What is morality?

[Zor]

I don't know what "morality", "ethics" are.
I don't know what "good", "right, "moral" are.
I don't know what "bad", "evi", "wrong", "immoral" are.

As far as I'm concerned, these words have no meaning.

If I'm wrong, can anyone clear this up for me?

 

[LittleNipper]

To be moral, means to be living in full accord with GOD's divine will.
Immoral means one is living in rebellion to that very same design.

 

[BobW188]

So if I were to punch you for no reason, knock you down and steal your money, then drive off in your car, you'd think it was all just one of those things?

 

[LittleNipper]

So if I were to punch you for no reason, knock you down and steal your money, then drive off in your car, you'd think it was all just one of those things?

No, I'd think that you had broke the 10 Commandments and did exactly what pleased you for your own purpose. What you did was not moral.

 

[quatona]

So if I were to punch you for no reason, knock you down and steal your money, then drive off in your car, you'd think it was all just one of those things?

How does that follow from anything?
I don´t like to be punched, I don´t like my money and car taken away. I find it undesirable, inconvenient, annoying, troublesome. So why do you think I´d feel it´s "just one of those things" (and of which things, and as opposed to what things that are not "just one of those things")?
These things are pretty significant to me - I find them undesirable, they affect me negatively.
Am I to conclude that when saying "(im)moral" you actually mean "(un)desirable"?

 

[cantata]

Quatona has it right, I think. There are many things that I would prefer people to do or not to do, but personally those preferences do not drive me to brand the acts themselves as having an inherent quality of to-be-done-ness or not-to-be-done-ness.

 

[BobW188]

Well, I'm waiting for Zor to weigh in. Sorry that I didn't specify the question was addressed to him.

 

[Zor]

So if I were to punch you for no reason, knock you down and steal your money, then drive off in your car, you'd think it was all just one of those things?

I don't know what "one of those things" refers to, so I can't say.

 

[BobW188]

Oh, I'll bet you can.
I'll bet you'd find it immoral, unethical, bad, wrong and evil.

 

[quatona]

Oh, I'll bet you can.
I'll bet you'd find it immoral, unethical, bad, wrong and evil.

 

[jcook922]

I don't know what "morality", "ethics" are.
I don't know what "good", "right, "moral" are.
I don't know what "bad", "evi", "wrong", "immoral" are.

As far as I'm concerned, these words have no meaning.

If I'm wrong, can anyone clear this up for me?

Live by your own moral compass, decide what you consider right or wrong instead of letting religion or social norms dictate such. I keep it simple, the world is just here, and we have the freedom to make any decision we want, with real world consequences, not always negative ones, for our actions. Making decisions for me is simply weighing the effects of what I'm deciding.

 

[cantata]

Oh, I'll bet you can.
I'll bet you'd find it immoral, unethical, bad, wrong and evil.

Can you explain what those words mean, though?

 

[stan1980]

Maybe I got out of bed the wrong side today, but I'm starting to think these threads are started so that the poster can demonstrate their superiority to the rest of us.

I don't know what "morality", "ethics" are.
I don't know what "good", "right, "moral" are.
I don't know what "bad", "evi", "wrong", "immoral" are.

As far as I'm concerned, these words have no meaning.

So you'd have no idea what message the speaker is trying to convey when using these words? I don't believe you. If someone says "murder is wrong" I think we can take it to mean; "I've weighed it up in my head, and I believe that generally murder is overall undesirable to society for many reasons, the reasons which should pretty much self explanatory"

Maybe you could make an argument that using the words you listed is a misuse of language or something. I do know where you are coming from, I just don't think it really matters that much.

 

[cantata]

The thing is that people want to assign more to words like "immoral" than the quality of being merely undesirable.

 

[quatona]

Maybe I got out of bed the wrong side today, but I'm starting to think these threads are started so that the poster can demonstrate their superiority to the rest of us.

Don´t know which effect getting out the bed the wrong side has on you - but if it has the effect of prompting you to engage in making unfavourable assumptions about the motives and intents of other people, then yes, you probably got out of the bed the wrong side today.

If there is a clear and simple, broadly agreed on definition of these terms, why not just give them?

So you'd have no idea what message the speaker is trying to convey when using these words?

I have no clear idea. I have the idea that he is trying to make some sort of negative or positive value statement. What I do seem to understand is "I like it / I don´t like it" (although sometimes people even call things they like "immoral").

I don't believe you.

That´s not a good basis for a discussion, for neither of us.

If someone says "murder is wrong"

...he is just being tautological.
Whilst if he says "This instance of homicide is murder (or: wrong)"...

I think we can take it to mean; "I've weighed it up in my head, and I believe that generally murder is overall undesirable to society for many reasons, the reasons which should pretty much self explanatory"

Several problems here.
Of course we can take it to mean that. However, we can not be sure that he means that - because oftentimes the way these words like "moral" and "ethical" are used implies that the speakers mean something different or beyond that.
There are a lot of much less ambiguous terms out there that would allow everyone who wants to convey a clear message to do so.
Any addendum to an explanation/definition to the effect of "It should be pretty much self-explanatory" tends to increase my confusion rather than decreasing it. A person saying "this is immoral" omits the relevant portions of his message. He neither gives me the reasons why he arrived at this unspecific negative value judgement, he doesn´t give me the information in regards to what/whom he considers it negative, he doesn´t communicate the perspective (his own, that of society - which? -, god´s, an assumed universal agreement, a natural force....?), he doesn´t tell me anything about the purpose of his considerations, and he doesn´t give any information about the implications that something being immoral has in his view.

I find myself in the position of having to read all the potentially significant portions of his intended message into one word. That´s not a good start.

Maybe you could make an argument that using the words you listed is a misuse of language or something. I do know where you are coming from, I just don't think it really matters that much.

Where I come from, in verbal communication the meaning of the words used and understood (and a mutual effort of striving for a congruence of both) is all that matters.

Btw. I´m just reading a great book on this topic that pretty much sums up where I am coming from:
Paul Watzlawick: How Real Is Real - Confusion, Disinformation, Communication

 

[stan1980]

The thing is that people want to assign more to words like "immoral" than the quality of being merely undesirable.

Possibly, that statement is a bit vague but I think I know what you mean. I'm sure most people will be able to explain why they believe X is 'immoral' or undesirable if pushed, but a lot of people, myself include, don't feel the need to explain themselves every time as we will normally assume the listener will know where we are coming from. If the listener doesn't understand why I think something is negative, then I can easily explain myself if needed. If we witnessed someone punching someone else, and I turned round to you and said "oh, that is wrong" would you need me to explain myself, or would you understand that I am expressing my opinion and I came to this conclusion after weighing up the facts that although the puncher may feel the need to let off some steam, punching people is physically painful and mentally hurtful to the victim, so I've reached the conclusion that overall it is a negative action?

If there is a clear and simple, broadly agreed on definition of these terms, why not just give them?

It would depend on the context of course, but in a non-mathematical sense, I would normally say wrong=undesirable right=desirable, and it is entirely the speakers opinion after either consciously or sub consciously mentally weighing up several factors to reach this overall conclusion.

I'm sure I can come up with something better, but that will do for now.

I have no clear idea. I have the idea that he is trying to make some sort of negative or positive value statement. What I do seem to understand is "I like it / I don´t like it" (although sometimes people even call things they like "immoral").

See my response to cantata.

...he is just being tautological.
Whilst if he says "This instance of homicide is murder (or: wrong)"...

Can we try not to get too pedantic

Several problems here.
Of course we can take it to mean that. However, we can not be sure that he means that - because oftentimes the way these words like "moral" and "ethical" are used implies that the speakers mean something different or beyond that.

Well, such is the nature of language, we can never be certain what the speaker means, not until someone invents some mind reading equipment. We can make assumptions though to save time if we're fairly sure, and if not, ask for clarification.

Btw. I´m just reading a great book on this topic that pretty much sums up where I am coming from:
Paul Watzlawick: How Real Is Real - Confusion, Disinformation, Communication

Wow, someone wrote a whole book on this?!?


I can see where you and others are coming from, I just think the problem might be being a little overstated. There might be times when I'm left a bit puzzled on why someone has a particular opinion, such as "homosexuality is wrong" and in those instances it would be wise to question the speaker, but most the time I'll make assumptions on why someone has a negative view on X, and move on.

 

[quatona]

Possibly, that statement is a bit vague but I think I know what you mean. I'm sure most people will be able to explain why they believe X is 'immoral' or undesirable if pushed, but a lot of people, myself include, don't feel the need to explain themselves every time as we will normally assume the listener will know where we are coming from. If the listener doesn't understand why I think something is negative, then I can easily explain myself if needed. If we witnessed someone punching someone else, and I turned round to you and said "oh, that is wrong" would you need me to explain myself, or would you understand that I am expressing my opinion and I came to this conclusion after weighing up the facts that although the puncher may feel the need to let off some steam, punching people is physically painful and mentally hurtful to the victim, so I've reached the conclusion that overall it is a negative action?

In this situation the statement "this is wrong" is either redundant (because you assume agreement - which makes further explanation obsolete - anyways), or it is omitting the important information that would make it useful for a person who must be assumed to have a different opinion.

It would depend on the context of course, but in a non-mathematical sense, I would normally say wrong=undesirable right=desirable, and it is entirely the speakers opinion after either consciously or sub consciously mentally weighing up several factors to reach this overall conclusion.

Yes, it is entirely the speaker´s opinion - and since I am naturally assuming the speaker wants to communicate his opinion I want to understand it.

Can we try not to get too pedantic

I don´t find that at all pedantic. It is an essential problem in communication.

Well, such is the nature of language, we can never be certain what the speaker means,

Yes. Then again we have means and methods to reduce distortion and confusion. If I am not certain what a speaker means I will ask questions meant in an attempt to get a better understanding.

not until someone invents some mind reading equipment. We can make assumptions though to save time if we're fairly sure,

Yes, we can do that, and we do it all the time. It can be useful as long as everything indicates that the distortion is neglectible.

and if not, ask for clarification.

And the latter is exactly what the OP did.

Wow, someone wrote a whole book on this?!?

In fact he wrote a considerable number of books on communication.
His theory is that reality is the product of communication - and that makes it a pretty important subject.

I can see where you and others are coming from, I just think the problem might be being a little overstated. There might be times when I'm left a bit puzzled on why someone has a particular opinion, such as "homosexuality is wrong" and in those instances it would be wise to question the speaker, but most the time I'll make assumptions on why someone has a negative view on X, and move on.

I don´t feel comfortable when people make assumptions about my motives, reasons, arguments. I would prefer them to ask instead of filling in the blanks themselves. Experience shows how much goes wrong due to this method.
I guess, a lot comes down to the question "How seriously do I take my conversation partner? Am I really interested in learning what his notions are?"

 

[stan1980]

While we're at it, in terms of consistency, would some of you who have a problem with understanding "right/wrong/moral/immoral etc" have the same problem with words such as "beautiful/intelligent/ugly etc" and countless other hard to measure subjective descriptive words. For example, if I said "that lady is beautiful", I assume that wouldn't meet your satisfaction, if you are being consistent?

 

[cantata]

Stan, the problem is that "immoral" doesn't just mean "undesirable" to most people. Immoral acts are thought to have a special quality that goes beyond merely descriptive terms such as "undesirable", or even "cruel" or "selfish" or "thoughtless". Most people who describe acts as immoral or wrong think that the act should not be committed. And to them, that means more than merely that they would prefer that it wasn't committed. They think there is a quality of the act itself that makes it not-to-be-committed.

Other value judgements are a little different. When I say something is beautiful, I will probably agree with you if you say, "You mean that you find it aesthetically pleasing?" I'll probably agree that its beauty is subjective: I find it beautiful, but other people might not, and there's nothing inherent in the object that makes it beautiful, that makes it to-be-found-attractive. Moral judgements are different because when people say that an act is wrong, they believe they are describing something about the act itself, some quality of the act that makes it not-to-be-done.

Many people think that moral judgements are in a special category. Words like "right", "wrong", "good", "bad", "moral" and "immoral" are, in these people's opinions, fundamentally different from words like "beautiful", "elegant", "disgusting", "hideous". They think that the former refer to objective qualities of acts and objects - the (not)-to-be-done or (not)-to-be-desired-ness of them - while the latter refer merely to one's opinions and feelings about things.

So, to summarise, most people accept that value judgements about things like beauty or ugliness are subjective, and when they describe something as beautiful or ugly, they are willing to concede that they're really just talking about their preferences. But in the case of moral judgements, most people make no such concession; they believe that they are describing the act itself, not their preferences about it.

 

[stan1980]

In this situation the statement "this is wrong" is either redundant (because you assume agreement - which makes further explanation obsolete - anyways), or it is omitting the important information that would make it useful for a person who must be assumed to have a different opinion.

True, but I guess most of us like to give our opinion on matters, and we can explain our point of view when a disagreement occurs.

In fact he wrote a considerable number of books on communication.
His theory is that reality is the product of communication - and that makes it a pretty important subject.

I might pick it up then, if only to find out how he managed to write a whole book on the subject without stating the obvious or being overly patronising. I do agree good communication is important, I'm just not sure if misunderstandings happen regularly enough to get overly concerned, especially as when a misunderstanding does occur, it is normally rectified. Perhaps I'm being naive?

I guess in our heads, we try to be concise and non patronising. To save time, if we think the listener will likely understand us, we wont go into great detail to explain why we hold an opinion, it would get boring for everyone if we did it all the time.