Morality

[brightsky]

hmm...i beg to differ. the concept of morality isn't that vague. a moral code is a code that dictates we ought and ought not do. it's not the nature but the contents that should be scrutinised.

[Water]

I'm actually curious what Morality essentially is?

I've always interpreted it as our unconscious biological need for survival and 'morality' helps us achieve towards that goal, 'Co-operation' etc etc etc

[brenden]

Yep, that's way too open. What is the purpose of these standards? Do they guide individual action or collective action? If we don't fulfill morals, does society need to punish us, or is there some sort of intrinsic value to them that will just affect our lives without external influence? And are morals things that are inflexible - ie. is it ALWAYS acceptable or unacceptable to abort a fetus, or does it just vary on a case by case basis? If so, how do we prioritise certain values - what are the first principles? Does morality have hierarchical values or do you just do cost benefit analysis?

Well, wouldn't we have to break down what standards we were talking about in order to articulate a purpose? Eg: Purpose of virtue ethics is to become a 'good' person, purpose of consequentialism is to bring about good consequences, however you define the measure, and so on?
It seems those questions are actually questions to be debated from the perspective of different moral standards rather than as an assist on a definition of morality

And sure, if that was the case then maybe that's the conclusion they would have to accept. I think the obvious response though is that that is extremely unlikely,and unlike with abstract philosophers, political theorists are justified in grounding their theories of how governments operate in reality in, well, reality. (you could also just do some different political theory analysis, eg. Look at something more like Rawls in terms of how social justice is best served with reference to a veil of ignorance etc)
Yeah fair enough. (Rawls is the guy who said the law should stick to society and not interfere with the individual -- yeah?  )

I'm actually curious what Morality essentially is?

I've always interpreted it as our unconscious biological need for survival and 'morality' helps us achieve towards that goal, 'Co-operation' etc etc etc

Hm, that's something I've never entertained. I've always seen morality as a sense of good.

[EvangelionZeta]

^nit sure if Rawls has said that, but it sounds like something he probably would say - political theorists tend to be like that.

And maybe you're right, bright sky,but I think the issue is when we say ought or ought not that is also a bit ambiguous. Ought we follow morals because it is intrinsically better? Because it is better for us as individuals?  I think this matters as well.

Anyway, Brenden, what do you think is moral/immoral? How does your moral system work? I think this might be a more meaningful discussion, if we can see a system in its totality, and discuss from there without any argumentation concerning ambiguity.

[brightsky]

And maybe you're right, bright sky,but I think the issue is when we say ought or ought not that is also a bit ambiguous. Ought we follow morals because it is intrinsically better? Because it is better for us as individuals?  I think this matters as well.

well the question you pose is a moral one, and falls right under the heading which i have just defined. we either ought to follow a moral code/principle or we ought not. that is not ambiguous. brenden's definition above also suffices; morality = sense of good, where good = that which we ought to do. but anyway i'll try not to stagnate such a meaningful discussion on morals.

[brenden]

Well, I'm still fleshing out what my sense of morality is after introductory Phil, so it might well change in the future (and I'm quite open to being convinced otherwise). (Would also like to point out the irony that I am procrastinating my Philosophy exam revision by discussing Philosophy).
From what my understanding is, I think I'm a moral realist and by extension a virtue ethicist. Which is pretty illogical as an atheist really, which is one of my big considering points, for I think the best argument for God is (from my perspective anyway)
P1. There is an objective morality.
P2. There can be no objective morality without God.
Conc. God exists.

Obviously it's easiest to reject this argument by rejecting P1, but I just don't swing that way. So I've been spending most of my time thinking about how objective morality exists without God, and so I sometimes come close to rejecting objective morality but I'm still maintaining it for now.
I like virtue ethics because I think it explains how I moralise generally in that I think about what type of person I'd like to be when I make my moral decisions. But virtue ethics can get a bit ad hoc in arguing. I mean, you could pretty much say "ah-ha! That would be valid, however, I think it is a virtue that we act to bring about the best consequences measured by utility!"
But I believe that intentions must matter and some things are intrinsically wrong -> Virtue Ethics.

I actually think I accepted virtue ethics and then moral realism, rather than the other way around.
What about you, do you hold a label?


Another problem I've been struggling with is supererogation. It seems plausible that abstaining from meat is a moral thing to do, or that the Good Samaritan is 'very moral', but then, why is there sufficiently moral and then perfectly moral. Like, surely we should be striving for moral perfection rather than to be 'somewhat' moral, but I'm struggling with my definition of moral perfection. Like, is it moral perfection just to do no harm? It seems as if we can improve on 'doing no harm' (eg. Good.Sam), and if there is improvement to be made then we must not be at moral perfection yet. But then obvs supererogation places big requirements.
(As you can see, I'm still confused on things and fleshing stuff out, which means my head hurts 24/7. Yes. 24/7. I dream philosophical confusion)

[EvangelionZeta]

Well, I'm still fleshing out what my sense of morality is after introductory Phil, so it might well change in the future (and I'm quite open to being convinced otherwise). (Would also like to point out the irony that I am procrastinating my Philosophy exam revision by discussing Philosophy).
From what my understanding is, I think I'm a moral realist and by extension a virtue ethicist. Which is pretty illogical as an atheist really, which is one of my big considering points, for I think the best argument for God is (from my perspective anyway)
P1. There is an objective morality.
P2. There can be no objective morality without God.
Conc. God exists.

Obviously it's easiest to reject this argument by rejecting P1, but I just don't swing that way. So I've been spending most of my time thinking about how objective morality exists without God, and so I sometimes come close to rejecting objective morality but I'm still maintaining it for now.
I like virtue ethics because I think it explains how I moralise generally in that I think about what type of person I'd like to be when I make my moral decisions. But virtue ethics can get a bit ad hoc in arguing. I mean, you could pretty much say "ah-ha! That would be valid, however, I think it is a virtue that we act to bring about the best consequences measured by utility!"
But I believe that intentions must matter and some things are intrinsically wrong -> Virtue Ethics.

I actually think I accepted virtue ethics and then moral realism, rather than the other way around.
What about you, do you hold a label?


Another problem I've been struggling with is supererogation. It seems plausible that abstaining from meat is a moral thing to do, or that the Good Samaritan is 'very moral', but then, why is there sufficiently moral and then perfectly moral. Like, surely we should be striving for moral perfection rather than to be 'somewhat' moral, but I'm struggling with my definition of moral perfection. Like, is it moral perfection just to do no harm? It seems as if we can improve on 'doing no harm' (eg. Good.Sam), and if there is improvement to be made then we must not be at moral perfection yet. But then obvs supererogation places big requirements.
(As you can see, I'm still confused on things and fleshing stuff out, which means my head hurts 24/7. Yes. 24/7. I dream philosophical confusion)

Why do intentions matter?  And why are some things intrinsically wrong? What are some examples of said things?

I'd outline my perspective in detail but I'm on my iPad. I don't think my "morality" really has a label though, maybe something approximating Platonism mixed in with a bit of aestheticism and Nietzsche. I think I see morality and "the good" similarly to Hamlet, actually.

[brenden]

I have a strong intuition that they do and haven't spent much time thinking of an argument. Hm. Take a scenario where a Student X is sitting at his desk and sticks his foot out to trip Student Y, who walking in front of X's desk, and Y falls over and feels embarrassed. Imo X has committed an immoral act. Take another scenario where X is actually just having a conversation with his friend and realises he has a cramp in his calf, so he extends his leg just as Y happens to be walking by, and Y trips and feels embarrassed. It's just implausible to me that these scenarios are moral equivalents, and the only difference is the varying intentions of X. You can hardly blame X the Second for stretching his calf, but you'd be right in saying X the First was being a prick.

Why are some things intrinsically wrong? Again, intuition. But this one is the hardest for be to justify without using God. I think, oppression based on arbitrary factors (race, gender, sexuality) is just wrong regardless of the time or culture because it is just inherently wrong. But I don't know how to answer -why- it is intrinsically wrong (other than because it is intrinsic hahaha). I was going to leave it for Lolly to think about/answer but I also like that it affords moral progression, because I think we HAVE progressed morally from slavery or from whatever other horrible thing from the past you can choose, and I believe we will progress morally as we legalise gay marriage and racism declines etc.

That's pretty cool, I think I might be studying Plato Sem 1, 2013.


Edit: On thinking about this more, (at 5.30 am  ) moral realism is stranger for me to hold than I thought. I came about this by considering the probable views of a  religious girl who graduated with me. A conversation between us might go like this, where B is Brenden and G is Girl.
B: Do you think X is immoral?
G: Yes, I do think X is immoral.
B: Well, why do you think X is immoral?
G: Because God says that it is immoral.
B: But what about it is immoral? I mean, why does God say it is immoral; what properties does X hold that make it immoral?
G: I do not need to answer those questions, because God says it is immoral, and that's all there is to it.

This hypothetical question would leave me rather dissatisfied. But what G is saying when she says "Because God says that it is immoral" is actually "Because there is an objective moral fact that states that X is immoral".
And I would still say what about it is immoral etc.
And so, I have become G in this conversation, however, I lack God as a justification for moral realism and I'm stuck simply repeating "there is an objective moral fact about the matter".
But objective moral facts can't explain my morality, because my moral intuitions are actually just intellectual formations; I don't have them by virtue of being human. Someone less educated, or more educated, or from a different culture (I'm definitely not advocating relativism, here) would have different moral intuitions, so I cannot say that I have moral intuitions because of objective moral facts. Indeed, I (did?) believe there are objective moral facts by virtue of intellectual progression, with a belief that I am progressing closer to objective moral facts, when in reality I'm creating a conception of objective moral facts that fit where I have progressed to. I mean, even if objective moral facts had properties that made them objective moral facts, eg, 'we should not murder because it makes people unhappy', there is still has to be a moral property (utility) attached to the objective moral fact (well, for it to be defensible for me without God anyway, if I don't want to sound like a broken record repeating 'because it is an objective moral fact'). So, I may as well discard the objective moral fact and maintain whatever property I thought it was based on. But I do like virtue ethics... and now I have to think about virtue ethics without moral realism... Unless I wake up in the morning (night?) deciding that moral realism is okay again.
Hmm.



*I sincerely apologise to anyone unfortunate enough to decide to read my dawn scrawlings. If that made no sense... Good luck next time. I'm not even sure it made sense to me ... In fact, why did I even write that down?

[EvangelionZeta]

1. I probably value intentions as well in terms of individual morality, but I'd still point out that intuition is an awful justification for anything philosophically. Why should we trust our intuitions? It would have been intuitive for a Roman to say crucifying Christians was fine, it seems (or for the 18th century Englishman to say women shouldn't vote). Trusting intuitions is what actually leads to a relativistic construction of morality.

2. You could say that what you justified as moral progress can again easily be explained not as morality but rather in terms of political philosophy - that is, that these changes aren't progression in morals but rather more successful policy changes that create better relationships between government and people.

3. And yes, exactly - it's actually a very difficult position to defend.  I'd say to have any coherent moral realist viewpoint, it would be useful to start off with the very first principles - that is, metaphysics. What is your metaphysical position on reality? That might help you understand your meta-ethics by extension.

[spectroscopy]

But then Alex, don't you just disagree with that on a moral level? (and no need to apologise for the post, I kept the religious talk in this split thread because I saw it as a prelude to the morality discussion)

I mean, if Heaven and Hell exist, aren't they some sort of representation of what you deserve on a moral level?
And so, if someone lives their life on Christian principles quite well, eg. they give basically everything away and keep just enough for themselves to survive, they forgive, they love, etc etc etc, and essentially just live in the way that Jesus did - you could hardly say they deserved to go to Hell. But if they blasphemised - does that make someone an entirely immoral agent? I mean, going by your definition, Hitler could theoretically be in Heaven right now. It seems incongruent to me to disallow an almost perfect moral agent entrance to Heaven but allow it to Hitler or very immoral agents who repented.

if it straight up worked like that i would think its wierd, but repentence and being sorry for something are pretty similiar
like if someone has their perfect christian life, and they blasphemised, they would probably be upset about it and think "oh crap zz that was bad" (especially in contrast to the perfect christian life), they would be sorry, probably repent, then it would be okay
whereas with hitler if you kill millions of jews without batting and eyelid you most definetly aren't going to be sincere about any apology or repentence, plus he killed himself so yeah

but if you read scriptures there are plenty of mostly righteous people who do some bad things, but its out of character for them, and they actively try to better themself, so its all good i would think
God would know whose putting in the effort, who isnt, whose evil, whose nice, why you do bad things etc

once again sorry for the seemingly out of place post LOL just answering questions

[brightsky]

can i just ask: who here actually believes that the morality is objective (i.e. exists independently of human perception)? what are your reasons for believing this? if morality were objective, then it must have originated from something external, perhaps from something that necessarily exist. but the question is: from what? god? nature? also, who here believes that acting morally is in all instances equivalent to acting in a christian manner? christianity demands that we live in accordance with the word of god. but the thing is: what is the word of god and how are we to discover it?

[brenden]

1. I probably value intentions as well in terms of individual morality, but I'd still point out that intuition is an awful justification for anything philosophically. Why should we trust our intuitions? It would have been intuitive for a Roman to say crucifying Christians was fine, it seems (or for the 18th century Englishman to say women shouldn't vote). Trusting intuitions is what actually leads to a relativistic construction of morality.

2. You could say that what you justified as moral progress can again easily be explained not as morality but rather in terms of political philosophy - that is, that these changes aren't progression in morals but rather more successful policy changes that create better relationships between government and people.

3. And yes, exactly - it's actually a very difficult position to defend.  I'd say to have any coherent moral realist viewpoint, it would be useful to start off with the very first principles - that is, metaphysics. What is your metaphysical position on reality? That might help you understand your meta-ethics by extension.

1. Yeah, I think I kind of disregarded intuition as reasoning in my little dawn-insight. There was a bit of fallacious reasoning on my behalf where realism = intuition but intuition = realism which I should have identified sooner.

2. While it's a valid explanation and it fits nicely in the lock, I just don't think that gets all the pieces, y'know? I mean, yes, the government/governed relationship and better and xyz and everything that goes along with that, but whatever occurred I still think there's moral progress even by proxy. Slavery is immoral, and whatever progression maybe happen to abolish slavery, we have progressed there as well as morally, because.. welll... we aren't enslaving people lol.

3. I've never done any reading on metaphysics and I've been confused as anything about it since you asked me why I was different from my laptop screen in IRC a while ago . If it assists understand metaethics I might have to go into it, because I think ethics, meta or applied, might be the field I'm super keen on.


Thank you alex

can i just ask: who here actually believes that the morality is objective (i.e. exists independently of human perception)? what are your reasons for believing this? if morality were objective, then it must have originated from something external, perhaps from something that necessarily exist. but the question is: from what? god? nature? also, who here believes that acting morally is in all instances equivalent to acting in a christian manner? christianity demands that we live in accordance with the word of god. but the thing is: what is the word of god and how are we to discover it?

Well, up until last night I thought it was objective . I saw it pretty similar to mathematics. (But I was still fleshing it out, evidently, so my explanation will probably be dissatisfying). Mathematics ultimately exists independent of humanity but it's a language we use to describe things. This is sort of circular. Like, numbers are a human construction but regardless of what we've constructed there are still objective amounts, percentages, wavelengths and whatever else you freaky people calculate. And so I was thinking like, our morality is a descriptor we put on nature, ultimately perception or construction but synonymous with objective moral facts if you get me. I believed that mostly because I perceived morality as constant across time. Eg, I see what it 'right' today as right 1,000 years ago, but they were just immoral in their justice system and society etc.

On your second question. It depends what you define Christian as. I mean, some people like to get really deep into it and just say that Christianity is synonymous with love and love is the only rule and whatever else. And that's pretty sweet. My jimmies are settled, sure, love is great, I agree, if we love shit, the Good Life, here we come. I do like some tales of the New Testament as far as moral truths go. The Good Samaritan, for example -- I'm still trying to figure that one out (as above). But, simple answer, no, morality =/= Christian manner

[EvangelionZeta]

can i just ask: who here actually believes that the morality is objective (i.e. exists independently of human perception)? what are your reasons for believing this? if morality were objective, then it must have originated from something external, perhaps from something that necessarily exist. but the question is: from what? god? nature? also, who here believes that acting morally is in all instances equivalent to acting in a christian manner? christianity demands that we live in accordance with the word of god. but the thing is: what is the word of god and how are we to discover it?

I believe that "morality" is a construct, but that constructions are real, insofar that "reality" itself is all just a construct, so I am a moral realist in a sense, but also at the same time not really.  Does that make sense?

My reasons for believing this are also pretty much embedded within what I've just said (although justifying why "reality" as we understand it is a construct is a bit more laborsome, and I'm not sure I have the mental energy to do it atm).

Well, up until last night I thought it was objective . I saw it pretty similar to mathematics. (But I was still fleshing it out, evidently, so my explanation will probably be dissatisfying). Mathematics ultimately exists independent of humanity but it's a language we use to describe things. This is sort of circular.

Interestingly, I actually see "truth" as analogous to mathematics, and I think generally speaking acting in accordance to "truth" (which is in itself probably what I value as most important of all) corresponds to most of the things that we generally see as "moral", although that isn't necessarily because there is a sort of objective value attached to "truth", just that acting in accordance to "truth" tends to catalyse more beauty in the existences of the many, which is why in turn it often corresponds to what is "moral" (ie. what we would like upon society).

2. While it's a valid explanation and it fits nicely in the lock, I just don't think that gets all the pieces, y'know? I mean, yes, the government/governed relationship and better and xyz and everything that goes along with that, but whatever occurred I still think there's moral progress even by proxy. Slavery is immoral, and whatever progression maybe happen to abolish slavery, we have progressed there as well as morally, because.. welll... we aren't enslaving people lol.

But can you see how even your justification is kind of circular?  I completely understand your feelings (and you're doing valiantly here - please don't feel I'm attacking you, more just interrogating you :p), but you haven't really given a reason for why the government theory analysis doesn't hold other than "I FEEL LIKE THERE IS MORE".  How can you be certain that you're not just confusing "moral" objectively with what is inscribed as "moral" because it fits the framework of government that best serves the interests of the people as a whole?

[abeybaby]

Alex, you should follow the New Testament, if you are Judeo-Christian-to my knowledge, no where in the New Testament does it say those who commit suicide or are blasphemous cannot repent.
Technically, if you have ever exclaimed 'Jesus Christ' in anger, that is blasphemy.

Mark 3:29
but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”—

Luke 12:10
“And anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.

as alexx said, this isnt because some sins are forgivable, and others arent. its because actively choosing to reject god implies rejection of forgiveness and salvation as well.

EDIT: saying 'jesus christ', with as bad an intention as you like, wouldn't constitute blasphemy. the next verse in Mark explains why Jesus said this. it was because the pharisees had just rejected christ saying that he was demon possessed.

[Water]

I believe that "morality" is a construct, but that constructions are real, insofar that "reality" itself is all just a construct, so I am a moral realist in a sense, but also at the same time not really. 

If Reality is a Construct, Constructions are Real,

Therefore

Morality is a Construct


And then you allude to the statement

1. Truth is analogous to Mathematics (Maths is a construct)

2. There is a connection between Truth and Morality

3. Truth isn't objective per se

4. Acting in accordance to Truth catalyzes Beauty

5. There is a correspondence between Truth and Morality

Therefore Morality is not objective per se

And Acting with Morality Catalyzes Beauty



So can Morality be destructive?