1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Morality

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by SomeLeviathan, Dec 23, 2014.

?

How do you determine moral action?

  1. Utilitarianism

    6 vote(s)
    28.6%
  2. non-utilitarian consequentialism

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Deontology

    2 vote(s)
    9.5%
  4. Pragmatism

    4 vote(s)
    19.0%
  5. Virtue

    6 vote(s)
    28.6%
  6. non-cognivist/anti-realist

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. nihilist

    2 vote(s)
    9.5%
  8. science!

    1 vote(s)
    4.8%
  1. SomeLeviathan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the natural condition of humankind
    What determines moral action in your worldview or how you act?

    personally I'm a non-naturalist neo-Kantian Rawlsian deontologist.
     
    #1 SomeLeviathan, Dec 23, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2014
  2. the haunted

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    789
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
  3. MintberryCrunch

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2014
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sherman Oaks, CA (orig. Denver)
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I certainly agree with the idea that a good action depends more on the motive than the consequences. That's part of what defines my moral actions. I don't know if I believe in "duty" over "character", but I do think the two are related.

    The problem I have with deontological ethics is that it seems like it's often in cahoots with divine command theory, i.e. that something is "good" if it comes from God because God is inherently good. And I find that difficult to argue in favor of.

    Certainly God is a very convenient way of defining what is "absolutely good".
     
  4. ChameleonSoul

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Upstate New York
    Somewhere between consequentialism and virtue
     
  5. Azrael

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2013
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    New York, United States of America
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    All but family
    Utilitarian for me...
     
  6. Kaiser

    Kaiser Guest

    Joined:
    May 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,867
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    кєηтυ¢ку
    Interesting...

    I'd have to say, there's two brackets to every situation; at least when it comes to describing my sense of morality.

    I vs Us.

    You can base your decision on a personal vs a general gain or result. Everything that you use to build your foundation, for whatever decisions you make, is simply there for consideration and reminder.

    Basically, you can 'do it for you', or you can 'do it for everyone'. I consider all the reasons somebody might or might not entertain a thought, engage in an action, or believe there to be something that claims 'justified' or 'scorned', to a decision. Preferably, I would not like to hurt anybody's feelings or self, but depending on the context of any particular situation, the long-term benefit must be weighed against 'acceptability'. Ideally, I would not like to force anybody to partake, in a course of action I take, if they are not for it.

    I acknowledge the morality spectrum, and even understand it, but I don't always apply it.

    So, while I won't go out and break your leg, I might eat your last piece of pizza.
     
  7. QueerTransEnby

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2014
    Messages:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Some people
  8. BryanM

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    2,894
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Columbia, Missouri
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    They
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Whichever one that Secular Humanism would fall under.
     
  9. Argentwing

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    6,696
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    New England
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The "golden rule" some of us were taught as kids. Every bit of my moral understanding stems from it in some way. I haven't had a lot of philosophical education so those words up there that likely have specific and extensive definitions are so much gobbledygook. Sorry. :slight_smile:
     
  10. Silver Springs

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    This, + Apostolic Tradition, + the Magisterium and the Holy Father.
     
  11. trailrider

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    Pretty close to Lake Erie
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Yeah, I go with the spiritual and contextual understanding of the bible. But not religion. People seem to get the two confused a lot, especially folks in the church.
     
  12. Jakob

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2014
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Utilitarian.
     
  13. AKTodd

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I consider morality to be an imaginary construct created by societies to help control their populations. It has no objective existence outside of the human imagination (no big invisible scoreboards in the sky. Nothing and no one keeping score) and I try not to consider it when engaging in any action or considering a situation. I feel it is a failing on my part if I do slip into thinking of things in terms of 'morality' and blame early childhood conditioning.

    Todd
     
  14. Melanie

    Melanie Guest

    I'd say the bible and science, mostly because we simply dont know whats moral. I go by what we know now regarding major issues and the bible (New Testament specifically... because its the, well, new testament lol) when it comes to personal conduct and... I dont know... life directive? Ie sacrificing for others, compassion, love etc.

    ---------- Post added 24th Dec 2014 at 05:16 AM ----------

    I think the best statement regarding morality that Ive heard is that as we discover things its being revealed. We arent creating it. I agree with that.
     
  15. kem

    kem
    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,936
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kerava, Finland
    We created morals. Well, the concept is probably not unique to us, I'd wager that any sufficiently species would display moral behaviour in social situations.

    The more I think about morality, the more nihilistic I get. Yeah, I'm a vegan and I condemn all unnecessary killing, but if by eliminating 80% of the world's population we could ensure the well-being of future generations, I'd say go for it, even if I were included – although, I would certainly like my mind to be uploaded somewhere.
    Despite my veganism, It's difficult for me to find genuine compassion towards animals, or other people in general. Sure, I cried towards the end of the Cove, and pretty much the entire duration of Blackfish, but I'd say that's more the product of a story and the artistic talent of the directors.
    I'm just acting on my personal pacifistic principles, and not much else.

    Speaking of my principles:
    1) Avoid all conflict.
    2) Do not kill for pleasure.
    3) Be kind.
    4) Self-preservation above all.

    I'm a selfish, narcissistic and amoral asshole I guess. but a kind and peaceful one at the very least!
     
  16. SomeLeviathan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the natural condition of humankind
    okay. What about the is-ought distinction?

    well, Kant, Rawls, and Nagel all eschew Divine Command theory. Most importantly, Nagel, who is heavily influenced by Rawls, is an atheist.

    More importantly, Divine Command theory isn't an objective moral system like deontology is. It relies on whatever God determines to be moral, which makes it subjective to the whims of God.

    Not to say that deontology is unproblematic, just that there seems to be a confusion about its relation to Divine Command Theory.


    okay, well if you're determining your own values you aren't a nihilist.
    you seem to be in with egoism ( a la Ayn Rand)
    how do you deal with the objection from non-naturalists that moral decisions are akin to mathematical facts? something being socially constructed doesn't really make it less real.
     
    #17 SomeLeviathan, Dec 24, 2014
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2014
  17. Lawrence

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2014
    Messages:
    2,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I'll try to explain. I would pull a lever to divert a train, so, it kills one person, instead of several people. And I wouldn't feel bad about it because I'd think I did the right thing. I would feel terrible if I did nothing, but I don't think other people have a moral obligation to get involved in it. I would consider myself to be a practical person. And it's not a secret that I value pleasure. I took a random test on the internet because I didn't exactly know which term to call my beliefs;

    1. Jeremy Bentham (100%)
    2. John Stuart Mill (94%)
    3. Immanuel Kant (85%)
    4. Epicureans (70%)
    5. Jean-Paul Sartre (59%)

    I googled Jeremy Bentham. It seems that utilitarianism is my thing.
     
  18. AKTodd

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Mathematics (and physics and science in general) is a set of tools for attempting to learn how the universe operates. The universe is an ongoing system of interacting processes and forces that operates without regard to whether or not there are humans around or what we may or may not want or like.

    In using mathematics/physics/etc. to learn about the universe, we are akin to an explorer traveling through unknown territory and creating a map. We are recording that which we discover, and in the process we may learn things that lead us to hypothesize about the landscape we haven't reached yet and then test those hypotheses against what we find.

    Morality, in contrast, metaphorically seeks to write a map from the start and then shoehorn the landscape into it. It makes no hypotheses or testable predictions, but instead begins from a series of premises that it assumes are true and then works forward from there. Science observes and concludes, morality concludes and then searches for support or attempts to structure how people think and live to support its conclusions.

    As far as the reality of social constructs. I completely agree, social constructs are quite real. Customs, rituals, laws, religions, etc. are all quite real. But they are, as you said, social constructs (just like morality). What they are not are separate entities or things that are fundamentally a part of the universe, ala gravity or other laws of physics. Conservation of momentum and 'killing is wrong' are not equivalent things.

    The proof of this is that it is basically impossible to break a law of nature. No matter how much you may believe otherwise, you cannot fly by flapping your arms, for example. It doesn't matter who or what does the counting or the measuring 2 + 2 always equals 4 and pi never equals 3. In contrast, humans routinely demonstrate their ability to break, bend, and alter the dictates of their morality and generate multiple moralities almost at will (just as they do with their other social constructs).

    Todd
     
  19. SomeLeviathan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the natural condition of humankind
    okay when I explain non-natural moral realism as akin to mathematical facts that doesn't meant morality operates in the same way that mathematical facts do. the point of the analogy isn't to draw upon how mathematical facts operate but instead draw upon how we understand math, as an objective abstract social construct.

    "It makes no hypotheses or testable predictions,"

    but that isn't the point. There is a very controversial field of ethics called experimental ethics that does though.

    " but instead begins from a series of premises that it assumes are true and then works forward from there. "
    This is exactly how formal logic works as well.
    " Science observes and concludes, morality concludes and then searches for support or attempts to structure how people think and live to support its conclusions."

    Are you a neo-positivist? you sound like a neo-positivist. This is also not how deontologists (or anyone in ethics) actually thinks about morality. Contractualism in the vein of Rawls examines the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its adherents to contracts which we would choose in a veil of ignorance. Determining this from inside his framework works how you say it does, but from a metaethical standpoint, it seeks to determine fundamentally what is right and what is wrong through a series of thought experiments. This isn't backward logic.

    "As far as the reality of social constructs. I completely agree, social constructs are quite real. Customs, rituals, laws, religions, etc. are all quite real. But they are, as you said, social constructs (just like morality). What they are not are separate entities or things that are fundamentally a part of the universe, ala gravity or other laws of physics. Conservation of momentum and 'killing is wrong' are not equivalent things."'
    but I'm not saying they are fundmanetal parts of the universe a la gravity or the other laws of newtonian physics, I'm not a moral naturalist.

    "The proof of this is that it is basically impossible to break a law of nature. No matter how much you may believe otherwise, you cannot fly by flapping your arms, for example. It doesn't matter who or what does the counting or the measuring 2 + 2 always equals 4 and pi never equals 3. In contrast, humans routinely demonstrate their ability to break, bend, and alter the dictates of their morality and generate multiple moralities almost at will (just as they do with their other social constructs)."
    um... what? people choosing to ignore moral laws doesn't make them non-objective. In the same way if I write 2+3 = 6, I'm ignoring the law, that doesn't mean my answer (or in the case or morality, the actions I take) are correct or meaningless.