Morals

[Nakosis]

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.

Yes, Christianity and of society restricts what one can consider good and moral.
Now I'm not saying they are completely wrong about it but I'd rather hope that I am rational/smart enough to make these determinations for myself.

Instead of being dictated to, this action is good and this action is bad, I'd would want to understand why is it good and why is it bad and are there any exceptions?
And perhaps even disagree regardless of what was determined by the group.

 

[Nakosis]

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 don't have that answer for you.
For me, sometimes. Depending on the situation and the people involved.
I might for example deceive or manipulate someone who is trying to harm themselves or someone else.

As far as election fraud goes, I'm mostly apolitical, so wouldn't get involved but perhaps an individual see one party or another as causing harm to the country and see it as a moral obligation to alter the results. A real American hero. Well, in their own mind anyway.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Against it? Christian frequently partake in symbolic cannibalism, Catholics even believe it is literal.

 

[icehorse]

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

As I mentioned earlier, how about domains like the law?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I mentioned earlier, how about domains like the law?

The law is in practice linked to in part cultural relativism. There is a sort of a base biology, but it doesn't give strong objective answers. It gives different ways to do replication of the fittest genome.
In other words there are different ways to do morality based on biology.

 

[dybmh]

It seems to me you just provided a list of goals, major goals right, to which you're willing to add a list of minor goals.

Perhaps it is that you don't trust people to come up with their own set of major goals on their own?
Or society needs to dictate the major goals before you are comfortable with allowing individuals their own goals?

Deranged people exist who can do a lot of damage. I don't trust those specific people. Their goals are irrelevent if their actions fall into a certain catagory of absolute wrongs. The system of morality you proposed does not address these wrongs. So more than one person objected on those grounds. Rape, Murder, Kidnapping are always wrong regardless of a person's goals or culture. These catagorical wrongs need to be addressed or else it's impossible to talk about goals based morality.

 

[PruePhillip]

IMO, in answer to your first question. Yes, depending on your goals.
In answer to your second question, Only if their goal was to get imprisoned/fined. One ought to consider any possible consequences of one's actions.
Getting caught for breaking the law is always a risk. Actions that can get one confined or paying fines is not the usual goal for most people.

Some though might fail to consider the risks, which would be immoral to most.

I put it to you that your very definition of morals is immoral.

 

[Nakosis]

I put it to you that your very definition of morals is immoral.

I'm sure it is to you.
That's the point. Different set of goals, different set of morals.

 

[Nakosis]

Deranged people exist who can do a lot of damage. I don't trust those specific people. Their goals are irrelevent if their actions fall into a certain catagory of absolute wrongs. The system of morality you proposed does not address these wrongs. So more than one person objected on those grounds. Rape, Murder, Kidnapping are always wrong regardless of a person's goals or culture. These catagorical wrongs need to be addressed or else it's impossible to talk about goals based morality.

I disagree, if these things were always wrong then they would never happen. That they do happen means that someone at the time found the acts morally acceptable.
Since they do happen, your moral views are not universal. Culturally, they haven't always been wrong. Rape during WWII was used as a weapon of war.
I get that you feel otherwise but there are people who wouldn't agree with you.

 

[dybmh]

I disagree, if these things were always wrong then they would never happen.

Murder - a person believes they are the angel of death, they go to their neighbors house, bash their head in with a rock and walk away happy to have had the experience. No one else knows, the killer isn't apprehended. This is NOT wrong to you?

Rape - a person wants to gratify themself, goes to their neighbor's house, put's a gun in their mouth and forces themself onto the other person. This is NOT wrong to you?

Kidnapping - someone comes to your house, takes your grandchild and ransoms them back to you for money. This is NOT wrong?

These things are ALWAYS wrong. People who do things like this are either deeply sick, or deeply evil, and you are condoning the behavior because... what? Because the universe/god/reality allowed it to happen?

That they do happen means that someone at the time found the acts morally acceptable.

So everyone is 100% correct in their actions all the time? No one makes mistakes? No one is mentally ill? If it happens, it's good, that's it. Boy oh boy, I thought I was dangerously optimistic.

Culturally, they haven't always been wrong. Rape during WWII was used as a weapon of war.

We can talk about that if you want, but first please acknowledge that the examples I provided above are wrong. For rape - someone goes to their neighbor, rapes them for personal gratification, is never caught, is still wrong.

I get that you feel otherwise but there are people who wouldn't agree with you.

Those people are the ones I DON'T trust to make moral decisions. Evil, sick, deranged, people are defining your morality.

 

[Nakosis]

Murder - a person believes they are the angel of death, they go to their neighbors house, bash their head in with a rock and walk away happy to have had the experience. No one else knows, the killer isn't apprehended. This is NOT wrong to you?

Rape - a person wants to gratify themself, goes to their neighbor's house, put's a gun in their mouth and forces themself onto the other person. This is NOT wrong to you?

Kidnapping - someone comes to your house, takes your grandchild and ransoms them back to you for money. This is NOT wrong?

These things are ALWAYS wrong. People who do things like this are either deeply sick, or deeply evil, and you are condoning the behavior because... what? Because the universe/god/reality allowed it to happen?

Who said I'm condoning their behavior? I'm just pointing out there morals are different than yours.

So everyone is 100% correct in their actions all the time? No one makes mistakes? No one is mentally ill? If it happens, it's good, that's it. Boy oh boy, I thought I was dangerously optimistic.

I believe people choose to take the best action for themselves considering their goals at the time. Their morals are defined by their goals.

We can talk about that if you want, but first please acknowledge that the examples I provided above are wrong. For rape - someone goes to their neighbor, rapes them for personal gratification, is never caught, is still wrong.

For me sure but those are my morals. Other people have a different set of morals so choose to act differently.

Those people are the ones I DON'T trust to make moral decisions. Evil, sick, deranged, people are defining your morality.

Those people are not making morals decisions for you. They are making moral decision for themselves.

 

[Ponder This]

Do you need some one to tell you what is good or bad for you?

Yes, IMO, morals do change. People do what they think or feel is right at the time . Then afterwards they feel guilty or people try to make them feel guilty for not living up to an approve set of morals.

For example at one time homosexuality was immoral for most people. They made homosexuals feel guilty for their desires. The homosexuals were made to feel their morals were not adequate for society. To me, not a rational choice but that is what made society feel comfortable at the time.

Goals are not usually set off by themselves. You specify a goal of making a million dollars but nothing else, then assume the "worst" will happen in the void of any other goals.

One is certainly capable of having other goals such as not causing harm to others in the process.

If morality is just how you happen to feel at any moment in time, then what distinguishes morality from whim? Or are you saying that morality and whim are synonymous?

Also, perhaps you can explain in your example why you say that feeling comfortable was not rational. Are you saying that morality (as you define it) is not rational?

 

[Nakosis]

If morality is just how you happen to feel at any moment in time, then what distinguishes morality from whim? Or are you saying that morality and whim are synonymous?

Well, let me ask you, how do you know whether something is moral or not?

Also, perhaps you can explain in your example why you say that feeling comfortable was not rational. Are you saying that morality (as you define it) is not rational?

IMO, feeling are feelings, we don't decide we should feel one way or the other. We just feel what we feel. So feeling are not something we've rationally thought out. So if we rely on our feeling to determine what is right and wrong they haven't been rationally justified. I think in most cases, people are simply relying on their feelings to determine right and wrong.
They say this is wrong or that is wrong but not why.
I am simply suggesting there is a better way to go about it.

 

[dybmh]

Who said I'm condoning their behavior?

First, thank you for correcting the record. This is why the extremely harmful outliers need to be addressed first. The implications of moraity based soley on goals have been ignored.

But to answer your question: YOU condoned it:

I disagree, if these things were always wrong then they would never happen.

If they're not "always wrong", then sometimes they're right. That is condoning murder, rape, and kidnapping under certain circumstances. If that's not intended, great! But that's what your words mean, and that is the implication of a moral system that is derived purely from personal interest and goals.

I believe people choose to take the best action for themselves considering their goals at the time. Their morals are defined by their goals.

OK. That's a scaled back version of what you said in the OP. In the OP you go further and define "good" and "bad"

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.

No. The criminally insane are encouraged to pursue their goals as good. This system encourages / allows / condones all manner of heinous action.

This is most easily seen imagining a primitive hermit. This could be an actual hermit in the woods, or it could be a social recluse. The hermit/recluse wanders to a far away homestead and finds another hermit/recluse and kills them for pleasure and leaves.

There are only two sets of goals to consider. The hermit murderer and the hermit victim. The murderer deems the action "good" per the standard in the OP. The victim deems the action "bad". Based on the system described, that's a draw. It's neither good, nor bad, its neutral. That's condoning murder. It works the same for the other catagorical wrongs.

For me sure but those are my morals. Other people have a different set of morals so choose to act differently.

Only for you? Are you sure?

Let's maybe discuss the example of rape-as-a-weapon in WWII that you brought up. How can it be described as "good"? What are the details? Was it justified? Was it nessessary? If the soldiers did not rape, what are the "bad" things which would have resulted for them?

Those people are not making morals decisions for you. They are making moral decision for themselves.

Rapists Murders Kidnappers cannot be trusted to make moral decisions for themselves. These extreme outliers need to be excluded from a moral system based purely on individual goals. That's why a list of "don'ts" is required.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm sure it is to you.
That's the point. Different set of goals, different set of morals.

'Morals' to me represents a set of ethical standards
They are not 'relative' but absolute

So a moral person will be kind to another human regardless if they are rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, black or white, man or woman, young or old, FRIEND OR ENEMY.
Anything less than this is simply JUSTIFICATION for selective morality.

 

[Heyo]

I disagree, if these things were always wrong then they would never happen. That they do happen means that someone at the time found the acts morally acceptable.

Do you think people always think about the morality of their actions?

 

[Nakosis]

Do you think people always think about the morality of their actions?

IMO, not always. Mostly when they are suffering a moral conflict or when people are discussing them like now.

 

[Nakosis]

'Morals' to me represents a set of ethical standards
They are not 'relative' but absolute

So a moral person will be kind to another human regardless if they are rich or poor, Jew or Gentile, black or white, man or woman, young or old, FRIEND OR ENEMY.
Anything less than this is simply JUSTIFICATION for selective morality.

Sounds like justification for selective morality.
Of course you feel that what you've selected should be the standard for everyone.
To me personally, being kind to everyone is a a goal I agree with so my moral ideas of right and wrong would reflect that.
Though it seems obvious to me not everyone agrees with this goal and would probably make different moral choices.

 

[Nakosis]

First, thank you for correcting the record. This is why the extremely harmful outliers need to be addressed first. The implications of moraity based soley on goals have been ignored.

But to answer your question: YOU condoned it:


If they're not "always wrong", then sometimes they're right. That is condoning murder, rape, and kidnapping under certain circumstances. If that's not intended, great! But that's what your words mean, and that is the implication of a moral system that is derived purely from personal interest and goals.

I'm neither condoning nor not condoning. I'm just saying that is how it works. Many people, like you, just happen to feel their own goals and personal interest ought to be the standard for everyone else. When obviously, that is not the case.

OK. That's a scaled back version of what you said in the OP. In the OP you go further and define "good" and "bad"

Yes, have you also not done so with your argument?

No. The criminally insane are encouraged to pursue their goals as good. This system encourages / allows / condones all manner of heinous action.

To me, this is just stating the reality of the situation. No encouragement is necessary. That you would prefer it to be otherwise doesn't make it so.

This is most easily seen imagining a primitive hermit. This could be an actual hermit in the woods, or it could be a social recluse. The hermit/recluse wanders to a far away homestead and finds another hermit/recluse and kills them for pleasure and leaves.

There are only two sets of goals to consider. The hermit murderer and the hermit victim. The murderer deems the action "good" per the standard in the OP. The victim deems the action "bad". Based on the system described, that's a draw. It's neither good, nor bad, its neutral. That's condoning murder. It works the same for the other catagorical wrongs.

Only if you believe there exists a universal perspective. Namely yours. In reality neither hermit has a universal perspective. They each have only their own perspective from which they choose how to act.

Only for you? Are you sure?

Ok, probably should have said they can have a different set, doesn't mean that they do.

Let's maybe discuss the example of rape-as-a-weapon in WWII that you brought up. How can it be described as "good"? What are the details? Was it justified? Was it nessessary? If the soldiers did not rape, what are the "bad" things which would have resulted for them?

The goal was to win the war. Terrorism has often been used leaders in the opposing army and see such actions as good in achieving that goal.

Rapists Murders Kidnappers cannot be trusted to make moral decisions for themselves. These extreme outliers need to be excluded from a moral system based purely on individual goals. That's why a list of "don'ts" is required.

Regardless of whether you trust them are not, they still make moral decisions for themselves.
However the majority of people have different goals they hold in common so get together and decide to hold these people accountable for their actions for their/society's benefit.

None of this negates anything I said in the OP.
At different times the majority of people have different goals and from those goals determine which actions need to be held accountable regardless of the morals any individual may have.

 

[dybmh]

I'm neither condoning nor not condoning. I'm just saying that is how it works. Many people, like you, just happen to feel their own goals and personal interest ought to be the standard for everyone else. When obviously, that is not the case.

What's obvious is that you cannot justify the examples I gave so you ignore them. The moral system you are describing is shallow and doesn't address the few individuals who can do a lot of damage.

Yes, you are condoning murder, rape, kidnapping and anything else imaginable as good so that morality can be made simple.

To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

In this case, simple is stupid.

The goal was to win the war. Terrorism has often been used leaders in the opposing army and see such actions as good in achieving that goal.

I asked for details, justification, necessity. Your answer is, "they did it", and "others did it to". So good and bad for you is a popularity contest. A crowd of rapists are good? Nonsense.

What would have been the "bad" results of skipping on the rape? How did rape help win the war? If you're raping someone, you have total control over them. They were already conquered. The rape did what precisely to help win the war?

BTW, you are condoning rape.

Regardless of whether you trust them are not, they still make moral decisions for themselves.

They make moral decisions which are not good.

I notice you have back-peddled away from calling their actions "good". This was the flaw in the argument in the OP. Now, if only you would admit the flaw, then we could move on.

However the majority of people have different goals they hold in common so get together and decide to hold these people accountable for their actions for their/society's benefit.

And now you're talking about a justice system. Remember how I mentioned that earlier as necessary in society? Your simple method of determining "good" and "bad" actions needs a justice system as you are admitting here.

At different times the majority of people have different goals and from those goals determine which actions need to be held accountable regardless of the morals any individual may have.

Mob-rule. Might = right. The ends justify the means. None of these define "good" actions. They are rationalizations for "bad" actions. That's what you're doing. Justifying harming people.