Morality

[DeadYorick]

Since there was a lot of off-topic stuff in the Sterilization thread I thought of this. Basically move your entire debate about Morality here.

 

Anyway Morality in my opinion is used in all of our actions every day and without Morality we would not be able to function as a society

[Arcesious]

I can tell this will be quite a firefight. Hopefully, unlike the other thread this was first debated in, we can be more civilized about it in this one.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

 

We should all read this first before continuing in this debate.

[*Don*]

Morals is a controversial topic at best.

 

One man's code of conduct will not necessarily be equal to another man's.

Hence, there can be many interpretations of a person's actions.

It is quite confusing if u think about it.

[patient_zero]

Morals are the principles which we believe a "good" person should believe in and act on. They are based on a person's own view of the world, and are thus coloured by the personal experiences of them and the people closest to them, and thus it can't be expected that everyone will agree on what actions are moral and what are immoral. Even then, some people don't even follow their own moral principles to the letter.

 

In my own personal principles I believe that motivation is accountable as well as the action itself when thinking of morality, but that's a subject for another day.

[Inyri]

No no no, morals are not "good principles" -- they're just principles. You can have bad morals just as easily as good ones; they're not innately one way or the other. Considering something you do as 'good' is a moral value. Consider something a politician does as 'bad' is also a moral value. The term 'immorality' is simply a qualification of morality. Immorality is innately bad because we've defined it that way. Morality is not, however, the opposite.

 

You see, only we see in terms of good and bad. The morals can't be bothered about which they are one way or the order. But here I am anthropomorphising...

[Pho3nix]

I don't believe there's a universal moral that everyone has embedded in their mind.

 

Society shapes us, our environment shapes us and most importantly our lives shape us.

 

A 100 years ago no one would have thought twice about having a slave, much less questioning why they shouldn't have the same rights as for example the upper white class.

 

in b4 Hitler-card.

[Arcesious]

Hmm... Interestign points have been made here... Morals can generally relate to common sense, which is a set of principles. Not everyone has the same veiws of morality, and a lot of times people's moral veiws are different, making them have different veiws on principles and common sense. Humans are sentient beings.

 

We have emotion. Animals have emotion too, but our emotions are more developed. We are able to express our emotions more distinctly. Because we are sentient beings with a more highly developed state of mind than animals,(As far as we know as we're not sure if other animals are at the same level of cognitiveness as us), we need morals, just as animals need instincts. We have instincts too, but we tend to have morals take the place of our instincts.

Now, Animals have moral instincts too, as I'll explain later.

 

For example, a four-year-old boy sees another four-year-old boy fall of his bike. As of yet, his parents have taught him nothing of morals. His natural response is either to help him, or to make fun of him. This is a moral reasoning tied to instincts. Due to the treatment he recieves from his parents, this will dictate whether his moral instinctive response is 'good' or 'bad'. If he's treated well, he will want to help the other boy, if he's treated badly, he will make fun of the other boy because that's how he thinks he's supposed to act based on how others treat him. Experiences from one's surroundings will dictate whether a person's moral instincts are good or bad.

 

With animals, they also have moral instincts. They just don't have as developed of a sense of right and wrong as we are capable of attaining. For example, a mother lion has two cubs. She is unable to provide for them for a certain reason. She either chooses to provide for herself only, or to sacrfice her life so that they may live. Based on the mother lion's life experiences, her instincts have developed in a specific way. Base don how her experiences dictate her moral instincts she will either provide for them and sacrifice her life, or leave them to die without food. Same thing with we humans and things like abortion. If the pregnancy can kill the mother, the choice will be to either save the baby or for the mother to live and the baby die. These things tend to be dictated by the experiences that influence their instinctive moral responses.

 

Basically, I think animals and humans have moral instincts, but those instincts develope upon experience. Morals ar enot innately right or wrong. Without moral instincts, we would have trouble deciding certain things that require a moral veiwpoint, which can be either 'good' or 'bad', based upon our experiences in life.

 

However, we humans also have a chaotic instinct. For example: a boy is treated well his whole life, and has a great life. normally, this experince would make him want to be kidn to others, however, there is a chance that he could be a very mean and hateful person, despite having a great life. I think cases like these are due to either the instinctive nature of greed and selfishness, or a rogue, chaotic instinct.

 

Edit: However, as InyriForge pointed out, there are things in this post I cannot prove, so don't veiw me as arrogant, i just tend to like to voice opinion in a way that makes it seem like I make it factual, which tends to be a bad habit of mine I can't seem to break. Sorry.

[patient_zero]

No no no, morals are not "good principles" -- they're just principles.

 

Well, perhaps "good" was the wrong word. I meant that when something is described as "moral" by someone it means they think it is the "correct" thing to do, though whether "correct" to that person is the "empathetic", "narcisstic" or otherwise depends on the individual.

[Inyri]

For example, a four-year-old boy sees another four-year-old boy fall of his bike. As of yet, his parents have taught him nothing of morals. His natural response is either to help him, or to make fun of him. This is a moral reasoning tied to instincts.

You don't have an 'instinct' to laugh at someone. The child you described is 4 years old; he didn't just emerge from the womb. The way he responds is based on what he perceives to be appropriate, otherwise known as the morals he's learned from his parents/friends/neighbors. Remember that morals and behaviors don't need to be taught, they can easily (and often are) learned from simple observation.

 

I'm not really going to bother with the rest of your post as it seems like you're just trying very hard to pass off a lot of information as fact (avoid the word IS so much when talking about this stuff; it makes you sound a bit arrogant). For instance you can't possibly know that animals have emotions. I personally believe they do, but there is no factual basis for that belief other than observation, which isn't really a reputable factor.

 

And for god's sake, WALL O TEXT. It hurts; use a line break once in a while.

 

Well, perhaps "good" was the wrong word. I meant that when something is described as "moral" by someone it means they think it is the "correct" thing to do, though whether "correct" to that person is the "empathetic", "narcisstic" or otherwise depends on the individual.

It's an improper use of the term either way.

[Arcesious]

Sorry about that InyriForge.

 

Edit: Now that I think of it, perhaps our emotions are actually instincts too.

[*Don*]

Experiences from one's surroundings will dictate whether a person's moral instincts are good or bad.

 

I gotta agree with u on that.

I would say that 85% of our morals come from our environment.

 

I recently witnessed an example of this on television.

A kid from a gang ridden area was compared to a kid from Beverly Hills.

When someone got shot, the kid from the gang didn't call the cops because he knew one of his friends would go to jail. This kid placed his moral of loyalty over his moral of logical thought.

When someone else got shot in Beverly Hills, the kid called the cops and put his friend in jail. In his mind, the moral of Justice was over the moral of loyalty.

 

Keeping this in mind, I think that almost everyone subconsiously "ranks" and assigns priorities to each of their morals and executes them out in that order.

[Jvstice]

Sorry about that InyriForge.

 

Edit: Now that I think of it, perhaps our emotions are actually instincts too.

Some of what you'd said before I'd agree. Though I'd argue that emotions are internal senses rather than instincts. Sadness or depression tell you that something is wrong in your environment. They aren't a good indicator of what is wrong in and of themselves, or what the solution is, but they are an effective heads up to start experimenting or thinking about what needs to be changed.

 

Sort of example from the animal kingdom that also applies: It was discovered that if you gave an electric shock to rats through the floor to a cage, they would blame whatever other of their kind was nearby to them and immediately attack. I've had periods of time where I have flare ups of pancretitis, and I'm a bit of a grouch, verbally attacking friends, family and loved ones for things that either are blown out of proportion or really aren't their fault in retrospect.

 

Some of group morality is what what made civilization possible. Example: If a boulder is falling for an animal's loved one, they merely have to look at thier child or mate in trouble, then they often put themselves in danger to save one which can't protect themselves as often as not. Some times we do that too, but we are the only beings I know of who make rules to force ourselves over ride our instincts. Monogamy (or at least serial monogamy like most western nations actually have) reduces jealousy and makes it possible to live together in groups. Valuing life and property make it possible to pass laws that a vast majority accept and make enforcable on the small minority that don't agree.

[Arcesious]

That makes sense.

[Ray Jones]

Excerpt of a conversation about the issue of (relative) morality in the Senate Chambers, to be found here.

 

Here's a topic that might cause as many potential headaches as abortion, religion, war, etc. Where do you come down on the issue of moral relativism and why?

 

Morality is, in the final analysis, about right and wrong. It is about having a moral standard which applies both to oneself, and to all other people. To be moral one must not do what one WANTS to do, but instead what one feels is morally right. Therefore for morality to function at all, it must contain starkly drawn lines between "right" and "wrong".

 

If we believe that our course of action is moral, it is because we believe it to be morally right, instead of morally wrong. Therefore we believe that we know right from wrong, and that there is a clear distinction between the two. The moral ideal therefore, is to use reason and logic to determine what is morally right, and then go and do it.

 

However, we are human and therefore fallible. Someone may believe that what they are doing is morally right, but they may be incorrect. This does NOT mean that morals are in some way "subjective". It just means that when a person who considers themselves to be moral does something immoral, they got it wrong.

 

Therefore morality is an absolute. There is a right way to do things, and a wrong way. A moral way, and an immoral way.

 

But our execution of morality may be flawed. Our "rating" of morality as individuals is limited by our ability to determine right from wrong, in short, our reasoning ability, our capacity for logic, our capacity to put ourselves in the shoes of others, our sheer intelligence and empathy.

 

Morals are not relative. Some people are better at being moral than others, that's all.

 

I'm just curious, AL: Where is this moral standard supposed to come from?

I'm glad you asked. Morality first starts with empathy. I will explain:

 

People have claimed that morality is based on not doing anything to others that you wouldn't want done to yourself. This is incorrect. It is insufficient, and subjective. A masochist doesn't mind pain, because he likes pain. But it's clearly not right on that basis for him to go around inflicting pain on others, because they won't like it the way he does.

 

So we start, not with "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which is subjective. Instead, we start with the quality of empathy, which you will possess if you are not a psychopath. It is the ability to put yourself in the shoes of another, and to realise that others feel pain and distress just as you do.

 

So empathy shows us that people other than ourselves have feelings. Then we mix the "do unto others" principle with our innate empathy, and we get... "Every organism feels distress, just as we do. Therefore, we must not inflict anything onto other organisms that causes them distress, unless absolutely necessary for our own self preservation". (I have a right to live, too.)

 

Thus, through the quality of empathy, we arrive at the first basic principles of morality. That others have as much value as we do. That we all feel distress.

 

In short, morality stems from empathy.

 

Who determines what is moral and what is not?

Ah, no "person" determines what is moral, morality is an absolute, independent of individual opinion. I will explain:

 

We started with empathy, the desire not to inflict distress on others, and the universal value of life.

 

But now, in order to define what is SPECIFICALLY MORAL, we must use our reasoning power, and logic. Remember, this isn't about "creating" our own morality, it's about uncovering the truth that already exists independent of us.

 

My logic tells me that in order to behave morally towards another lifeform, I have to first determine what will cause it distress. Then, I must not do such things.

 

If I am already causing a lifeform distress by accident, I must determine what it is that I am doing that is causing the distress, and desist from that action.

 

If I have caused distress in the past, I must make what reparations I can.

 

For all animals the basic stuff is easy. Don't wound, don't frighten, don't kill. Don't steal their stuff, don't threaten them, don't cause distress, in other words.

 

Let's take an issue like abortion. In order to behave morally to the foetus, ideally we would have a method of determining on a case-by-case basis whether the foetus can feel pain and distress. From that point on, we would not abort. But in order to behave morally to the mother who doesn't want to have a child, we should abort before that critical time.

 

However, case-by-case tests are not currently available, so as moral people we look to experts to give us a rough time frame in which we can act.

 

That's functional morality. We use our reason and logic to determine the most empathic way to act, and then we do it.

 

But as I said before, we are limited in our perception of morality by our intellectual limits. If we're unable to reason out the truth, then we will be immoral unintentionally. Thus the moral man exercises his reasoning faculties regularly, so that he can always do the very best he can.

 

What one person thinks is moral, others will not and so on, so what is the absolute standard?

What individuals think is irrelevant. Morality is an absolute. But we as humans are fallible and may, as I stated earlier, sometimes accidentally do the wrong thing. But it's up to us to always TRY to do the right thing. That too, is basic morality.

[Darth InSidious]

^I must disagree, Ray.

 

Morality is the concept of a method of action by which we may achieve eudaimonia.

 

Spider makes an argument for a moral system, but cannot answer the fundamental meta-ethical questions, so instead starts from the assumption that morality stems from empathy.

[Ray Jones]

^I must disagree, Ray.[/Quote]I must punch you then?

 

Morality is the concept of a method of action by which we may achieve eudaimonia.

Not denied.

 

Spider makes an argument for a moral system, but cannot answer the fundamental meta-ethical questions,

Which question would that be?

 

so instead starts from the assumption that morality stems from empathy.

A very logical assumption, as I see it, giving a good setup to explain why morality is an objective thing.

 

 

I also think that morality is bull**** and that all people decide things based on their own self-interest and not the morals they claim to have.

True because no decision is ever based on morals. It's always based on a subjective, personal (hence self-)interest.

 

Eudaimonia, dear Mr. InSidious, is also such a self-interest.

 

I think the actions in which these decisions end up are moral or immoral, however.

[Arcesious]

True because no decision is ever based on morals. It's always based on a subjective, personal (hence self-)interest.

 

Eudaimonia, dear Mr. InSidious, is also such a self-interest.

 

I think the actions in which these decisions end up are moral or immoral, however.

 

Decisions are not always in the self-interest of the people who make them. For example, a very good and nice person sees another person about to get run over by a car. He runs and pushes him out of the way, with no concern for his own well-being, and dies saving the other. Same sort of thing in many other situations. a person is going to be shot, a person jumps in the way and saves him. His friend is guilty of a crime. His moral loyalty leads him to take the fall for his friend and get himself arrsted. If it is self interest to help someone, I can hardly see that as a selfish action, even if it is done to make the person feel good.

[Ray Jones]

Decisions are not always in the self-interest of the people who make them. For example, a very good and nice person sees another person about to get run over by a car. He runs and pushes him out of the way, with no concern for his own well-being, and dies saving the other.

(A) It is not important that the the guy that saves another is a "good and nice person" to determine whether a certain act of that guy is moral or not. (B) It's that guy's own personal decision (and thus self-interest) to save that other guy for whatever reasons, which might be selfish, or not. Moral or not.

 

 

If it is self interest to help someone, I can hardly see that as a selfish action, even if it is done to make the person feel good.

I think you mix action with decision here. And no one talked about selfish actions. We were at decisions out of self-interest. The decision to help someone is always based on self-interest, maybe just because you feel better then (in other words: it makes you happy), maybe you don't want your friend to die (makes you also happy), or you get paid for it (in other words: you want to pay your bills, that's why you have a job), etc.

 

Even if you want to act moral, that decision is based on self-interest, because you want to.

[Jae Onasi]

Arcesious, most emotions are not instinctual, i.e. they are not hard-wired physical responses to a particular event. For instance, some people will cry at a sad movie, others will not.

 

Ray, how does Spider determine that it's empathy that is the ultimate basis for morality? Isn't that making a moral judgment to start with? How does the evolutionary process, which is always changing, allow for an absolute, unchanging morality?

[Ray Jones]

Ray, how does Spider determine that it's empathy that is the ultimate basis for morality? Isn't that making a moral judgment to start with?

Hm. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "moral judgement". Is that that when you deem your following course of action to be moral?

 

However, all morality starts with the notion to err...act moral. When you don't intent to act moral, you won't do so, no matter what you do. In other words, to be moral, one must have the desire to be moral. This then leads to the point that you to need decide how to act moral. And to find the (most) moral path of action, Spider suggests using empathy to determine how much (negative) stress your act would cause to others. That means basically: distress down = moral up.

 

How does the evolutionary process, which is always changing, allow for an absolute, unchanging morality?

How does it contradict an unchanging morality? What do you mean?

[JediMaster12]

True because no decision is ever based on morals. It's always based on a subjective, personal (hence self-)interest. [/Quote]

So wouldn't one say that morals are subjective as well?

Think about this:

In general we have cultures. Culture as defined in anthropological terms is a system of ideas, behaviors and moods that are shared, learned and dynamic. Within culture are the morals that every society has, the proper things and the taboos. Interestingly enough there are rules for breaking taboos. Morals and soceital norms are subjective since, if you think about it, someone had to come up with these rules and such. So if decisions are made on a subjective level, therefore the formation of morals is also subjective. The question comes down to How do you know what's right and wrong?

[Ray Jones]

So wouldn't one say that morals are subjective as well?

No.

 

Think about this:

In general we have cultures. Culture as defined in anthropological terms is a system of ideas, behaviors and moods that are shared, learned and dynamic. Within culture are the morals that every society has, the proper things and the taboos. Interestingly enough there are rules for breaking taboos. Morals and soceital norms are subjective since, if you think about it, someone had to come up with these rules and such. So if decisions are made on a subjective level, therefore the formation of morals is also subjective.

What certain cultures deem morally right or wrong or how they came to that conclusion is utterly irrelevant. With objective morality, stoning, female mutilation, death penalty etc will never be morally right, no matter how much is is accepted and considered to be right in whatever culture.

 

The question comes down to How do you know what's right and wrong?

Basically it's like this: will that, what you are going to do, effect other lifeforms in a negative way (stress, pain, death), it is morally wrong, except it ensures your own survival.

[Totenkopf]

But your problem, Ray, is determining what is the basis for this "objective morality". If the reasoning behind your version of absolute morailty doesn't jive with someone else's, who determines what the "true absolute morality" is to begin with? DI was right in pointing out that SA merely builds his concept of absolute morality around the idea of empathy, but that he doesn't actually prove that his is the correct answer. I could build a system around using truth as the "stress" (ie more truth =good. less =bad) to determine the ultimate morality of actions. So, "absolute" morality is arguably ultimately subjective in the eyes of those who don't agree with its underpinnings. You say tomato, they say tamahto. If every "moral" act is based on self interest, morality can only be subjective. Sort of reminds me of the whole situational ethics approach they tried to use in school.

[Jvstice]

Ray: Very Kantian of you.

 

Totenkopf: There's also the question of whether good is opposite of evil or bad. Historically different groups of people have used either spectrum as a moral spectrum, but both have been around.

[Arcesious]

I have to agree with what people have said in this thead since I last posted in this thread... If, anything, this discussion/debate has helped to clarify a few things about ethics and such for me.