Morality Vote & Discussion

[Yasa]

What's your view on morals?

Objective Moralist - morals exist above and beyond human perception and there is an absolute, unchanging criteria that judges what is right and what is wrong.

Cultural Relativist - what is right and wrong all depends on the views of your culture/country/society. The collective opinions of the major population of your culture dictate what is right and wrong.

Personal Relativist - what is right and wrong all depends on the views of yourself as an individual. Your personal opinion and view dictates what is right and wrong.

Moral Nihilist- morals do not exist in any objective sense. What is right and wrong is similar to asking what flavour of bubblegum is the best.



I have probably misrepresented most or all of these headings in some way, however if you'd like to comment on just how exactly you feel regarding the issue, I encourage it!

As for myself, I am a strong moral nihilist.

Problems with Moral Relativism (cultural/personal)

Although cultural relativism was what I first believed, I now see every form of moral relativity simply as adding to the nihilist argument. Under both personal and cultural relativism, these subjective views often lead to contradicting opinions about right and wrong, as the times change (think slavery, etc.). Cultural relativism also implies that all minorities and revolutionaries, etc. are in the wrong. Personal relativism obviously can lead to many opposing views of what is right, which is a logical impossibility (after all, who is right: the serial killer, or the pacifist?).

Recall that the implications of relative morality means that if the culture deems something 'right', then is actually is right. As is the same with personal relativism. Such implications imply that an objective, absolute standard can change when the views change--something rather contradictory.

Problems with Objective Morality

It is quite clear that there is no absolute set of morals to which all of humankind adheres. So, how do we know who's standard is the true objective one? The religious of all sorts will claim it is theirs. Similar to different cultures believing their morals are correct, the different religions do just the same. No scripture is grounds enough to determine this answer because:
-scripture is written by humans, with no evidence of any divine intervention--faith is not an adequate reason to view one set of morals as objective rather than another.
- there is undoubtedly not only one scripture in the world to which we could use as a reference.
-many things written in scripture that were considered okay are now considered wrong--defenders of this objective standard must bite the bullet and accept everything that was written as right (ex. look to the Old Testaments for examples).

Also, what is right and wrong can only be considered by those conscious enough to perceive a situation. As such, it is perception that defines what is right and wrong and thus, without the beings with said consciousness, morality doesn't exist. After all, there is nothing right or wrong for a rock, the Earth, the galaxy, or the universe--further discouraging the idea of objective rights and wrongs.

Problems with Moral Nihilism


Moral nihilists are criticized in that many claims they can't have a say in what is right or wrong because they don't believe in them.

This is true when right and wrong are taken in a objective sense. However, I think moral nihilists are able to defend what they feel to be 'right' or 'wrong' in the same way they are able to defend what kind of ice cream flavour is the best. While knowing they don't believe in a objective answer, they can speak for what they think would be best based on a personal and subjective level. This is where moral nihilists and cultural relativists can see eye to eye on many issues. The only difference is, under cultural relativism, whatever is considered right at the time is viewed as objectively right--something to which I have already criticized above.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope you will share your arguments for your position and against mine.

[SoylentGreen]

I go for moral nihilist. Right and wrong are purely subjective and changeable to the situation.
The only wrong is getting caught.

[Morality Games]

The default condition of morality is subjectivism. This state of conscience develops as a direct reaction to the phenomenon each individual entity encounters and the innate predispositions resultant of their genetics. A child with pacifist genes will observe a fight and feel anxious, and a person with aggressive genes will observe a fight and feel excited, and due to a freak of consciousness each child will perceive their respective judgments as facts that are true independent of our perception of them. Another phenomenon encountered by every entity are the various physical expressions of cultural values, whether hearing one's parents make a comment regarding a social norm, seeing persons practice this norm in public, or watching a person being punished for disobeying this norm. Children will develop moral opinions as the move through space-time, and these will very much depend on their innermost nature and whatever experiences they have along life's way.

Social norms themselves are a product of the collective being of the individuals comprising society in action over a long period of time – primordially, the experiences and innate predispositions of each person collide when they form into groups, and social intercourse throughout groups creates a consensus on which 'moral perceptions' will be considered valid by the community as a whole. Such consensus is possible because the bulk of humanity's innate predispositions are the same or are to some degree reconcilable in spite of their differences. Children, coming with their own set of innate predispositions, are never blank states – their genetics see to that – but they are highly susceptible to phenomenon upon being born, and systems formal and informal are in place to integrate them in the community's moral processes while they mature into young men and women.


. . . I was going to write more, but I doubt anyone will read this and I new to go wash dishes and sweep my room. Anyway, it's not evident from what I wrote above, by I am a moral objectivist.

[Morality Games]

The default condition of morality is subjectivism. This state of conscience develops as a direct reaction to the phenomenon each individual entity encounters and the innate predispositions resultant of their genetics. A child with pacifist genes will observe a fight and feel anxious, and a person with aggressive genes will observe a fight and feel excited, and due to a freak of consciousness each child will perceive their respective judgments as facts that are true independent of our perception of them. Another phenomenon encountered by every entity are the various physical expressions of cultural values, whether hearing one's parents make a comment regarding a social norm, seeing persons practice this norm in public, or watching a person being punished for disobeying this norm. Children will develop moral opinions as the move through space-time, and these will very much depend on their innermost nature and whatever experiences they have along life's way.

Social norms themselves are a product of the collective of individuals comprising society engaging in activities over a long period of time – primordially, the experiences and innate predispositions of each person collide when they form into groups, and social intercourse throughout groups creates a consensus on which 'moral perceptions' will be considered valid by the community as a whole. Such consensus is possible because the bulk of humanity's innate predispositions are the same or are to some degree reconcilable in spite of their differences. Children, coming with their own set of innate predispositions, are never blank states – their genetics see to that – but they are highly susceptible to phenomenon upon being born, and systems formal and informal are in place to integrate them in the community's moral processes while they mature into young men and women.


. . . I was going to write more, but I doubt anyone will read this and I new to go wash dishes. Anyway, it's not evident from what I wrote above, by I am a moral objectivist.

[SoylentGreen]

Morality GamesAnyway, it's not evident from what I wrote above, by I am a moral objectivist.

No it definitly isn't evident. you start with The default condition of morality is subjectivism., and end up saying your a moral objectivist. Sounds a bit contrary.

Children, coming with their own set of innate predispositions, are never blank states – their genetics see to that –

That to requires explaining. Genetics may develop certain traits , but does that relate to an innate disposition?
Passive and aggressive genes, or a learned response.

[Morality Games]

No it definitly isn't evident. you start with The default condition of morality is subjectivism., and end up saying your a moral objectivist. Sounds a bit contrary.

I will explain later. I need to go now.

That to requires explaining. Genetics may develop certain traits , but does that relate to an innate disposition? Passive and aggressive genes, or a learned response.

'Disposition' is a shorter way of referencing 'an attitude toward something'. A person's mental-physical bearing in response to an occurence is their disposition toward it. When we talk about how people think, feel or act about something, we are talking about how they are disposed toward it.

Now, a 'predisposition' would be whatever it is in living organisms which makes them more likely to develop particular dispositions instead of just any disposition in response to an occurence. Predisposition and genetics are interchangeable concepts.

[SoylentGreen]

Morality GamesPredisposition and genetics are interchangeable concepts.

Genetics only refer to physical disposition.
An example perhaps might be the god gene. An overabundance of stimulation by a certain chemical in the brain may make a person predisposed towards having a leaning towards a more spiritual side.
However this does not automatically imply that the person will have any belief in a god . That would be determined by upbringing , social influence.
The same that a person might have a predisposition towards being aggressive or passive , have empathy or be a sociopath. But none of that means that the person will have a innate understanding of morality. That would be determined by upbringing, social influence.

[Walrus]

I would say there is some inherent basis for morally that was essential for our survival as a tribal group but beyond that morality it would seem to deviate culturally.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Walrus I would say there is some inherent basis for morally that was essential for our survival as a tribal group but beyond that morality it would seem to deviate culturally.

The problem there is that you are using the wrong word. We are inherently social, and instinctively pack animals.
Morality is just a concept developed to assist us in the herding instinct.
They are just rules that we create and that is why they not only deviate culturally but also individually.

[Walrus]

We are neither a herd animal nor a pack animal, although we possess some of those traits. We evolved as a tribal animal, the qualities of harmony, empathy, sympathy, sharing and cooperation were all in the tribe’s interest, and the survival of the tribe was paramount in order for the individual to survive. Many of the traits that have lead to what we call morality can be seen in our closest relatives, the Chimpanzee and the Bonobo. The problem with tribal morality is that it doesn’t always extend to those we consider to be outside our tribe.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Genetics only refer to physical disposition. An example perhaps might be the god gene. An overabundance of stimulation by a certain chemical in the brain may make a person predisposed towards having a leaning towards a more spiritual side. However this does not automatically imply that the person will have any belief in a god . That would be determined by upbringing , social influence. The same that a person might have a predisposition towards being aggressive or passive , have empathy or be a sociopath. But none of that means that the person will have a innate understanding of morality. That would be determined by upbringing, social influence.

I think you are over complicating my meaning and I don't see where you are going with this. The word 'disposition' has referred to a person's attitude and bearing toward a given subject for time immemorial, and it isn't much of a leap to say a 'pre-disposition' would be those chemical files called genes which exert insurmountable influence on the dispositions people develop. A disposition is a someone's visible attitude and bearing toward a person, object, or event, so a pre-disposition could only be what allows a disposition to exist to begin with. Hence the word pre. You seem to be adding layers of meaning to my language I did not intend to be there.

I don't think people have an innate understanding of morality. I see objective morality as a practical discipline (like engineering or medicine) which can be engaged in . . . or not.

More properly:

Engineers and doctors have crafts which deal with a specific focus -- machinery for one and the human body for the other. Moralists, from the prophets of Old Testament to today's ethicists in the philosophical community, also practice a craft which deals with a specific focus -- how humans should live out the duration of their existence.

Granted, morality doesn't work exactly like engineering or doctoring, but in principle many of the same notions apply. Just as we say technology is improving if it can accomplish more sophisticated tasks, so do we say morality is improving if it helps humans live a more fulfilling existence.

[SoylentGreen]

Morality GamesI see objective morality as a practical discipline (like engineering or medicine) which can be engaged in . . . or not.

I think I see what you mean.
But I would disagree that morality is a practical discipline. For me it seems more of a fluid concept. Something that is molded to fit the given situation.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I think I see what you mean. But I would disagree that morality is a practical discipline. For me it seems more of a fluid concept. Something that is molded to fit the given situation.

Like politics, ethics (morality) is a practical discipline and always has been, ever since the concept existed. Like technology, which changes to better satisfy the needs of its users, and medicine, which changes to better preserve and extend human life, morality changes so it can better pave the way for the best manner of living.

Like technology and medicine, on base of people's desires and focuses, morality has taken different forms in different places at different times, but that doesn't mean every morality is equal to its task -- the machinery and medicine of third-world countries is markedly inferior to the machinery and medicine of Europe, for instance. Is that not also the case for morality? Westerners seem to receive benefits from our moralities that people in third-world countries do not enjoy.

That people may feel more or less satisfied with their morality makes no difference -- people in third-world countries may feel satisfied with their plumbing (because they know nothing better), but that does not mean it functions as well as, say, plumbing in North America.

[Jack_Sparrow]

I believe there are objective, reasonable laws that can be arrived at via logic which benefit mankind. I think morals however, are just evolutions approximation at them, so that we can do what maximises our survival without us having to think for a very long time, and work at removing bias, and all the other things necessary to use pure logic effectively.

What I am saying is, morals are the icing on the cake, underneath there is the logic that they tended to help our ancestors survive rather than die, even though there is some randomness involved from generation to generation. I am an objective moralist therefore, I believe the law system and morals should coincide to a large extent.

[Night]

There is moral right and wrong. Just like there is no definite good and bad. All are personal feelings and opinions and are not shared by all people. Many people see morals as divine rules from god, to be followed closely. Others see them as rules in society to keep things running smoothly. I don't care either way. I have my own personal taste regarding the conduct of my actions and I don't need people telling me what is "wrong" and what is "right".

[SoylentGreen]

Morality Gamesthe machinery and medicine of third-world countries is markedly inferior to the machinery and medicine of Europe, for instance. Is that not also the case for morality?

I think it more the other way around. Our need for morality lessens as we better understand what influences us.
Morality is more like religion. A way of controlling others. The more primitive the society the greater the influence morality has, the more stricter the rules. But as society develops it's technology and understanding then morality becomes more fluid less a rule and more a guide line.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I think it more the other way around. Our need for morality lessens as we better understand what influences us. Morality is more like religion. A way of controlling others. The more primitive the society the greater the influence morality has, the more stricter the rules. But as society develops it's technology and understanding then morality becomes more fluid less a rule and more a guide line.

I don't think so. 'Morality' can be used to refer to the conglomerate of values held by each person. No one can escape having values – not you, not me, or anyone else. Values may change, they may be contradictory or inconsistent, but you can't exist in this world and at the same time value nothing. Living itself implicates you value existing. Enough not to just lay motionless and starve to death anyway. Strict rule-following, as you describe it, is an incidental feature of morality, not the defining aspect, and strictness and rules can go away with some kind of morality still being present. Some kind of morality must always be present in every human.

If morality and values are continuous concepts, then morality can never go away – its not in humanity's character to value nothing.

To elaborate more on my old point: from a sociological perspective, cultures operate like systems which unify people under a single table of values. Humans being impressionable creatures, the values of the culture (or rather each individual's interpretations of those values) are generally accepted throughout without much fuss. People receive benefits from accepting this cultural morality – the security which comes from being part of an orderly group satisfies desires for self-preservation and pleasure quite nicely – so they never think to challenge the authenticity of their culture's values. Such people exist in a 'subjective' state – they receive values from their culture, but they don't challenge them (why question something which works for you?). In much the same way, most people don't question their vehicles or their medicines (they don't feel a compulsion to become engineers and doctors in order to understand how these things work – they don't feel a compulsion to become priests to understand how their religion's morality works).

In contrast, the people (moralists) who make knowing values – their origins, nature, and applications – are like engineers and doctors in that they understand how an object functions and know what they need to do to make it serve human interests. The engineer understands machinery, the doctor the human body, and the moralist understands whatever it is about humans which makes them value things and why. The better the engineer understands his craft, the better suited he is to produce a machine which will be a great benefit to the interested parties. The same goes for the doctor and the moralist.

The moralist, in so far as he is not a pseudo-moralist, is of course a moral objectivist -- he looks at values from a feigned third-person perspective -- he thinks about morality objectively, the same way the physicist thinks about the universe, the psychologist the mind, the engineer his machines, and the doctor the human body.

[SoylentGreen]

Morality GamesI don't think so. 'Morality' can be used to refer to the conglomerate of values held by each person. No one can escape having values – not you, not me, or anyone else. Values may change,

I do separate the two. The values that are held by each person are genetically based. Empathy or sociopath, aggressiveness or passiveness. Unlike animals humans have an ability to some extent, to override these values through experience.
Morality as you said can refer to the conglomerate of these values. But although the core genetics are similar each individual has there own unique upbringing, which makes the perceived morality of each individual similar but personally unique.

But morality is not the values that are held by each person. Morality is what happens when a social group comes together . They are the man made rules that are applied to interaction.
That the rules can work is because we are genetically coded for that to be possible . The rules themselves though are arbitrary constructs not a natural event.

If morality and values are continuous concepts, then morality can never go away – its not in humanity's character to value nothing.

True but it is the consistency of morality that changes. In primitive times consistency was far more important than in today's modern world. Morality rules changed little back then but can change repeatedly within a generation today.

To elaborate more on my old point: from a sociological perspective, cultures operate like systems which unify people under a single table of values. Humans being impressionable creatures, the values of the culture (or rather each individual's interpretations of those values) are generally accepted throughout without much fuss.

Agreed if you are referring to older cultures. Today modern culture the values and morality are very much questioned.

I

n contrast, the people (moralists) who make knowing values – their origins, nature, and applications – are like engineers and doctors in that they understand how an object functions and know what they need to do to make it serve human interests. The engineer understands machinery, the doctor the human body, and the moralist understands whatever it is about humans which makes them value things and why. The better the engineer understands his craft, the better suited he is to produce a machine which will be a great benefit to the interested parties. The same goes for the doctor and the moralist.

Here I disagree with the similarity between professions. The physicist , the engineer and to a certain extent the doctor all work from unchanging constants. Neither the psychologist nor the moralist have that luxury.
The moralist can only work within a statistical degree of certainty. Whereas two engines can be exactly alike , no two humans are exactly alike.
Although we should all be able to understand the reasoning behind holding a certain value and give it a moral rule, how each individual in their own personal way applies that rule will differ due to the particular circumstances they find themselves in at that time.

Values are a natural part of the human psyche , morality is an artificial construct that attempts to bind a social group.

[Tycoon]

I believe in objective morality because through the use of unbiased logic it can always and often easily be decided whether or not an act is immoral.

For example, killing is immoral. Every person has as much a right to live as you do, and you yourself would not want to be killed which can hopefully provide you with a good sense of why it is wrong. The same can be said of theft, of adultery, of every action.

By looking at all of these examples I come to the simple conclusion that anything that causes harm is immoral. Sometimes this leads to questions such as "would you kill one person to save one-thousand?" Yes, I would. The act is still immoral but necessary and justified.

Just my two cents.

[SoylentGreen]

TycoonYes, I would. The act is still immoral but necessary and justified.

Killing only becomes immoral when it can't be justified.
It is not immoral to kill to save yours or another's life. Nor is it immoral to assist a suicide if that person is dieing and in pain, or even abortion is not immoral. Yet many would say it is.

By looking at all of these examples I come to the simple conclusion that anything that causes harm is immoral.

Yet telling a paedophile that his actions harm children also causes him to feel harmed by the accusation. Sometimes causing harm is unavoidable, yet moral.