Morality

[United Dependencies]

This is a new topic branching off from this post

Unfortunately for you, the only one that counts is the social contract that consists of the aggregate consensus positions of the whole populace. You're the outlier, and you're free to protest as much as you wish, but just like I can't insist on imposing the dictatorship of the proletariat on everyone, you cannot insist on imposing your system of anarchist values upon society.

So if I get a larger part of society to say that I have the right to steal everything you own then your group I can?
Also lol values, proletariat, what? lol Irrelephant? Yes

From who or what does morality originate? How can we determine whether certain actions are right or wrong? Are some actions always wrong or does it depend on the society? Please tell us your thoughts.

[Conserative Morality]

No actions are right or wrong. Morality is a pleasant fiction at times, and at other times it is an unpleasant fiction. Sometimes it is useful, and sometimes it is nothing but a hinderance.

[United Dependencies]

No actions are right or wrong. Morality is a pleasant fiction at times, and at other times it is an unpleasant fiction. Sometimes it is useful, and sometimes it is nothing but a hinderance.

What do you mean a pleasent fiction at times and not at others? Can you give an example of when morality comes in handy?

[Buffett and Colbert]

In b4 "God" and "Morality doesn't exist."

Morality is a social construct that originates from general consensus. Concepts of "right and wrong" depend on the society in question, unless you're viewing the world as a society.

[Conserative Morality]

What do you mean a pleasent fiction at times and not at others? Can you give an example of when morality comes in handy?

A common sense of morality can bind groups and societies together. Sometimes the sense that one has done the 'right' thing can be pleasant. Other times, it causes people to torture themselves over what they believe to be a sin.

In b4 "God" and "Morality doesn't exist."

Morality is a social construct that originates from general consensus. Concepts of "right and wrong" depend on the society in question, unless you're viewing the world as a society.

MUHAHAHAHA!

[Jello Biafra]

Why must there be something (objective) that makes it true?

We give rights to women and other recently oppressed groups as well as attempt to give everyone a say in government. The chinese do not allow much say in government affairs. Why are we right and why are they wrong?

That's the point I'm making, though, that according to what you're proposing, we don't need a reason to believe that they're wrong other than that we feel that they are.

[Hresejnen]

I'd suggest that morality is doing the best thing for those you are associating with, even if it requires some sacrifice on the part of the individual. Of course, this can be a hindrance (especially if you're in research involving people and animals grumblegrumble) but overall it exists to ensure some standard of living.

[United Dependencies]

We give rights to women and other recently oppressed groups as well as attempt to give everyone a say in government. The chinese do not allow much say in government affairs. Why are we right and why are they wrong?

That's the point I'm making, though, that according to what you're proposing, we don't need a reason to believe that they're wrong other than that we feel that they are.

So what is your proposed alternative?

[United Dependencies]

I'd suggest that morality is doing the best thing for those you are associating with, even if it requires some sacrifice on the part of the individual. Of course, this can be a hindrance (especially if you're in research involving people and animals grumblegrumble) but overall it exists to ensure some standard of living.

I like utilitarians.

[Jello Biafra]

That's the point I'm making, though, that according to what you're proposing, we don't need a reason to believe that they're wrong other than that we feel that they are.

So what is your proposed alternative?

That I accept my moral code as correct until shown that it isn't.

[United Dependencies]

So what is your proposed alternative?

That I accept my moral code as correct until shown that it isn't.

Surely you must wonder(or know) why you believe what you believe and why you don't agree with the things you don't agree with?

[Trotskylvania]

Depends. For example, for Kant, murder is categorically impermissible because universalizing the moral axiom of action behind murder would result in a contradiction of conceivability. Thus, there is a perfect duty placed upon someone to not commit murder.

For a utilitarian, murder causes mass dis-utility, whether through harm or other standards, to the murdered.

Virtue ethicists would say that murdering in cold blood is incredibly base and undesirable in itself, even though there may be times when the most virtuous action would be to take another's life.

Utilitarians for the win.

Can you explain the contradiction of conceivability to me?

My Kant is kind of rusty, so bear with me.

Okay, the categorical imperative, which is foundation of Kant's system of duty ethics, has three formulations. At its foundation, Kant argues that a moral proposition that is true must be one that is not tied to any particular conditions, including the identity of the person making the moral deliberation. It thus must also be universal, and be able to be applied to all rational beings.

So, the first formulation that Kant arrives at as sort of a universal formulation of what moral laws need to be grounded by is "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." All of Kant's duties derive from this formulation, in two basic forms, perfect and imperfect.

A perfect duty is a duty to not act by maxims that result in logical contradiction when they are universalized. So let's take murder. A maxim of "it is permissible to murder" would, if universalized, result in a state in which society and indeed humanity itself wouldn't exist. Logically, murder presupposes the existence of rational actors, but if universalized, there could be no rational actors, so the proposition has logically negated itself.

In general, perfect duties are those that are blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required duty for a human being.

Right and wrong aren't determined by our decisions, only what we consider to be right and wrong. Moral choice is the most fundamental part of human nature.

He didn't ask what determined it. He asked who determined it.

Who says anyone had to determine it? They could be an inherent consequence of our existence as rational beings.

[Mourdhaas]

I'm going to say what I did in the other thread, just explain it a little more. Morality is relative. I think we've established that morality is determined by the society, or I reached that conclusion myself and just... I dunno. Anyway, if the society thought murder was fine, you would think it was fine

[Jello Biafra]

That I accept my moral code as correct until shown that it isn't.

Surely you must wonder(or know) why you believe what you believe and why you don't agree with the things you don't agree with?

Sure. And in most cases, it's because they are also what the society I live in believes. But not in all of them.

[United Dependencies]

snip

Wow that seems really confusing. Does he say anything about charity?

[United Dependencies]

Surely you must wonder(or know) why you believe what you believe and why you don't agree with the things you don't agree with?

Sure. And in most cases, it's because they are also what the society I live in believes. But not in all of them.

So how did you determine what was right and wrong when you were not in concurrence with popular opinion?

[Jello Biafra]

Sure. And in most cases, it's because they are also what the society I live in believes. But not in all of them.

So how did you determine what was right and wrong when you were not in concurrence with popular opinion?

In some cases, I did so logically, and in some cases, because two alternatives were equally logical/supported by society and I picked the one that was most convenient for me.

[Trotskylvania]

snip

Wow that seems really confusing. Does he say anything about charity?

In the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I think he argued there was a passage where he argued that there was a perfect duty for charity. It seems to make sense, because in essence, the categorical imperative is the "the Golden Rule" without limitations.

[United Dependencies]

So how did you determine what was right and wrong when you were not in concurrence with popular opinion?

In some cases, I did so logically, and in some cases, because two alternatives were equally logical/supported by society and I picked the one that was most convenient for me.

I can support that.

[United Dependencies]

Wow that seems really confusing. Does he say anything about charity?

In the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I think he argued there was a passage where he argued that there was a perfect duty for charity. It seems to make sense, because in essence, the categorical imperative is the "the Golden Rule" without limitations.

Can you basically simplify that system down to the golden rule?

Do you know how a Kantian would deal with that whole trolly, fat guy, track switch thought exercise?

[Threlizdun]

And who decides what's right and wrong?

Right and wrong are decided primarily upon evolutionary instincts guiding us on views of normality, whilst the heavy influecne of society at an early age leads to the furtherment of guidance into what others view to be morally acceptable. Morality is greatly influenced by society and culture, so to truly state something as being moral has lost most of its significance. Morality, I have come to find, is more of a religious concept, while ethics tends to be more philosophical. Still, the way to conclude what is ethical is just as confusing at times, though I personally believe that anything that does not harm a nonconsensual individual may be considered ethical. To both Trotskylvania and I, capitalism can often break those bounds do to its harm to the less fortunate.

This was my previous answer on that thread, though to go into further detail as to why society has placed such values on us, I believe most of it has to do with how human evolution has taught us to beleive in order to survive. You see, it is wrong to harm friends, members within your community, family members, and the like, as those are essentially your tribe, and by harming them, you are making your chance of survival lessen. However, we recieve pleasure from watching misfortune befall others, with the German term "schadenfreude", being a popular term to go with it. It is a bit of a minor form of sadism in which we understand that by our rivals (in the sense that all those not in your tribe or family unit are rivals to your chances of obtaining resources and surviving), that our brain rewards us with felings of pleasure in order to encourage us to continue doing what has made us more sucessful than them so we can have these feelings again. Some topics such as homosexuality, masturbation, contraception, and other such things have become taboo because you are essentially an evolutionary dead end. Your genes will not continue on to the next generation, so you are betraying the species and its chance of survival. Please note, I do not agree with many of these concepts, though I beleive they often stem from this. Anyways, pleasure garnered from enjoying acts considered taboo I believe has something to do with our desire to gain what is just out of our reach. The desire to engage in something we either feel is wrong or know we cannot do is there to motivate us to take risks. If we did not dream of "what if" scenarios like this, we would have never found out how to fly, or other things such as that. "Dreams" (as applied to the desire to do something, not those you have at night) would not exist, so things could only be discovered on accident. However, in the same sense, the desire to be safe and not take some risks usually conquers this, and in some cases may come to consume our thought and lead us to highly supressing those that want to take risks. Another topic of consideration is that over time, our consideration of others has been increased to cover a larger group, though we still do tend to show favoritism towards those closer to us in beliefs, friendship, blood relations, and nationality. A large element that determined morality though is what our leaders tell us is moral. Our moral compass came to include a larger group mostly through the control of leaders that desired more individuals to gain more power for themselves. We as human beings still do wish to help others, though the needs of the self typically trumps those desires. Animals have been found more likely to do something after they see the alpha do it, and humanity is no different. The problem is, the leaders are prone to make things up, so what they have said has been translated into moral code to the rest of us. History is told through the eyes of the victors, and so is dominant moral feelings. As such, Judeo-Christian values dominate Europe and the West, while the values of the Native Americans have been squashed. Morality is a rather fascinating thing I find, though I believe it really is quite difficult to discen what it may be. To me, morality confines to doing no harm to a nonconsesnaul individual. Anything other than that is fine in my eyes.

[Trotskylvania]

In the Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I think he argued there was a passage where he argued that there was a perfect duty for charity. It seems to make sense, because in essence, the categorical imperative is the "the Golden Rule" without limitations.

Can you basically simplify that system down to the golden rule?

Do you know how a Kantian would deal with that whole trolly, fat guy, track switch thought exercise?

Kant felt pretty strongly against just calling it the Golden rule. The Golden Rule is based on reciprocity, whereas the categorical imperative is universalistic. I.e., one is compelled to do good, regardless of its utility

What thought exercise? Could you elaborate?

[United Dependencies]

Can you basically simplify that system down to the golden rule?

Do you know how a Kantian would deal with that whole trolly, fat guy, track switch thought exercise?

Kant felt pretty strongly against just calling it the Golden rule. The Golden Rule is based on reciprocity, whereas the categorical imperative is universalistic. I.e., one is compelled to do good, regardless of its utility

What thought exercise? Could you elaborate?

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

[Ceannairceach]

No actions are right or wrong. Morality is a pleasant fiction at times, and at other times it is an unpleasant fiction. Sometimes it is useful, and sometimes it is nothing but a hinderance.

I'll agree with CM on this one.

[City States of Hellas]

Morality is an opinion, so the only origin is the person who's morality is in question.
It works the same as "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".


Before people start with nuh-uhs, and morality is right and wrong, duhs, consider this-
Hitler's morals allowed him to kill Jews. He didn't believe he was wrong.
Stalin's morals allowed him to massacre those against him. He didn't believe he was wrong.
Saddam's morals allowed him to massacre Kurds. He didn't believe he was wrong.

Whether you think they were right and wrong is based on your own morals.