Morality is a product of intelligence and experience

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Morality, that being our judgement of what is right and wrong, is based upon what we value, or hold dear. This could be said to be based on what we experience, or the environmental factors. If we have two loving parents, we likely value them. If we have two hateful parents, we likely don't value them. As such it might be right or wrong to talk back to our parents, or so. The key to differentiate our morality as a standard morality is based upon our intelligence, in how we can perceive through the layers of complexity of any given situation to be able to piece out the core reasons or justifications for what is right or wrong for us and even more so, maybe what we perceive as what should be right or wrong for others in specific instances or as a general rule. This can be of course, be considered the stronger genetic factor behind morality. (I don't wish to really engage in an environmental/genetic discussion but would like to note it on the side throughout this discussion, just as an elaboration. ) Of course, our intelligence is simply not the result of genetics nor are our values simply the result of the environment, both genetics and intelligence mix in here to some degrees).

One major factor that is also a product of environment and genetics is our comfort factor, which is a great contributor to our judgement of what is right and wrong. Some might say our morality might not hold up in a post apocalyptic world. Or maybe it would. Such as it is wrong to kill people. However, if 90% of people in a post apocalyptic world are ruthless killers, which is needed in order to survive as long as possible before the inevitable extinction of all of humanity, then perhaps it would be seen as right to kill, in order to preserve your own, more precious life, (from your perspective) as much as possible. Or if their life is more precious, feel free to succumb to the opposition.

This is just an example of how I see the ambiguity of morality, in that it is only right and wrong based on a myriad of conditions, that we may or may not see at any given moment in time. Intelligence will play a key role in ciphering out your actual moral reasonings behind your final judgements. The further one can intellectually examine their own actions, the further we may perceive and understand our own moral choice beyond just the skin, or it may trigger our moral judgements to change, through this type of reflection. I fear that most people's morality will collapse in certain conditions simply due to their lack of understanding, or intelligence and insight, of what they really value and why.

[Baron Munch]

I disagree that morality is the product of what someone values. It's more like the product of what simply <i>is</i> valued. So the predicate precedes the subject. Subjects occupy the role of "valuing x" insofar as it is already valued by a community prior to the occupation of that role.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I disagree that morality is the product of what someone values. It's more like the product of what simply <i>is</i> valued. So the predicate precedes the subject. Subjects occupy the role of "valuing x" insofar as it is already valued by a community prior to the occupation of that role.

You basically just said the same thing I did, but disagreed.

[anthropo-eccentricism]

Yes, but is the issue of value a moral one? You just pushed the problem back. Are there right or wrong, better or worse, praise or blameworthy values? If morality grows around a set of values, then it seems the question of the legitimacy or justifiability of values is really what is at issue here.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Yes, but is the issue of value a moral one? You just pushed the problem back. Are there right or wrong, better or worse, praise or blameworthy values? If morality grows around a set of values, then it seems the question of the legitimacy or justifiability of values is really what is at issue here.

I wouldn't say there are right wrong or blameworthy values. Values are values, they are the result of who we are as a human being. If you like chocolate, I might like vanilla. Nonetheless, I might hate that you like chocolate, and as such, imprison or kill anyone who does as well. Why? Because you liking chocolate may hinder my opportunity to obtain more vanilla, if everyone likes vanilla, more vanilla will be available for me.

[anthropo-eccentricism]

Morality, that being our judgement of what is right and wrong, is based upon what we value [...].

I wouldn't say there are right wrong or blameworthy values.

Have you heard of moral particularism? It's actually become a rather commonplace school of ethical thought. I don't think you've offered anything novel.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Morality, that being our judgement of what is right and wrong, is based upon what we value [...].

I wouldn't say there are right wrong or blameworthy values.

Have you heard of moral particularism? It's actually become a rather commonplace school of ethical thought. I don't think you've offered anything novel.

No I haven't heard of moral particularism, thanks for pointing that out to me. I would think there would be quite a bit more to add to this, this is just a small drop in the ocean of this subject of morality. I'm not keen on.. ascribing a moral code as rigid as what moral particularism seems. I find morality, to be rather ambiguous and based upon a persons desires in their instant of judgment, which will vary from time to time. As such, the idea of morality can be seen to crumble extensively, depending upon the whim of the judger's values. More stable values = more stable morality. Nonetheless, I don't find stabilizing values to necessarily be a priority or necessity. I think this can be seen as a relief to many, in that we all do things, that we may think is wrong, but then again, we may be trading short term benefit instead of long term, or vice versa. Anyways, I'm not here to produce something "novel", I'm here to have a discussion.

[anthropo-eccentricism]

Anyways, I'm not here to produce something "novel", I'm here to have a discussion.

Sure, so do you think that some actions are worse than others, that some decisions are worthy of blame?

[Only_Humean]

I find morality, to be rather ambiguous and based upon a persons desires in their instant of judgment, which will vary from time to time. As such, the idea of morality can be seen to crumble extensively, depending upon the whim of the judger's values.

I don't think this is the case at all. People don't change their views of morality according to the whim of the moment - they may give moral considerations more or less weight. It's not like burglars convince themselves that what they are doing is morally praiseworthy, they just disregard "right/wrong" as a significant factor in whether to break into a house, as opposed to "dangerous" or "profitable". If morality is anything, it's a reasoning that we try and keep consistent regardless of the heat of the moment. A compass is no use if it swings to indicate north in different directions depending on the context.

I might hate that you like chocolate, and as such, imprison or kill anyone who does as well. Why? Because you liking chocolate may hinder my opportunity to obtain more vanilla, if everyone likes vanilla, more vanilla will be available for me.

You're giving a very rational basis for your moral considerations. Do you think Jews don't eat pork because it diverts farming resources away from beef and chicken and they just like beef more than pork? Do you suppose incest taboos are the result of people rationalising it as "there'll be fewer women for me to choose from if everyone sleeps with their siblings"?

[finishedman]

Actions. Isn’t that what we are questioning in the morality game?

Before actions, preparations are made based on predictions of future situations, but with everything in a flux, it’s not easy to link outlook with actual events. Being prepared fails us in the need of the moment when surprising situations are encountered and moral grounds are inadequate or absent.

Questing actions after they are done places us in the arena of justice where decisions are made through a judgment system and where fairness is not so much the province of the mind but of the heart.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Anyways, I'm not here to produce something "novel", I'm here to have a discussion.

Sure, so do you think that some actions are worse than others, that some decisions are worthy of blame?

Yes, don't we all?

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I find morality, to be rather ambiguous and based upon a persons desires in their instant of judgment, which will vary from time to time. As such, the idea of morality can be seen to crumble extensively, depending upon the whim of the judger's values.

I don't think this is the case at all. People don't change their views of morality according to the whim of the moment - they may give moral considerations more or less weight. It's not like burglars convince themselves that what they are doing is morally praiseworthy, they just disregard "right/wrong" as a significant factor in whether to break into a house, as opposed to "dangerous" or "profitable". If morality is anything, it's a reasoning that we try and keep consistent regardless of the heat of the moment. A compass is no use if it swings to indicate north in different directions depending on the context.

I might hate that you like chocolate, and as such, imprison or kill anyone who does as well. Why? Because you liking chocolate may hinder my opportunity to obtain more vanilla, if everyone likes vanilla, more vanilla will be available for me.

You're giving a very rational basis for your moral considerations. Do you think Jews don't eat pork because it diverts farming resources away from beef and chicken and they just like beef more than pork? Do you suppose incest taboos are the result of people rationalising it as "there'll be fewer women for me to choose from if everyone sleeps with their siblings"?

I didn't mean people change their views of morality, but it can. My point is, when push comes to shove and values are brought out in the open, people's moral judgements can change based upon their new values. But, values don't necessarily change.. to each their own.

I can give a rational basis for my moral judgement, (of course maybe not all)because I can, due to my intelligence and capabilities ,or so, or whatever. I don't expect everyone to have a rational basis for their moral judgements nor do I prescribe this. Not every moral judgement can or should follow the same line of reasoning also, as such there is some more ambiguity to it, but it all does come down to values ultimately.

To answer your specific questions, Jews don't eat pork because their God says not to. When I gave a "rational basis" it was a judgement of other people's actions, and what other people want or don't want other people to do. Jews don't eat pork because they don't want to. I don't think there's an ascription for why other people should or shouldn't eat pork, do they not want anyone to eat pork? I don't know.

For the incest taboo, it could be that they value the family structure in which parents and their children dont' screw each other and don't value other family structures in which they do, and they don't want to live in a society, nation, or town, in which other people do. After all, people's way's of life can have a great influence on our own. We are social animals and we like to share our cultures and values.

[anthropo-eccentricism]

Sure, so do you think that some actions are worse than others, that some decisions are worthy of blame?

Yes, don't we all?

Your justification for such preferences will be your moral theory. All you've done is push the question back from actions to the values that ostensibly motivate them. If your claim is only that some value X, others Y, and that there is no basis from which to judge the blame or praiseworthiness of one over the other---which is to say, there is no standard after the establishment of which we might proclaim X blameworthy because its corresponding actions typically seem to cause suffering to innocent creatures, for example---then you've done nothing more than restate, in an ultimately convoluted fashion, a vulgar relativism.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Sure, so do you think that some actions are worse than others, that some decisions are worthy of blame?

Yes, don't we all?

Your justification for such preferences will be your moral theory. All you've done is push the question back from actions to the values that ostensibly motivate them. If your claim is only that some value X, others Y, and that there is no basis from which to judge the blame or praiseworthiness of one over the other---which is to say, there is no standard after the establishment of which we might proclaim X blameworthy because its corresponding actions typically seem to cause suffering to innocent creatures, for example---then you've done nothing more than restate, in an ultimately convoluted fashion, a vulgar relativism.

I'm not attempt to necessarily provide a moral theory (maybe that will grow, who knows), yes I'm a moral relativist, but that's not really all that I was looking to discuss. Anyways, anything else?

[anthropo-eccentricism]

I'm not attempt to necessarily provide a moral theory (maybe that will grow, who knows), yes I'm a moral relativist, but that's not really all that I was looking to discuss. Anyways, anything else?

Anything else? Well, that's precisely the question I want to send in your direction. You started the thread by saying: actions are based on values, values are a byproduct of intelligence and environment, and there aren't any criteria available by which to hierarchize actions or the values that motivate them. So: anything else? You've just reformulated moral relativism in sloppier terms.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I'm not attempt to necessarily provide a moral theory (maybe that will grow, who knows), yes I'm a moral relativist, but that's not really all that I was looking to discuss. Anyways, anything else?

Anything else? Well, that's precisely the question I want to send in your direction. You started the thread by saying: actions are based on values, values are a byproduct of intelligence and environment, and there aren't any criteria available by which to hierarchize actions or the values that motivate them. So: anything else? You've just reformulated moral relativism in sloppier terms.

I don't think my OP was restricted to just moral relativism. I'm not here to describe moral relativism either...

[Drusus]

@ WW_III_ANGRY
Intellect in itself has very little to do with moral values, it usually only helps the very intelligent to graps the full varaity of the moral values and deep understanding of them. You don't see the intellectuals object to slavery back in the days, just because they were intelligent.
Contrary it's only when one has high rationallity to evaluate the values and properly judge, that one can see if somethign is right or wrong. This is excatly why in the industrial age, that many peasents could as sorely ignorents start up big buisnesses and hire highly educated people to serve the ignorent peasent, and extremely few intellectuals would start buisnesses themselves.

Morals values are somethig we learn and give affection to, through group think, why we often scorn other cultures moral values as inferior.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

@ WW_III_ANGRY
Intellect in itself has very little to do with moral values, it usually only helps the very intelligent to graps the full varaity of the moral values and deep understanding of them. You don't see the intellectuals object to slavery back in the days, just because they were intelligent.
Contrary it's only when one has high rationallity to evaluate the values and properly judge, that one can see if somethign is right or wrong. This is excatly why in the industrial age, that many peasents could as sorely ignorents start up big buisnesses and hire highly educated people to serve the ignorent peasent, and extremely few intellectuals would start buisnesses themselves.

Morals values are somethig we learn and give affection to, through group think, why we often scorn other cultures moral values as inferior.

I wouldn't call it moral values, I would like to separate morality and values here.

I don't think values are a product of intelligence at all, I think morality is, as well as experience. You're seemingly weighing heavy on the experience part, I am stating both come into play.

[Drusus]

I wouldn't call it moral values, I would like to separate morality and values here.

I don't think values are a product of intelligence at all, I think morality is, as well as experience. You're seemingly weighing heavy on the experience part, I am stating both come into play.

I knew that sayings can last thousands of years, but didn't excatly know how to judge if behaviour was preserved aswell, only by observing the japanese hostages in recent Iraq war, when they were released they would come out crying and ashamed, which was highly illogically from a western moral and ethically view, but in japanese culture it has been deeply rooted that to be taken hostage is a shameful act, even for civilians, by that it would explain how "seemingly illogical" behaviour can be strongly preserved in culture.

Our morality are based on moral values, though our morality as in "behaviour" are very independantly based on our psychologically foundation. If one is poor and desperate, one might steal but diagnosed "normal", if one steals as a ritch person one might be diagnosed as cleptomaniac. It's all relative.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I wouldn't call it moral values, I would like to separate morality and values here.

I don't think values are a product of intelligence at all, I think morality is, as well as experience. You're seemingly weighing heavy on the experience part, I am stating both come into play.

I knew that sayings can last thousands of years, but didn't excatly know how to judge if behaviour was preserved aswell, only by observing the japanese hostages in recent Iraq war, when they were released they would come out crying and ashamed, which was highly illogically from a western moral and ethically view, but in japanese culture it has been deeply rooted that to be taken hostage is a shameful act, even for civilians, by that it would explain how "seemingly illogical" behaviour can be strongly preserved in culture.

Our morality are based on moral values, though our morality as in "behaviour" are very independantly based on our psychologically foundation. If one is poor and desperate, one might steal but diagnosed "normal", if one steals as a ritch person one might be diagnosed as cleptomaniac. It's all relative.

I don't think being ashamed of taken prisoner is illogical. Is that a case? They have a strong value to fight so hard, that they kill themselves in battle as opposed to succumbing so weakly as to be taken alive. Is that illogical? NO. Are values illogical? No, values are not subject to logic.

[Drusus]

I don't think being ashamed of taken prisoner is illogical. Is that a case? They have a strong value to fight so hard, that they kill themselves in battle as opposed to succumbing so weakly as to be taken alive. Is that illogical? NO. Are values illogical? No, values are not subject to logic.

You forget the bigger picture. The soldiers would sacrifice themselves in the name of the emperor of Japan, or commit suicide before dishonor, this leaves their families to starve or die, also you lose the experienced soldiers which speciall the small pilot force sufferd heavily under.

All allied commanders knew that their pilots were extremely valueable and did an immense effort to rescue them, therefore they had very skilled pilots at the end of the war who could teach other pilots their experience, when the Japanese did not.
Therefore the harsh and unforgiving Bushido code would be a strong factor in the Japanese losing the war.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I don't think being ashamed of taken prisoner is illogical. Is that a case? They have a strong value to fight so hard, that they kill themselves in battle as opposed to succumbing so weakly as to be taken alive. Is that illogical? NO. Are values illogical? No, values are not subject to logic.

You forget the bigger picture. The soldiers would sacrifice themselves in the name of the emperor of Japan, or commit suicide before dishonor, this leaves their families to starve or die, also you lose the experienced soldiers which speciall the small pilot force sufferd heavily under.

All allied commanders knew that their pilots were extremely valueable and did an immense effort to rescue them, therefore they had very skilled pilots at the end of the war who could teach other pilots their experience, when the Japanese did not.
Therefore the harsh and unforgiving Bushido code would be a strong factor in the Japanese losing the war.

Yes, military men make plenty of mistakes hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't necessarily mean they weren't logically obedient to their values.

[Drusus]

Yes, military men make plenty of mistakes hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't necessarily mean they weren't logically obedient to their values.

Yes, that's what most of my post here has been about, now try reread them and comprehend what they'r about.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

Yes, military men make plenty of mistakes hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't necessarily mean they weren't logically obedient to their values.

Yes, that's what most of my post here has been about, now try reread them and comprehend what they'r about.

Its about the same thing I'm saying, which you're just elaborating a little more on.

[finishedman]

Intelligence should see through prejudice and other forms of narrow mindedness to allow the deeper feelings of the heart to guide us in decisions. This is not to say much other than to say something about the role of intelligence in that it’s not always a reflection of something more profound.

Ww3 …. Again something you already stated but has me pondering on and agreeing with.