NationStates Jolt Archive

I just felt it was about time we tackled the big one: we've had the moral case for anarchy, gay-marriage, eating eggs from both the small and little end, republicanism, democracy, capitalism, communism, toothpaste, ball bearings, Typhoid Mary, Nazism, anti-Nazism, ad nauseam... but still there is something missing.


So who here is brave enough to try and make a convincing moral case for morality itself?

Why should I be good?

Why should I be moral?

Enlighten me, oh enlightened ones...

Lol, I was going to make a thread very similar to this one once (with a very similar title), but fear of it being construed as spam (and hence being deleted by the mods) prevented me from doing so.

I just felt it was about time we tackled the big one: we've had the moral case for anarchy, gay-marriage, eating eggs from both the small and little end, republicanism, democracy, capitalism, communism, toothpaste, ball bearings, Typhoid Mary, Nazism, anti-Nazism, ad nauseam... but still there is something missing.


So who here is brave enough to try and make a convincing moral case for morality itself?

Why should I be good?

Why should I be moral?

Enlighten me, oh enlightened ones...
the great butter toast demands it

Lol, I was going to make a thread very similar to this one once (with a very similar title), but fear of it being construed as spam (and hence being deleted by the mods) prevented me from doing so.

Which seems to suggest that you don't believe there is a moral case for morality: thus we might as well make a simple arbitrary choice as to whether we will be moral or not. What I'm looking for is someone who will try and explain why we should or must be moral.

the great butter toast demands it

OK, fair enough, call it 'the great butter toast' or call it 'God' or call it 'Goodness' or whatever - it may demand it, but why should or must we listen and obey. Many people demand many things off me, but that doesn't mean I am compelled to give in to their demands.

You can't make a moral case for morality. That's like asking for a scientific defense of science. If the validity of science were being questioned, any attempt use of science to defend itself would be inherently questioned as well, making it moot point.

You can't make a moral case for morality.

So can one make a case for morality on any other basis?

So can one make a case for morality on any other basis?

Putting aside that it would defeat the original question of the topic, one could attempt to argue that morality is beneficial from a strictly factual point of view. Compare a society/person who embraces some form of morality against one which embraces none.

Examine their physical and mental health, their financial situation, their impact on society and other people, and so forth. Extrapolate. Present.

Putting aside that it would defeat the original question of the topic, one could attempt to argue that morality is beneficial from a strictly factual point of view. Compare a society/person who embraces some form of morality against one which embraces none.

Examine their physical and mental health, their financial situation, their impact on society and other people, and so forth. Extrapolate. Present.

Presupposes that we have a moral standard by which to judge these values. A purely factual point of view may shows us that a person leading one type of lifestyle lives longer than a person leading a different kind of lifestyle, but we have no grounds to judge one as better or worse a result than the other. Nor do we have a standard to compare the different measurements - take Uncle Joe Stalin dying quietly in his luxurious bed in the midst of untroubled sleep, how can we determine whether this peaceful and happy death is overshadowed by the millions of deaths he has caused.

Measurements are of little use without system to interprete them.

EDIT: I'll express this more clearly - you use the word 'beneficial', from latin bene or 'good': thus we see the circularity clearly exposed. In order to decide what is beneficial, we first need to know what is good, and in order to know what is good, we need to have a moral/ethical framework by which to judge it.

So who here is brave enough to try and make a convincing moral case for morality itself?

Why should I be good?

Why should I be moral?

Enlighten me, oh enlightened ones...
Because it feels right.

Because it feels right.

Thus whatever feels right to a particular individual is moral?

I think we would also need to examine what 'feels right' means here - are you using it in the case of 'feels pleasureable' or 'feels ethical'?

Thus whatever feels right to a particular individual is moral?
No. I was answering the questions you'd asked. "Why should I..."
I think we would also need to examine what 'feels right' means here - are you using it in the case of 'feels pleasureable' or 'feels ethical'?
One should do what is good and moral because it feels right.

If you want to get into what is good and moral, as you obviously do, that's a horse of another colour. Moral codes can be drawn from ethics, from philosophy, from religious doctrine and tradition, etc. An individual's moral code is a pick-and-choose mish-mosh of all learning they receive in their life-times. They pick and choose what feels right.

Presupposes that we have a moral standard by which to judge these values. A purely factual point of view may shows us that a person leading one type of lifestyle lives longer than a person leading a different kind of lifestyle, but we have no grounds to judge one as better or worse a result than the other. Nor do we have a standard to compare the different measurements - take Uncle Joe Stalin dying quietly in his luxurious bed in the midst of untroubled sleep, how can we determine whether this peaceful and happy death is overshadowed by the millions of deaths he has caused.

Measurements are of little use without system to interprete them.

EDIT: I'll express this more clearly - you use the word 'beneficial', from latin bene or 'good': thus we see the circularity clearly exposed. In order to decide what is beneficial, we first need to know what is good, and in order to know what is good, we need to have a moral/ethical framework by which to judge it.

I'm sorry, but no. Not all relative truth is a moral truth. The standard could be based on a variety of things: the opinion of the researcher(s) (again noting that not every opinion is a moral), the consensus of the majority, or simply using standards which are most likely to continue existence (which is something most, if not all, people are safely assumed to be in favour of).

I would also go so far as to suggest you are clouding the question; in example:

how can we determine whether this peaceful and happy death is overshadowed by the millions of deaths he has caused

Nobody every said the study would produce undeniable results, nor that it would uncover absolute truth. It is entirely possible that the results would be strictly factual, and left open to interpretation by the individual. Again, not all relative interpretation is moral interpretation.

Plato's Republic makes a halfway decent LOGICAL argument for morality, except he calls it Justice. I could paraphrase it, but I'm tired. Look it up.

Hey Sydenia, how's it going? And being moral is such a vague thing. There are a million ways to translate that and people of course have different beliefs on it.

No. I was answering the questions you'd asked. "Why should I..."

Universalise it for a moment: what you and I feel as right may be very different things, and thus we would have two very different moralities, possibly incompatible. This may or may not be a problem to you.

One should do what is good and moral because it feels right.

You still haven't explained what you mean by 'feels right' - pleasurable? ethical?

Plato's Republic makes a halfway decent LOGICAL argument for morality, except he calls it Justice. I could paraphrase it, but I'm tired. Look it up.

Yeah, yeah, the intellect regulating the interplay of the three elements in the individual - the intellect itself, the thumos and the base appetities. However when we actually look for something more concrete than this it becomes abstracted off into the mystical contact that he claims a philosopher could have with the form of the good. His argument is based on the claim that doing unethical things causes harm to the individual, by disturbing his supposed perfect balance as was described above.

Hey Sydenia, how's it going? And being moral is such a vague thing. There are a million ways to translate that and people of course have different beliefs on it.

I've seen better days, but thanks for asking. ^_^; I have a rather nasty headcold at the moment, so I'm pretty miserable.

An individual's moral code is a pick-and-choose mish-mosh of all learning they receive in their life-times. They pick and choose what feels right.

Which thus points out how ludicrous all the 'moral case for x' threads are, other than as platforms for debating morality.

Once again we have this phrase 'feels right' being used - what do you mean by it? Feels ethical/feels useful/feels pleasent/feels some other way?

Which seems to suggest that you don't believe there is a moral case for morality: thus we might as well make a simple arbitrary choice as to whether we will be moral or not. What I'm looking for is someone who will try and explain why we should or must be moral.

A definition of "morality" we can all agree on would be nice for starters, although I seriously doubt we could find one.

Betterment of society. Destruction, rape, all that stuff tend to backlash against the person who committed them. That is, if you need a reason for morality it would be what could happen if you treat people horribly and cause harm.

Morality in itself though is a debatable and opinionated topic...

Which seems to suggest that you don't believe there is a moral case for morality: thus we might as well make a simple arbitrary choice as to whether we will be moral or not. What I'm looking for is someone who will try and explain why we should or must be moral.
Your question is interesting, but flawed.
To ask the question, you must have already have accepted morality - otherwise you wouldn't *care* whether morality is moral. However, you can refuse the question in a number of interesting ways: why should I *remain* moral, why should someone *start* being moral, etc.
But I'm inclined to go back to - because you already accept morality. You would be horrified if your closest friends/relatives turned on you, yes? That is a moral judgement. As you are gaining the benefits of morality, and have been throughout your life (starting with your parents not exposing you on a hillside, as they were entitled to do 2000 years ago) it would be hypocritical to accept the benefits without accepting the obligations. Of course, someone who is basically immoral won't care, but you can't morally be immoral - that would be hypocritical.
Hmm, I hope that is understandable. Both Q&A turn in on themselves, making them difficult to talk about coherently.
Something you might like to ask - what gives morality the right to judge you?

A definition of "morality" we can all agree on would be nice for starters, although I seriously doubt we could find one.

I'll throw one out onto the floor for public dissection... off the top of my head: "a system of actions or behaviour which human beings are in some way required or compelled to chose, although they are free to chose otherwise".

Sink your analytical teeth into that and we shall see if we can at least get a reasonable working definition going here.

A definition of "morality" we can all agree on would be nice for starters, although I seriously doubt we could find one.
Definitions are normally composed of other words, which in turn need to be defined - with other words. Defintions aren't useful unless you already have terms for which everyone agrees on their meaning.
For this question, we'd better off going for a specific example. Frex - you are in a burning house. There is a baby in the house which will burn to death unless you personally rescue the child. Why should you rescue the child?

Your question is interesting, but flawed.
To ask the question, you must have already have accepted morality - otherwise you wouldn't *care* whether morality is moral.

I could just be looking for intellectual stimulation.

Something you might like to ask - what gives morality the right to judge you?

I have said in the past that the compulsion to be good is the greatest tyranny.

I'll throw one out onto the floor for public dissection... off the top of my head: "a system of actions or behaviour which human beings are in some way required or compelled to chose, although they are free to chose otherwise".

Sink your analytical teeth into that and we shall see if we can at least get a reasonable working definition going here.
Peer pressure, the law, mind influencing drugs, mental derangements, honour codes, mob rule - these all create systems which would be considered 'morality' by this definition.
Nice try though!

Betterment of society. Destruction, rape, all that stuff tend to backlash against the person who committed them. That is, if you need a reason for morality it would be what could happen if you treat people horribly and cause harm.

So without society there is no morality? So for Robinson Crusoe cast adrift and finding himself on a desert Island there was no morality until he encountered Man Friday? So when you shut your bedroom door at night, whatever you get up to in there, provided it doesn't go beyond those four walls and affect anyone in society is neither moral nor immoral but rather ammoral?

Definitions are normally composed of other words, which in turn need to be defined - with other words. Defintions aren't useful unless you already have terms for which everyone agrees on their meaning.
For this question, we'd better off going for a specific example. Frex - you are in a burning house. There is a baby in the house which will burn to death unless you personally rescue the child. Why should you rescue the child?

From a strictly biological perspective, I would have to conclude the following, in descending order of priority:

1. Because the child is my own offspring and carries my genes and is thus my future.

2. Because the child is an offspring of another member of my family ( related to me by blood ) and thus carries PART of my genes, and the child is thus my family's future.

3. Because the child is a human being and carries the genes of the human race, of which I am part, and is thus part of all our future.

Peer pressure, the law, mind influencing drugs, mental derangements, honour codes, mob rule - these all create systems which would be considered 'morality' by this definition.
Nice try though!

It was intended as a starting point rather than a be-all-and-end-all. How could you tweak it to make it more useful to the discussion at hand?

I just felt it was about time we tackled the big one: we've had the moral case for anarchy, gay-marriage, eating eggs from both the small and little end, republicanism, democracy, capitalism, communism, toothpaste, ball bearings, Typhoid Mary, Nazism, anti-Nazism, ad nauseam... but still there is something missing.


So who here is brave enough to try and make a convincing moral case for morality itself?

Why should I be good?

Why should I be moral?

Enlighten me, oh enlightened ones...

First before I answer anything a definition on "moral" should be in place. My definition i use is: what enhance and improve [your] human life.

And hence, why would you ever want to improve your own life? Why would you want to live a long happy life? I find it self evident, as I love myself and see my life as my ultimate goal ;)

How does this sound as a rationale for morality:

1. At least as we know so far, life is a relative rarity in the universe.

2. I am a part of life.

3. It then becomes a major function of my existence to protect and nurture that of which I am a part.

I could just be looking for intellectual stimulation.
True. However, if that is the case, you will feel no obligation to act morally even if the case if proven.



I have said in the past that the compulsion to be good is the greatest tyranny.
Cool, we're on the same page. Now -assume that this is the case: can you ethically encourage such a tyranny? If morality is in and of itself immoral, surely if you intend to be moral, then defying the compulsion is the true 'good'?
Yet that 'true good' is in and of itself a compulsion. Either the compulsion to be moral is morally justifiable or there is no morality....

Universalise it for a moment: what you and I feel as right may be very different things, and thus we would have two very different moralities, possibly incompatible. This may or may not be a problem to you.
Not a problem.
You still haven't explained what you mean by 'feels right' - pleasurable? ethical?
Why do you feel a need to relate "right" to "pleasure"? *just curious* :-)

I mean "right", as opposed to "wrong".

Not a problem.

Why do you feel a need to relate "right" to "pleasure"? *just curious* :-)

A linguistic artifact - people sometimes say "this feels so right" as a different way of saying "this feels so pleasurable".

I mean "right", as opposed to "wrong".

Thus you are basically saying "we should do what is good and moral because it feels good and moral"? Why shouldn't we do what is bad and immoral because it feels bad an immoral?

Betterment of society. Destruction, rape, all that stuff tend to backlash against the person who committed them.
So, if killing of the handicapped, aged etc benefits society, it is moral?

On backlash - so if you don't get caught, it's moral?

Which thus points out how ludicrous all the 'moral case for x' threads are, other than as platforms for debating morality.
Not really. Each provides their moral case for 'x'. I, for one, have modified my ideas of what is moral by listening to some well thought out and rational arguments.

How does this sound as a rationale for morality:

1. At least as we know so far, life is a relative rarity in the universe.

2. I am a part of life.

3. It then becomes a major function of my existence to protect and nurture that of which I am a part.

Barring starting a nuclear war etc, none of my decisions can reduce the number of planets which have life.
This planet teems with life, and is often overcrowded.
Further, living requires eating other living things, or at least (for plants) crowding them out space, preventing them from spreading.
So if living is important, I should suppress other lifeforms whenever I get the chance.
Response?

True. However, if that is the case, you will feel no obligation to act morally even if the case if proven.

Ping! "Obligation". An important word - whether we like it or not we (being of sound mind) feel obliged to be moral to some extent.



Cool, we're on the same page. Now -assume that this is the case: can you ethically encourage such a tyranny? If morality is in and of itself immoral, surely if you intend to be moral, then defying the compulsion is the true 'good'?
Yet that 'true good' is in and of itself a compulsion. Either the compulsion to be moral is morally justifiable or there is no morality....

Well, if we accept the compulsion to be moral we do so at the expense of making decisions which are immoral: thus we are trading our free will for a pre-ordained set of 'correct' responses (assuming that we do in fact have free will).

For this question, we'd better off going for a specific example. Frex - you are in a burning house. There is a baby in the house which will burn to death unless you personally rescue the child. Why should you rescue the child?
Because I can, and it feels right.

Because I can, and it feels right.

If I could, but it didn't feel right to me, would I be immoral not to save the child?

I have said in the past that the compulsion to be good is the greatest tyranny.
One can be tyranical over oneself?

From a strictly biological perspective, I would have to conclude the following, in descending order of priority:

1. Because the child is my own offspring and carries my genes and is thus my future.

2. Because the child is an offspring of another member of my family ( related to me by blood ) and thus carries PART of my genes, and the child is thus my family's future.

3. Because the child is a human being and carries the genes of the human race, of which I am part, and is thus part of all our future.

The simple response to this is - the younger a child is, the more likely the child is to die before reproducing. Biologically, you should abandon a child to save a young adult, given the choice, as they're more likely to reproduce.

Biological arguments aren't terribly convincing. If morality existed to ensure reproduction, the strongest moral impulse would be to reproduce.

Because I can, and it feels right.
This *describes* morality qute nicely, but it doesn't *explain* morality. Here we are question why it feels right, and we should care.

Biological arguments aren't terribly convincing.

Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.
- JBS Haldane.

:)

Presupposes that we have a moral standard by which to judge these values. A purely factual point of view may shows us that a person leading one type of lifestyle lives longer than a person leading a different kind of lifestyle, but we have no grounds to judge one as better or worse a result than the other. Nor do we have a standard to compare the different measurements - take Uncle Joe Stalin dying quietly in his luxurious bed in the midst of untroubled sleep, how can we determine whether this peaceful and happy death is overshadowed by the millions of deaths he has caused.

Measurements are of little use without system to interprete them.

EDIT: I'll express this more clearly - you use the word 'beneficial', from latin bene or 'good': thus we see the circularity clearly exposed. In order to decide what is beneficial, we first need to know what is good, and in order to know what is good, we need to have a moral/ethical framework by which to judge it.

...but see, there is another type of "good" we can judge by, and that is the pleasure principle. A healthy, wealthy, well-liked person lives a more pleasurable life than someone who is not. Therefore, if following a morality leads to these states, then morality is "good" because it gets us to a place we like.

Ping! "Obligation". An important word - whether we like it or not we (being of sound mind) feel obliged to be moral to some extent.
And despite the claims of wildly differing societies and individuals, morality tends to be very standardised - making a mockery of the "what's right for you" approach to morality.

Well, if we accept the compulsion to be moral we do so at the expense of making decisions which are immoral: thus we are trading our free will for a pre-ordained set of 'correct' responses (assuming that we do in fact have free will).
No...because we can accept or reget the compulsion, free will is never violated. As you've pointed out, this assume the existence of free will.

...but see, there is another type of "good" we can judge by, and that is the pleasure principle.

Well, we could just stop there and opt for an Epicurean view of morality.

A healthy, wealthy, well-liked person lives a more pleasurable life than someone who is not.

Not neccesarilly.

I just felt it was about time we tackled the big one: we've had the moral case for anarchy, gay-marriage, eating eggs from both the small and little end, republicanism, democracy, capitalism, communism, toothpaste, ball bearings, Typhoid Mary, Nazism, anti-Nazism, ad nauseam... but still there is something missing.

It's no surprise that you are the one to bring up this discussion, BWO. :)

So who here is brave enough to try and make a convincing moral case for morality itself?

You're asking me to make a circular argument? I thought you had a mild aversion to fallacies...

Why should I be good?

Why should I be moral?

Those sound like personal questions. I suggest you answer them in person, so to speak. ;)

Enlighten me, oh enlightened ones...

No need to condescend, BWO.

Thus you are basically saying "we should do what is good and moral because it feels good and moral"? Why shouldn't we do what is bad and immoral because it feels bad an immoral?
Because doing bad feels bad... but you probably knew I was going to say that.

Morals are, in part, directly defined by feelings, hence the linguistic "pleasure" euphamism. Hence, too, for an example, the reason so many people arguing a pro-homosexual stance will accuse their opponents of hatred or homophobia, because they imagine their opponents must "feel" their moral stance. However "right" might be felt out by the individual (and it needn't necessarily involve pleasure), "wrong" does undeniably involve feeling bad about the moral choice/action (inspiring uncomfortable emotions like guilt).

Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins.
- JBS Haldane.

:)
Yeah, I've read it before.
I don't believe him, I reckon he'd let them all die.

Now - is it 'moral' to bully your children into getting married and having children of their own? Is it 'immoral' to fail to do so? If morality is purely biology, then the answers are yes: but the people who do so strike me as being very immoral.

No...because we can accept or reget the compulsion, free will is never violated. As you've pointed out, this assume the existence of free will.

'reject'?

But are we ever free to chose to do the evil thing? I guess this is just heading towards the old existentialist saw that we must be able to chose to carry out 'evil' acts in order to show to ourselves that we are in fact human beings.
The assumption of free will is pretty much a given in just about any system of morality - if we have no free will the whole question is irrelevant. We can't even bother asking whether we should do X or Y, because the choice is pre-ordained. If we have no free will then morality flounders.

*******

Far too late in the night for me right now. Later.

You're asking me to make a circular argument? I thought you had a mild aversion to fallacies...

Not necessarilly: it may be that as human beings we have some form of inescapable compulsion which provides the foundation for morality. It could be that there is a given proto-morality which drives us towards the systems we are familiar with.

An aversion to fallacies, me? No, I love them, and take great pleasure in hunting them down.

No need to condescend, BWO.

Well, I wasn't actually condescending at anyone in particular there - the topic was empty before I got here. I wonder if that means all those who have posted in the topic have thereby given tacit consent to being condescended at by me?

No harm was meant by it.

(assuming that we do in fact have free will).
Did you choose to click on the mouse and post that? If so, then free will exists.

If I could, but it didn't feel right to me, would I be immoral not to save the child?
Excellent ethics question. Of course, every individual would have to answer it for themselves. I cannot answer for you, but for me, yes, I would judge that immoral for either me or you to do.

Did you choose to click on the mouse and post that? If so, then free will exists.

Which just leads to questions concerning how I could tell whether I did actually chose to do so, or if I only appeared to chose. As far as I can reckon it, it isn't actually important whether we do have free will or not, because the illusion of it (if we lack free will) remains inescapable.

Why should you be "moral" ?

Why should you respect the rights of others to life and property and fair exchange?

Because if you dont, we will put you in jail
or kill you.

Excellent ethics question. Of course, every individual would have to answer it for themselves. I cannot answer for you, but for me, yes, I would judge that immoral for either me or you to do.

What if it didn't feel right for me because I knew the infant was infected with the most virulent and destructibe disease known to mankind, and the only way to stop the spread of this new disease was to leave the infant in its terrible isolation?

Why should you be "moral" ?

Why should you respect the rights of others to life and property and fair exchange?

Because if you dont, we will put you in jail
or kill you.

So, in order to guard the right to life it is necessary to take away the right to life?

Not necessarilly: it may be that as human beings we have some form of inescapable compulsion which provides the foundation for morality. It could be that there is a given proto-morality which drives us towards the systems we are familiar with.

I believe the compulsion you are referring to is survival instinct, the biological need to preserve the species. Since that is partially what I base my morality on then I would still be making a circular argument, and it would be fallacious.

An aversion to fallacies, me? No, I love them, and take great pleasure in hunting them down.

Dammit, you always have a snappy comeback. :)


Did you choose to click on the mouse and post that?

I suggest you ask that question of yourself, and give it very serious consideration. Was there some sort of psychological need to display your dominance compelling you to post? Was it just the natural result of many factors coming together to produce the correct sequence of chemical releases in your brain that caused you to post?

What if it didn't feel right for me because I knew the infant was infected with the most virulent and destructibe disease known to mankind, and the only way to stop the spread of this new disease was to leave the infant in its terrible isolation?
Then, with this new information, what is "right" is redefined ...for you.

Feeling is part of defining "right", another is rationale.

Rationally, I define good as "what is beneficial for life and the quality of life" but I'll temper that with my emotions and compassionate nature. All internal processes are necessary to feel out "right" and "wrong", not just any one.

So, in order to guard the right to life it is necessary to take away the right to life?

Absolutely and without doubt.

People only treat eachother well when the negative consequences of failing to do so outweigh the positive ones.

At least the vast majority of people, there are some genuinely nice individuals who are statistically insignificant.

I suggest you ask that question of yourself, and give it very serious consideration. Was there some sort of psychological need to display your dominance compelling you to post? Was it just the natural result of many factors coming together to produce the correct sequence of chemical releases in your brain that caused you to post?
No, it just felt right. ;-)

Absolutely and without doubt.

So the right to life is given only by the state?

You are Thomas Hobbes and I claim my five pounds.

So the right to life is given only by the state?

You are Thomas Hobbes and I claim my five pounds.



The right to life is granted by anyone with the capacity to take life.

Most people generally refrain from ending other people's lives because they fear the consequences that their society would make them face.

This applies especially to people in positions where there is no consequence for hurting others. Secret police agents, mercenaries, etc etc.

This applies especially to people in positions where there is no consequence for hurting others. Secret police agents, mercenaries, etc etc.
There are always consequences to any moral choice made by thinking, feeling human beings.

The right to life is granted by anyone with the capacity to take life.

No man may own life, but anybody that can pick up a frying pan owns death
- William S. Burroughs

Most people generally refrain from ending other people's lives because they fear the consequences that their society would make them face.

So in order to free people from violent coercion and oppression it is necessary to violently coerce and oppress them?

Going back a bit: why are 'genuinely nice individuals' statistically insignificant, but genuinely 'evil' individuals not?

People only treat eachother well when the negative consequences of failing to do so outweigh the positive ones.
I wanted to reply to this but I had a hard time wrapping my brain around "positive" and "negative" consequences. Can you explain what you mean by that?

People treat each other well because the positive feedback they get outweighs the negative feedback they would get from treating others poorly.

I wanted to reply to this but I had a hard time wrapping my brain around "positive" and "negative" consequences. Can you explain what you mean by that?

People treat each other well because the positive feedback they get outweighs the negative feedback they would get from treating others poorly.

The positive consequences of killing your next door neighbor, raping his wife and daughter, enslaving his son and selling his belongings are:
Fun sex, a slave to do stuff for you, money.

The negative consequences of doing those things (in america at least) are:
Life imprisonment, possibly death.

Most people tend to opt to find ways to have fun, get stuff done and get money that dont run the risk of getting them incarcerated or killed.

No man may own life, but anybody that can pick up a frying pan owns death
- William S. Burroughs



(A)So in order to free people from violent coercion and oppression it is necessary to violently coerce and oppress them?

(B)Going back a bit: why are 'genuinely nice individuals' statistically insignificant, but genuinely 'evil' individuals not?


A) Yes, absolutely. A little violent coercion and oppression in just the right place can do wonders to prevent a whole huge great deal of it down the road.

Its like a surgeon who has to cut holes into somone and destroy parts of his body to fix a problem and save his life.


B) The most a 'genuinely nice individual' can do is refrain from hurting others.
A genuinely evil individual can do massive harm to great numbers of people.

No, it just felt right. ;-)

I'll take that as a yes. :D

Disclaimer: I'm no theologian or moral expert. You could probably find good answers to your questions if you dug down and did some research.

I assume religous arguments are out the window for this discussion. If you are religous, there's your reason.

Other than that, there are a few reasons I can think of. I'm sure that there are more.
First, a moral society is more efficient and functions better than an immoral society. Things like murder and theft harm the progress of society in several ways which I'm sure you all understand. Even things like cheating on a spouse can cause distrust amongst a community and can distract from the push to better the community as a whole. I think that overall a perfectly moral community would be as close to utopia as possible. With everyone pulling on the same end of the rope, the community would have better living conditions for all.

So, what if you lived in this perfectly moral community and you decided to take advantage of that by being immoral??
-You would alientate yourself from the community
-Possibly end up in jail
-Ruin the dynamic of the community and possibly influence others to follow your path of deliquency, ultimately harming you.
-Create what would probably be a less comfortable situation than if you followed morality.

Obviously this is an ultrageneralized way of putting it. I'm going to leave it up to you to think of different moral situations and put it into this scenario. Morals were made for a reason and that is, in large part, because the majority of people realize we need these rules to function better as a society. If you step out of line and try to take advantage of this, people wont like you and ultimately it will end up harming you. There's certainly a "greater good" motivation behind morals.

There are some moral rules at first glance don't seem to follow this. For example, it's considered immoral to view pornography. Is this hurting society(or you) to view porn? It could be argued that it does. I would say that on average, men who view pornography objectify women more so than men who don't and ultimately treat women with less respect. This, it could be argued, hurts relationships and harms the community in general. Also, viewing pornography could lead to more sexual activity and then to unwanted pregnency. This seems like a stretch, but it holds true from what I've observed.

Disclaimer: I'm no theologian or moral expert. You could probably find good answers to your questions if you dug down and did some research.

I assume religous arguments are out the window for this discussion. If you are religous, there's your reason.

Other than that, there are a few reasons I can think of. I'm sure that there are more.
First, a moral society is more efficient and functions better than an immoral society. Things like murder and theft harm the progress of society in several ways which I'm sure you all understand. Even things like cheating on a spouse can cause distrust amongst a community and can distract from the push to better the community as a whole. I think that overall a perfectly moral community would be as close to utopia as possible. With everyone pulling on the same end of the rope, the community would have better living conditions for all.

So, what if you lived in this perfectly moral community and you decided to take advantage of that by being immoral??
-You would alientate yourself from the community
-Possibly end up in jail
-Ruin the dynamic of the community and possibly influence others to follow your path of deliquency, ultimately harming you.
-Create what would probably be a less comfortable situation than if you followed morality.

Obviously this is an ultrageneralized way of putting it. I'm going to leave it up to you to think of different moral situations and put it into this scenario. Morals were made for a reason and that is, in large part, because the majority of people realize we need these rules to function better as a society. If you step out of line and try to take advantage of this, people wont like you and ultimately it will end up harming you. There's certainly a "greater good" motivation behind morals.

There are some moral rules at first glance don't seem to follow this. For example, it's considered immoral to view pornography. Is this hurting society(or you) to view porn? It could be argued that it does. I would say that on average, men who view pornography objectify women more so than men who don't and ultimately treat women with less respect. This, it could be argued, hurts relationships and harms the community in general. Also, viewing pornography could lead to more sexual activity and then to unwanted pregnency. This seems like a stretch, but it holds true from what I've observed.

Excellent post! I agree with most of what you have to say. How does this sound as a ( very brief ) rationale for morality:

1. At least as we know so far, life is a relative rarity in the universe.

2. I am a part of life.

3. It then becomes a major function of my existence to protect and nurture that of which I am a part.

I just felt it was about time we tackled the big one: we've had the moral case for anarchy, gay-marriage, eating eggs from both the small and little end, republicanism, democracy, capitalism, communism, toothpaste, ball bearings, Typhoid Mary, Nazism, anti-Nazism, ad nauseam... but still there is something missing.


So who here is brave enough to try and make a convincing moral case for morality itself?

Why should I be good?

Why should I be moral?

Enlighten me, oh enlightened ones...

i couldn't (and wouldn't) try to make a moral case for morality. there isn't one, and shouldn't be one. the ONLY case for morality is practicality; i believe there is ample evidence for the conclusion that acting in a "moral" manner will increase your likelihood of leading a happy life. however, we would have to define "moral" very carefully, since there are many things i believe are perfectly moral which society at large decries as sins. i don't know that i have the energy to fully define morality in my view...perhaps after i have some coffee...

There isn't really an ultimate, logical reason for morality, anymore than there is an ultimate, logical reason to do anything. There's no reason to eat good food, but people like the taste and choose it over bad food. Likewise, the emotional impact is the only real basis of morality.

My view is that humans have one inherent characteristic, the ability to choose. Their choices can be divided into one of two categories: actions motivated by love and kindness and actions motivated by hate and malice. This ability to choose is key to being human.

Actions that are motivated by love and kindness are good because they make others happier and those motivated by hate make others feel worse. The worse action is one that denies the choice between love and hate because it takes away one's humanity itself.

My view is that humans have one inherent characteristic, the ability to choose. Their choices can be divided into one of two categories: actions motivated by love and kindness and actions motivated by hate and malice. This ability to choose is key to being human.




Under which half of your dichotomy do actions motivated purely by personal gain fall?

Under which half of your dichotomy do actions motivated purely by personal gain fall?

They are morally neutral unless they hurt others.

The positive consequences of killing your next door neighbor, raping his wife and daughter, enslaving his son and selling his belongings are:
Fun sex, a slave to do stuff for you, money.

The negative consequences of doing those things (in america at least) are:
Life imprisonment, possibly death.

Most people tend to opt to find ways to have fun, get stuff done and get money that dont run the risk of getting them incarcerated or killed.
So "positive consequences" benefit the one who undertakes action, and "negative consequences" harm the one who undertakes action?

So to say "People only treat eachother well when the negative consequences of failing to do so outweigh the positive ones" makes no sense, since if you do nothing ("fail to do so") then there will be no consequences, either "positive" or "negative".

Or do you mean that "People treat each other well only when the benefits of doing so outweigh the harm of doing so."?

Its like a surgeon who has to cut holes into somone and destroy parts of his body to fix a problem and save his life.

Ah, excellent, this is the first time I've actually read someone advocating the organic theory of the state here on NationStates. So, it is perfectly ethical to set up extermiantion camps for the enemies of the state and excise them from its body politic as one would cut out a cancer?

It seems to me that your position here is just that might makes right: that you advocate a slightly tempered moral system as a result which favours minimizing harm is irrelevant. Once you accept that morality is the result of brute force or weaselish cunning you have to realise that the state only holds authority as long as it holds the upper hand - if it is overthrown by force or subversion, then the agents that do so create the new moral framework which comes after it.

Working from a basis of might makes right it is as equally valid to setup a moral system which approves rape and murder and carnage as to set up the kind of sentimental system that you have advocated which gives some kind of positive value to minimizing harm.

Ah, excellent, this is the first time I've actually read someone advocating the organic theory of the state here on NationStates. So, it is perfectly ethical to set up extermiantion camps for the enemies of the state and excise them from its body politic as one would cut out a cancer?***

It seems to me that your position here is just that might makes right: that you advocate a slightly tempered moral system as a result which favours minimizing harm is irrelevant. Once you accept that morality is the result of brute force or weaselish cunning you have to realise that the state only holds authority as long as it holds the upper hand - if it is overthrown by force or subversion, then the agents that do so create the new moral framework which comes after it.

Working from a basis of might makes right it is as equally valid to setup a moral system which approves rape and murder and carnage as to set up the kind of sentimental system that you have advocated which gives some kind of positive value to minimizing harm.


---
*** - Rotten liar.

I never said anything even remotely approaching that.
---
Do not try and cast aspersions upon my charactar by equating the good of the populace with the good of the state and then implying that I am a fascist.

Would-be fascists are just the sort of people a good government is in the business of killing or incarcerating - because they are threats to the population.


Every country in the world *does* have concentration camps for enemies of the public good (and in fascist societies enemies of the state) - they are called "jails" and "prisons."

The US and other less-than-civilized countries have extermination camps too (death row or the like).

Construing what I said as an advocacy of fascism is ludicrous. What I expressed was an opinion about the necessity of government force to *protect public good.*

Societies all tolerate armed police forces because they trust that the government will not turn those forces against them.

So "positive consequences" benefit the one who undertakes action, and "negative consequences" harm the one who undertakes action?

So to say "People only treat eachother well when the negative consequences of failing to do so outweigh the positive ones" makes no sense, since if you do nothing ("fail to do so") then there will be no consequences, either "positive" or "negative".

Or do you mean that "People treat each other well only when the benefits of doing so outweigh the harm of doing so."?


I mean that people generally do things that benefit themselves or those they care about.

People rarely ever deliberately do things that harm themselves or those they care about.

Crazy people are an exception, but one so small it is insignificant.

So, it is perfectly ethical to set up extermiantion camps for the enemies of the state and excise them from its body politic as one would cut out a cancer?***---
*** - Rotten liar.

I never said anything even remotely approaching that.

Well, it was you that brought up the organic theory of the state with your analogy to the surgeon:

"Its like a surgeon who has to cut holes into somone and destroy parts of his body to fix a problem and save his life."

In order to save the body it is sometimes necessary to destroy parts of it: be they cancers, gangrenous limbs or other malignities. Thus you justify the execution of criminals. I extend your principle so as to cover those who actively work against the public good or the state itself, and see that your metaphor suggests that they should be removed from the body politic and destroyed as one would remove and destroy a cancer. Explain to me why the validity of the metaphor breaks down at this point, given that you have already claimed that the right to life is only granted by those with the ability to take away that life, which shows there is nothing privileged or particularly important about the taking of a life.

Also, if you would be so kind as to explain to me how I can be a liar when I am asking a question, then that would be very much appreciated.

Construing what I said as an advocacy of fascism is ludicrous. What I expressed was an opinion about the necessity of government force to *protect public good.*

Fascism in its basic principle puts the state (or the totality of the public) above the individual - thus if an individual is a troublemaker they have few if any rights - they are a cancer in the body of the state and action is taken to deal with them.

... it may be that as human beings we have some form of inescapable compulsion which provides the foundation for morality. It could be that there is a given proto-morality which drives us towards the systems we are familiar with.

....


There might be something in here. We might be able to define morality by examining those considered immoral by all except themselves.

For example, we could take a very basic view of morality, perhaps something like, help others if the cost to yourself is not prohibitive, don't hurt others gratuitously. Those that do not adhere to such a morality tend to be termed psycopaths or sociopaths.

Now I believe there's research into physical differences in the brains of such people, and, from memory (though I may be wrong) there's some evidence that the brains of psycopaths are wired differently. But that's not critical to my argument.

If my model holds, and (fundamental) morality is a behavioural norm, then the moral case for morality becomes trivial. It's simply that of preserving the norm in an altruistic society.

Then again, it's late and I could have missed something very obvious.

There might be something in here. We might be able to define morality by examining those considered immoral by all except themselves.

Ah, Freudian methodology - the state of health is revealed by examing the deviations form it.

With reference to the 'proto-morality' - it seems to be the path that Derrida takes in The Gift Of Death - that there is some kind of compulsion or call to a morality of some kind inherent in modern man. Whether it is a biological inheritance or a cultural one isn't really examined (working on the assumption that a culture without a social heritage which provides this call to morality will just fuck up and die). Derrida uses the example of Melville's Bartleby - the scribe that 'prefers not to' and so dies without contributing anything other than the purely mechanistical (ie. his work as a scribe) to society.

Now I believe there's research into physical differences in the brains of such people, and, from memory (though I may be wrong) there's some evidence that the brains of psycopaths are wired differently. But that's not critical to my argument.

Do you recall if this was a difference in physical structure or a difference in the way the different parts of the brains had organised their responses and functions?

For example, we could take a very basic view of morality, perhaps something like, help others if the cost to yourself is not prohibitive, don't hurt others gratuitously. Those that do not adhere to such a morality tend to be termed psycopaths or sociopaths.

If my model holds, and (fundamental) morality is a behavioural norm, then the moral case for morality becomes trivial. It's simply that of preserving the norm in an altruistic society.

(paragraphs reordered for response)

Does this assume that stable/long existing societies are altruistic? We are dealing with two slightly different things here:

1.) aiding others
2.) not hurting others

It would seem that the second forms a more basic part of morality than the first - if only because societies without a tendency to actively co-operate gratuitously are able to survive, but societies which allow gratuitous hurt of others have a tendency to break up or die out.


Returning to Bartleby we have an interesting case - an individual that does neither help nor hurt, but is instead self-centred. Are they somehow to be held in a position of blame because although they avoid hurting others they give no active help? - in other words, is there an expected minimum standard of active gratuitous aid of others which is expected by society/morality, beyond which praise is given and below which blame or condemnation is given?

Disclaimer: I'm no theologian or moral expert. You could probably find good answers to your questions if you dug down and did some research.

I assume religous arguments are out the window for this discussion. If you are religous, there's your reason.

Other than that, there are a few reasons I can think of. I'm sure that there are more.
First, a moral society is more efficient and functions better than an immoral society. Things like murder and theft harm the progress of society in several ways which I'm sure you all understand. Even things like cheating on a spouse can cause distrust amongst a community and can distract from the push to better the community as a whole. I think that overall a perfectly moral community would be as close to utopia as possible. With everyone pulling on the same end of the rope, the community would have better living conditions for all.

So, what if you lived in this perfectly moral community and you decided to take advantage of that by being immoral??
-You would alientate yourself from the community
-Possibly end up in jail
-Ruin the dynamic of the community and possibly influence others to follow your path of deliquency, ultimately harming you.
-Create what would probably be a less comfortable situation than if you followed morality.

Obviously this is an ultrageneralized way of putting it. I'm going to leave it up to you to think of different moral situations and put it into this scenario. Morals were made for a reason and that is, in large part, because the majority of people realize we need these rules to function better as a society. If you step out of line and try to take advantage of this, people wont like you and ultimately it will end up harming you. There's certainly a "greater good" motivation behind morals.

There are some moral rules at first glance don't seem to follow this. For example, it's considered immoral to view pornography. Is this hurting society(or you) to view porn? It could be argued that it does. I would say that on average, men who view pornography objectify women more so than men who don't and ultimately treat women with less respect. This, it could be argued, hurts relationships and harms the community in general. Also, viewing pornography could lead to more sexual activity and then to unwanted pregnency. This seems like a stretch, but it holds true from what I've observed.

Actually, that's an excellent synopsis of Socrates' argument against Thrasymachus in The Republic, although there is a critical difference: The whole point of Socrates' argument was to point out that immoral action isn't advantageous, provided you look long enough down the road. For example, while it might seem advantageous to cheat a person within the context of the law now (because, for example, it might net you a few hundred dollars in the bill), in the long run, it's counterproductive, because people will realize what you are doing and avoid you, thus hurting your business. This was the foundation for Socrates' claim that ultimately, the only immorality was ignorance; if you knew enough about the situation, you'd never choose the immoral path.

The one specific addendum I'd want to add to that, however, is that even if you do choose the right action, it can still be for the wrong reason. To go back to the earlier example, if you're straight with your customers simply because it will earn you more money, then you're still immoral: your intentions are just as malicious and self-interested as the man who cheats his customers. Instead, you need to also do the right thing for the right reason. That right reason is simply respect for the action's rightness, or it's adherence to moral law.

The one specific addendum I'd want to add to that, however, is that even if you do choose the right action, it can still be for the wrong reason. To go back to the earlier example, if you're straight with your customers simply because it will earn you more money, then you're still immoral: your intentions are just as malicious and self-interested as the man who cheats his customers.

Similarly for Christian ethics - one should not be good so that one gets to heaven, but because it is good to be good.

I mean that people generally do things that benefit themselves or those they care about.

People rarely ever deliberately do things that harm themselves or those they care about.

Crazy people are an exception, but one so small it is insignificant.
Oh good. Something I can agree with.

People rarely ever deliberately do things that harm themselves or those they care about.
Oh good. Something I can agree with.

This doesn't take into account those things which may have a short-term benefit but a long term negative effect, does it? Consider smoking cigarettes, driving cars, or generally supporting industry at the expense of the environment as examples.

Similarly for Christian ethics - one should not be good so that one gets to heaven, but because it is good to be good.

Well, I was thinking Kant myself, but yeah, same principle, different espouser. . .;)

This doesn't take into account those things which may have a short-term benefit but a long term negative effect, does it? Consider smoking cigarettes, driving cars, or generally supporting industry at the expense of the environment as examples.
It does if you're far-sighted. ;-)

It does if you're far-sighted. ;-)

Yes, but then the statement that people 'rarely' do these things becomes very much weakened.

The positive consequences of killing your next door neighbor, raping his wife and daughter, enslaving his son and selling his belongings are:
Fun sex, a slave to do stuff for you, money.

The negative consequences of doing those things (in america at least) are:
Life imprisonment, possibly death.

Most people tend to opt to find ways to have fun, get stuff done and get money that dont run the risk of getting them incarcerated or killed.
This is even more irrelevant than the biological argument. Firstly, most moral decisions don’t have legal consequences – the baby in the burning building is a perfect example; if you leave the child and just save your own skin you have not broken the law.
Secondly, the law only matters if there are police officers prepared to put their lives on the line, day after day, to enforce it – and it requires witness to waste their time and sometimes risk their lives testifying in court. Why should they do this?
Finally, many crimes have next to no chance of being punished, and/or offer returns which are far greater than the risks. Embezzling and rape are good examples. So, if you suspected someone of a crime which you knew the police wouldn’t even bother investigating, what arguments could you use to persuade the crook to be moral?

I assume religous arguments are out the window for this discussion. If you are religous, there's your reason.
No. Socratic pointed out a flaw in this - if you obey god(s) because it is moral, then you haven't explained morality; if something is moral because god(s) decree it, then it is no more than any other decree.

Something which has interested me is whether religious arguments can still be valid for the non-religious. You see, absolute morality is very similar to God - has unimpreachable authority, extends to every time and place, acknowledges no superior - so arguments which support obeying God may also support obeying morality.
This is what I was trying with the appeal to the gratitude - past benefits you have gained from obedience to morality (even if that obedience was by other people) would be expected to create gratitude within you, giving you a reason to follow morality.
Whether this works or not {shrugs} well that's up for discussion.