Morality is easy

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Why do people make morality so complicated? Like all the philosophy you do and you can’t figure out the most basic thing ever?

Morality is a word for our understanding of goods and bads, good things and bad things. That’s all it is. “Right and wrong” is just another way of saying goods and bads (the for whom and why of these not excluded of course).

This depends of course on a perspective, in our case on a human perspective but we also at times stretch this out beyond humanity to include other forms of life. For some weird reason people even try to include “the earth itself” in moral considerations, as if the earth were a living thing and actually had values, preferences, feelings, which of course it doesn’t.

Morality means taking a good honest look at the relevant goods and bads in any context or situation, factoring in all relevant parties for whom these would be good or bad, having an understanding of why they would be good or bad, and then once you have that entire situation and moral analysis done it will quite naturally produce a ‘result’. The result is simply the optimization point morally speaking, in terms of what is “right and wrong” which simply means maximizing goods over bads. This is a logical consequence of the moral analysis itself. Morality is just an application of logic.

What is good for you is moral, what is bad for you is immoral. That can get tricky if things contradict, but so what? You can always find an optimization point, or just make an educated guess and see how it works out.

2

Of course morality is easy for you. You think it’s fine to go around calling people dumb. I didn’t even read everything you wrote because of that.

3

Are you saying it is immoral to call someone dumb? Even if they are dumb?

You must have very sensitive feewings. I do apowogize.

4

I accept your apowagy, moron. :wink:

No… it’s not always immoral to call people dumb.

5

True, glad we can come to an agreement. Dumb moron. Lol.

6

The purpose of this thread is to show you all how easy it is to figure out what is moral.

Step one: make a list of all the relevant goods and bads to the situation.

Step two: Properly condition/contextualize these to their proper agents (the goods and bads are good and bad for whom and why?)

Step three: Evaluate the agents (rank-order them as much as possible based on how much their claims matter in this case relative to other agents)

Step four: sit back and let logic naturally produce the optimization point, which is the result of what you “ought to” do morally. This does require that you are able to do logic, so if you aren’t good at critical thinking and logical reasoning/deduction and induction/putting your emotions aside for the moment then you’re not going to get very far.

Usually it’s easier than even those steps because often the “morally problematic” situation is simple enough that logic will spontaneously generate the optimization point almost right away. All you need to do is double check that it didn’t make any significant errors.

Technically morality doesn’t exist, it is a word/concept we invented to try and talk about the existence of goods and bads. Goods and bads do exist, they are what matter. And again this isn’t mere utilitarianism, it is more like a meta-utilitarianism that fails to reduce itself to qualitatively flattened values and outcomes because we are smart enough to realize that you can’t simply quantify everything in ways that allows it all to be compared together. Often it’s apples and oranges. This is why morality isn’t about any kind of false utilitarianism of trying to reduce qualitatively different goods and bads to a common quantification unit, but rather simply allowing logic to naturally determine the optimization point once the initial analysis/clarification of the situation has been done.

7

The most difficult part about morality is when you can’t clearly anticipate and see how your actions will affect another person in the future. You want to do things that are good for them, but sometimes you just can’t be sure if it will end up as a good or bad influence on them.

I find that most of the difficulty in morality comes from this kind of ambiguity and inability to predict. In that case you just moderate your moral analysis with a good degree of caution, to make sure you are erroring on the side of good. The logic of locating the optimization point will naturally take this into consideration too.

8

I agree that morality is easy.
Most moralists would agree with nearly all my beliefs.
Minimize causing suffering and death.
Help nourish the goods.

9

Yes exactly :smiley: =D>

10

of course, morality is easy, if, one takes a simplistic
approach… just do the right thing…but what is the right thing?

for example, different societies had different standards of morality…
Pederasty was acceptable for the Greeks and not acceptable for most other
societies… who is right?

The “House of Habsburgs” that dominated Europe for centuries,
practiced incest for centuries with marriages within cousins which
by the end meant that several monarchs had serious health issues
and led to the end of the house of Habsburgs in Spain…Charles II
of Spain who died in 1700 for example… if Kings did it, how could
it be wrong?

What you have done is remove any sort of context to morality…
or compare different ‘‘moralities’’ to see what is right or wrong…
Morality as with any concept has a historical context…
what does history tell us about morality?

Or perhaps take a specific example like abortion or the
“death penalty” and explore it in depth to examine its
morality?..

Is the “Death Penalty” a “moral” act?

Kropotkin

11

Sometimes people get it wrong.
That doesn’t mean it’s intrinsically wrong.
Morality is imperfect.
Big deal.
It is still one of our crown achievements as a species.

12

Tell me when it might just be immoral to call someone “dumb”.
Morality is not all black or white.

13

K: the real problem lies in the fact that most people including
Humanize hasn’t given 10 seconds of thought to morality…
they just make simple assumptions that anyone could disprove
with a few moments of thought…

the further into morality one goes, the less clear morality gets…
that is why “the theory of morality” has been the single biggest
problem in philosophy since Nietzsche … From N. to Heidger to
Sartre to Wittgenstein have all struggle with finding a modern
moral theory…it is the question of our age… finding a modern
moral theory that is universal and addresses our struggles with morality…
from the “Death penalty” to abortion to the relationship between
the state/society and individuals?

Kropotkin

14

We’ve given plenty of thought to the issue.
Or at least, I have.

We share similarities between humans and also animals.
Each one has pain and happiness.
We see in ourselves things that exist in others too.
That is the golden rule.
Realizing that the beings around you share many of your inner qualities.
Therefor treat them well and treat yourself well too.

15

THIS

to all you just said

16

Exactly. Thumbs up +10

17

K: and yet Humanize still failed to answer any real-world questions…
from the ''death penalty", is that moral and if so, why?
to why is Abortion immoral and the act of a solider moral? a death occurs in
both, and yet we ''approve" of one and we approve or disapprove of other…

take us into real world examples of what is moral and what is immoral…
and explain why?

I’m pretty sure you can’t as you have never given this any thought…

Kropotkin

18

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

I would say that that would depend on the nature of the crime. What about the psychopath or sociopath who rapes and murders a child? There is nothing but 100% evidence that he did it. It has been proven. Can you even imagine the fear and the pain, et cetera, that that child experienced? Who knows how wonderful his or her life may have been, the things which might have been accomplished, the joy and happiness felt? The bible says an I for an eye but I am not even saying that.
He robbed the child of all of that. Where would the justice and fairness and compassion and mercy be for that child if he was allowed to live. He made his choice.

Why would that man deserve to live out the rest of his life in prison being better off still than the homeless who live out on the street? That would be a highly immoral act - at least in my estimation.

I am going to get back to you on these.

19

You are right, it might be Justice and it might be “Right” to use capital punishment in that situation, based on how we feel and how we can justify it. BUT… taking a life is wrong. I do not think it is up to us to do that, unless we have absolutely no choice (such as in self defense, and even then it is still a morally wrong act although one that we had forced upon us and perhaps couldn’t avoid).

I used to believe in the death penalty, I no longer do. God loves every single person, even the most evil ones. Because they are his children made in his image, and they have gone astray. But if you remember, that evil Hitler type person the worst person we can even imagine was once a cute little baby snuggled into his mother’s arms, or sleeping peacefully next to his favorite teddy bear.

And trust me, I have infinitely more compassion and empathy and perspective when it comes to the victims of these horrible crimes. But still, the one doesn’t need to necessarily refute the other (it does in Revenge logic, but I think there is a higher logic beyond that, and no it has nothing to do with excusing the criminal or anything like that).

I think life and truth is about Perspective. We need to broaden our minds to see contrary things all at once, and then the heart glows brighter with emotion and this radiates into and through our thoughts too. I don’t know how to explain it very well but that is how I see it. And my idea of capital punishment, if indeed we decide that we do need it, is simple: lock the person in a jail cell with nothing inside. That’s it. Don’t give then anything, just put them in there and let nature take its natural course. IF we need to kill the worst criminals in society I think that is the way, through a kind of natural exile where nature does the work for us.

Abortion is immoral and so is killing in a war. Killing in self-defense is also immoral, even if it is to save your own child’s life. BUT we would do it anyway, BECAUSE NOT SAVING THEIR LIFE would also be immoral!

Many moral choices come down to conflicting irresolvable differences. No matter what we do, we are doing something bad but also something good, both at the same time. In that case, how do we choose? We might not have time to think about it and we might simply react. And at the end of the day morality is a human-created conceptual framework to help us understand the world, reality and ourselves better. We don’t need to get it perfect all the time, even God understands the dilemma we are in when it comes to those tough moral situations.

After all it was God or whoever is up there, maybe just the Universe, that put is in these situations we shouldn’t be in. Who wants to be in a situation where you need to murder some stranger on a battle field or you are gonna get killed yourself? That’s just stupid. i mean who would design a game like that for sentient feeling players to partake in against their will? For whatever reason our reality, as wonderful as it is, is still littered with these kind of absurdities. So we do our best, that is all we can do. Like Im saying in this topic we OPTIMIZE toward the best outcome. That is what morality is. Morality is not “the black and white only correct answer vs every other option which is all bad and wrong”. Morality is having the correct perspectives, meanings, and logic and then applying it all as best we can to optimize the best possible result given the shitty absurd situation we find ourselves in.

It’s not all or nothing and it’s not black and white. Well sometimes it is, but still. Naysayers like to focus on the difficult problems like Trolley problems and then act like that somehow refutes morality itself, just like how the baby killers like to focus on very rare edge cases like if the developing baby would kill the mother, and then use that to somehow try and say all abortion is ok. Just silly nonsense from people incapable of having the right Perspectives, Meanings, and Logic.

20

Peter Kropotkin: from the ''death penalty", is that moral and if so, why?

A: I would say that that would depend on the nature of the crime. What about the psychopath or sociopath who rapes and murders a child? There is nothing but 100% evidence that he did it. It has been proven. Can you even imagine the fear and the pain, et cetera, that that child experienced? Who knows how wonderful his or her life may have been, the things which might have been accomplished, the joy and happiness felt? The bible says an I for an eye but I am not even saying that.
He robbed the child of all of that. Where would the justice and fairness and compassion and mercy be for that child if he was allowed to live. He made his choice.

Why would that man deserve to live out the rest of his life in prison being better off still than the homeless who live out on the street? That would be a highly immoral act - at least in my estimation."

H: You are right, it might be Justice and it might be “Right” to use capital punishment in that situation, based on how we feel and how we can justify it. BUT… taking a life is wrong. I do not think it is up to us to do that, unless we have absolutely no choice (such as in self defense, and even then it is still a morally wrong act although one that we had forced upon us and perhaps couldn’t avoid).

I used to believe in the death penalty, I no longer do. God loves every single person, even the most evil ones. Because they are his children made in his image, and they have gone astray. But if you remember, that evil Hitler type person the worst person we can even imagine was once a cute little baby snuggled into his mother’s arms, or sleeping peacefully next to his favorite teddy bear.

And trust me, I have infinitely more compassion and empathy and perspective when it comes to the victims of these horrible crimes. But still, the one doesn’t need to necessarily refute the other (it does in Revenge logic, but I think there is a higher logic beyond that, and no it has nothing to do with excusing the criminal or anything like that).

I think life and truth is about Perspective. We need to broaden our minds to see contrary things all at once, and then the heart glows brighter with emotion and this radiates into and through our thoughts too. I don’t know how to explain it very well but that is how I see it. And my idea of capital punishment, if indeed we decide that we do need it, is simple: lock the person in a jail cell with nothing inside. That’s it. Don’t give then anything, just put them in there and let nature take its natural course. IF we need to kill the worst criminals in society I think that is the way, through a kind of natural exile where nature does the work for us.

K: to why is Abortion immoral and the act of a solider moral? a death occurs in
both, and yet we ''approve" of one and we approve or disapprove of other…
take us into real world examples of what is moral and what is immoral…
and explain why?

A: I am going to get back to you on these.
[/quote]
H: Abortion is immoral and so is killing in a war. Killing in self-defense is also immoral, even if it is to save your own child’s life. BUT we would do it anyway, BECAUSE NOT SAVING THEIR LIFE would also be immoral!

Many moral choices come down to conflicting irresolvable differences. No matter what we do, we are doing something bad but also something good, both at the same time. In that case, how do we choose? We might not have time to think about it and we might simply react. And at the end of the day morality is a human-created conceptual framework to help us understand the world, reality and ourselves better. We don’t need to get it perfect all the time, even God understands the dilemma we are in when it comes to those tough moral situations.

After all it was God or whoever is up there, maybe just the Universe, that put is in these situations we shouldn’t be in. Who wants to be in a situation where you need to murder some stranger on a battle field or you are gonna get killed yourself? That’s just stupid. i mean who would design a game like that for sentient feeling players to partake in against their will? For whatever reason our reality, as wonderful as it is, is still littered with these kind of absurdities. So we do our best, that is all we can do. Like Im saying in this topic we OPTIMIZE toward the best outcome. That is what morality is. Morality is not “the black and white only correct answer vs every other option which is all bad and wrong”. Morality is having the correct perspectives, meanings, and logic and then applying it all as best we can to optimize the best possible result given the shitty absurd situation we find ourselves in.

It’s not all or nothing and it’s not black and white. Well sometimes it is, but still. Naysayers like to focus on the difficult problems like Trolley problems and then act like that somehow refutes morality itself, just like how the baby killers like to focus on very rare edge cases like if the developing baby would kill the mother, and then use that to somehow try and say all abortion is ok. Just silly nonsense from people incapable of having the right Perspectives, Meanings, and Logic.
[/quote]
K: I am glad you are walking back your initial assumption which was
“Morality is easy”… In fact, morality should never be easy… and why?
because at its heart, morality is the relationship between two or more
people…“how should I treat you and how do you treat me”
and therein lies the entire question of morality…
and that idea of how I treat you is codified in laws…
the fact is, I just can’t walk up to you and hit you…
and you can’t just walk up and hit me… those are part of the rules
we hold as human beings… and what is the point of these rules?
and what is the bottom line of morality/laws, to keep and maintain order…
and rules and laws are what keep the order…

and what political systems keep order best? and what economic
system keeps the order the best?

and perhaps, perhaps that is the best way to view both the political
and the economic…as the bible says, “thou shall not” and by ‘‘thou shall not’’,
we gain more order… but that kind of leaves open the question of our own
individual needs and wants… my own personal needs and wants are quite often in
conflict with the order and stability demanded by the society and state…

let us think of an example… during WW2, this nation instituted the draft…
to fight and my own personal beliefs reject violence and warfare…
so, whose needs prevail? mine or the society?

and so, this question of morality, should I be forced to kill against my
own values? and this kinda leads us to this, for whose benefit is our actions?
am I acting for my own benefit or the society/state?

at times the two benefits, the society and my own actions,
are mutually beneficially… we help each other out… and I get what
I want and the society gets what it wants…

but it doesn’t often work that way…
quite often, my wants conflict with the society need for order…
and how do we resolve this issue?

we might resolve this issue by working out what is our goal, our telos,
both personally and collectively…

So, what is the point of existence, individually and collectively?

Kropotkin