The Myth of Morality

quatona · Aug 1, 2008

acropolis said:
Morality, as I've understand the word and it's meaning, is like summarized above: any "should"-claim on human behavior that coincides with reality.

I have an idea what is meant when saying "an is-claim that coincides with reality, but I have absolutely no idea how a should-claim can be said to match (or not match reality).

Humans create morality in this sense, but it's also conceivable that another being could substantiate morality for humans. In which case it could be possible that morality exists always and for everyone, and if any part of man exists beyond death, morality would as well. Nothing supernatural, just higher orders of nature, which would add a moral dimension to life functionally equivilent to the religious and dogmatic morality that (I think) is being attacked by the OP. That would also substantiate the requirement for moral actions to have a meaning unto themselves, from the human perspective. But I suspect life is really every bit as banal as the OP seems to believe it is.

I don´t know that it is banal without that.
Excuse my blondness, but whilst it is perfectly clear to me how an (impersonal) "higher order" can be the source of "what is" I can´t conceive of the idea that such an order can possibly be the source of "what should".

It seems to me that if your only moral standard is your own desires,

Sorry to interrupt you but this sentence imposes the paradigm "morality" on a description that doesn´t involve the idea of morality.

you would want everyone else to believe whatever makes them most likely to fulfil your desires.

You make it sound like my and their desires are a priori and/or necessarily in conflict.

I don't believe convincing people to be egoists is the best way to do that, so it's odd when other people do reach that conclusion.

I am not trying to convince people to be egoists - I merely hold the notion that the underlying motive is always the desire to become happy (which renders the distinction egoist-altruist pointless, or at best useful in a different meaning than what I am talking about.)
I am afraid that if you are not able or willing to acknowledge the difference between is- and should-statements there is a necessary common ground missing for a fruitful discussion.

It seems like the OP is making a claim that rejecting morality is fundamentally different from accepting it, but if the behavior is the same either way, how can that claim be meaningful?

I don´t know that the OP is making that claim.
But - as I already said - I might well misunderstand it.

I forgot to specifiy the meaning of 'wrong' again, I meant it as 'incorrect'. If I understand you correctly, an entire society could be incorrect by believing in a God, or an invisible pink unicorn, or whatever.

I doubt that I have said anything to that effect, but I don´t disagree.

Although cantata alluded to the fact that you don't share her corrospondence metric for truth, so I could be incorrect.

For clarification: I don´t operate with the term "truth" because it´s loaded and likely to be the source of equivocations. I prefer "accuracy".
Now, I have my own ideas about reality, but for purposes of this discussion we can simply work from the premise that there is an external reality that we can discern more or less accurately.

If the incorrect society iced everyone who wasn't incorrect, could they still be incorrect?

Given the above premise, concepts and ideas (not persons) would be correct or incorrect. I am afraid I fail to see how the number of persons dead has any impact on the accuracy of the ideas persons hold. I´m confused.

I suppose I'm asking if 'incorrect' is an intrinsic value,

Correct/incorrect may be intrinsic to ideas and concepts, but it´s not a value.

or if it's just another state created by humans.

I don´t know. All I know is that all concepts and ideas as well as judgements about their accuracy/inaccuracy that I am familiar with appear to have been created by humans. I conclude that from the fact that I have encountered nobody but humans to make such statements.

But I can't remember why I where I was going with that in the first place, so it probably doesn't really matter.

Yeah, I was increasingly wondering about the significance of these questions for the topic at hand myself. So I am fine with dropping this part.

I meant 'wrong' in both senses. If life is nothing but fulfilling our own desires, those desires require no corrospondence with reality.

Well, it seems to me that desires that aim at unreal things would necessarily remain unfulfilled. Thus, au contraire, the correspondence with reality is the prerequisite for desires to be fulfilled.

In the tautological sense of self-interest, which seems to be the one used in this thread, it doesn't make any sense to say a person's self-interest is incorrect, since they are the only judge of that.

Again: I have no idea how an interest (self- or whatever) can meaningfully be said to be correct/incorrect.

If the goal of life is to do whatever is in your own self-interest,

Hang on - I know how easily we impose the paradigms of our own views on that of the other side in these discussions, but whenever I see it I will point it out: Nobody said that it´s the goal of life. The statement is that that´s the way it is. Again: is-statement vs. should-statement.

and everything you do must be in your self-interest,

The "must" in this sentence renders the paraphrasing inaccurate. Nobody said "you must". The statement is "you always do".

there is no way for a person to do anything wrong in any sense.

Well, since the way you paraphrased the notion in question was inaccurate, I think it´s obvious how your conclusion is not valid in regards to the notion in question.
People can do wrong: They can miscalculate, they can be in error about the way things are, etc. Nothing to do with morality, though. Chances are that they easily acknowledge that making such mistakes is not in their best own interest.
People can also do wrong in the meaning of "violating existing societal laws" or standing in the wrong field when making a service etc.

cantata · Aug 2, 2008

Acropolis, I think you need to distinguish between that which (it is claimed) is morally wrong, whatever that's supposed to mean, and that which is imprudent.

Given my desires, principles, motivations, goals &c., killing people is imprudent for me. It would thwart my desire not to harm other people, my desire to function in society, and my desire not to get blood on my dress. But it need not be morally wrong, any more than eating an entire packet of biscuits in one sitting would be morally wrong, despite being imprudent.

sealacamp · Aug 2, 2008

WorldIsMine said:
The following are a couple of excerpts from "The Myth of Morality" by Richard Joyce. They illustrate some of the primary problems with ethical and moral arguments, not merely individually but in total. It is my view, and that of the book's author, that moral statements are non-cognitive, meaningless. This view, presented along consistent and building lines at least as far back as Socrates, is nonetheless unpopular and almost totally ignored despite the vast import they have on the entire concept of 'morality'.
...
This book attempts to accomplish two tasks. The first part of the book
examines moral discourse with a critical eye, and finds the discourse fundamentally
flawed. Just what it means for a discourse to be flawed will
need to be carefully discussed. For the moment, it will do to compare
the situation with that of phlogiston discourse. Through the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, the dominant theory for explaining a variety of
phenomena most notably combustion was to posit a kind of invisible
substance in the world: phlogiston. The theory allowed for various
chemists, such as Stahl and Priestley, to employ what might be called
phlogiston discourse they asserted things like Phlogiston is lighter
than air, Soot is made up largely of phlogiston, etc. In the eighteenth
century Lavoisier showed that this discourse was utterly mistaken: there
simply was no such stuff as phlogiston. I wish to argue that our moral discourse
is mistaken in an analogous way. We assert things like Generally
speaking, you mustnt tell lies and Cloning humans is a terrible thing
and mustnt be permitted, and these assertions fail to be true. They fail
to be true not because lying or cloning are really okay, but because they
employ predicates like . . . is forbidden and . . . is morally good which
are (in senses to be explored) vacuous. Roughly, when one reflects carefully
on what it would take for an action to instantiate a property like being
morally forbidden, one sees that too much is being asked of the world there
is simply nothing that is forbidden in the specifically moral sense of the
word. The thought that morality is a fiction in this way is hardly an original
thought, enjoying a long history that can be traced back through Camus,
Wittgenstein, Russell, Nietzsche, Hume, Mandeville, Hobbes, and all the
way to Antiphon and characters like Callicles and Thrasymachus.

Many pieces of our moral vocabulary, of course, have non-moral uses
(moving ones rook diagonally in chess is forbidden); this non-moral language
is not under attack. A further part of the project will be to argue
that the obvious response of simply asking less of the world that is, of
defining or redefining our moral language in such a way that it matches
the unproblematic evaluative language is to strip the discourse of its
very purpose. The whole point of a moral discourse is to evaluate actions
and persons with a particular force, and it is exactly this notion of force
which turns out to be so deeply troublesome. To push the analogy: if
Lavoisiers concept oxygen is theoretically successful, then why could we
not redefine phlogiston so that it means the same thing as oxygen,
thus rescuing phlogiston discourse from its error? The answer is that when
Stahl, etc., asserted things like Phlogiston plays a central role in calcification,
he meant something quite specific by phlogiston the whole
point of talking about phlogiston was to make reference to a substance
that is released during combustion. To use the word phlogiston to refer
to oxygen a substance that is consumed during combustion is to undermine
the very heart of phlogiston discourse. Likewise, to use the words
morally forbidden to refer to an unproblematic notion of impermissibility
perhaps one with the same logic as You mustnt move your rook
diagonally, or You ought not stay up so late is to undermine the very
heart of moral discourse.

...
If there are reasons for action, it must be that people sometimes act for those
reasons, and if they do, their reasons must figure in some correct explanation of
their action . . .

In other words, something is a reason only if its consideration could
potentially motivate the agent...This point dovetails with my earlier claim
that an adequate account of practical rationality must not leave an agent
alienated from her reasons. If a normative reason could not potentially
motivate an agent, then, if presented with such a reason, an agent could
say Yes, I accept that is a normative reason for me, but so what? and
this, I have urged, is unacceptable.

....

In short, when we say that a person morally ought to act in a certain
manner, we imply something about what she would have reason to do
regardless of her desires and interests, regardless of whether she cares about
her victim, and regardless of whether she can be sure of avoiding any
penalties. And yet after careful investigation we have found no defensible
grounds for thinking that such reasons exist. Few people in the actual
world may be so heartless or so impregnable to recrimination, but that
is beside the point. Moral judgments are untrue not just because they
sometimes ascribe reasons for (say) honesty to people who have no such
reasons. They are untrue even when they ascribe reasons for honesty to
people who do have reasons for being honest, in that they imply that those
reasons would remain in place across counterfactual situations when in fact
they would not. The distinctive authoritativeness which characterizes our
moral discourse turns out to be well-entrenched bluff.

Anyone can create any reasoning the want to in order to justify themselves and their actions no matter how wrong they may be. The reasoning can be a complex and convoluted as needed to satisfy the desire of those seeking such justification. However those arguments never negate what is reality and truth. That is based on God's truth and anything that deviates from God's truth is nothing less than a lie. We all know where those lies come from too, satan, the father of all lies. And in that respect he imparts to those that choose to develop these lies all the creativity necessary to confuse many while satisfying the supposed intellect of many that seek justification somewhere other than with God and His truth.

Sealacamp

The Nihilist · Aug 2, 2008

sealacamp said:
Anyone can create any reasoning the want to in order to justify themselves and their actions no matter how wrong they may be. The reasoning can be a complex and convoluted as needed to satisfy the desire of those seeking such justification. However those arguments never negate what is reality and truth. That is based on God's truth and anything that deviates from God's truth is nothing less than a lie. We all know where those lies come from too, satan, the father of all lies. And in that respect he imparts to those that choose to develop these lies all the creativity necessary to confuse many while satisfying the supposed intellect of many that seek justification somewhere other than with God and His truth.

Sealacamp

Awfully strong words about a god whose existence can't even be proven

sealacamp · Aug 2, 2008

RecoveringPhilosopher said:
Awfully strong words about a god whose existence can't even be proven

Just as strong as those that can't disprove His existence either. So your point is what? That morality is irrelevant? That morality is subjective? Exactly what would be your errant point?

Sealacamp

quatona · Aug 2, 2008

sealacamp said:
Anyone can create any reasoning the want to in order to justify themselves and their actions no matter how wrong they may be.

Yeah, like "God approves of these actions" for example.

acropolis · Aug 2, 2008

cantata said:
Acropolis, I think you need to distinguish between that which (it is claimed) is morally wrong, whatever that's supposed to mean, and that which is imprudent.

I think the concepts I'm trying to graft onto 'morality' are just prudence. But I am compelled to believe that there is more to consider with reality than what is immediatly obvious from our senses, so the conclusion that the highest level of meaning is merely human utility does not sit well with me. But I'm not articulate enough to explain, and part of my reasoning involves personnal experience that will never be believed.

The Nihilist · Aug 2, 2008

sealacamp said:
Just as strong as those that can't disprove His existence either. So your point is what? That morality is irrelevant? That morality is subjective? Exactly what would be your errant point?

Sealacamp

My point is we should be a little more careful about our truth claims if we're unsure if they're true.

plmarquette · Aug 5, 2008

The rule of society ....oversight....administration .... denote
a system of ethics, morality, and unacceptable behavior

those who live contrary to the majority, have a few choices
1. to ignore rules and continue behavior
2. to work by politics, and the legal system to change
3. to relocate to a more favorable area
4. to live one way without and another within

we all are actors upon a stage with a brief curtain call

cantata · Aug 6, 2008

sealacamp said:
Anyone can create any reasoning the want to in order to justify themselves and their actions no matter how wrong they may be. The reasoning can be a complex and convoluted as needed to satisfy the desire of those seeking such justification. However those arguments never negate what is reality and truth. That is based on God's truth and anything that deviates from God's truth is nothing less than a lie. We all know where those lies come from too, satan, the father of all lies. And in that respect he imparts to those that choose to develop these lies all the creativity necessary to confuse many while satisfying the supposed intellect of many that seek justification somewhere other than with God and His truth.

Sealacamp

How does God's existence make objective morality an acceptable proposition?

I take it you are familiar with the Euthyphro problem?

Zeena · Aug 6, 2008

The self-conscience person acts from themself.
He always seeks to put himself above others, even at the expense of others.

The God-conscience person [Jesus Living in and through a believer who is actively resting in Him] acts from God.
He always seeks to put God first, even at the expense of self.

jcook922 · Aug 6, 2008

Zeena said:
The self-conscience person acts from themself.
He always seeks to put himself above others, even at the expense of others.

The God-conscience person [Jesus Living in and through a believer who is actively resting in Him] acts from God.
He always seeks to put God first, even at the expense of self.

Not everyone who puts others before themselves is god-conscience you know?

Zeena · Aug 6, 2008

jcook922 said:
Not everyone who puts others before themselves is god-conscience you know?

I didn't say others, I said God!

There's Only One who's God-conscience, and that's Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God.

Belk · Aug 7, 2008

Zeena said:
The self-conscience person acts from themself.
He always seeks to put himself above others, even at the expense of others.

The God-conscience person [Jesus Living in and through a believer who is actively resting in Him] acts from God.
He always seeks to put God first, even at the expense of self.

So you believe that the God-conscience person does not have their own self interest in mind? That the rewards of heaven and punishment of hell play no role?

quatona · Aug 7, 2008

Zeena said:
The self-conscience person acts from themself.
He always seeks to put himself above others, even at the expense of others.

The God-conscience person [Jesus Living in and through a believer who is actively resting in Him] acts from God.
He always seeks to put God first, even at the expense of self.

That´s all fine and dandy, but when I look at the results it doesn´t seem to make much difference, practically.

Zeena · Aug 7, 2008

Belk said:
So you believe that the God-conscience person does not have their own self interest in mind? That the rewards of heaven and punishment of hell play no role?

You are obviously confused as to what exactly is the reward of Heaven..

It's JESUS, it always was!

In speaking of the BEMA seat of the Judgment of Christ, reserved only for believers on His Holy Name;

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

The "things done in the body" are either self-centered or Christ Centered.
A believer in Christ still has a choice to submit to Jesus as Lord on a moment by moment basis. And as they do [submit to Christ for Life, by the Grace of God] Jesus Lives His Holy Life in and through them by Grace, through faith.

The Crowns of God are what we [believers] shall each recieve of the Lord's Hand upon standing before Him at the BEMA seat.

Crown Incorruptible:

1 Corinthians 9:24-25
Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

Crown of Righteousness:

2 Timothy 4:7-8
I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Crown of Life:

Revelation 2:10
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Crown of Rejoicing:

1 Thessalonians 2:19

For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?

Crown of Glory:

1 Peter 5:4
And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

We, as believers on the Lord Jesus, recieve these 'crowns' based upon what we've allowed Him to do in and through us in this, His Life, by Grace, as only He is is worthy.

Colossians 2:18-19
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

Revelation 4:10-11
The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Zeena · Aug 7, 2008

quatona said:
That´s all fine and dandy, but when I look at the results it doesn´t seem to make much difference, practically.

That's because you're looking to the results, instead of the person.

WHO is it living in that one?

Is it Live or is it memorex?

cantata · Aug 8, 2008

Zeena said:
That's because you're looking to the results, instead of the person.

WHO is it living in that one?

Is it Live or is it memorex?

I thought we were supposed to look at people's fruits to decide whether or not they were nice people.

quatona · Aug 8, 2008

Zeena said:
That's because you're looking to the results, instead of the person.

Yes, sure. It appears to be the most (if not: only) reasonable method, and even the bible seems to share this opinion.

Belk · Aug 8, 2008

Zeena said:
You are obviously confused as to what exactly is the reward of Heaven..

It's JESUS, it always was!

In speaking of the BEMA seat of the Judgment of Christ, reserved only for believers on His Holy Name;

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

The "things done in the body" are either self-centered or Christ Centered.
A believer in Christ still has a choice to submit to Jesus as Lord on a moment by moment basis. And as they do [submit to Christ for Life, by the Grace of God] Jesus Lives His Holy Life in and through them by Grace, through faith.

The Crowns of God are what we [believers] shall each recieve of the Lord's Hand upon standing before Him at the BEMA seat.

Crown Incorruptible:

1 Corinthians 9:24-25
Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

Crown of Righteousness:

2 Timothy 4:7-8
I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

Crown of Life:

Revelation 2:10
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Crown of Rejoicing:

1 Thessalonians 2:19

For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?

Crown of Glory:

1 Peter 5:4
And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

We, as believers on the Lord Jesus, recieve these 'crowns' based upon what we've allowed Him to do in and through us in this, His Life, by Grace, as only He is is worthy.

Colossians 2:18-19
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

Revelation 4:10-11
The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Wow, I think you should win the most complicated answer to a yes or no question award. I did not ask what the rewards of heaven are, I asked if you feel they play a part in the choices that a Christian makes?

The Myth of Morality

"God"? What do you mean??

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

so rad

Contributor

Veteran

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

..called to BE a Saint

Defender of Liberty, against the Left or Right.

..called to BE a Saint

Senior Member

"God"? What do you mean??

..called to BE a Saint

..called to BE a Saint

Queer non-theist, with added jam.

"God"? What do you mean??

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency