NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking of abortion the other day (although thats not what his thread is about) and I was struck with the thought that morally even if foetuses couldn't feel pain as potential citizens they couldn't be aborted. Then another thought struck me, what is morality?

If we presume that government only has a temporal duty (earthly) then surely morality is simply rules that govern whats it acceptable in society, if not conscious then our evoluved sense of what the pack expects, what is conscience, what is guilt if not then a primevil fear of retribution? If I kill an innocent person I am not struck by lighting, the divine rules of right and wrong are not engraved in my skull (well I presume not in mine I haven't checked). What is morality if not social convienance for the benifit of all members of society. What is abortion if not convience? If people suffer in the third world it won't effect me so why should I care? Am I afraid of punishment, is my guilt just an out grown reaction when my brain evloved that I would meet everyone I ever saw?

You're falling into the trap there of assuming that morality arises from one's feelings of sympathy (or lack of sympathy in some cases) towards others. This is nonsense as the source of all morality is religious prejudice, and those without religious prejudice are incapable of making a moral decision about anything. The bible says so, or it would if it was more clearly written, and didn't need to be interpreted by religious leaders.

Then another thought struck me, what is morality?
Morality is a value system.

If we presume that government only has a temporal duty (earthly) then surely morality is simply rules that govern whats it acceptable in society,
I'm not sure that the 'morality is simply rules that govern whats it acceptable in society' follows from the government being only temporal.

if not conscious then our evoluved sense of what the pack expects, what is conscience, what is guilt if not then a primevil fear of retribution?
Mmm, that sounds more like an explanation about why people would abide by morality rather than an explanation about what morality is.

If I kill an innocent person I am not struck by lighting, the divine rules of right and wrong are not engraved in my skull (well I presume not in mine I haven't checked). What is morality if not social convienance for the benifit of all members of society.
A system of values. Morality does not always benefit all members of a society.

What is abortion if not convience? If people suffer in the third world it won't effect me so why should I care? Am I afraid of punishment, is my guilt just an out grown reaction when my brain evloved that I would meet everyone I ever saw?
What do you mean by 'should care', do you mean predictively or morally?

the source of all morality is religious prejudice

By saying this, you are stating that atheists have no morals. Do you believe that?

morality is a subjective value system most often instilled through your up-bringing but not always

nothing else needs said

I'm saying that if we behave rationally then morality is pointless, its just an over grown emotion from when were cavemen. If I didn't help someone in my tribe then if they later gained control over me or there relatives did I'd be in trouble so we have altruist emotions. I will probably never meet the people I see on TV in the third world so rationally giving to charity is pointless, it merely gives my brain the impression I'm improving my standing in my society by giving, this gives me a little kick of happiness and I go on my way. This being said should government policy (which possibly unlike my likestyle has a duty to be temporal) be based on irrationality? Discuss.

You're falling into the trap there of assuming that morality arises from one's feelings of sympathy (or lack of sympathy in some cases) towards others. This is nonsense as the source of all morality is religious prejudiceThat's not true. There are several moral systems that are not based in religion. Like utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), or Kant's categorical imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative), or Hobbes' social contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes). And there's more of them..

If there were no laws, or more importantly, no certainty of punishment, then I could go around killing at will (assuming that I don't find it contradictory to my self interests).

I could rob people of food when I was hungry. And I could rape when I felt like it.

And assuming that I had a gun and most other people didn't, I would be able to do this all the time.

This being said should government policy (which possibly unlike my likestyle has a duty to be temporal) be based on irrationality? Discuss.What is irrationality? There isn't any kind of logic system that would improve live if you followed it. Certain kinds of irrationality are in fact quite rational to have, they improve our lives, and facilitate decisionmaking.
Besides that, rationality lacks motivation. There is no rational reason to want anything, not unless you already want something else (and thus have a goal from which other subgoals are derived).

I'm saying that if we behave rationally then morality is pointless,
Why?

its just an over grown emotion from when were cavemen.
Which doesnt necessitate that it cannot be beneficial.

If I didn't help someone in my tribe then if they later gained control over me or there relatives did I'd be in trouble so we have altruist emotions. I will probably never meet the people I see on TV in the third world so rationally giving to charity is pointless,
Not necessarily, there may be potential material benefits in improving the lot of others.

it merely gives my brain the impression I'm improving my standing in my society by giving,
Whatever impression something is giving your brain, I dont know that I would describe it as 'merely'.

this gives me a little kick of happiness and I go on my way.
That little kick of happiness is probably beneficial though, likewise there is some risk of adverse effects if a failure to do what you perserve as 'the right thing' causes you distress.

This being said should government policy (which possibly unlike my likestyle has a duty to be temporal) be based on irrationality? Discuss.
I dont think government policy should be based on irrationality.

I'm saying that if we behave rationally then morality is pointless, its just an over grown emotion from when were cavemen. If I didn't help someone in my tribe then if they later gained control over me or there relatives did I'd be in trouble so we have altruist emotions. I will probably never meet the people I see on TV in the third world so rationally giving to charity is pointless, it merely gives my brain the impression I'm improving my standing in my society by giving, this gives me a little kick of happiness and I go on my way. This being said should government policy (which possibly unlike my likestyle has a duty to be temporal) be based on irrationality? Discuss.
It's funny you should say this, as my personal pet theory is that our ability to emphasize with eachother is the reason we have such things as religion & ethics (I try not to use the word "moral", as it may lead to confusion with religious beliefs).

Actually, I believe that the reason we have such highly evolved brains and are capable of abstract though, is because these things are needed to make us peoperly empathic.

All social mammals I know of posses a degree of empathy. They can put themselves in eachother's shoes ..Or could if they wore shoes, which I've never actually heard of any that do, but I digress.

So for highly social mammals like us, it really just appears that we needed a brain better equipped for empathy to be able to function.

Now when cave buggers run around clubbering stuff, getting eaten by things & struck by all manner of natural disasters, it seems obvious that they'd blame it on something with an equal capacity for empathy. Like a god. Especially since the cave twats would be able top appease such a god. They'd try to put themselves in the god's shoes & take a guess at what it wanted from them.

Same thing today really. Life isn't exactly fair. Calamities & personal tragedies takes up a large part of our lives. Our loved ones enevitably die. And we die.
It seems obvious to me that we just can't help trying to apply our capacity for empathy on the universe at large, to find some sort of meaning with it all, and perhaps a lifebelt.

But who knows. Perhaps in 100000 years, assuming there's any left, someone will stumble on a mountain gorilla with a feakish bananahat making odd noises at a neat little jungle shrine?

That's not true. There are several moral systems that are not based in religion. Like utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), or Kant's categorical imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative), or Hobbes' social contracts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbes). And there's more of them..
Yes, but Religious sorts aren't having any of that, are they?
I'll stop using sarcasm in future.

My point is that morality is convience, that laws are there to make your life better not becuase they are "right". Right are wrong are not concepts just what your own mind (conscience) or society (the law) wants to prohibit. But with this onboard loads of arguments are solved. Aborsion, embryo testing, genetic modifictation even Eugenics. they are not "right" or "wrong" they are just things that happern and if they are for an overall postive effect then who cares about morality?

Take Witch burning. An old lady, certainly not a Witch, is acussed of being a Witch. She is tried and burned at the stake. Its bad news for her but for the rest of the whole village its a happy event (you could argue that they will live in fear of being tried themselves but try and run with the metaphor). Their for even though killing an innocent person was "morally" wrong it was rationally the best cause to take (as more haapyness was created through her death then in her continued life). I'm not saying that killing people is good merely that if you follow logic to its conclusion then it leads you down a rather unpleasant path.

Is Morality Real?

I believe like most things and morality being no exception, it's all very subjective. I think perception is key to what we see as "real" thus making most things subjective.

"Is morality real?"

Yes.

a question that has always been in my mind is how could there not be a wrong or right? obviously, the holocaust was wrong. anyone who states differently is saying that millions of people should have been killed and had good reason to be. our idea of morality is skewed because we are not perfect. but if we judge other people's ideas of morality, that must mean that there is a constant form of morality to compare to.

(ex. Two people go to New York, come back and describe New York to you.)

They would both have different views of NY? which one is right in their description? To know that, a constant must be present to judge the validity of both. In the analogy it is the actual city of New York. In the issue of morality there must be a perfect concept of morality to base all others on.

I believe like most things and morality being no exception, it's all very subjective. I think perception is key to what we see as "real" thus making most things subjective.

Assuming that things like rocks and water and colour TV are really things and this isn't just a figmant of my imagination (interesting point, I'm not mocking it) then I think you have to conclude that morality is just a subjective thing, unlike rocks and water and colour TV, therfore it is not the law it insists on being. You can't fly because of laws of gravity it is a fallacy to say you cannot murder because of the laws of morality. Morality is dead, a tool for oppression for the sake of the tribe.

Morality is dead, a tool for oppression for the sake of the tribe.

If you believe that morality is dead, what makes you right in your claim? There has to be a right and a wrong if any of our ideas is to be better than the other. that is a part of morality

Morality is dead, a tool for oppression for the sake of the tribe.

I agreed with what you wrote up and until this sentence. Morality doesn't have to play a part in what we as a society deem wrong. Morality and the difference between what society deems right and wrong are really two different animals. Morality tells us something of the obscure, almost a perception shared by some and yet not by as many others. Where as murder like the TV is a result. Thus not really up for interpretation. Either you killed someone or you didn't. It's not a moral question, it's a societal safety one. They don't have to be connected.

My point is that morality is convience,
I dont think that is the case.

that laws are there to make your life better not becuase they are "right".
The purpose of a law or a law system is not necessarily to make everyones life better. Morality and law are evidently two different things.

Right are wrong are not concepts just what your own mind (conscience) or society (the law) wants to prohibit.
Right and wrong in the sense of morality, are subjective. That doesnt mean that such subjective concepts cannot useful and beneficial.

But with this onboard loads of arguments are solved.Aborsion, embryo testing, genetic modifictation even Eugenics.
Loads are created too since it seems in those societies where such arguments are necessary, it is most often the case that there are contrary moral systems that have a significant level of acceptance.

they are not "right" or "wrong" they are just things that happern and if they are for an overall postive effect then who cares about morality?
Facilitating good outcomes is in the basis of some moral systems.

Take Witch burning. An old lady, certainly not a Witch, is acussed of being a Witch. She is tried and burned at the stake. Its bad news for her but for the rest of the whole village its a happy event (you could argue that they will live in fear of being tried themselves but try and run with the metaphor). Their for even though killing an innocent person was "morally" wrong
Was it? Whether or not it is morally wrong, morally right or morally nuetral depends on the particulars of the moral system employed to determine 'rightness and wrongness'.

it was rationally the best cause to take (as more haapyness was created through her death then in her continued life).
And according to some moral systems if it caused more benefit than harm, it is necessarily morally right. According to others it is necessarily wrong despite causing more benefit than harm.

I'm not saying that killing people is good merely that if you follow logic to its conclusion then it leads you down a rather unpleasant path.
I'm not sure that a good case for having some form of morality operative within a society cannot be made, I'm not sure that it is possible for there not to be at least one moral system operating within a society. I'm not sure that the conclusions you may have reached are necessary conclusions; I dont know that what appears to be your conclusions necessarily follows from the premises you have posited.

I was thinking of abortion the other day (although thats not what his thread is about) and I was struck with the thought that morally even if foetuses couldn't feel pain as potential citizens they couldn't be aborted. Then another thought struck me, what is morality?

If we presume that government only has a temporal duty (earthly) then surely morality is simply rules that govern whats it acceptable in society, if not conscious then our evoluved sense of what the pack expects, what is conscience, what is guilt if not then a primevil fear of retribution? If I kill an innocent person I am not struck by lighting, the divine rules of right and wrong are not engraved in my skull (well I presume not in mine I haven't checked). What is morality if not social convienance for the benifit of all members of society. What is abortion if not convience? If people suffer in the third world it won't effect me so why should I care? Am I afraid of punishment, is my guilt just an out grown reaction when my brain evloved that I would meet everyone I ever saw?

Morality, like all opinions and subjective value judgments, has no objective "reality" to it. It is just as "real" as any other subjective experience you might have, but it is not an objective "entity."

Morality arrises out of both genetics and social necessity. Genetics helps explain why an adult ( parent or not ) will sacrifice themselves for a child. Morality explains why most adults will not have sex with a child. [ to pick two rather extreme examples ]

Morality may or may not have some sort of religious component, but exists in any human system involving two or more individuals. Morality is also a survival mechanism; it dictates circumstances under which individuals will sacrifice their own safety and well-being for the good of the clan or tribe or nation.

Without morality there is no "community," only a collection of self-centered individuals.

Morality, like all opinions and subjective value judgments, has no objective "reality" to it. It is just as "real" as any other subjective experience you might have, but it is not an objective "entity."

Thank you, you said what I was trying to say way better than I did, why am I not surprised. :)

a question that has always been in my mind is how could there not be a wrong or right? obviously, the holocaust was wrong. anyone who states differently is saying that millions of people should have been killed and had good reason to be.
No they are not. They could be of the opinion that it neither should nor should not have happened with regards to 'moral right and wrong' for instance.

our idea of morality is skewed because we are not perfect. but if we judge other people's ideas of morality, that must mean that there is a constant form of morality to compare to.
No it need not mean that at all. It may just mean that there is a tendency to assume that one's own beliefs about moral right and wrongness are somehow more 'correct/true' etc than alternatives, and to make judgements accordingly.

(ex. Two people go to New York, come back and describe New York to you.)
They would both have different views of NY? which one is right in their description? To know that, a constant must be present to judge the validity of both.
Well it isnt necessarily true that it will be known.

In the analogy it is the actual city of New York. In the issue of morality there must be a perfect concept of morality to base all others on.
The analogy doesnt hold. Morals are subjective because they are based on subjective values. While it is possible to say who's description of the street arrangement of New York is more accurate, it is not necessarily possible to know which hobby is the most enjoyable. Morals are more akin to enjoyment of hobbies, than they are to New York.

Assuming that things like rocks and water and colour TV are really things and this isn't just a figmant of my imagination (interesting point, I'm not mocking it) then I think you have to conclude that morality is just a subjective thing,
Yes, but so is enjoyment, ought we try to get rid of enjoyment based on the rationale 'it is subjective'?

unlike rocks and water and colour TV, therfore it is not the law it insists on being.
It may well be that morality is a necessary result of particular confluences that just happen to characterise all or most human societies. If that is the case it may be that in most instances, morality is not something that can be made to 'not exist'.

You can't fly because of laws of gravity it is a fallacy to say you cannot murder because of the laws of morality.
Aha, but it is not a fallacy to say that morals are the result of certain factors that are either unavoidable or that ought not to be avoided.

Morality is dead, a tool for oppression for the sake of the tribe.
Whether or not it is a tool of oppression for any agency/entity, morality (as in the existence, promotion of, and some level of adherence to a value system that produces 'good' 'bad' judgements) is certainly not 'dead'.

I agreed with what you wrote up and until this sentence. Morality doesn't have to play a part in what we as a society deem wrong.
I dont see how a system that attaches 'right' 'wrong' (other than as a question of fact, for instance 2+2=4 is factually right) isnt necessarily a moral system.

Morality and the difference between what society deems right and wrong are really two different animals.
I dont believe so. Morality and what a society deems is illegal are two different things, but if a society (universally) deems some one thing wrong in any sense other than a factual sense, they have necessarily made a 'non-fact' value judgement, ie a moral judgement.

Morality tells us something of the obscure, almost a perception shared by some and yet not by as many others.
How obscure the conclusions of one's moral system are, depends on the particulars of their moral system.

Where as murder like the TV is a result. Thus not really up for interpretation. Either you killed someone or you didn't.
Aha,k but what if any significance is there in having killed someone?

It's not a moral question, it's a societal safety one. They don't have to be connected.
Whether or not someone has been killed is a question of fact, whether or not it was 'right or wrong' for the person to have been killed, or for the killer to have killed, is a question of values - it is a moral question.

Without morality there is no "community," only a collection of self-centered individuals.

I think that the notion community is an over simplication. We are a collection of self-cetred individuels, "community" only exists to facilitate this for mutual advantage, any action is not for the good of the community, but for the good of the individuel concerned. I suppose I 'm tring to say that when a government is making a judgement, it should not rely on its conscience, which is unrelaible. But should take the action that brings the most satisfaction to the most number of people. While of course measuring the level of satisfaction given from each action is subjective, an estimation using empathy is a more reliable method of government then conscience or superstition, I argue.

Morally it is wrong to drown kittens, for anyreason, but greater happiness can be creating from drowning half the litter so there is food to feed half them till adulthood. The loss of utility from one half is outweighed by a lifetime's gain with the other.

Aploguise for the metaphor's rather sick nature but I hope it illistrates a point.

Is Morality Real?

Most definately...look at the world around you.

However, morality, being real, is also completely subjective. There is no concrete "right and wrong." Instead, societies dictate what is right and what is wrong and the people within the society either adhere to the societal requirements or are punished/exiled. The trouble or conflict occurs when there are different opinions within a society, such as ours, concerning everything from abortion, to gay marriage, to simple things such as violence in video games or sex on tv.

I think that the notion community is an over simplication. We are a collection of self-cetred individuels,
Are we? Isnt it just as likely that we collections that include traits of self-centredness?

"community" only exists to facilitate this for mutual advantage,
'Community' doesnt necessarily exist to facilitate mutual advantage to individuals, even if it does do so.

any action is not for the good of the community, but for the good of the individuel concerned.
I dont think that is true in every case.

I suppose I 'm tring to say that when a government is making a judgement, it should not rely on its conscience, which is unrelaible.
That's as may be, but it neither follows from the other points you have made, nor supports the points you have made.

But should take the action that brings the most satisfaction to the most number of people.
Whether or not it is how governments ought to govern, what you are describing is a moral system.

While of course measuring the level of satisfaction given from each action is subjective, an estimation using empathy is a more reliable method of government then conscience or superstition, I argue.
Right, but you've gone from arguing that morality is irrational (and so far as I can tell, concluded that it ought to be 'done away with'), to arguing that a particular moral system ought to be the basis of particular decisions (namely those made by governments).

Morally it is wrong to drown kittens, for anyreason,
No, in some moral systems it might be always wrong to drown kittens regardless of reasons why one would do so, but that is not true of every moral system.

Most definately...look at the world around you.

However, morality, being real, is also completely subjective.
Aha, morality is objectively real, but not really objective.

There is no concrete "right and wrong."
Or if there is, and any human does, or ever has known what it is and why it is, they have failed to let the rest of us in on what they know.

Instead, societies dictate what is right and what is wrong and the people within the society either adhere to the societal requirements or are punished/exiled.
Well as an oversimplification, it's not entirely inaccurate. 'Societies' are 'people groups' and the actions of people necessarily have an effect on the products (including morals) of a society, likewise the people within a society are necessarily effected by their experiances, which includes their social experiances. The cause and effect is not mono-directional I guess is what I am pointing out.

The trouble or conflict occurs when there are different opinions within a society, such as ours, concerning everything from abortion, to gay marriage, to simple things such as violence in video games or sex on tv.
Well certainly if people (either because of their moral beliefs or for some other reason) believe that they are obligated, or simply desire to enforce their moral beliefs on people who oppose the beliefs being enforced on them.

Are we? Isnt it just as likely that we collections that include traits of self-centredness?

[ I don't think so]

'Community' doesnt necessarily exist to facilitate mutual advantage to individuals, even if it does do so.

[I ask you if why not then why does an individuel bother]

I dont think that is true in every case.

[I would argue its true in virtually everycase and in obscure cases where it may not that is the result of confused emotions (dying to save fiend is responding to the urge to help those in your community, to help yourself, which in an evolutionary sense produces a positive effect but in individuel cases can provoke irrational behaviour]

Whether or not it is how governments ought to govern, what you are describing is a moral system.

[ I argue that "morality" and "Conscience" are pack instincts designed to benifit the individeul in question, by politician openly taking a logical look at decisions the scope for irrational behaviour is reduced. I advocate Utilitarianism not morality, assuming of course that the purpose of government is to make citizens happy (that I argue is the solepurpose of community)]

Right, but you've gone from arguing that morality is irrational (and so far as I can tell, concluded that it ought to be 'done away with'), to arguing that a particular moral system ought to be the basis of particular decisions (namely those made by governments).

I disagre that have introduced a moral system, I believe I have called for the logical and mathematical decision making, not the illogical and superstionous of conscience.



This is my argument the furtherment of utiliy, the solepurpose of society should not be left in the hands of conscience and morality, but cold hearted and objectivly via the use of utilitarian calulations. Politicians should be elected on ther baisis of their skill at this calculation.

I think that the notion community is an over simplication. We are a collection of self-cetred individuels, "community" only exists to facilitate this for mutual advantage, any action is not for the good of the community, but for the good of the individuel concerned. I suppose I 'm tring to say that when a government is making a judgement, it should not rely on its conscience, which is unrelaible. But should take the action that brings the most satisfaction to the most number of people. While of course measuring the level of satisfaction given from each action is subjective, an estimation using empathy is a more reliable method of government then conscience or superstition, I argue.
I favor a republic. Ergo, I don't agree with you about most of this. Any government exists to serve the long-term best interests of the political entity as an entire, not simply to cater to the often selfish needs of individuals. This is why "pure democracy," which easily devolves into tyranny by majority, is unworkable for most political entities. Government by poll is not effective.

This is my argument the furtherment of utiliy, the solepurpose of society should not be left in the inconsistancies of conscience and morality.
Why should the furtherment of utility matter?

If you suggest we should further utility, what is the rationale of doing so? I know of no possible rationale that is not based on making a moral distinction that values utility over non-utility and/or the frustration of utility.

So to suggest that we should further utility is to suggest a particular moral value, if we base any (or the sole) purpose of society on the value of utility, we are necessarily basing that purpose on morality.

I but I consider the furtherment of utility to be the reason for society. To me asking why should society further utility is like asking why fishing trawlers should search for fish, it is as fundemetal as why aadvarks have long noses or whales have flippers, humans forms groups to increase their Utility. I don't see that as morality, if you do then we differ on our perception of what morality is.

I favor a republic. Ergo, I don't agree with you about most of this. Any government exists to serve the long-term best interests of the political entity as an entire, not simply to cater to the often selfish needs of individuals. This is why "pure democracy," which easily devolves into tyranny by majority, is unworkable for most political entities. Government by poll is not effective.

If your way of working things provides more happyness, satifaction, utilty for your citizens then it is justified by Utilitarianism. If it does not then your society is ineffiecent. I am a captialist and a constituional monarchist. I truly believe that I can reduce my arguments to the fact that they will improve the total utility of society, of course not everyone agrees with me on this point which is fine. I supoose this means that I don't see other people's opinions as "wrong" simply inferior to my own (otherwise i'd adopt there's). I don't see communism, or racism as morally degnerate, but simply inefficient at providing utility and therefore those societies will "die out", or mine will of course, I may be wrong, they could be more effiecnt then me, thats just the way it go's.

I but I consider the furtherment of utility to be the solepurpose of society.
That doesnt make it not a moral judgement. Some people consider the sole purpose of human societies to be the facilitation of the sole purpose of people, and that the sole purpose of people is to 'obey God', that doesnt make their value judgements based on valuing 'obediance to God' not moral judgements.

To me asking why should society further utility is like asking why fishing trawlers should search for fish, it is as fundemetal as why aadvarks have long noses or whales have flippers, humans forms groups to increase their Utility. I don't see that as morality, if you do then we differ on our perception of what morality is.
With all respect you started the thread by asking what morality is.

What you are advocating is in fact a well known moral system, specifically a 'utilitarian moral system' (of some kind or other). In essence you are attaching a value of 'good' to utility, and then using that attached value to justify the 'goodness' or 'rightness' of some things (such as acts that increase utility) over other things (such as acts that decrease utility). That is exactly what a moral system and morality are.

As I point out the valuation of utility is not a novel moral judgement/approach. In fact it is well enough established that I can even tell you what kind of utilitarianism you are advocating if you state whether you are envisioning that utility ought to be used to decide on a case by case basis (ie in each circumstance) what action/s ought to be undertaken (or refrained from), or whether you are envisioning using utility to form a set of rules that on the balance of things would in most cases result in greater utility than some other rule.

With all respect you started the thread by asking what morality is.


Sorry if it was confusing I meant it rhetorically, e.g what is morality, nothing
I didn't actually want an answer, but I suppose its a debate so some wise guy was bound to answer it!

Sorry if it was confusing I meant it rhetorically, e.g what is morality, nothing
Ok, well no need for apologies.
I disagree that morality is 'nothing'. More to the point assuming that by 'nothing' you dont mean 'doesnt exist in any way shape or form', but rather is something that exists, that ought not to because of it not being worthwhile, or being negative in some way, what actually do you believe 'morality' actually is, not in value terms, but as in a description that we can compare things to, in order to determine whether they match the description (and so are 'morality'/a moral system) or dont match the description (and so are not 'morality'/morals)?

I didn't actually want an answer, but I suppose its a debate so some wise guy was bound to answer it!
Aha, but now you've got me wanting an answer....!;)

So in your view, in descriptive non-value-judgement terms, what is 'morality'?

If your way of working things provides more happyness, satifaction, utilty for your citizens then it is justified by Utilitarianism. If it does not then your society is ineffiecent. I am a captialist and a constituional monarchist. I truly believe that I can reduce my arguments to the fact that they will improve the total utility of society, of course not everyone agrees with me on this point which is fine. I supoose this means that I don't see other people's opinions as "wrong" simply inferior to my own (otherwise i'd adopt there's). I don't see communism, or racism as morally degnerate, but simply inefficient at providing utility and therefore those societies will "die out", or mine will of course, I may be wrong, they could be more effiecnt then me, thats just the way it go's.
God save us from untilitarians! :headbang:

Okay my definition of morality

the emotional reactions connected with a decision e.g. the basic reaction of what is percieved to by acceptable by your society and your suitable reaction for your personal advanment within it.

e.g. you see a weaker member of society, your reaction is that they need help, you will feel guilty (which I describe as fear of retribution) if you don't help them so your conscience tells you to help, thus spreading your influence in the tribe and advancing yourself. This battle between direct personal satifaction (keeping your food) or "investing" it by trying to influence the tribe (giving food to the weaker member and perhaps gain their support to advance in the tribe) is the "moral" dilemma.Obviously the worse off they are the greater their influence and the stronger your desire to help. Morality is about personal advancement not what is in the long term interest of the tribe.

Every person has his/her own set of morals and rules. So much we do know. Where they come from is more or less irrelevant in real life, suffice to say that I think they come from both education and experience.

People may never have 100% agreement among themselves over what is moral and what isn't. So much we know too - just look at these forums. :p

So my theory is this: There is no universal morality, but there are rules and guidelines that can be agreed upon by the majority of society. That majority then makes the laws (in a democratic society that happens quickly, in a non-democratic one that takes some time, but ultimately no government in history has successfully ruled against its people for more than a few years) which reflect those rules.

So to a certain extent, our laws are the closest thing to morality. What does that mean for things like abortion? Since it's currently legal, it's pretty clear that the majority of people think it should be (however tight you think the margin may be) - and therefore it is moral.

And breaking the law? Everyone does it when it's not coinciding with your morals on the particular day, and when you think you can get away with it. It worked for the past 4000 years or more, so I think we'll be just fine, regardless of what Moral Philosophy might think of next.

Okay my definition of morality

the emotional reactions connected with a decision e.g. the basic reaction of what is percieved to by acceptable by your society and your suitable reaction for your personal advanment within it.

e.g. you see a weaker member of society, your reaction is that they need help, you will feel guilty (which I describe as fear of retribution) if you don't help them so your conscience tells you to help, thus spreading your influence in the tribe and advancing yourself. This battle between direct personal satifaction (keeping your food) or "investing" it by trying to influence the tribe (giving food to the weaker member and perhaps gain their support to advance in the tribe) is the "moral" dilemma.Obviously the worse off they are the greater their influence and the stronger your desire to help. Morality is about personal advancement not what is in the long term interest of the tribe.
So altruism is nothing more than selfishness all dressed up? Hardly.

Explain the donations made by private citizens in the US to the SE Asian Tsunami relief fund.

All moral decsions are mutalations of this premise of personal advancement, or confusions of it e.g. becoming a monk gives you influence (thumbs up says brain) you won't breed however (oops says evolution I didin't think of that).

So altruism is nothing more than selfishness all dressed up? Hardly.

Explain the donations made by private citizens in the US to the SE Asian Tsunami relief fund.

They are still cavepeople at heart they are still governed by the same emotions. These emotions have evloved to have a net positive effect in caveman situations, take the amn out the cave and into a suit, he still has the same brian, drives and emotions but the situations leads him to do irrational things like give to people he will never meet. Now how could that possible occur to a caveman. Religion is just a further mutalation, crossed wires between empathy, childhood wishes and altruism.

Okay my definition of morality

the emotional reactions connected with a decision e.g.
Oh, well that's not the accepted meaning of the word.

the basic reaction of what is percieved to by acceptable by your society and your suitable reaction for your personal advanment within it.
Mmm, actually morality refers to the basis on which decisions (regarding for instance acceptability) are made rather than what one 'feels' about those decisions.

e.g. you see a weaker member of society, your reaction is that they need help, you will feel guilty (which I describe as fear of retribution) if you don't help them so your conscience tells you to help, thus spreading your influence in the tribe and advancing yourself.
That's not morality. It might be linked to morality (it may be that moral beliefs are what cause you to feel guilty or percieve that you would feel guilty), but 'feeling guilty' or doing something to avoid feeling guilty isnt what is meant by morality.

This battle between direct personal satifaction (keeping your food) or "investing" it by trying to influence the tribe (giving food to the weaker member and perhaps gain their support to advance in the tribe) is the "moral" dilemma.
No, it is only a moral dilema if one applies to the decision a moral system that gives positive moral value to both possible courses of action.

Obviously the worse off they are the greater their influence and the stronger your desire to help. Morality is about personal advancement not what is in the long term interest of the tribe.
To be honest I dont know of any widely accepted definition of morality that is consistent with your description. Morality is about what is the 'right' and what is the 'wrong' thing to do. According to one moral system personal advancement at the expense of doing good in terms of the long term interest of the tribe, might be morally right, whilst according to some other moral system it might be wrong.

They are still cavepeople at heart they are still governed by the same emotions.
I suspect that few if any of the people Eutrusca referred to, were ever cavemen, much less are still (or were still at the time of making the donations).

These emotions have evloved to have a net positive effect in caveman situations,
We dont know that. The emotions you refer to may be the necessary consequence of other traits that exist for whatever reason.

take the amn out the cave and into a suit, he still has the same brian, drives and emotions but the situations leads him to do irrational things like give to people he will never meet.
I honestly dont think that it is likely that living one's life as a cave dweller and living one's life as an urbanite, dont result in differences that extend to the brain.

Now how could that possible occur to a caveman. Religion is just a further mutalation, crossed wires between empathy, childhood wishes and altruism.
I dont know that religion is a mutation, or caused by crossed wires between empathy, childhood wishes and altruism.

None the less, morality doesnt refer to emotional reactions. One can make decisions based on their moral beliefs (their morality) without necessarily engaging their emotions in order to do so.

If it doesn't we're screwed. Or we should have been.

If it doesn't we're screwed. Or we should have been.
:confused: What exactly is 'it' (morality perhaps)?
Whatever it is, what it is that it must do in order that we not be screwed (or have been screwed)?:confused:

At this point, I would have to say no, not really. I'm not sure what I believe in terms of ethics. Indeed, I'm almost wondering whether it would be better simply to embrace a completely rational viewpoint and just resign myself to being a piece of matter operating according to deterministic laws of physics with no value or real will at all.

On the other hand, that view is so bleak and hopeless that I have to wonder if there is a way around it. Maybe I'm being wishywashy, but I do hope there is some possibility that I can control my life and change my situation. I'd be better off simply killing myself if I have no options (though even that doesn't mean much since I was predetermined to kill myself).

Morality is, put simply, the definition or list of things with which a society or individual will or will not put up with. Correct morality is such a list constructed as an ordinance of reason in congruence with the moral law.

At this point, I would have to say no, not really.
I'm sorry if it seems obtuse of me not to realise, but when you say 'no' what are you saying 'no' to?

I'm not sure what I believe in terms of ethics.
That may not be a bad thing, it may in fact be pragmatic, depending on the degree and kind of uncertainty, and the implications of you specifically holding that particular degree and kind of uncertainty.

Indeed, I'm almost wondering whether it would be better simply to embrace a completely rational viewpoint and just resign myself to being a piece of matter operating according to deterministic laws of physics with no value or real will at all.
Perhaps it would be, but I doubt it. I think embracing a rational viewpoint is probably beneficial, and resigning yourself to, (or better still finding a way to embrace) being in all liklihood limited in what you can do and be, by the same factors that facilitate all that you can do and be.

I dont think that your having no value or real will at all, is a necessary consequent of such beliefs.

On the other hand, that view is so bleak and hopeless that I have to wonder if there is a way around it.
The bleak conclusions you have drawn are unnecessary. Taking a rational veiw 'being matter' does not necessitate the conclusions you have drawn. In fact from my point of view, the bleak conclusions you have drawn are not as rational as other far more (to me anyway) cheerful conclusions.

Maybe I'm being wishywashy,
I dont think you are. :)

but I do hope there is some possibility that I can control my life and change my situation.
'Control', as in unlimited control over all effecting you? No. Change your situation, yes, most certainly.

I'd be better off simply killing myself if I have no options (though even that doesn't mean much since I was predetermined to kill myself).
You have options.

I'm sorry if it seems obtuse of me not to realise, but when you say 'no' what are you saying 'no' to?

No, I tend to lean toward the conclusion that morals don't exist.

'Control', as in unlimited control over all effecting you? No. Change your situation, yes, most certainly.

You have options.

How? If I'm just a lump of matter responding to the laws of physics in a predetermined manner, then what options do I have?

Morality is a subjective human construct and nothing more. Morality is what "ought" to be done, but this is not something preordained but decided by humans. What is more, humans disagree on what "ought" to be done.

No, I tend to lean toward the conclusion that morals don't exist.
Morals most definately exist. 'Dont lie' is an instance of a moral that exists.

That the moral exists, doesnt mean or everyone, or anyone allows acts consistently with it. It doesnt mean that acting consistently with it is something that ought to be done, rather that acting consistently with it is something at least one person, at least one time, believed was morally right.


How? If I'm just a lump of matter responding to the laws of physics in a predetermined manner, then what options do I have?
I dont know that 'lump of matter' accurately conveys what you are.

'Determination' isnt 'pre-determination'.

The set 'what is possible' is probably not an infinite set. However it is also probably a larger set than the set 'what actually happens'.
This is where the pragmatism I mentioned in an earlier post comes in. When rationally considered it is just as likely as not, (so far as I have been able to ascertain), that the above is not contrary to any objectively existing reality. It seems to me that I'll experiance a prefered set of outcomes if I believe that it is likely to be true.

The existence of morality is something that is difficult to determine. I would claim that the most important form of morality is what works. Pragmatism seems moral to me. I suppose that there is also the question of your goals but if it is all practical or justified or something than it is good enough. It is moral to kill a baby for a billion dollars if enough of that money goes to charity.

The existence of morality is something that is difficult to determine.
The existence of morality is no more difficult to determine than the existence of political views.

I would claim that the most important form of morality is what works.
Assuming that any form of morality is important. I think what doesnt work is probably as significant (ie important).

Pragmatism seems moral to me.
When you say 'seems' do you just mean 'intuitively feels' or based on 'intentional reasoning'?

I suppose that there is also the question of your goals but if it is all practical or justified or something than it is good enough.
I think I know what you are driving at here.

It is moral to kill a baby for a billion dollars if enough of that money goes to charity.
If my reasoning isnt erroneous, the question doesnt 'make sense'.
'Is X moral?', is akin to asking 'is X faster?'

I argue again Zagat that morality is a human construct based on human emotion. No moral desecision can ever be based on any thing unless you attach emotion, I would ask for any decision that you can condeman as wrong unless you emoitional do not wish it on yourself, murder, exploitation, theft. Morals are the emotional conditioning part trained into you since birth part natural reaction, but at all stages and levels egotistical. The usual definition of morality is meaningless as suggests that humans have "right" and "wrong" types of behaviour. There are nouniversal truths in morality as it represents only the desire for egotistical advancement.

I argue again Zagat that morality is a human construct based on human emotion.
That might be the case.

No moral desecision can ever be based on any thing unless you attach emotion,
That might also be the case.

I would ask for any decision that you can condeman as wrong unless you emoitional do not wish it on yourself, murder, exploitation, theft.
'condem' is a moral judgement.

Morals are the emotional conditioning part trained into you since birth part natural reaction, but at all stages and levels egotistical.
'Emotional conditioning' does not by itself constitute the makeup/structure/etc of a person's morality.

The usual definition of morality is meaningless as suggests that humans have "right" and "wrong" types of behaviour.
I dont know what you mean by usual, but I understand morality to refer to a value system concerned with 'moral value' (ie 'good or bad', 'right or wrong'). There is no implication or suggestion that there is necessarily a right and wrong type of behaviour.

There are nouniversal truths in morality as it represents only the desire for egotistical advancement.
What if egotisitical advancement is some kind of universal truth?
Do you mean to say that it is not necessarily true that in any existing objective reality, there is any thing that could be appropriately construed as 'moral right' and/or 'moral wrong', prior to/independent of someone or something (such as a human being) conceiving and/or intending and/or believing they percieve it?
If so, then we dont disagree on that point.

I'm saying that, becuase morality is based on emotion and all human emotion is selfish, when making decision you should not, as Jiminey Cricket asked us to do, "follow your conscience" but choose a coarse of action that produces the most utility for the most people (utility divided by the population). This I argue is the most rational thing to do as incresing utility is the purpose of society.

I'm saying that, becuase morality is based on emotion and all human emotion is selfish, when making decision you should not, as Jiminey Cricket asked us to do, "follow your conscience" but choose a coarse of action that produces the most utility for the most people (utility divided by the population). This I argue is the most rational thing to do as incresing utility is the purpose of society.
So in summary what you are saying is the 'best' moral system, (ie the one that we ought to use to decide between 'right and wrong', 'good and bad'), is 'act utilitarism'?

No, merely that would produce the most effiencient society. That best fulflis its purpose. Emotional and morality are not needed.

No, merely that would produce the most effiencient society. That best fulflis its purpose. Emotional and morality are not needed.
A value judgement is still required (and so it is still a moral system). I suggest that the value probably cannot be proven as being objective.

f the value is objective, then it there is some 'ultimate, objective, absolute morality'. If there is no ultimate objective morality, then there is no rational way to posit a value. We are stuck making do with 'preferences', whether or not the means 'emotion' to you (as per your definitions and understandings) it is still a value that cannot be demonstrated to be objective.

Either you cannot make a distinction between 'good and bad', 'right and wrong' etc, or there is some objective absolute moral truth, or you make that distinction based on a moral system or moral notion. There is simply no other way.

Take efficiency, well so what if a way of doing things is efficient? The only reason it would be significant is if either there is some absolute objective way in which efficiency is 'good' (ie an absolute morality that exists regardless of humans and their intentions) or if we choose to 'value' efficiency. That is all a moral system is, the valuing of some things as 'good' and others as 'not good'.

You're falling into the trap there of assuming that morality arises from one's feelings of sympathy (or lack of sympathy in some cases) towards others. This is nonsense as the source of all morality is religious prejudice, and those without religious prejudice are incapable of making a moral decision about anything. The bible says so, or it would if it was more clearly written, and didn't need to be interpreted by religious leaders.

Your understanding of the source of morality is erroneous.

Societies with no organized religion still have a sense of morality. While virtually all societies have some sort of tradition of supernatural understanding, cultures which hold this religion as something to impose upon others are in a very severe minority. The people who belong to these religions are more numerous, but only because they have either been converted at swordpoint or killed and replaced by their less devout neighbors' progeny.

Virtually every culture's understanding of morality is nothing more than a combination of inborn drives and desires and their compromise with the necessities of survival with their neighbors. That's why in nomadic hunter/gatherer peoples morality requires that you share everything you have with everyone around you, regardless of how much work anyone does. In complex industrial and post-industrial societies morality requires that you work hard for everything you have, and if you are given a gift you must either reciprocate quickly or refuse the gift as "just too much."

Morality is simply a contract arrived at by the people of any location. "You want to live here, you'll live enough like us that we're not uncomfortable with you." In secluded small towns this means not being gay, cheering for the local high-school football team, and attending church." In big sophisticated cities it means not caring that people are gay, not caring that people speak another language, moving quickly so that you're not in other people's way, and being open to the possibility that just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it has no value.

This isn't because small town folks are inherently intolerant, it's just that in a small town there is not going to be a lot of variety and it's possible for everyone to know eachother, so they have to make an effort to make eachother comfortable. In a big city you're going to see so many different things, here so many different noises, and have to deal with so many different kinds of people that if you can't be cordial to wierdos then you can't possibly function. And you don't have a prayer of getting to know all your neighbors, so it doesn't pay to try to form friendly relationships with them, it's more important that they just don't scare you out of the neighborhood.