Is Moral Neutrality a Myth?

[partinobodycular]

No thanks. I don't respond to this rhetorical mode.

Seriously!!!

You made a claim...that all actions have an underlying motivation...and that that underlying motivation has to include a judgment about its morality.

All that I'm asking you to do is to provide me with an argument supporting that claim. That's all. It seems like a reasonable request to me.

Otherwise I can simply rebut your claim by saying, no all actions don't need to have an underlying moral basis.

But if you don't want to present an actual argument then I guess we're done. I for one am a bit disappointed, I was hoping for more.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Seriously!!!

You made a claim...that all actions have an underlying motivation...and that that underlying motivation has to include a judgment about its morality.

All that I'm asking you to do is to provide me with an argument supporting that claim. That's all. It seems like a reasonable request to me.

Otherwise I can simply rebut your claim by saying, no all actions don't need to have an underlying moral basis.

But if you don't want to present an actual argument then I guess we're done. I for one am a bit disappointed, I was hoping for more.

You have made your motives clear, no further discussion is required.

This is a game played commonly online where one person asks all the questions, and the other person either walks away or is dismissed based on armchair psychology.

In general, since you are not stating an answer to my questions, neither will I answer your questions.

 

[partinobodycular]

You have made your motives clear, no further discussion is required.

This is a game played commonly online where one person asks all the questions, and the other person either walks away or is dismissed based on armchair psychology.

In general, since you are not stating an answer to my questions, neither will I answer your questions.

You don't seem to understand. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm trying to understand your reasoning. It's not armchair psychology or anything else.

I'm asking you a very legitimate question, why do you think that every action someone performs must have an underlying moral basis?

If I were to put on my armchair psychologist hat I would posit that the reason that you refuse to answer the question is because you can't. But that's perfectly fair, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.

My bad.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You don't seem to understand. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm trying to understand your reasoning. It's not armchair psychology or anything else.

I'm asking you a very legitimate question, why do you think that every action someone performs must have an underlying moral basis?

If I were to put on my armchair psychologist hat I would posit that the reason that you refuse to answer the question is because you can't. But that's perfectly fair, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.

My bad.

In general, discussing the poster instead of the post is considered flaming. So I opt to not respond.

It stands however, if you tell me why you don't see it that way, I will share my reason.

 

[partinobodycular]

Folks who don't experience anger ever aren't normal.

With this I agree. I'm definitely not normal. Although to be fair my assessment of other people's level of anger is completely anecdotal. Perhaps many people are slow to anger, but I only notice the one's who aren't, and as such my assessment about people's propensity for anger may be misguided. Personally, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they deserve at least that much.

 

[Moral Orel]

You don't seem to understand. I'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm trying to understand your reasoning. It's not armchair psychology or anything else.

I'm asking you a very legitimate question, why do you think that every action someone performs must have an underlying moral basis?

If I were to put on my armchair psychologist hat I would posit that the reason that you refuse to answer the question is because you can't. But that's perfectly fair, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.

My bad.

From a purely logical standpoint, to say that some actions we choose do have a moral basis, and some do not have a moral basis would be special pleading.

I should go to the market.
I should not murder my wife.

These are both decisions on how you "should" act. Morality is a set of principles concerning human behavior. That doesn't preclude benign actions like going to the market.

 

[partinobodycular]

From a purely logical standpoint, to say that some actions we choose do have a moral basis, and some do not have a moral basis would be special pleading.

I should go to the market.
I should not murder my wife.

But if these are both examples of binary choices between a moral act and an immoral act, then this would imply that not going to the market is immoral.

Is this true? Is not going to the market immoral? That's what I'm wondering. Does every choice have a moral basis? Even when they're based on "should"s

Hence if I have a choice between two opposing "should"s, then one of them must by necessity be immoral. How do I decide which one is moral and which one is immoral?

 

[Moral Orel]

But if these are both examples of binary choices between a moral act and an immoral act, then this would imply that not going to the market is immoral.

Is this true? Is not going to the market immoral? That's what I'm wondering. Does every choice have a moral basis? Even when they're based on "should"s

Hence if I have a choice between two opposing "should"s, then one of them must by necessity be immoral. How do I decide which one is moral and which one is immoral?

Don't ask me how to decide, I'm a Moral Subjectivist. Everyone just does what they want.

But in general, think of it this way. If there is such a thing as "goodness" then more of it is better. When you're choosing something for yourself, then choosing what makes you happy is good, and there's more of this "goodness" stuff.

Like I said, I'm a Moral Subjectivist, so none of it can be logically justified. But if any of it could, then that's basically the idea. I'm just trying to help you understand the gist of it. Don't bother trying to poke holes in it to me; I see them too. But if any "should" statement can be true, then there's no logical reason to exclude any others. You'd have to be saying that, "Well, a should can be true if we're talking about this, but it can't be true if we're talking about that". Special pleading.

 

[partinobodycular]

Don't ask me how to decide, I'm a Moral Subjectivist. Everyone just does what they want.

But in general, think of it this way. If there is such a thing as "goodness" then more of it is better. When you're choosing something for yourself, then choosing what makes you happy is good, and there's more of this "goodness" stuff.

Like I said, I'm a Moral Subjectivist, so none of it can be logically justified. But if any of it could, then that's basically the idea. I'm just trying to help you understand the gist of it. Don't bother trying to poke holes in it to me; I see them too. But if any "should" statement can be true, then there's no logical reason to exclude any others. You'd have to be saying that, "Well, a should can be true if we're talking about this, but it can't be true if we're talking about that". Special pleading.

Okay thanks. This was helpful, and I won't try to poke holes in it. I'll accept it with the same sincerity with which it was given.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay thanks. This was helpful, and I won't try to poke holes in it. I'll accept it with the same sincerity with which it was given.

Normally when I try to explain what a claim is, people want to argue with me over it. As if they can prove that the claim isn't what it is; not even that the claim is wrong. Thanks for not being normal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Seriously!!!

You made a claim...that all actions have an underlying motivation...and that that underlying motivation has to include a judgment about its morality.

All that I'm asking you to do is to provide me with an argument supporting that claim. That's all. It seems like a reasonable request to me.

Otherwise I can simply rebut your claim by saying, no all actions don't need to have an underlying moral basis.

But if you don't want to present an actual argument then I guess we're done. I for one am a bit disappointed, I was hoping for more.

For some reason, moral philosophy is an intellectual dead zone.

They come up with descriptions of slight variations on which factors are relevant (like intent) then pretend these can be adopted and they guide the actions of people.

They don't actually have a set of "deontological" morals or "virtue ethicist" morals that guide their behavior.

They operate basically the same way as 90+% of us do. The moral frameworks of moral philosophies are all post hoc attempts at justifying behavior.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But if these are both examples of binary choices between a moral act and an immoral act, then this would imply that not going to the market is immoral.

Or perhaps the language itself is a barrier for describing morality.

Is this true? Is not going to the market immoral? That's what I'm wondering. Does every choice have a moral basis? Even when they're based on "should"s

You need to start with a different question.

What is a "moral basis"?

I'd say at the bottom of the answer to that is the question "what is a moral judgement"?

Then you should ask....who am I making moral judgements about and with whom am I making them?

You don't really ever question why you did something.....right? You remember the reasons, you don't have to justify your own actions to yourself....you know, assuming that you don't lie to yourself.

You aren't really making moral judgements about yourself...unless you find yourself with some very strict ideas about who you are and what you do.

Hence if I have a choice between two opposing "should"s, then one of them must by necessity be immoral. How do I decide which one is moral and which one is immoral?

Depends on stuff.

 

[zippy2006]

Well, we'll just agree to disagree. I'm not going to bother looking into psychological studies on stubbed toes and car repair.

I ran across Aquinas speaking to the general question:

"Anger, though it follows an act of reason, can nevertheless be in dumb animals that are devoid of reason, in so far as through their natural instinct they are moved by their imagination to something like rational action. Since then in man there is both reason and imagination, the movement of anger can be aroused in man in two ways. First, when only his imagination denounces the injury: and, in this way, man is aroused to a movement of anger even against irrational and inanimate beings, which movement is like that which occurs in animals against anything that injures them. Secondly, by the reason denouncing the injury: and thus, according to the Philosopher (Rhet. ii, 3), "it is impossible to be angry with insensible things, or with the dead": both because they feel no pain, which is, above all, what the angry man seeks in those with whom he is angry: and because there is no question of vengeance on them, since they can do us no harm."

-ST I-II.46.7.ad1​

 

[zippy2006]

Here's what I think you're saying. No one wants to be irrational, sure. Pulling numbers out of thin air, everyone has 100 things that make them angry. For me, 100 of those are irrational. For everyone else, 50 of those things are irrational. Their goal is more achievable because they have less to work on. That's the gist, right?

But it's impossible to turn off emotions, so the fact that they only have 50 impossible tasks to do isn't more achievable than my 100 impossible tasks.

My underlying point is that anger is rational, just not always. Someone who never gets angry under any circumstance is irrational, and yet your claims commit you to this irrational goal. Others are not committed to that irrational goal. Their goal is rational and achievable (two different things).

Here is the basic argument:

1. If moral objectivism is false, then all anger is irrational.
2. Not all anger is irrational.
3. Therefore, moral objectivism is true.​

Most people wouldn't comprehend (1), but it seems that you do, and that you therefore accept a conclusion that all anger is irrational. The question, then, is whether all anger is irrational.

 

[Moral Orel]

Here is the basic argument:

1. If moral objectivism is false, then all anger is irrational.
2. Not all anger is irrational.
3. Therefore, moral objectivism is true.
Most people wouldn't comprehend (1), but it seems that you do, and that you therefore accept a conclusion that all anger is irrational. The question, then, is whether all anger is irrational.

Sure, I guess. But following from our previous convo, I can't really figger how you can prove 2 without stating that "Anger is rational when you've been wronged" and then you're back to square one, ya?

 

[zippy2006]

Sure, I guess. But following from our previous convo, I can't really figger how you can prove 2 without stating that "Anger is rational when you've been wronged" and then you're back to square one, ya?

The most productive way to assess (2) is to ask ourselves, each time we get angry, whether we are being irrational. If the answer every time is 'yes', then moral subjectivism is in the clear. If we find on one occasion or another that the answer is 'no', then moral subjectivism is confronted with a problem.

 

[partinobodycular]

Here is the basic argument:

1. If moral objectivism is false, then all anger is irrational.
2. Not all anger is irrational.
3. Therefore, moral objectivism is true.
Most people wouldn't comprehend (1), but it seems that you do, and that you therefore accept a conclusion that all anger is irrational. The question, then, is whether all anger is irrational.

It depends upon what one means by irrational. If one simply considers rational to be a reasonable human response to a given situation then there are indeed times when anger is a rational response. If on the other hand one considers rational to be the best logical course of action in a given situation then anger is never rational, even if the logical course of action and the emotional/angry course of action are in fact the same. Because one considers the outcome and the other doesn't.

Personally, I think that anger is never rational. But at the same time I also think that humans are only superficially rational. Barely above the level of our hominid ancestors, and as such the existence of that irrationality is oddly rational.

 

[zippy2006]

It depends upon what one means by irrational. If one simply considers rational to be a reasonable human response to a given situation then there are indeed times when anger is a rational response. If on the other hand one considers rational to be the best logical course of action in a given situation then anger is never rational, even if the logical course of action and the emotional/angry course of action are in fact the same. Because one considers the outcome and the other doesn't.

Personally, I think that anger is never rational. But at the same time I also think that humans are only superficially rational. Barely above the level of our hominid ancestors, and as such the existence of that irrationality is oddly rational.

Let me try to elaborate on (1) and defend it. If I remember correctly, you believe that you have adopted a stance of moral neutrality. Here are some relevant quotes:

In fact I can't remember the last time that I made a moral judgment regarding someone else's behavior.

Ahhh, but I didn't claim that you shouldn't judge another person's actions, only that I don't. I can't force my personal "moral" map to apply to you. I put the word moral in quotations because the word implies that my map is somehow correct or good, which I'm not claiming that it is. It's simply mine.

But this would mean that there is no universal moral map, and "moral" is simply a word that one uses to somehow legitimize their own personal feelings.

Now underlying (1) is the claim that whenever one gets angry at another person they are making a moral judgment regarding that person's behavior. Thus if you claim that you never judge others' behavior, but you get angry at others, then you are contradicting yourself.

Why is this? First, two quotes from Aquinas:

As stated above (Article 6), anger desires evil as being a means of just vengeance. Consequently, anger is towards those to whom we are just or unjust: since vengeance is an act of justice, and wrong-doing is an act of injustice. Therefore both on the part of the cause, viz. the harm done by another, and on the part of the vengeance sought by the angry man, it is evident that anger concerns those to whom one is just or unjust. (ST I-II.46.7)

All the causes of anger are reduced to slight. . . First, because anger seeks another's hurt as being a means of just vengeance: wherefore it seeks vengeance in so far as it seems just. Now just vengeance is taken only for that which is done unjustly; hence that which provokes anger is always something considered in the light of an injustice. (ST I-II.47.2)​

The gist of the idea is that we get angry when someone treats us unjustly, and does so knowingly.* For example, if someone steals our car we will likely become angry, and this is because we have suffered an injustice. This anger signifies our desire for restoration and retribution. For example, we might expect the thief to return the car (restoration) and to be given a hefty penalty (retribution).

The key with respect to (1) is that every time we get angry at another person, we are internally accusing that person of having done something objectively wrong, and we implicitly believe that they ought to be punished for having done the wrong. That is just what anger is. If someone believes that objective morality does not exist, then they do not believe anyone can commit objective wrongs, and therefore they should never get angry.


*Or when we witness an injustice, even if we are not the victim.

 

[partinobodycular]

Now underlying (1) is the claim that whenever one gets angry at another person they are making a moral judgment regarding that person's behavior. Thus if you claim that you never judge others' behavior, but you get angry at others, then you are contradicting yourself.

I'll readily admit that I'm not a normal person. I don't get angry. Neither do I consider another person's actions to be just or unjust. That would be like judging the lion for killing the gazelle. Lions simply do what's in their nature to do, as do people. I cannot rightfully judge the actions of someone else unless I arbitrarily apply a standard to their behaviour. Now you're perfectly free to do that if you so choose. But I choose not to. I completely understand and accept whatever you choose to do with no moral judgments whatsoever.

You do you, and I'll do me. If there's a God I'm perfectly willing to let Him decide which of us chose the nobler course of action, if indeed such a thing exists.

 

[zippy2006]

I'll readily admit that I'm not a normal person. I don't get angry. Neither do I consider another person's actions to be just or unjust.

Having had some conversations with you, I will just say that I don't believe you. Your actions and your words do not coincide.

Here's a quick example from March:

[1]Good grief Mike, it's called being thorough. When half the websites on the subject mention such a report it would be totally remiss of me not to address it. [2]I'm really beginning to question your grasp on reality. [3]I was actually wondering if you might be going senile, but you're younger than me so hopefully that's not a problem. [4]But seeing as how you're so smart maybe you're just going completely Ted Kaczynski.

[5]You do this all the time. Bring up all the other events, when I'm specifically addressing Lanciano, because it's the first event in which modern science was used to test it. At this point all the other events are irrelevant. Please stick to one event at a time.

That post is full of anger, exasperation, and punishment. I numbered at least five instances. [2], [3], and [4] are straightforward insults hurled on the basis of behavior which you believe to be unjust, or colloquially, "uncalled for." That is, you considered Mike's post unjust, got angry, and punished him with insults.

Everyone gets angry. You're no exception. This post itself may even elicit some anger from you.