Morality; what's the big deal?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

What i’d like to know is why anyone would want to live ‘moral’ lives in the first place. Philosophy here and elsewhere seems to emphasize the importance of ethics and morality, and I just don’t get it. I can understand living ‘moral’ lives for the sake of not being condemned by your community(practical reasons, with ‘moral’ being whatever said community happens to prefer), but that’s pretty much it. I don’t think i’m a psychopath or anything like that(the symptoms don’t fit in general), and I do have a sense of ‘built-in morality’ like most people do(i’d imagine), but i’m worried it might be leading me astray.

The philosophers taking on the task of creating rules for leading ‘moral’ lives certainly have no authority to do so, and the premises they base their theories on all seem inherited. These theories are also often designed to benefit groups of people rather than individuals. The subjective nature of morality itself seems compelling enough a reason to reject anyone’s attempt at creating universal systems for ethical behaviour. If I don’t care one bit about anyone else and my sole ambition is personal progress, the vast majority of premises used in these theories are ruined, and the theory falls.

It seems to me, then, that the only ethics worth paying heed to are goal-oriented ones, since any theory pretending to be more than that have no legs to stand on in a world without God. If you or your society wants to accomplish X, you need to do this or that to make that happen. This is reasonable of course, and makes it easy to understand why societies always try to enforce certain rules and do their best to incorporate this into our sense of right and wrong. They need you to act in a certain way so the goals set are reached. For someone who don’t care about whether these goals are reached, though, it makes no sense to play by the rules. It makes infinitely more sense to learn about the theories, recognize the expectations of society and then live by your own personal code of conduct.

Essentially I guess what I want to know is why so many people feel a burning desire to live what they percieve as ‘moral’ lives. If you are religious, it makes sense, but if you aren’t it really seems a pointless exercise, unless it makes you feel good about your own moral superiority. Shouldn’t we stop, for a moment, and ask ourselves why the deeds we generally consider to be good are desirable to us? And if we can’t provide a reasonable explanation for it, shouldn’t we abandon it? Wouldn’t anything else be intellectual dishonesty? I find that most of what we consider moral behaviour quickly falls apart under any kind of scrutiny. Ask yourself why hurting others is wrong and see how quickly you hit the wall.

2

I think the big deal is that morality is the objective meaning of life for us.

3

Keyser -

Are you claiming that the condemnation of our community is a small matter? This condemnation can be rather onerous. Avoiding that condemnation is one way of stating the minimal case for morality.

If it seems 'built-in" then it is very likely leading you astray. The philosopher revalues all values.

Taking your lead, here, would it be better if the philosopher made them all up?

That’s what moral systems are designed to do. In other words, that’s a truism.

I could not agree more.

Not is its purpose is to influence behavior, and is enforceable and/or widely adopted by the group.

There are a couple of substitutes for God. But generally, that is correct enough.

Ideally, yes. But you have to be very good at it, or you’ll run afoul of the group’s values. That is, you’ll get caught.

Blame the parents. It’s impossible to raise a child without manipulating their emotions (such as guilt). Some of us outgrow that - most do not.

Then there is every reason to believe that you are an effective philosopher. Just keep in mind that this makes you a rare bird.

4

Whose morality? Yours? Mine? One reached through democratic elections? God’s? If it is God’s, we have nothing to discuss, since I already agreed that it makes sense for a believer to live moral lives according to whatever it is their faith tells them is moral.

And what, apart from wishful thinking, gives you compelling reason to claim that this mysterious morality is the objective(no less) meaning of life? If morality is subjective, then even if you did lead a moral life according to the standards set before you, you may have failed in the eyes of others. If morality is the objective meaning of life and morality is subjective, the objective meaning of life is reduced to living however you like. Really, the consequence of your claim is that a universal, eternal version of moral behaviour exists, and if it does, I don’t see how we’d know what it is. It seems like you are doomed to live an immoral life, then, forever ignorant of what is moral and what is not.

Then again, you’re probably religious, so you wouldn’t need to consider all these problems.

5

I’m not talking about particular moralities, I’m talking about morality in general.The fact that all the great religions concentrate on it is a bit of a clue.

Morality is the concept that there is right an wrong behaviour, that some acts are good and some acts are bad (all sane people believe this), ergo , there is a right way to act (though we may disagree about it).

6

I make no such claim. The wise course of action seems to act in such a way that condemnation is avoided, but doing so because of the consequences and not out of some misguided belief in rights and wrongs.

Seeing as most people in the world share a basic sense of what is right and wrong, there is every reason to believe there is something ‘built-in’, genetic or cultural, guiding us. Unless everyone is simply acting out of self-interest, but use all kinds of surface rationalization to make it seem otherwise.

No, but doesn’t it seem odd to even try creating such systems if you know that it is based on premises you simply accept from others? Shouldn’t we, as you say, revalue all values? I agree that your alternative is no better, but why even try if all attempts are bound to fail due to the subjective nature of the premises they use?

Yes, and this explains why it makes sense to enforce morality on society, but it doesn’t tell me why I should accept it(assuming I can avoid condemnation by said society). It doesn’t explain why a lot of people seem determined to live ‘moral lives’.

As above.

I’d be interested in knowing what the substitutes might be. You might just mean what I conveniently crammed into the word “God”, which is a universal and eternal code of moral behaviour that is actually being enforced with real consequences and/or rewards. If it’s not, i’d like to hear more.

Of course there are difficulties. There seems to be a lot of non-religious people who desire to live ‘moral lives’ though. Would they be misguided, or are they trying to trick everyone?

7

I reject the notion that “morality in general” is any better than individual morality, and I especially reject that any focus from the great religions gives us any kind of clue. If we believe this, we can go on to say that since all the great religions believe in the supernatural, the supernatural must exist.

The great religions might focus on this for the same reason why people in general focus on this, which is that acting in certain(“right”) ways are effective at reaching certain goals, like living together in a society. Just imagine how a society where everyone killed and robbed each other all the time would work out. If the goal is a harmonic community, the right course of action would be not to kill other people in said community, and that’s perfectly reasonable. If I reject the goal entirely, the “right” course of action just becomes another course of action. The key here is that even if objective right and wrong exists, we have no way of knowing what it might be. None. Nature in general is not benevolent in the slightest, and seems to think murder is perfectly acceptable, and everything happens out of self-interest. Apart from humans(maybe), genuine altruism seems practically non-existant. If I were to hazard a guess at objective right and wrong without God, i’d say it would be acting out of self-interest, always, since that’s how nature seems to operate.

I am amused by your fanatical belief in right and wrong, but I see nothing particularly sane or reasonable about accepting that objective rights and wrongs exist and is something we’d have a clue about if it did. Then again you proceed to contradict yourself: If we can disagree about what course is ‘right’, every course can be right, unless you possess some kind of amazing ability to veto courses you don’t like.

8

Then I would apply the Duck Test. Or invoke Kant or consequentialist morality.

As to the first, if you follow what looks like a morality, what smells like one or quacks like one, then you are moral.

As to the second, Kant doesn’t care how you feel about it, as long as you do it.

As to the third, more general case, it’s only the consequences that count.

It’s still morality.

Emotions - that can be trained, are built-in. This is compatible with self-interest. So is morality, generally.

Well, if we don’t share premises on some level, then we will never convince another of the rightness of our morality. It’s a practical concern. I think I should revalue all values. But I don’t think everyone should be a philosopher. Nothing would ever get done. The attempts do not fail. Look what the catholic church has accomplished. Good catholics are acting against their own self-interest every day. Morality is politics.

Call it classical conditioning. Why do so many wish to learn so much that is useless to them? Why do people decide to agree with everything the Democrats or the Republicans say? Everything! Why do people still buy General Motors cars?

the major example is Pure Reason. Which very often sneaks God in, but doesn’t always. It does usually include that we are less than human if we are not Rational (capital R intended).

I think they are trying to feel good about themselves. It might be noted that most people are very confused about their own morality, because if it is not examined closely, contradictions are bound to creep in, and conflicts that they find near impossible to resolve arise in the difficult cases. It’s difficult to generalise, of course, because their motives are more emotional than the revaluer of all values is.

9

Well, the consequences of what I am saying is that you’d break any such system of morality the very moment you saw a chance to get away with it, if it would benefit you. A Machiavellian approach, in a way.

Compatible, yes, but also limiting. People let morality get in the way of self-interest, for various reasons, so even if the two are compatible it would be wise to discard morality the moment it conflicts with your self-interest.

I do agree with you. This is just two different issues though. Theories for the sake of enforcing it on society for whatever goals you may have, and theories for the sake of determining ‘good’ and ‘bad’ acts in a universal sense. It may very well be that these philosophers usually had the first in mind, but ordinary people tend to interpret them as the second, and this has a very serious impact on society.

Then everyone who prides themselves in intellectual honesty and self-criticism should immediately discard morality as something “real” and quit judging others sincerely.

I have trouble seeing how ‘Pure Reason’ leads us anywhere in particular. If we use nature as an example, i’d say it points towards self-interest with an outer shell composed of such values that society find admirable, but any attempts at reason here would rely on premises that are neither observable nor obvious. There is nothing objective or true about invoking nature either, but it’s probably the best we can do. I suppose reason can lead us to such codes of behaviour if, and only if, we see the world from the perspective of an overseer(who do not himself need to follow the rules) with certain interests for the group he is watching rather than the individual member.

The second argument suggests that ‘being human’ can be defined, that someone knows how to do this and furthermore that meeting these criteria is something desirable. None of that has anything to do with reason and has everything to do with the subjective opinion of one author or another.

Yes, perhaps. It occurs to me that in every decision we make, the benefit has a certain weight while the risk has its own. Morality, then, becomes a third factor that lays its weight in the risk bowl, creating inefficient behaviour that invokes parallels to free market theory. As a thought-experiment i’ve asked myself if I, if I could expect great gains from the death of my grandmother who loves me more than anyone, would be capable of murdering her if the risk of being caught was nonexistant. I’ve decided that I most likely couldn’t. The situation obviously hasn’t arised, but everything tells me that a sense of love and ‘morality’ would compel me not to do so. Is this real? Is that choice based on genuine built-in morality, or is it just because I know the built-in morality is there, and therefore know that carrying out such a deed would have, even if I wasn’t discovered, serious consequences for my well-being, to such an extent that the rewards for carrying out the deed are outweighed by the negative results? Would I do it if she stood between me and absolute power, like that of past kings? I don’t know the answers, but I think it’s important that we ask, rather than allow contradictions.

10

Well, moral systems don’t cease to be, absent 100% compliance.

Again, as long as you can get away with it, yes. Perhaps I took you too literally, or mistook your focus. I thought you wanted to know why people were moral. Maybe that point was rhetorical.

I think most moral philosophers were looking for universal good and bad as a means to an end. Plato wanted to show that philosophers should be kings. Plato was a philosopher. Coincidence? Maybe.

Is that a moral “should”?

So do I. But I don’t make the news - I’m only reporting it.

Yes - Pure Reason is an invention of rationalists.

That is correct.

Maybe it’s love and not morality. There are other thought experiments you could do. Like choosing between killing your grandmother and saving thousands of strangers.

11

I think it safe to say you are among the majority on this forum in that respect.

Very interesting point to consider, in my opinion. If you think about it, emotions do have a way of clouding moral/ethical judgment. I suppose the question, then, in a moral dilemma is to what extent one can remain morally objective – however, in regards to sentient, emotional beings, that practice may be somewhat dehumanizing.

Perhaps this is why we have “impartial” judges who sit piously above the masses and sentence people to double-digit terms in prison for crap like marijuana possession.

12

But such a definition would make everyone moral and immoral at the same time. I see what you are saying, but for practical reasons i’d like to draw the line at whether someone desires to act in accord with some code of morality for the sake of being moral(respecting and believing in the concepts of right and wrong suggested in whatever moral theory they follow), or if they do it hesitantly out of self-interest, not acknowledging any real moral authority or caring one bit about the values being preached. In both cases, 100% compliance would be impossible, but in the first case ‘immoral’ deeds would be reacted to with shame, guilt, outrage and anger, while in the second case none of these emotions would exist. Only, perhaps, a satisfaction with finally being able to break the unreasonable rules imposed upon you. For the overseer, your thoughts around this may be irrelevant, but for the individual, they matter a lot.

Not as much why people are moral, but rather why they want to be so. No one who knows me would call me immoral(by the standards of your average western European society), but I don’t -want- to be so, and rather see it as something undesirable that has been forced on me, that I should do my best to get rid of.

Perhaps they were looking for that, but in practice I believe understanding of universal good and bad is little but a convenient form of social control, to ensure that people abide by what is really goal-oriented morality. In other words: The moral philosophy you refer to, intentional or not, would then be goal-oriented morality under the guise of universality to lend it weight and ensure that the target audience is convinced. Of course, I have no grounds for saying this other than that it makes sense to me.

In a goal-oriented moral “should”, perhaps. If intellectual honesty and self-criticism is desirable, THEN you should. Failing to do so would be a form of self-deception, which is the opposite of intellectual honesty.

One interesting point that is emerging from this is that being moral and immoral is indeed possible, but only if you subscribe to a set of rules. So if I stole something, I wouldn’t be immoral because morality is subjective and my take on it might not include stealing as immoral, but if a genuine Christian stole something, he would be immoral as he broke his own rules. “Morality” is then reduced to your degree of success at your self-imposed moral code. This gives morality a meaning that doesn’t work very well with how people interpret the word though, but one that is probably more accurate in a philosophical sense, assuming we accept that morality is subjective.

I assume you meant “killing your grandmother and saving thousands of strangers OR not doing so and letting them die”.

It depends on the circumstances. Would my actions be known? The act? The consequence? Both? Neither? It’s interesting to think about, and in some cases I know which i’d pick, while in others it’s not as easy.

As for love vs morality, that’s a good question. One may take it further and pit emotion up against morality. Is the shudder I feel when walking past someone living on the street really just fear rather than empathy, when imagining myself in his shoes? Is any sympathy we might have for starving children or victims of violence really just imagining what it’d be like if that ever happened to us? Is empathy really just selfishly worrying about you ever being in that bad situation? Is everything we do really selfish, just like everything else in nature? Is morality just a mechanism to hide this from us, since the cooperation necessary for humans to thrive depend on unselfish behaviour? I think these are interesting questions.

13

Okay - but this would be dealing in ideal cases. And one may certainly act in self-interest but rationalise that he is not. And i think that happens a lot. It’s the difference between motive, in the Nietzschean sense, and reason (as in “a reason for acting”). Nothing wrong with ideal cases, as long as we keep in mind that they are ideals.

Theoretically. But in real life?

Would you act differently if you did? Or would your reasons just be different?

You would have grounds if you studied Western morality. It’s the minimal case for morality. It’s what morality is, even if it’s more. I agree that it is not more.

Sure - again, that’s the minimal case for morality - a set of rules. And again, I would agree that this is ll that morality is.

You mean people who buy into the idea that morality is more than a set of rules - which is most people, I think.

Yes.

Would your actions be known? You are maybe less moral than you think, or you wouldn’t even ask that question. It’s an evil question.

Well, we can be saddened by the plight of others and do nothing, or we can be saddened and want to do something. In other words, our emotions can be trained.

14

Statik -

I would substitute “self-consistent” for “objective”.

15

I think it might be transferable to real life at least to some extent. It’s possible that there would built-in reactions you can’t get rid of, but I know that there’s a whole lot of things I wouldn’t feel guilty about in the slightest, that most people would deem immoral(that has nothing to do with religion). On the other hand there are things I know I would feel terrible doing too, regardless of my philosophical convictions(I consider this a problem - something to be ‘conquered’). The question becomes if this is just how I am and would be regardless or if my “higher tolerance for immoral behaviour” is a result of asking questions and trying to be intellectually honest and consistent.

If the weight of morality was lighter I imagine I might act differently(more selfishly) on occasion.

Perhaps I should. My writings here are mostly based on what ‘makes sense’ to me, and is rarely backed up by having read philosophy(although i’ve started doing so now).

Exactly.

I never claimed to be a particularly moral person, only that I doubt anyone would call me immoral(that is, until I told them exactly how I view the world). I wonder if I reached these conclusions because of ‘lacking morality’ or if I ‘lack morality’ because I reached these conclusions. I may not be particularly moral, but I definately can empathise with others, even if I don’t particularly care about what happens to them. I think I may empathise more with their situation than them as human beings.

I’d be one of the people who are saddened, but wouldn’t lift a finger to do anything about it.

16

I have had the same struggle. But guilt can be like physical pain - it’s information. Sometimes it’s worth paying attention to and sometimes it’s not. John Rawls made the observation that moral theory must be tested against cases, and vice-versa. I think a lot of trial and error is unavoidable.

I would phrase it more carefully. I might act with greater self-interest. Not necessarily more selfishly. The difference is that morality can cloud the issue of self-interest - and selfishness. I am a middle child, and see value in the circumstance that those around me are happy. That value is measured in concentric circles - with me as the epicenter. Selfishness may be unavoidable. Stupidity, or inconsistency, is easier to avoid, but still difficult.

Reading provides vocabulary. Surely you could benefit from reading Nietzsche. And maybe Rawls.

Maybe there is a third “cause”.

There’s no benefit to ignoring our emotions. But we might need to refer to more than those emotions as a guide to action.

Maybe you’re just a perspectivist.

It happens.

17

Yes, self-interest is more accurate. I wrote it out like that in another post. Morality getting in the way of self-interest is basically why I consider it a problem(for me). I may not be very moral, but the innate morality I -do- have seems unnecessary and only creates problems for me. Unless someone for whatever reason feel that “being moral” is a goal in itself, I don’t see any good reason to keep it.

I am sure I would. I am Norwegian, and my Norwegian vocabulary is a whole lot better. I’ve never lived in an English-speaking country, but i’ll be moving to the UK shortly, which should help as well.

What would that be?

Well, when you refer to more than emotions you are ignoring them, or at least trying to marginalise them. Human existence seems an exercise in marginalising ones emotions, and doing so is no doubt beneficial to us if we want to be part of a society. It’s easy to see why if we imagine what would happen to someone who always acted on every whim.

Perspectivism seems partly reasonable and well thought out, but I hesitate to place myself in any category or group. I’d much prefer to learn what various people have to say and make my own -ism.

For example, the way Wikipedia portrays the theory it is flawed.

  1. Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics as impossible, and claims that there are no objective evaluations which transcend cultural formations or subjective designations.
  2. This means that there are no objective facts, and that there can be no knowledge of a thing in itself.

1 may be accurate, but 2 does not follow. There can easily be objective facts and knowledge of a thing in itself, even if it isn’t available to human beings. Claiming that facts can’t exist just because we can’t find any strikes me as arrogant and foolish. I don’t know if this is an error on Wikipedia or Nietszche’s side.

That is not to say that perspectivism doesn’t have anything useful to say, but it’s important to use what is good in a theory and discard the rest, and that’s rarely possible to combine with subscribing to any “-ism”.

18

I didn’t mean vocabulary in English. I meant “philosophical vocabulary”. The more chords you know, the more songs you can play. Even songs you don’t like, which you might not play much. But the chords still might come in handy.

Nietzsche’s concept of motive might be fecund for you.

I don’t think so. I think you are putting them in the soup instead of making them the main course by themselves.

Right - morality is designed to prevent us acting on every whim. To train our emotions. Not to ignore them. You can’t train a monkey by ignoring it. The question is, who is the trainer? You, or “them”?

It’s a technique. It’s not the only one I use, but I call myself a perspectivist because I think it will get me laid more.

Wikipedia does not do a particularly good job with this topic, but the thing-in-itself is a metaphysical term. At the least, if those facts aren’t available to us, we might as well proceed as if they don’t exist. The result is the same.

Again, it’s a technique - it’s like rationalism in that way. It’s not the object of the exercise - it’s how you go about the exercise.