NationStates Jolt Archive

I have seen a lot of posts that ask questions about the morality of something, but to me a lot of the discussion that results appears fairly pointless as we don’t have an agreement on what morality is. I offer the following definition:

Humans don’t have the time to always think about the consequences of their actions and arrive at the most practical solution they can. Morality provides a set of guidelines about behaviour that saves us time. So when I see something that I can’t afford in a shop and consider stealing it, instead of thinking about my chances of getting caught, the damage I do to society, my feelings of stress and anxiety, etc. I can simply tell myself that stealing is wrong and save myself a lot of mental effort.

I think morality poses a problem when people accept moral values as not guidelines but as absolutes that must be followed regardless of how practical they are. For example someone who thinks that not killing is a moral absolute, may not allow a terminally ill person to kill themselves, even though that may be a practical way to end suffering.

People may disagree on what the most practical course of action is, but I think that regarding moral guidelines as absolutes can result in an impasse when it comes to discussion and unnecessary suffering.


Do you agree with my definition of morality, and does anyone have any alternative definitions?

I think morality poses a problem when people accept moral values as not guidelines but as absolutes that must be followed regardless of how practical they are. For example someone who thinks that not killing is a moral absolute, may not allow a terminally ill person to kill themselves, even though that may be a practical way to end suffering.

I see no problem, as long as the said person also believes that causing undue pain is always immoral.

I see no problem, as long as the said person also believes that causing undue pain is always immoral.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand. Do you mean someone could hold not killing as an absolute, and also have not causeing undue pain as an absolute? If so, this person could decide that there is practical trade off between the two, and perhaps allow people who are in what he thinks is extreme pain to kill themselves, but not people who are in what he thinks is just a lot of pain. Or he could decide that not killing is more important than preventing undue pain (not an unlikely conclusion) and stop a terminally ill person from killing themselves. If he holds both as moral absolutes, I don't think he'd be equiped to think about what is the best thing to do. The two absolutes are difficult to reconcile.

I think the main problem is:
Is morality a set of standards or a set of values?
I think we have got certain values (human rights etc.) and set up standards on this basis. Both are subjective, but nevertheless there is big censesus among humans what the standards/values should look like. (At least within one culture. Maybe it is not always easy to distinguish between standards and values, because for example to someone not being selfish might be a value, whereas others agree on that because they believe in equality and see that selfishness would damoage this equality.

Do you agree with my definition of morality, and does anyone have any alternative definitions?

Well.. you should replace the word "morality" with "ethics" ;)
But there are 3 main ways to approach moral issues:

1. Ethics based on principles: things are said to be right or wrong regardless of the circumstances. Like your example of people believing in keeping others alive even during suffering, but also things like human rights, fundamental freedoms etc.

2. Ethics based on consequences: only the endresult is important, not what you do to get there. Main priniciples here are for instance "striving towards the greatest happyness/efficiency/etc. Many people have a problem with the no restriction on the way to get there though.

3. Ethics based on optimalisation: The thing between 1 and 2: you weigh endresult vs way to get there and pick the best action. This is of course the hardest, as well as offering few real guidelines.

How to actually implement a system is something that fills libraries ;)

Well.. you should replace the word "morality" with "ethics"

Ahh, so I'm talking about ethics, am I? Thank you.

Um, so could you tell me what morality is then? I'm curious. I've asked in other posts, but I think people thought I was being retorical.

mo·ral·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "Morality" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.


[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Morality

n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]

From dictionary.com

I have two definitions: One Christian one atheist

Morality is a way of achieving spiritual purity. It is a set of rules that, if followed, will hold us in God's fovour.

Being an atheist I don't agree with the former definition. I prefer to define morality as the superglue that holds civilization togeather. Without morality society would collapse into anarchy. This would then be bad for me, the atheist, who would no longer have large efficient organizations to produce my music and games for me. The comfort of my life depends on morality. In order to look out for myself I also have to look out for my neighbour.

In order to look out for myself I also have to look out for my neighbour.

You know, I wish more people would realize this. It is a basic truth, the more we worry about "me" the worse society gets. The more we look out for our neighbor, the better life in general gets.

Morality and ethics are children of the same idea. Ethics sounds less religious so many people prefer to use that word, but really it is a form of social morality.
:cool:
Morality demands that certain things be avoided for the good of civilization as a whole. The problem is that the people doing the things that morality condemns don't want to stop. They scream about rights. It is selfishness. And THAT is what will destroy the nation.

The nation was built to be a place of oportunity for all, freedom and equality. But some take this too far. Some desire the freedom to do things that are bad for society. (Kill for example) Some seek happiness in selfish indulgences that actually create no happiness and have a side effect on society.

("It is my life, I'm not hurting anyone else" is one of the most seductive phrases, its sad how many people actually believe that what they do does not affect anyone else)

Morality in a nutshell:

"You shall love the Lord you God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.

You shall love you neighbor as yourself."

With this always in mind you cannot go wrong.

You think "morality" is hard to define? Hah! Wait 'til you get to "a-moral" or "immoral". Morals implie "values" - in the definite sense. I.e., it demands "emotional validation" and "emotional valorisation". Nothing more, nothing less. Ethics implie the theory and implication of said morals. Ethics are cultural, morals are cultural/universal (as in, they are always turned "on" no matter what the "implication" and "application"). Geez, this is hard dammit :(

For instance: liberal economy (however much us lefties think it to be "immoral") is in fact "a-moral". There is no morality involved in the working of the system in se . The application, however, has moral consequences - that's where the immorality/morality comes in.

And about that neighbour-thing. That is called the "ethical theory of reciprocity". A very well-known implication of (a negative) of this: "do not do onto others, what you don't want others to do to you". I think that's an ethical no-brainer, but alas, I sometimes feel that this is NOT universal (however much Confucius might wanted it to be...)

Morality can be likened to electricity:

If electricity is made of electrons, I deduce morality must be made of morons.
:D

Morality can be likened to electricity:

If electricity is made of electrons, I deduce morality must be made of morons.
:D

*shakes head*

Morality is relative, as such we will never have a clear definition of what is and what is not moral.

I think the world would be a better place if people were more selfish.

I'd better explain what I mean before people start flaming me.

I think that people should look out for their own long term self interest. Your long term self interest is what gives you the maximum pleasure over your life. And note that maximum amount of pleasure is not the same as maximum amount of loot, so stealing a million dollars is unlikely to be in your long term best interest. Criminals have a good chance of being thrown in jail, killed by other criminals, blackmailed etc. And many lottery winners find that, while they were very happy at first, before too long they were no more happy than they had been before they won.

Getting drunk every night every night is not in your long term self interest. Same with drugs, gambling, etc. You might have fun now, but latter you'll be worse off.

Obviously it is in my own self interest to try to arrange it so that I live in a society where people help and support each other. Although I may have to give up my freedom to rob and kill, most people will find the benefit of not being robbed or killed greater than being free to rob and kill.

People who are nasty to other people end up with fewer friends, or lower quality friends, than people who are nice, so in general, being nice to people is in your long term interest.

Being more traditionally selfish can also improve your life. Telling people what you are not willing to do can make your life a lot easier. Refusing to be drafted to fight in a pointless war can save your life and others. Refusing to run after others can give you time to enjoy your life.

So, for your own sake, and that of others, be selfish!

Selflessness is an illusion. Doing something that doesn't benefit you but benefits somebody else is not selfless. You feel good about what you've done. If you have the chance to steal something and never be caught, but don't, you feel quite good because you have excercised restraint. Anything done out of selflessness always ends up benefiting you somehow. If you can think of any situations where a selfless desicion is made and the desicion maker is not benefited indirectly, I will gladly retract my statement. Although I don't think there are any situations like that.

I second Commie Catholics opinion, albeit somewhat technical and clinical: what he described, is by some people considered as selflessness. It's all about semantics, I guess. But, indeed, we do things in general because they give us a good "feeling", in the short or the long term.

Ah, enlightened self interest eh Phylum? That's essentially what Adam Smith advocated, although his ideas have been somewhat hijacked by corporatists in recent years. Everyone is talking about how one should be kind to others: why is this? I could see it from a religious perspective - most religions have commandments or laws telling you to do so. Or perhaps you have a Kantian viewpoint, where you ask yourself: "Before I do this (any act), do I think it would be acceptable if everyone did it?" But I'm just curious really...people like Nietzsche offer a very different system than most people have been discussing so far.

And yes, many philosophers have argued that there is no such thing as a selfless act. Even a martyr becomes an idol for their cause. Anyway, here's what I think are morals: when you act, you are choosing that action out of a multitude of possible actions. Therefore, you think that is the right action. Continuing this, if it is the right action then you are basically broadcasting to the world "This is how I think I should act" and also, how everyone else should act. The most important moral rule for me is to respect the freedom of others: any deed that restricts that freedom is generally wrong to me. Of course, a society must have rules to function and freedoms can be restricted to protect the freedom of others. I.E. you do not have the freedom to kill, because it would destroy another person's freedom (quite throughly). There's my little rant for today, hope you enjoyed it.

Sorry if anyone said this before but to quote utilitarianism

' Morality is the set of principles that when acted upon, will cause the most happiness'

and yes, that would include killing someone if it made people happy

Selflessness is an illusion. Doing something that doesn't benefit you but benefits somebody else is not selfless. You feel good about what you've done. If you have the chance to steal something and never be caught, but don't, you feel quite good because you have excercised restraint. Anything done out of selflessness always ends up benefiting you somehow. If you can think of any situations where a selfless desicion is made and the desicion maker is not benefited indirectly, I will gladly retract my statement. Although I don't think there are any situations like that.


its like freinds

This is where I jump in with my 'morals versus values' spiel. I'll make it short this time.

A moral is almost an instinct, it's the part of us that urges us to prefer to avoid hurting other people or their property for whatver reason. Anything that doesn't derive from this basic concept is a value, and values are subject to change. Morals cover a lot of ground on their own, but values are more specific.

Morality can be likened to electricity:

If electricity is made of electrons, I deduce morality must be made of morons.
:D

Selflessness is an illusion.

Yep.

If you can think of any situations where a selfless desicion is made and the desicion maker is not benefited indirectly, I will gladly retract my statement.

That's very difficult to do. But I'll try. How about when someone miscalculates? They save a child from a fire, expecting to get a reward, but they get nothing instead. They perform a selfish act, but since this person doesn't value saving lives, only money, they are not benefited.

This is sort of picky. I know you mean that the decision maker benefits, or expects to benefit, from selfless acts.

I still find popular meanings of selfish and unselfish useful concepts in conversation. Although I admit I don't use them often myself. I like to think through people's behaviour and try to guess at their motivations, rather than just labeling it selfish or unselfish.

A moral is almost an instinct, it's the part of us that urges us to prefer to avoid hurting other people or their property for whatver reason.Anything that doesn't derive from this basic concept is a value, and values are subject to change. Morals cover a lot of ground on their own, but values are more specific.
Yes, I agree that morals can feel instinctive. You consider slapping someone and then feel bad. Do you agree that we absorb morals from society and that they usually act as shortcuts for rational behaviour?

Do you think that morals are very resistant to change, or don't change? For example, a person born into a religious family might think it immoral to miss church, but later conclude that it's not a moral issue. I don't see a clear distinction between morals and values. I think perhaps morals are often just deeply ingrained values that we often have aquired without thinking about them. A value can become a moral if we absorb it so much it cab cause an immediate emotional reaction. For example a canibal brought into modern socity by missionarys might at first not kill and eat people for practical reasons, he doesn't want to get into trouble, despite firmy believing that eating people is the moral thing to do. Later he might hold not eating people as a value. He can see that there are benefits to not eating people, even though he would still like to eat them. Finally he might hold it as a moral, and firmly believe it is wrong, and perhaps even go back to his island to convert his people away from canibalism (if they don't eat him, that is).

How then to explain the people who can't access that moral code, who consistently perform outside of it. Could it be that they have their own moral code based on different self-interests (where not going to jail is less important than not letting your mates down, perhaps)? Or can these people just not make choices that are in their long term self-interest because of differently wired brains?

How then to explain the people who can't access that moral code, who consistently perform outside of it. Could it be that they have their own moral code based on different self-interests (where not going to jail is less important than not letting your mates down, perhaps)? Or can these people just not make choices that are in their long term self-interest because of differently wired brains?

People are born with certain characteristics. People also develop in response to their environment. People also develop in response to their internal mental environment, what they think and what they tell themselves.

Humans have a tendency to think only in the short term. This is probably because for most of human evolution, most problems were only short term. People's biggest worry was usually how to find food and avoid getting killed today, let alone worry about tomorrow or next year.

Some people are born more impulsive than most, some are born more cautious. Some are born more aggressive, some are more laid back. Some people always stay thin, some people easily get fat.

A really impulsive person might experience a very strong emotional desire for something and this might override the morality he's absorbed, so he steals it. I would say he's probably making a mistake, but he might feel as though he can't help himself. This person might have absorbed the some amount of morality as an average person, but finds it harder to follow this morality because of his impulsive nature. I suggest this type of person should learn to think carefully about the consequences of their actions in order to stay out of trouble. Habitually thinking about the downside of impulsive behaviour could effectively strengthen their "morality."

A child could be brought up in an abusive environment and learn a differnt moral code than most. For example, that violence is the best way to get what you want. Of course, a child in an abusive environment could become convinced that violence is a terrible thing. Exactly what happens depends upon genetics, chance, and the child's own internal environment - what they tell themselves about the violence that is inflicted on them. For example, "I am weak, for letting my father beat me. When I grow up, I will never be weak." Or, "It's terrible to be beaten, when I grow up, I will work to stop people beating children."

Some people seem to be born with less empathy, or fail to develop empathy as they grow. These people will find it easier to commit crimes and hurt other people, but again, by doing this they often make problems for themselves. They could probably improve their own lives by thinking more about others. So, in conclusion, I am in favour of people carefully thinking through the long-term consequences of their actions. Especially people who find themselves consistantly getting into trouble.

Yes, I agree that morals can feel instinctive. You consider slapping someone and then feel bad. Do you agree that we absorb morals from society and that they usually act as shortcuts for rational behaviour?

No, I don't. We absorb values from society and we build our own "moral" [or more accurately "value"] structure around it. We're all more or less born with all the morals we'll need. Well, maybe not born with them but as you age you become aware of them unless you're horrendously maladjusted.

Do you think that morals are very resistant to change, or don't change?

They don't change.

For example, a person born into a religious family might think it immoral to miss church, but later conclude that it's not a moral issue. I don't see a clear distinction between morals and values.

This person would be right, and so are you about morals and values [more soon]. Attendance of a Church is a part of one's value structure. You value your time at Church and hold the belief that it gets you closer to God, so you go.

You're also right that there is not much of a clear distinction between morals and values. It's there, it's just a very thin, blurry line. That's why they're so easy to confuse [99% of us do this on a regular basis].

I think perhaps morals are often just deeply ingrained values that we often have aquired without thinking about them.

Agreed.

A value can become a moral if we absorb it so much it cab cause an immediate emotional reaction. For example a canibal brought into modern socity by missionarys might at first not kill and eat people for practical reasons, he doesn't want to get into trouble, despite firmy believing that eating people is the moral thing to do. Later he might hold not eating people as a value. He can see that there are benefits to not eating people, even though he would still like to eat them. Finally he might hold it as a moral, and firmly believe it is wrong, and perhaps even go back to his island to convert his people away from canibalism (if they don't eat him, that is).

Your example is a bit skewed. Since cannibalism flies in the face of the Moral Absolute in the first place, we can safely assume that this person is being immoral anyway. It's not really a matter of values at that point.

Your example is a bit skewed. Since cannibalism flies in the face of the Moral Absolute in the first place, we can safely assume that this person is being immoral anyway. It's not really a matter of values at that point.

Ah, I think I see where we might disagree. Where does the moral absolute come from? How could a canibal brought up on an isolated island where tribes frequently kill and eat each other's members become aware of any moral absolute about killing and eating people? I admit it is possible that he could sit down and think about it and conclude that canibalism is bad and that people shouldn't do it, but everyone one else might think he is crazy and indeed immoral for going against tradition.

I don't think there is any clear evidence for moral absolutes. People brought up in primitive societies reguard that which benefits the clan as moral, and aren't too worried about about killing people of other tribes. People in civilisations have, by neccessity, a system of morals that apply to people beyond their extended family. But I can't see any evidence for anything we can point to and say, "That's a moral, and it's always a moral no matter what, no matter what society you're in, or what situation you're in."

My rules are that if it doesn't hurt anyone, and isn't intended to hurt anyone, it's not immoral. It must meet both criteria to qualify.

Selflessness is an illusion. Doing something that doesn't benefit you but benefits somebody else is not selfless. You feel good about what you've done. If you have the chance to steal something and never be caught, but don't, you feel quite good because you have excercised restraint. Anything done out of selflessness always ends up benefiting you somehow. If you can think of any situations where a selfless desicion is made and the desicion maker is not benefited indirectly, I will gladly retract my statement. Although I don't think there are any situations like that.

What you're overlooking is that these things are measured relative to each other. Selfishness and selflesness are ends of a spectrum, not simply two points independent of each other. A selfless individual is one who tends to do things for others without regard to the material benifit to himself, a selfish individual is one who looks to satisfy his own material ends while allowing, or causing, other people's material ends to go unsatisfied.

To claim that one is perfectly justified in demonstrating the morality of Judas, just because another fails to quite demonstrate the morality of Jesus is absurd.

My rules are that if it doesn't hurt anyone, and isn't intended to hurt anyone, it's not immoral. It must meet both criteria to qualify.

I would ammend the first of those criteria to "if it can't reasonably be predicted to hurt anyone." If I don't rise an hour early in the morning and take a drive for no apparent reason causing the car behind me to stop at the red light that it would otherwise have blown hitting the child who ran across the street to catch the ball he accidentally kicked into the street, then I can hardly be blamed for allowing the child to come to harm.

Ah, I think I see where we might disagree. Where does the moral absolute come from? How could a canibal brought up on an isolated island where tribes frequently kill and eat each other's members become aware of any moral absolute about killing and eating people?

Excellent question. Glad you brought this up. A cannabalistic society, by definition, ignores the moral absolute and chooses instead to hold its value for human flesh to a higher regard than anything else perhaps save the individual's life. This is why a cannibal won't senselessly attack a group of Christain missionaries; he values his life enough to know that those 4 badass looking guys on the ridge with flintlocks will bust a cap in his ass if he so much as flinches in the wrong direction.

It's sort of hard for me to draw the line between morals and values since I'm not a psychologist, bust I'd venture to guess that the society as a whole decided to forsake the Moral Absolute in favor of some more practical solution for their survival. I can't say as I can name any society where humans were the most readily available and most easily procured source of food, but somehow somehwere it had to be the solution for someone, or else these particular value structures wouldn't exist.

I admit it is possible that he could sit down and think about it and conclude that canibalism is bad and that people shouldn't do it, but everyone one else might think he is crazy and indeed immoral for going against tradition.

Tradition is a value. Moot point.

I don't think there is any clear evidence for moral absolutes. People brought up in primitive societies reguard that which benefits the clan as moral, and aren't too worried about about killing people of other tribes.

Again, this is a value. as you mentioned above it is possible that "he could sit down and think about it and conclude that canibalism is bad and that people shouldn't do it." Any sense of comradere or any identification with any sort of egomass is a value. If you begin to absorb their ideals as your own, you become a part of their value structure and start to live up to it. In a society like that I'm sure "The talk" about cannabalism is just as important as "the talk" about sexuality in more conservative circles. It's just a paradigm shift.

People in civilisations have, by neccessity, a system of morals that apply to people beyond their extended family. But I can't see any evidence for anything we can point to and say, "That's a moral, and it's always a moral no matter what, no matter what society you're in, or what situation you're in."

How about murder? Theft perhaps? What about incest?

How about murder? Theft perhaps? What about incest?
Plenty groups throughour history have considered murder to be fine. In many primitive societies, anyone you weren't related to could become a target for murder. If a hunting group came across members of another tribe and clearly outnumbered them, they would kill them. If they found a women or girl by herself, they would abduct her. They didn't have any moral absolute that told them to not do this. They also saw nothing wrong with stealing from the other group.

Humans seem predisposed to not want to mate with people they grew with as children, however, there are still examples of incest being considered fine. For example, ancient Egyptian royalty would often marry brothers and sisters, or brothers and aunts, etc.

You can say that there are things that are always a bad idea. For example, children born from incest are always in the danger of genetic disease, but there is nothing that is universally regarded as a moral absolute.

I'm still not convinced. Telling me that amoral civilizations exist and have existed in the past is like telling me that there's garbage in my garbage can right now. That doesn't change anything.

Ok, you say there are moral absolutes, so what makes them moral absolutes? What makes one thing a moral absolute and makes another not a moral absolute? Lets take the incest example. Where is the moral absolute? Does it involve sex between brothers and sisters, sex between cousins, sex between second cousins, sex between third cousins, sex between people related by marriage but not blood? Can you explain how you define a moral absolute in these cases?

As I think Phylum is saying, the moral absolutes of one culture are no more absolute than those of any other. We may consider our morals more highly evolved than those of cannibal or incestuous communities, however, that fictitious but highly useful alien species watching our western moralities play out from their (invisible) spaceships would probably consider their own morals to be more highly evolved.

Moral absolutes are culture-specific and therefore not absolute at all.

If morality is about good and evil then surely to find absolutes one needs to have a clear idea of what good is, and what evil is.

I'd propose that good is pleasure/happiness, and evil is pain/sadness.

Biologicaly speaking we intepret seansory signals in two ways: pleasure, which releases chemicals that make us feel mentally better; and pain, which releases chemicals which makes us feel mentally worse. These signals are invariably related to how good/bad the sensors indicate - the sight of a (real)blood-spattered axe weilding maniac makes us feel scared, and so we feel uncomfortable (thanks to those nuerons and chemicals) and so a logical mind can determine the situation is bad, based on the state of the person's mind. The intake of food restores energy levels which causes the brain to release chemicals that make the body relax, more content, and less in need of energy to go and find more food. The ensuing state of mind is content/happy and so the situation is good.

So any action which creates pleasure is good, and any action that creates pain is bad.

And morality is the chosen system that tries to negotiate the tricky path of causing minimal pain for maximum pleasure, with regards to the moral authors (traditionaly impoverished priests with nothing to gain by being unfair - or absolute rulers by virtue of being in a position of supreme impartiality)... I'd say modern day morality is possibly written by advertisers (and consequently largely ignored).

I'd propose that good is pleasure/happiness, and evil is pain/sadness.

So if I do something that causes me pain or sadness (like admitting I'm wrong, or giving up my emotional claim on someone who doesn't love me, or giving large sums of money to charity) then I am actually doing evil? And if I do something that causes me pleasure or happiness (like ruining the new relationship of my ex-lover) then I am actually doing good?


I'd say modern day morality is possibly written by advertisers (and consequently largely ignored).

This is an insightful and highly terrifying thought!