Question about 'morality'

[JohnSerew]

I think it is time to get really phillosophical!

But before I begin, I have to say thank you to the incredible open and honest contribution to answering my questions so far. There are a lot of question I have towards people with different standpoints because I believe that learning more about people will be the key to understanding them. And understanding people is the key to peace, even if it is just in your own mind.

Anyway, lets start with the question. There is a lot of debating regarding morality. Where does it come from? Can we establish a moral ground with just science? So, I have watched a lot of videos with debaters bringing up different standpoints and I think, as far as we have gotten on YouTube, that the following question is what has to be answered:

Why is it that the majority of the people have positive associations with actions that are commonly acknoweldged as 'good morals'?

And maybe more specifically, does everybody have the same moral principles?

To phrase that same question differently, what determines why people have certain moral standpoints?

A thought experiment to test your answer with would be the following.

Imagine person A and person B. Person B has been through a tough period. Person A is not aware of persons B's suffering. Person A makes a joke that, because of the way it is phrased, brings up memories of person B that hurts his feelings even though the joke isn't upsetting in anway. For example, person B his cat recently died and person A made a joke that reminded him of his cat but isn't a offensive joke towards cats. After making the joke, B told A about his cat and A immediately feld hurt by his actions and apologises.

So the question here is: what explains, in your view of morality, the sudden moral change A went through in this example? I guess the answers is quite simple but it should finetune your definition of what is moral and what is not.

Forgive me for any mistakes with my English grammar and spelling. I cannot figure out the spellcheck on my browser.

 

[quatona]

A thought experiment to test your answer with would be the following.

Imagine person A and person B. Person B has been through a tough period. Person A is not aware of persons B's suffering. Person A makes a joke that, because of the way it is phrased, brings up memories of person B that hurts his feelings even though the joke isn't upsetting in anway. For example, person B his cat recently died and person A made a joke that reminded him of his cat but isn't a offensive joke towards cats. After making the joke, B told A about his cat and A immediately feld hurt by his actions and apologises.

So the question here is: what explains, in your view of morality, the sudden moral change A went through in this example? I guess the answers is quite simple but it should finetune your definition of what is moral and what is not.

I fail to see that A went through a moral change, in the first place.
A reacted empathically. His moral views aren´t even part of the picture.

 

[Loudmouth]

Anyway, lets start with the question. There is a lot of debating regarding morality. Where does it come from?

I think it comes from our ability to empathize and use reason. First, we are able to put ourselves in other peoples' shoes and understand what brings them joy or pain. You are also able to recognize that you do not enjoy pain (be it physical, emotional, or cultural). We are also able to recognize that others have the same ability to use empathy.

Second, we are able to use our intelligence to understand what the outcome of our actions will be.

When you have those two things, you run into the situation where you make a conscious choice to cause pain in others knowing that you would not want that same thing done to you. That is the foundation of morality, IMHO.

Can we establish a moral ground with just science?

I think we can establish morality based on reason. Due to empathy, morality does have a subjective aspect that science may not be able to deal with. Also, science is focused more on methodology and how the world is. Morality deals with how the world ought to be, something that science does not deal with. Hume called this the Is/Ought problem.

Why is it that the majority of the people have positive associations with actions that are commonly acknoweldged as 'good morals'?

And maybe more specifically, does everybody have the same moral principles?

I think that everyone has the same moral instincts. However, you can get different outcomes when those instincts interact with history of the culture you live in.

Imagine person A and person B. Person B has been through a tough period. Person A is not aware of persons B's suffering. Person A makes a joke that, because of the way it is phrased, brings up memories of person B that hurts his feelings even though the joke isn't upsetting in anway. For example, person B his cat recently died and person A made a joke that reminded him of his cat but isn't a offensive joke towards cats. After making the joke, B told A about his cat and A immediately feld hurt by his actions and apologises.

So the question here is: what explains, in your view of morality, the sudden moral change A went through in this example? I guess the answers is quite simple but it should finetune your definition of what is moral and what is not.

Immoral behavior requires intent to act immorally. Going back to my discussion on empathy, if we do not realize that our actions will cause pain then we are not accountable in a moral sense. A person who kills someone because a gun accidentally fired is not held to the same account as a person who purposefully aims a gun and kills someone.

 

[JohnSerew]

I think it comes from our ability to empathize.. purposefully aims a gun and kills someone.

I feel that you completely understand my questions. Then I have the following question regarding your vision on morality.

You have described a theory about how morality can be defined pretty clearly. The question however remains, even though you know that you might hurt someone or not; why do we all seem to think it is a negative thing to hurt someone? Why aren't we all having a positive moral towards hurting others? Who or what decides wheater or not something is bad or good?

And how does this apply to, for examply, pshychopaths who seem to have no difficulty in slaughtering people. There have been cases where severely mentally sick people have litterally cut other humans to peices and kept them in jars, sometimes eating certain parts.

 

[quatona]

I feel that you completely understand my questions. Then I have the following question regarding your vision on morality.

You have described a theory about how morality can be defined pretty clearly. The question however remains, even though you know that you might hurt someone or not; why do we all seem to think it is a negative thing to hurt someone? Why aren't we all having a positive moral towards hurting others?

Because that´s the way we are (hard-)wired. Neuroscience can already tell us where our empathy is located in the brain.
You could as well ask: Why don´t we walk on our hands, and who decides which limbs to walk on is best?

Who or what decides wheater or not something is bad or good?

Everyone decides it for themselves - however, it must be noted that in addition to the general wiring the fine-tuning is owed to upbringing and societal norms.

And how does this apply to, for examply, pshychopaths who seem to have no difficulty in slaughtering people. There have been cases where severely mentally sick people have litterally cut other humans to peices and kept them in jars, sometimes eating certain parts.

Psychpaths are (hard-)wired differently than the rest of us.
Just like for a guy who is born without legs walking on his hands might suggest itself.

 

[Loudmouth]

why do we all seem to think it is a negative thing to hurt someone?

Because we have negative emotions when others hurt us.

Who or what decides wheater or not something is bad or good?

We decide, as a culture and as a society. Obviously, it isn't an easy thing to do, and historical events can change how we view bad and good.

And how does this apply to, for examply, pshychopaths who seem to have no difficulty in slaughtering people. There have been cases where severely mentally sick people have litterally cut other humans to peices and kept them in jars, sometimes eating certain parts.

It directly applies. Notice how we treat people differently based on whether or not a mental illness has incapacitated their ability to differentiate between good and bad. One of the fundamental aspects of modern justice is whether or not a defendant understood that what they were doing was wrong.

A good example is John Hinkley, the guy who shot Reagan because he thought it would impress Jodie Foster. They found that he was mentally ill and lacked the capacity to stop what he was doiing. He was institutionalized. In fact, they think he is cured, and he may be released soon.

 

[JohnSerew]

Because that´s the way we are (hard-)wired. Neuroscience can already tell us where our empathy is located in the brain.
You could as well ask: Why don´t we walk on our hands, and who decides which limbs to walk on is best?

Everyone decides it for themselves - however, it must be noted that in addition to the general wiring the fine-tuning is owed to upbringing and societal norms.


Psychopaths are (hard-)wired differently than the rest of us.
Just like for a guy who is born without legs walking on his hands might suggest itself.

I am hearing a lot of great theories here. I wonder what you think of this philosophy:

I once did the following thought experiment. Lets imagine a world of 1000 people. 500 of them have the build in moral value to kill each other a.s.a.p. The other 500 have the moral value to keep each other alive and over all, kill those who try to kill them or others with the same moral values. It is just a matter of time until only those who will try to stay alive are left. To conclude. I think the reason everybody is sharing the same moral values is because those happen to be the only ones to stay alive or still function in our society. The ones with the different moral values are either incarcerated or killed.

I think that this is what decides which morals are generally dominant in our society. So one can assume that those common moral values are somehow improving the chance of survival, much like evolution.

I think this theory perfectly describes not only why good or evil is just a matter of personal opinion and that the commonality is simply a matter of survival. There are those who think it is good to kill, but they are locked away or dead. Assuming the chance of getting children who are wrongly wired inside the head, is really small, we won't expect to see a lot of them. I think good or bad is just a sensation we developed just like the fact that 'pain' is a bad feeling. If someone would have a positive sensation when there is damage to the body, they would be dead soon because they would damaged themselves way too fast. People with the inability for pain are therefor very rare and have to check themselves for damages all the time.

 

[Chany]

Did we define "morality" yet?

 

[quatona]

I am hearing a lot of great theories here. I wonder what you think of this philosophy:

I once did the following thought experiment. Lets imagine a world of 1000 people.

I´m not sure why make a thought experiment about a world we don´t live in, in the first place. Why not take a close look at the world we live in and figure in all the facts we know, instead?

500 of them have the build in moral value to kill each other a.s.a.p. The other 500 have the moral value to keep each other alive and over all, kill those who try to kill them or others with the same moral values. It is just a matter of time until only those who will try to stay alive are left. To conclude. I think the reason everybody is sharing the same moral values is because those happen to be the only ones to stay alive or still function in our society. The ones with the different moral values are either incarcerated or killed.

I don´t seem to understand how that follows from your hypothetical scenario (apart from the fact that the scenario is not what we observe in the real world).

I think that this is what decides which morals are generally dominant in our society. So one can assume that those common moral values are somehow improving the chance of survival, much like evolution.

Of course, collaboration seems to be successful trait when it comes to survival of the human species. Now, we need to keep in mind that evolution doesn´t thrive on logical considerations (such as the one you tried above) but just so happens. For some reason, there are species who don´t have a shred of moral/ethical ideas, yet are successful in terms of survival of the species.
But, yes, basically everything we observe is the current result of evolution. That´s trivial, actually.
However, like every theory that tries to derive morality/ethics from observations of natural processes (another one of which would be "Social Darwinism", which actually prescribes a very different morality) your theory doesn´t bridge the is-ought gap.

 

[JohnSerew]

Did we define "morality" yet?

This comment is no longer valid. I reconsidered my comment on the next page!

I would say that morality is the sensation or opinion we have about actions making them to us either experienced as a positive or negative thing to do. If an action is morally bad in the eyes of a person, then that means he has a negative experience associated with that action. I think that we have a sensation for actions just like we have for light. A light can be bright or dark, a sound as loud or quite and an action can be experienced as bad or good.

 

[JohnSerew]

I would say that morality is the sensation or opinion we have about actions making them to us either experienced as a positive or negative thing to do. If an action is morally bad in the eyes of a person, then that means he has a negative experience associated with that action. I think that we have a sensation for actions just like we have for light. A light can be bright or dark, a sound as loud or quite and an action can be experienced as bad or good.

No I have reconsidered this. I don't agree with what I said. It is not a sensation. Morality is the differentiation of the value we assing to actions making them either good or bad. Where bad and good is defined according to the logic I described above. In short, something we would ultimately strive to do or not strive to do. I don't know if striving is the correct word here. That is my view.

 

[Good grief]

WOW!!!!!!! Are we talking flesh here? Who cares what A or B did, or what they should of done. When you come to Christ your eyes are open. Basically it is flesh studying flesh...or heathen studying heathen, trying to make since of it all. We already know the answer....neither one knows Christ. Many people trying to be phycologists without Christ, study their own (each) fallen nature. Which in God's eyes are meaningless. The great phycologist is Jesus Christ, all moral. If we were born into sin, where is the morality without Christ. There is none, none what so ever. That's why we ask for forgiveness. A and B will always know the difference between bad and good amongst themselves...but so what...who gets their last breath when they pass. Satan has his phycologists on this earth, they remain Godless to keep those whom they try to help from entering heaven. Whether they know it or not.

 

[JohnSerew]

I´m not sure why make.....your theory doesn´t bridge the is-ought gap.

I think to explain what I meant with this is the following. And I hope I understood the Is-ought gap properly here.

I think we don't ought to do anything. We don't ought to do good things. We could do good or bad. Both are equally acceptable(not talking about morally acceptable). The question I think is more import is, if we don't ought to do certain things, how is it that most of the people seem to have(is) the same moral values? And here the experiment comes in, where I try to point out that in a world where nobody is ought to do good or bad(thus having both cases equally present), in the end only those who have moral standards that happen to increase the chance of survival are the ones left alive.

I think that when we feel we ought to be good(I hope I use the word correctly here) that is just we way feel inside. The problem with the is-ought gap is that it assumes that there has to be an ought for us to come to the conclusion of the right moral standard. My argument is that we don't ought to have any standards, we just have the ones that help us survive.

To apply it to the following example:
Premise 1: Dog fighting is abuse of animals
Premise 2: Abuse of animals is bad.

Conclusion: Dog fighting should be illegal

According to the Is-Ought problem. We can find out that premise 1 and 2 are true but that doesn't allow us to conclude that we have to make dog fighting illegal. We have to add an ought: Abuse of animals ought to be illegal.

So my point in this case is that we don't ought to make dog fights illegal at all. Both the conclusions, making it illegal or not making it illegal are both equally possible and we don't ought to take either. The one in favor of making it illegal just happens to be the one that creates humans who survive better in the long term and thus is the only moral value that is kept alive.

Someone could ought to kill everybody. He's just dead or incarcerated very soon.

 

[Good grief]

Just ask Jesus into your heart, why do I know you need to do this? 1). you wouldn't have these questions. 2). because you would already know the answers. True Answers. God Bless †

 

[quatona]

I think to explain what I meant with this is the following. And I hope I understood the Is-ought gap properly here.

I think we don't ought to do anything. We don't ought to do good things. We could do good or bad. Both are equally acceptable(not talking about morally acceptable).

Colour me confused: what does "good/bad" even mean in this scenario?

The question I think is more import is, if we don't ought to do certain things, how is it that most of the people seem to have(is) the same moral values?

Well, since morality is about what one ought to do, you are committing a category error when talking about morality in the absence of the concept of "oughts".
On another note, to me it doesn´t seem like most people have the same moral values.
Most people - minus the sociopaths - are empathy-gifted. That´s not an intellectual capacity. All moral values are post hoc rationalizations of empathy.
We also need to note that evolution is about what members of a species do - not what they "think" or "value". So, from an evolutionary pov it´s more relevant that the Holocaust happened than the fact that most people living in Germany back then and who were invovled in one way or the other weren´t sociopaths and shared those basic moral values you are alluding to.

And here the experiment comes in, where I try to point out that in a world where nobody is ought to do good or bad(thus having both cases equally present), in the end only those who have moral standards that happen to increase the chance of survival are the ones left alive.

No. Their moral standards don´t matter at all. Their actions do. And as we all know, it´s very easy to hold very high moral standards but a completely different thing to live up to them, particularly when you are in a crisis or feel threatened.

I think that when we feel we ought to be good(I hope I use the word correctly here) that is just we way feel inside. The problem with the is-ought gap is that it assumes that there has to be an ought for us to come to the conclusion of the right moral standard. My argument is that we don't ought to have any standards, we just have the ones that help us survive.

You should clarify here: help us survive as individuals, or help the species survive? (Completely different things, and since you brought up evolution: evolution is not about the survival of the individual but about the survival of the species).
When I feel empathic towards a fellow being, the survival of the species isn´t any of my concern.

To apply it to the following example:
Premise 1: Dog fighting is abuse of animals
Premise 2: Abuse of animals is bad.

Conclusion: Dog fighting should be illegal

According to the Is-Ought problem. We can find out that premise 1 and 2 are true

No, we can´t find out that premise 2 is true - not until we have made a moral statement, in the first place.

All I can tell you is: Dog fights rub me the wrong way. Everything else is post hoc rationalization.
(And just to be clear: above you claimed that most people share the same moral value - but here you have picked an example where there´s a huge percentage of humans who find dog fights perfectly ok).

but that doesn't allow us to conclude that we have to make dog fighting illegal. We have to add an ought: Abuse of animals ought to be illegal.

Legality is a completely different cup of tea than morality. Morality consists of "oughts" even though many don´t show up in legislation.
The moral "ought" would be: People shouldn´t organize (or watch or make profit of) dog fights.
The legal "ought" would be: Dog fights are prohibited by law.

So my point in this case is that we don't ought to make dog fights illegal at all. Both the conclusions, making it illegal or not making it illegal are both equally possible and we don't ought to take either. The one in favor of making it illegal just happens to be the one that creates humans who survive better in the long term and thus is the only moral value that is kept alive.

I´m not sure that - when comparing people who are in favour of dog fights and those who are against it - you will find a significant difference in life expectancy. So I´m not sure what your point is.

Someone could ought to kill everybody. He's just dead or incarcerated very soon.

Except when he isn´t. Organized killing (aka war) has been and is still a perfectly acceptable means.

 

[JohnSerew]

Colour me confused: what does "good/bad" even mean in this scenario?

Well, since morality is about what one ought to do, you are committing a category error when talking about morality in the absence of the concept of "oughts".
On another note, to me it doesn´t seem like most people have the same moral values.
Most people - minus the sociopaths - are empathy-gifted. That´s not an intellectual capacity. All moral values are post hoc rationalizations of empathy.
We also need to note that evolution is about what members of a species do - not what they "think" or "value". So, from an evolutionary pov it´s more relevant that the Holocaust happened than the fact that most people living in Germany back then and who were invovled in one way or the other weren´t sociopaths and shared those basic moral values you are alluding to.

No. Their moral standards don´t matter at all. Their actions do. And as we all know, it´s very easy to hold very high moral standards but a completely different thing to live up to them, particularly when you are in a crisis or feel threatened.


You should clarify here: help us survive as individuals, or help the species survive? (Completely different things, and since you brought up evolution: evolution is not about the survival of the individual but about the survival of the species).
When I feel empathic towards a fellow being, the survival of the species isn´t any of my concern.


No, we can´t find out that premise 2 is true - not until we have made a moral statement, in the first place.

All I can tell you is: Dog fights rub me the wrong way. Everything else is post hoc rationalization.
(And just to be clear: above you claimed that most people share the same moral value - but here you have picked an example where there´s a huge percentage of humans who find dog fights perfectly ok).

Legality is a completely different cup of tea than morality. Morality consists of "oughts" even though many don´t show up in legislation.
The moral "ought" would be: People shouldn´t organize (or watch or make profit of) dog fights.
The legal "ought" would be: Dog fights are prohibited by law.


I´m not sure that - when comparing people who are in favour of dog fights and those who are against it - you will find a significant difference in life expectancy. So I´m not sure what your point is.


Except when he isn´t. Organized killing (aka war) has been and is still a perfectly acceptable means.

Ok I think I can conclude that even tough I think that I am being clear, and have a clear definition in my head, I need to practice on conveying it to others. Please allow me to start again. This time I'll try to keep it short:

I don't think we ought to do anything. As you said, I think the brain eventually rationalizes on a conscious and/or subconscious level whether or not an action is good or bad. In this case I am not talking about what it is that he or she will eventually do.

I think that in the end, all of our moral values can somehow be explained from an evolutionary standpoint. Good morals are defined as that which is good to the survival of the species and bad morals are the other way around. However this doesn't tell us whether we ought to do the good things. And here I claim that we don't need to ought to do good things for a species to do good things since it can be logically reasoned that in the large numbers, almost all, not everybody, will have the good moral values since they are the only ones who would survive.

I think the points you addressed are about how morality can be seen in the actual actions of human beings and that is a totally separate issue. Of course there are more matters that can eventually lead us to do things that we might not find morally good ourselves. I was just trying to find a solution to the general is-ought problem of why we do good things.

Am I being more clear here? I am sorry for all of the confusion.

 

[brightlights]

Anyway, lets start with the question. There is a lot of debating regarding morality. Where does it come from?

Moral goodness is an attribute of God. Morality is rooted in God himself.

Can we establish a moral ground with just science?

No. No amount is "is" statements can produce an "ought".

Why is it that the majority of the people have positive associations with actions that are commonly acknoweldged as 'good morals'?

All of us have an intuitive sense of right and wrong.

And maybe more specifically, does everybody have the same moral principles?

Basically yes.

To phrase that same question differently, what determines why people have certain moral standpoints?

The work of God. He writes his law on the hearts of men. Beyond that we make alterations based on what we love and what we think will do us good.

 

[quatona]

John,

I think that in the end, all of our moral values can somehow be explained from an evolutionary standpoint. Good morals are defined as that which is good to the survival of the species and bad morals are the other way around.

Defined by whom?
I´m still not sure I understand what you are trying to say:
- Are you describing existing morality/moralities and concluding that they are basically designed to serve the survival of the species? (in which case I disagree: you´d have a hard time showing that and how existing moralities are designed to secure the survival of the species - then again, the mere fact that self-aware beings develop a sense of morality is certainly a result of evolution).
- Or are you proposing a new concept of morality ("We should henceforth define moral as that which serves the survival of the species."). In which case I would disagree wholeheartedly, as well.
- Or are you saying something else that I still don´t get?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think that in the end, all of our moral values can somehow be explained from an evolutionary standpoint. Good morals are defined as that which is good to the survival of the species and bad morals are the other way around.

That seems like a really bad explanation, at least to me.

What good is the survival of our species if our existence isn't worth experiencing? It reminds me of when people said, "At least he made the trains run on time," when trying to justify the reign of Mussolini.

If someone was able to show that an authoritarian dictatorship and massive abuses of human rights gave our species a better chance than democracies and protected human rights, I would choose democracies and protected human rights. What about you?

 

[Dave Ellis]

WOW!!!!!!! Are we talking flesh here? Who cares what A or B did, or what they should of done. When you come to Christ your eyes are open. Basically it is flesh studying flesh...or heathen studying heathen, trying to make since of it all. We already know the answer....neither one knows Christ. Many people trying to be phycologists without Christ, study their own (each) fallen nature. Which in God's eyes are meaningless. The great phycologist is Jesus Christ, all moral. If we were born into sin, where is the morality without Christ. There is none, none what so ever. That's why we ask for forgiveness. A and B will always know the difference between bad and good amongst themselves...but so what...who gets their last breath when they pass. Satan has his phycologists on this earth, they remain Godless to keep those whom they try to help from entering heaven. Whether they know it or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eisa5AZ20W0