Morality without Choice?

[Leopard]

Hello!
The topic is: is it possible to be 'moral' without having a choice in the matter. For instance, is a person who is incarcerated (and thus prevented from committing murder perhaps) made 'moral' even if given the chance, they would committ an 'immoral' act against others?

I posit that an action is not, by itself, either moral or immoral, but rather, it is the combination of an action WITH the 'choosing' to undertake it. Not killing someone is amoral (without moral value), but 'choosing' to not kill someone is moral.

From a religious perspective, I would say this is exactly why God granted man 'freewill' because without it, Man could not 'choose' God. He could of made us all obedient little God worshippers, but that means nothing. It is in having the choice to do immoral things that the choice of being moral means something.

yes, there is a further road to the line of reasoning that I am getting at... I want to see where everyone weighs in first.

michael

[AnonT]

That's a very good way of putting it.
I was thinking, when reading the thread on libertarianism and Christianity, that forcing someone to do moral deeds doesn't make them moral; leaving them the choice between good and evil, and their choosing good, makes them moral.

However, this does beg the question: If someone else is doing something evil, and you sit by and let it happen, is your inaction immoral? If you have a choice between allowing evil to happen and trying to stop it, is not stopping it immoral, or amoral?

[Highwayman]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
Hello&#33;
The topic is: is it possible to be &#39;moral&#39; without having a choice in the matter. For instance, is a person who is incarcerated (and thus prevented from committing murder perhaps) made &#39;moral&#39; even if given the chance, they would committ an &#39;immoral&#39; act against others?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Depends how convoluted your definition of &#39;moral&#39; is- certainly somebody not committing any immoral acts cannot be considered immoral. However, a person with stated intentions and convictions to commit immoral actions if given the chance, could be classed as immoral in his intentions. Viz a viz "the usual suspects"...

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)

I posit that an action is not, by itself, either moral or immoral, but rather, it is the combination of an action WITH the &#39;choosing&#39; to undertake it. Not killing someone is amoral (without moral value), but &#39;choosing&#39; to not kill someone is moral.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Hmmm- I assume you are not a sniper in the police aiming at a vicious axe murderer about to chop off a little three year old girls head when you decide that...

Depends again on the relative value you place on the immorality of killing anybody... As a Christian, killing is sin(*sort of). As a "consequentialist", I&#39;d shoot the bad guy full of holes.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)

From a religious perspective, I would say this is exactly why God granted man &#39;freewill&#39; because without it, Man could not &#39;choose&#39; God. He could of made us all obedient little God worshippers, but that means nothing. It is in having the choice to do immoral things that the choice of being moral means something.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

God is a weeeee bit ambigious regarding "morality": Familiar with "Thou shallt not kill" and the history of Sodom and Gommorah, or some of the tribes god instructed the Jews to "smite"- man, woman, child and even the livestock... or that guy who promised god to offer the first thing that meet him from his house, and it turned out to be his daughter whom he had to butcher...

Abraham&#39;s actions meant "moral" and "righteous" to god because of his willingness to sacrifice his own son Isaac. I would have liked &#39;Abe&#39; to be locked up in an asylum for the rest of his (un)natural life...

Man, what a quagmire&#33;(*sort of)

If we consider the above contrasting moral rulings of god, I would say god is pretty relative, morally speaking. I would say that god would consider more than the factual action when judging the morality of it. Justification would be possible, as in "But you said we must kill them all...?&#33;"

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)

yes, there is a further road to the line of reasoning that I am getting at... I want to see where everyone weighs in first.
michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I would just like to add that when you said, "It is in having the choice to do immoral things that the choice of being moral means something", you are of course using a tautology... Any "value"(meaning) of an action lies in its morality- being morally judge-able has inherent meaning.

A psychopath, having no moral judgement ability, has to be informed about the morality of his murderous action- that does not make his action amoral, and certainly not moral, even though he chose to do it without immoral intent.

Thus, any action, inherently has a moral "vector" to it... says I, as a rational observer.

I hope I weighed in OK.

[m5lange1]

Excellent topic. The flip of it would be interesting too (and much more common). Choice without morality.

Not meaning evil choice, just choices made without reference to morality.

[Lightbearer]

Observation of moral judgements across time and culture shows us that no moral situation can exist without choice. Were moral culpability to exist without choice, then we would morally condemn the person who is thrown out of a window and lands upon another person for the harm caused to the second person.

Fortunately throughout time and across cultures we have not made such judgements, but instead recognized that for a moral situation to exist there must be choice, as well as rationality, and at least the possibility of harm to other moral agents.

[Leopard]

interesting...

I am of the mind that morality is relative: first to the individual, then to the society/culture that he exists.

AnonT: yes, if it is within your power to prevent an &#39;immoral&#39; (as defined by above: you, then your culture) act from occuring, then to let it occur is an choice of action which is immoral in itself. hmmmm, notice here that even though I am stipulating that choice+action = (im)morality, I then turn about 180 degrees and call an act (of itself) immoral.

example#1: if you believe that the taking of another persons life, unless in defense of your own, is immoral, then, the act of NOT shooting the knife wielding person who is threatening harm against another must also be immoral.

example#2: The same person would be acting immoral if they did not help to prevent an amoral act from producing the same consequences: saving a drowning person, or one in the path of an avalanche.

Highwayman: yes, I too find religious morality to be mostly An Appeal to Authority in support of a persons own personal morality - the bible is too vague on the matter (and I am unfamiliar as to whether other religions are also as vague, but my guess would be that they are).

yes, my assertion:
I posit that an action is not, by itself, either moral or immoral, but rather, it is the combination of an action WITH the &#39;choosing&#39; to undertake it. Not killing someone is amoral (without moral value), but &#39;choosing&#39; to not kill someone is moral.
is kind of awkward and highlights the fact that the entire &#39;morality&#39; issue is one in which I haven&#39;t put much thought into, which leads me to my statement:
yes, there is a further road to the line of reasoning that I am getting at... I want to see where everyone weighs in first.
At this time I don&#39;t think I can further my line of reasoning since my fundamentals have yet to be thoroughly thought out... so I am not &#39;getting at&#39; anything at this time (was going to try to rationalize the abdication of legislation as being morally preventative... but my whole line was to weak)

re: your statment &#39;I hope I weighed in OK.&#39; - I didn&#39;t mean to set myself in a position to judge, I appreciate all inputs.

m5lange1: I think that all choices are made with respect to a persons morality, in fact that perhaps it is more the case that the automatic filter we put action choices through is more reflective of our morality rather than the supposed morality we expouse.

Lightbearer: yes, I agree

[Lightbearer]

Are you agreeing with my statement about objective morality while at the same time claiming that morality is purely relative? Or are you attributing an agreement on my part to your assertion that morality is purely relative in the extreme?

[Kyran]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
interesting...

I am of the mind that morality is relative: first to the individual, then to the society/culture that he exists.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I argue that people are relative; morality is static. One can either be Morally Absolute, Morally Relative, or Morally Corrupt.

An explanation of Ethical-Relativism:
http://www.carm.org/relativism/ethical.htm

Even so-called christians can be either of these three. Morally absolute christians base morality upon Love God (the most) and each other as ourselves.

The morally relative follow the Ten Commandments but apply "social norms" like Abstinence, big fancy ceremonies, and an appeal to cultish appearance. The only reason any preacher dresses up in those ungodly robes is because he is expected to. This form of relativism allows for Tradition to play a dominant role in deciding church activity.

Morally corrupt christians declare God as the authority of all morality while promoting the use of Force in unjust ways; contrary to Love. Christian neo-nazis exemplify a racist, however typical, condescending attitude which cries out for Vengeance. This is highly similar to the "liberal christian" cry for "Social Justice" against the "rich." Notice the attitude is all politics and no religion&#33;

Frank Meyer, the first fusionist, argued that morality requires the will of individuals. He is correct. Consider the use of "justified ends to suit evil means" where force is applied. Forcing others to "do good" is always evil.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
However, this does beg the question: If someone else is doing something evil, and you sit by and let it happen, is your inaction immoral? If you have a choice between allowing evil to happen and trying to stop it, is not stopping it immoral, or amoral?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Inaction is neutral; it is never moral or immoral. Everyone reaps what they sow. One is not liable for the consequences that others pour upon themselves, even if you have the power to stop it. God is not immoral by allowing us to rape, steal, and murder each other in life. We honestly are able to see who does and who doesn&#39;t love.

All moral acts are done by one&#39;s own volition to save the life, liberty, and property of others. In comparison, immoral acts are often done when one subjects himself to the choice of another. Good people don&#39;t force you to do their dirty work for them.

Despite the reality of the nature of morality, the morally corrupt consider themselves moral in everything they do. The morally relative still consider any morality subjective to social whims or tradition. It is up to oneself to decide how they value all things: people, liberty, choice, morality, etc.