Morality

[Haruspex]

I have been thinking lately, and for like the thousandth time I said to myself "What the hell do people base their so called "morality" on?" I mean, its pretty easy for religious folks, they believe in some old megalomaniac peeping tom, and in the stuff they believe he communicated to them, but what about atheists or agnostics?
Its usually when I come up with something contradicting popular opinion that someone throws in a "How can you say that?" Now what I can't seem to understand is why do people throw around ungrounded subjective views disguised as axioms? After all, if popular views were the invincible truth, the world would have been flat, but for some reason there is not much moot as to whether it was, and it is understood that it is and was not.

 

[isuzu_bathory]

I dont really know what's the thing about morality, but I always believed that "the soul has no morality"...

 

[Illusional]

experience. both my parents were raised differently and none of them have pressed me to choose any religious belief. i choose a different path, i was brought up into a christian environment, but i currently am an atheist.

with all that aside, i feel that people bring their moral beliefs due to what they are exposed to. you keep those values that you hold dear, while those that negatively affect your life are regarded as taboo.

say for example, i will admit that i drink and drive. i have never known anyone that has been killed or killed someone in a drunken accident, so it doesn't bother me. however for those people who have lost a loved one due to this experience, i'm sure that they think differently. everyone has different morals due to their different upbringings and experiences in life.

raverboy

 

[Haruspex]

Yes they think differently, but when you tell the relatives of a victim of a traffic accident, they will not usually say "In my subjective opinion..." but will rather state their opinion as an absolute truth.
Of course exceptions exist, but they're pretty damn rare.

 

[isuzu_bathory]

I also agree with your view points...

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I try to base my morality on a mix of scientific fact, logic and utilitarianism, although there's still some unconscious holdover from my Methodist upbringing.

For example, regardless of the fact that I don't know anyone who died in a drunk driving accident, I want to believe that drunk driving is wrong because I was brought up to believe that, and in my society it is very much frowned upon. So I look for some sensible reasons to believe that it's wrong, and discover that studies show that alcohol impairs certain abilities that are essential for driving. Logic then suggests that drunk drivers are more likely to have accidents. So I can hold onto my belief that drunk driving is wrong for good reasons.

On the other hand, I was brought up to believe that abortion is wrong, and for a long time I went along with that belief. But since my knowledge has grown and I've discarded much of the emotional basis of that belief, I no longer believe it's wrong. However, the sentimental part of me still wants to, and I doubt that I could actually have an abortion myself.

 

[Glenski]

Morality for the non-religious is based on their environment, upbringing, level of critical thinking, and life experience.

Next question.

 

[Haruspex]

Morality for the non-religious is based on their environment, upbringing, level of critical thinking, and life experience.

Next question.

So you base an obediental obligation on facts that vary from person to person?


And how does the above colour something right or wrong? Why is it that persons claim something, back it up with the vague term "morality" and no one says a word.

For example, if I said murder is not wrong, its a mere fact, an event in which one person is intentionally killed by another, rather than a "disaster" a "tragedy" a "sin" or whatever, there would be uproar.

A couple of centuries back the killing of a human was excusable or even justifiable under certain circumstances, currently, in many cultures the prevailing moral atmosphere is appalled by the thought, and as we all know, two contradictory things can not be both right. Either our predecessors were right, the prevailing moral atmosphere is right, or neither. If this is so, we must look at their justification.

Our predecessors most probably used the same sort of justification as people nowadays. They take various factors into consideration and come up with a conclusion, but there is a problem here. The same path for justification was used in both circumstances, and it returned contradictory results, would that not make the process invalid or at least unreliable? And most certainly, if it would, how can anyone really claim anything under the thin guise of morals? Would it not be a entirely subjective?

Yeah, a utilitarian or a negative utilitarian would want to maximise pleasure or minimise suffering, but they can't really answer "why?"
I mean, most of us strive for pleasure and happiness, but the pure fact that that is so does not tell us whether we are bound to do so.
I don't want A to die, but when I ask myself why should he not die or why should he die, I cannot formulate an answer. I can bring it into a different context, into a utilitarian one for example, but still, I think that is not sufficient to establish that there exists such an obediental obligation.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Yeah, a utilitarian or a negative utilitarian would want to maximise pleasure or minimise suffering, but they can't really answer "why?"
I mean, most of us strive for pleasure and happiness, but the pure fact that that is so does not tell us whether we are bound to do so.
I don't want A to die, but when I ask myself why should he not die or why should he die, I cannot formulate an answer. I can bring it into a different context, into a utilitarian one for example, but still, I think that is not sufficient to establish that there exists such an obediental obligation.

Although certainly there's no objective truth about what is right or wrong that can be applied to each and every situation, I think we have to find some foundation that everyone can agree to, that we can use as a basis for deciding what is right or wrong in each particular situation. Can we agree that everyone should have a right to live a life worth living? If not, then we might as well all throw ourselves under a train right now!

Of course, then we get into questions of defining what makes a life worth living. But again, I think we can more or less agree on the most basic needs that everyone should have. If we take that as our foundation, we have something to measure against in deciding right from wrong.

Since it would be too cumbersome to decide each case individually, we have laws that (supposedly) define things that are likely to be wrong in most situations. We can make murder, for example, illegal, because someone has been deprived of their right to life, and in most situations we can conclude that that person has been wronged. However, we have the right to a fair trial, so that in each case of murder we can decide whether the murderer should really be considered to have committed an unlawful (immoral?) act. For example, if he acted in self defence we can consider that as mitigating circumstances. That's very approximately a utilitarian approach.

Oh, and I'm aware that unlawful does not necessarily equal immoral. I'm talking about the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.

 

[Haruspex]

I am not saying that we should not protect life, merely that we should do it for a different purpose.
The only difference is that in the traditional view one would say "Everyone has a right to life." and in the unorthodox one it would be "It is in our best interest as one cohesive body (society) to protect life."
I mean, why not admit that the whole things serves our purposes? Sure, it does not sound as noble, but hey, at least its honest.

Not attributing inherent worth to life is not the same as advocating that people should die or kill each other. And when a person is murdered, the justice system would not resort to flowery language to describe the horrors of the event, it would just plainly name the wrongs, and come to the same conclusion, the same verdict.

If matters can be explained in plain ways, why keep a whole anachronistic concept to explain something that is best described by the notion of interest?

 

[Malamis]

If matters can be explained in plain ways, why keep a whole anachronistic concept to explain something that is best described by the notion of interest?

Because people find comfort and justification/authority in tradition?

 

[Haruspex]

Because people find comfort and justification/authority in tradition?

I agree, but that is very similar to the comfort religious people feel when they say "Oh but once we die we will go to [nice place], or will we? Nah, there's absolutely no way we would not."

All this human rights stuff is just prescriptive anyway. No matter how long you look, you will never find one proper descriptive law there that gives the same results each and every time.
If someone is killed, his right to life is violated. Will his case be tried in the Divine Court of God? Or will it go before a human court? I think the latter. I mean, if we look at it, is there any other existence that bothers with our alleged right to life? Or any other right we claim to have? Not really. Does the crocodile that eats a person care? Or the pigeons that bombard one's car with crap? They don't.

 

[Kinsao]

There are obviously some things, which might feel like 'morality' to us, that are inbuilt into us probably for evolutionary and/or survival purposes - such as putting a value on life, including 'altruistic' acts where we help others before ourselves or even put ourselves in danger - contributing to the survival of the species rather than us as individuals.

However, if I didn't believe in the existence of something that is, at present, beyond our comprehension as humans, I wouldn't think there was any 'morality' in terms of, for example, respecting other people's possessions, especially those which are more loosely 'belonging', e.g. in shops etc. In short, if I was an atheist, why not do whatever I want? I could say it's a bad thing to hurt others (physically and/or emotionally) but, actually, why should I give a damn? Why not contribute to the survival of the fittest by being as underhand as possible? ;-)

 

[Haruspex]

Because we are capable of creating long-term goals for us, and global ones especially.
It would be in my interest to shoplift, my short-term interest, but at the end of the day, it poses risk, and if we look at the bigger picture, it undermines social stability, hence it is not in the best interest of our species that I steal an item.
Also, as you have explained it my instincts dictate that I feel it fair not to do certain things at the expense of others. There is absolutely no need to call that morality in my opinion, behaviourism rather.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I hate to over-simplify my answer. Yet for me, guidance of morality has always followed. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." For my purpose, life is important. I rather enjoy that first bite into a juicy steak, the rush of energy after a workout, that soothing euphoria that music delivers. In that, I live my life trying not to get in other people's way for the simple pleasures of life nor ever having any desire to murder anybody as to end their chance of ever being pleased again. For as unto myself, I don't want people trying to take away my fun or ending my life.

This ties into the little things too. I don't blast my music because I don't like when people disturb my sleep with theirs. I hold the door open for people because I appreciate it when people hold it open for me. I built my morality around this, however selfish it may seem. It seems simple enough to me though. I don't want to be treated like crap, so I'm not going to treat others like crap either. Fair is fair, balance is balance, and damn I could really go for a juicy steak now.

 

[Glenski]

So you base an obediental obligation on facts that vary from person to person?

You gotta be specific here.

You mentioned murder. Ok, I don't think you're going to find that many variations on the morality of murder. Most people in your lifetime will tell you it's morally wrong.

That's the generic flavor, though. Doctor it up with hypotheticals, and we are way off on tangents.

And how does the above colour something right or wrong? Why is it that persons claim something, back it up with the vague term "morality" and no one says a word.

If enough people agree on it, it becomes an accepted moral. It may in itself not be right for the majority, but for a large number it could. Like I wrote initially, your experience is what matters. Live in an Amish society in Ohio vs. a Chinese community, and you will probably see different views of morality.

For example, if I said murder is not wrong, its a mere fact

No, it's your opinion, not a fact.

A couple of centuries back the killing of a human was excusable or even justifiable under certain circumstances

Here we go on those tangents. I could say the same situation exists today, but we gotta pin down the circumstances. And, it is equally biased depending on your individual experience, background, culture, etc.

Either our predecessors were right, the prevailing moral atmosphere is right, or neither. If this is so, we must look at their justification.

The key here is your last sentence, which is pretty much what I've been saying, too.

I mean, most of us strive for pleasure and happiness, but the pure fact that that is so does not tell us whether we are bound to do so.
I don't want A to die, but when I ask myself why should he not die or why should he die, I cannot formulate an answer. I can bring it into a different context, into a utilitarian one for example, but still, I think that is not sufficient to establish that there exists such an obediental obligation.

How is this related to morality? Happiness as a life goal is just that -- a goal. How one reaches it might slip over into the realm of morality. Depends on what you talk about.

 

[Emoni]

Honestly, I base my morality off of just simple life experience, as well as trying to consider things from another person's view and how they might be effected by my actions.

Doing this is hard enough actually... ☝

 

[Yuki no Shiwasu]

I think morality is based on how one is brought up, what one experiences during their life and what decisions one makes while they are alive. But, everyone has different opinions...

窶堋ｱ窶堙ｱ窶堙ｧ窶堙ｱ窶堙??堋ｷ窶堙?