group of humans. Morality is not designed to optimize the ego or the individual. When optimization is geared to individuals, it is better defined as relative morality.

Thou shall not steal , if applied to everyone in a group, can allow the members of that group to become more optimized. There will be little need to waste time worrying about being robbed and there will be little need to waste resources on various defensive measures. We all are better off by agreeing to this. All ten commandments add this way.

The thief may not feel the same benefit, by not being able to steal. So he/she may chose to use relative morality to justify stealing, so this ego can feel full. Not all relative morality is bad, but most of the evils of the world are justified this way.

The reason morality was designed with the team in mind is because the team can become more than the sum of its parts. A box of auto parts is not as useful as all the same parts assembled into a working automobile. It is the sam parts, but in a more optimized arrangement. They can't be going their own way and still work as an automobile.

But since the team is composed of individuals, with different parts and goals, some team members may choose relative morality, so they can become optimized. If we go back to the box of auto parts, before it is assembled, and the radiator decides it wants to become beefier. This may sound useful bit now it may not fit in the final assembly, thereby adversely impacting the final assembled team; automobile leaks and the hood will not shut.

However, if the team does become more than the sum of its parts, then all the parts get an upgrade. In other words, if you work and sacrifice the ego to became part of a champion team, even as substitute on the bench, you will always be a champion.

In an ideal world right?
Morality can also be connected to a system designed to oppress the many while benefiting the few.
Often the rules are skewed to benefit the elite or elites of the group.
Whomever can enforce authority can set the rules to benefit themselves.
There is no guarantee that by following the rules of the group, everyone gets an upgrade.
So in a system where the rules are skewed, the relative morality is more beneficial to the individual and perhaps even a majority of the non-elites among the group.
Still morality is a matter of of promoting the goals of the group or the goals of the individual with each individual decided which goals provide the best overall benefit.
The goal in your case being to optimize the group.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Yes, legal/illegal-civic laws.
Whether one considers the civil laws moral or immoral one has to consider the consequences of breaking them.
Sometime folks feel so strongly about the immorality of civic laws the consequences of breaking them don't matter.
I agree with your post. I only see as being the goals of the individual vs the goals of the group, even if some of those goals for the individual happen to be of a subconscious nature.

 

[Nakosis]

So what determines what goals one ought to have.

You hopefully.
But, sometimes they are determine subconsciously.
One may have a conscious of civil(group) code they feel they ought to live up to but the subconscious mind might have other ideas about what is right and wrong and drive us to act in way against this code we've consciously adopted.
I think some people can can resist being driving by subconscious feelings better than others.
And, sometimes an individual can sync their consciousness and subconsciousness and are able to determine their goals and the best moral behavior to achieve those goals for themselves.

 

[Nakosis]

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



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.

Sure, it can be dangerous if one is driven by subconscious goals they aren't aware of and have no control over.
That is why society attempts to impose moral idealism on the masses for fear of this.
Myself, I think it is possible to tame the subconscious without the idealism.

 

[wandering peacefully]

So you'd personally see the some goals others might have as immoral?
Probably is most cases, I'd agree but there may exist some individuals who see it differently.

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.

I do trust myself enough to set my own moral goals. I would never let someone else or society set those morals for me. But that still doesn't define good morals v. bad morals. I don't know if that is a possible goal. Seems since humans have been human morailty has been impossible to define as a set of rules to follow. It is probably a waste of time trying to set goals for all of humanity as far as morality is concerned. Even if there were agreed upon criteria set, people would still follow their own agendas.

Well, people do follow their own agendas. Where I see immorality in the destruction of environments and ecosystems, others see morality in the progress of comfort and improvements in their ease of lifestyle.

Maybe morals is an impossible, indefinable concept best left behind?

If my actions are harmful to other living creatures and the viability of the ecosystems, I should not take part in those actions. How would you label that idea?

 

[sayak83]

You hopefully.
But, sometimes they are determine subconsciously.
One may have a conscious of civil(group) code they feel they ought to live up to but the subconscious mind might have other ideas about what is right and wrong and drive us to act in way against this code we've consciously adopted.
I think some people can can resist being driving by subconscious feelings better than others.
And, sometimes an individual can sync their consciousness and subconsciousness and are able to determine their goals and the best moral behavior to achieve those goals for themselves.

So if I understand you correctly, you belief that the unrestricted and unbridled pursuit of desires and goals, whatever they may be and by whatever means is the definition of moral and good and any kind of thwarting of such a pursuit is the definition of immoral and bad.

 

[rational experiences]

A totally immoral human by all past human only chosen immorality. Non family behaviours. Inhumanity.

Builds a machine out of earths mass.

Mass the base he theories is where I think a lightning charge disperses into electricity. Grounded only. It's all gods highest ones. Earth bases. Pretends electricity made them.

So he changed it all as bases for gain machine and his machine he says isn't alive. God earth is alive. It has a heart it has electrical activity. Iron core blood biology supported iron not machine.

Isn't his machines status.

That same man studies medical science.

Biology equal to biology in natural laws all human says medical which he ignored totally.

Takes all the advice. Build his machine using transmitters. Machines to machines. It always was machine to machine. Transmitters.

Then he decides he wants gods consciousness a human. Not his...women's. For machines gods as if finally he chooses machines total one human replaced. By all fake womb space maths machine. Man's

Ultimate betrayal.

So he computer programs an attack with machine to pretend he's studying consciousness using any type immorality choice. Medical equality had already. He doesn't want advice.

Then blamed his victim for her immoral life mind body changes as he's God man machine. Studying her making forum comments.

I think he said his narcissistic behaviours are immoral.

Humans wet their pants and go to the toilet naturally. It gets recorded. In heavens feedback. He theoried a feedback connective program he transmitted at humans to force biology and mind to change.

Whenever he wants.

Is his review who and what of humans as a self is immoral...and he never needed to look past his owned science man self.

The sort of behaviours where humans wish his parents never had sex to beget his presence.

True story to anyone who knows what Nasty humans really are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The bolded ideas are yours, not mine.

Notice that in many domains we use abstract ideas to make determinations. In math and many of the sciences and the legal system and in judging the arts (and so on), we don't have instruments to measure quality or veracity or whatever. For the sake of discussion, I'll say that in all of these domains, we use expertise to make determinations.

There is no objective expertise for morality in the same sense as for the hard sciences.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

The goal itself is not subject to moral consideration?

 

[Nakosis]

The goal itself is not subject to moral consideration?

Sure, but based on other goals.

I don't think a goal is developed in a void. One has a set of goals and sometimes they are competing.
Like getting rich may compete with a goal of being compassionate. There is a hierarchy of goals which is why I listed my major goals in order.
Like I might sacrifice some benefit to myself for the sake of my family since for me the survival of my family would be the higher goal.

For me, moral decisions seem more straight forward since I have a priority of goals set out. IOW, I'd have less of an internal struggle making it easier/quicker to reach the right(for me) decision with all of my priorities and goals in mind with really no moral regret.

Excellent question btw.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

That makes no sense to me at all and renders the very concept of morality to be meaningless and useless.

If morality is going to mean anything, if the words "good" and "bad" are going to mean anything, then it has to deal with well-being and suffering.

Actions that promote well-being are good.
Actions that promote suffering are bad.

It's rather simple. And sure, I present it very simplistically and there are a lot of "buts" and "maybes" embedded therein when making moral judgements, but that's the crux of it.

If "good" isn't going to be related to promoting well-being and "bad" isn't about increasing suffering, then I don't know what you are talking about when you talk about "morality".

 

[Nakosis]

That makes no sense to me at all and renders the very concept of morality to be meaningless and useless.

If morality is going to mean anything, if the words "good" and "bad" are going to mean anything, then it has to deal with well-being and suffering.

Actions that promote well-being are good.
Actions that promote suffering are bad.

It's rather simple. And sure, I present it very simplistically and there are a lot of "buts" and "maybes" embedded therein when making moral judgements, but that's the crux of it.

If "good" isn't going to be related to promoting well-being and "bad" isn't about increasing suffering, then I don't know what you are talking about when you talk about "morality".

Wouldn't achieving well being a goal?
Isn't preventing suffering a goal?

Couldn't you determine which actions are good and which actions are bad based on these goals?

It seems to me the objection is not that it is goal orientated but the possibility of the goals being arbitrary.
If you get to pick the goals for everyone else, promote well being, prevent suffering only then the moral system is acceptable.

For me one could have these goals and you would see nothing wrong with their morals.
Myself, I don't believe that any goals are universal nor should I dictate to you what your goals ought to be.

To me, your ought to be free to determine you're own goals however, it is exactly this freedom that people fear. People don't trust their fellow man to determine their own goals.
Yet, I think this is exactly what happens anyway. You have determined your own set of goals and expect everyone else to have the same set of goals when in reality, they may not.

 

[Nakosis]

So if I understand you correctly, you belief that the unrestricted and unbridled pursuit of desires and goals, whatever they may be and by whatever means is the definition of moral and good and any kind of thwarting of such a pursuit is the definition of immoral and bad.

Well, I don't know that everyone's goals are unrestricted or unbridled. In fact, I suspect most people's are. By circumstances or subconsciously but yes, I think this is exactly how it works.
Culture, peer pressure or upbringing restrict the goals people allow themselves to consider. That is usually not a conscious process. Morality is automatically this or that, open and shut without any rational thought behind it.

Others have a different culture, upbringing, life experience which restricts their thinking in a different direction and end up having a different set of morals.

Better, IMO, is to set aside the culture/upbringing and decide for one's self what goals they should have. Once someone has determine these goals for themselves, right and wrong would obviously be actions in support of those goals.

 

[Nakosis]

I do trust myself enough to set my own moral goals. I would never let someone else or society set those morals for me. But that still doesn't define good morals v. bad morals. I don't know if that is a possible goal. Seems since humans have been human morailty has been impossible to define as a set of rules to follow. It is probably a waste of time trying to set goals for all of humanity as far as morality is concerned. Even if there were agreed upon criteria set, people would still follow their own agendas.

Well, people do follow their own agendas. Where I see immorality in the destruction of environments and ecosystems, others see morality in the progress of comfort and improvements in their ease of lifestyle.

Maybe morals is an impossible, indefinable concept best left behind?

Universal morals, I agree is likely not possible. However you can certainly decide for yourself your own goals and the good and bad actions that would support those goals.

If my actions are harmful to other living creatures and the viability of the ecosystems, I should not take part in those actions. How would you label that idea?

Then would your goals be to not cause harm to other living creatures and to promote the viability of the ecosystem?
With these goals identified, I'd suspect it be easy to determine for yourself which actions were good and which actions were bad without someone else dictating them to you.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe morals are what the population views as right and ethics are the morals that a religion or philosopher consider right.

So the current population may consider homosexuality and sex outside of marriage to be right but Christianity does not view those things as right.

 

[Muffled]

I had two for thanksgiving dinner. Fortunately I didn't eat them. Cannibalism seems disgusting to me but I don't know of any Biblical injunction against it.

 

[Muffled]

Is it moral then to be deceitful and manipulative? That gets people closer to their goals. What about that guy who just got in trouble for election fraud?

I believe my wife used to quote: "What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive." Satan is pictured as a liar by nature.