What is morality?

[cantata]

I often find it actually makes a pretty big difference, whether someone believes in objective morality or not.

 

[stan1980]

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.

Ah, yes, I agree with you, of course, when they say something is wrong, it is actually still just their opinion, they just don't realise it, I think. Getting bogged down with it just leads to irritation I find, for both parties.

I often find it actually makes a pretty big difference, whether someone believes in objective morality or not.

More stubborn?

 

[cantata]

Ah, yes, I agree with you, of course, when they say something is wrong, it is actually still just their opinion, they just don't realise it, I think. Getting bogged down with it just leads to irritation I find, for both parties.

Perhaps. But as I say, I think it actually makes a difference to people's opinions sometimes.

More stubborn?

Believing that there is something cosmic and objective about one's value judgements tends to have an effect on the judgements themselves.

People who believe in objective morality often apply different techniques of moral reasoning to those who do not, because they are starting from different premises. If you believe in moral facts, you will what to discern what those are, and you'll believe that there are right and wrong answers. If you do not believe in moral facts, you might be more concerned with formulating internally consistent sets of responses to things; or you might just take an intuitive approach. If you believe in moral facts, you might feel you have more of a right to be prescriptive than if you do not. &c.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

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.

I absolutely believe you.

I am a Christian after all.

 

[jcook922]

I still think my moral compass rules all.

 

[quatona]

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.

No, I usually don´t have these problems, and the problem I have with "right/wrong/moral/immoral" are not that they are hard to measure subjective descriptive words.
For IQ there are standards and measurements anyways.
As for beauty and ugliness I have never been in a situation in which a person meant anything else than to express her subjective taste. With wrong/right/moral/immoral this happens all the time. In fact, in my experience here people often use it to emphasize that they are intending to give more than their personal preferences.
Even your explanation in the previous post went beyond personal taste, but introduced the criterium "good/bad for society", btw.

For example, if I said "that lady is beautiful", I assume that wouldn't meet your satisfaction

So what confusion do you think I could possibly run into if taking this for a statement of your subjective taste? What else do people usually mean when they say "beautiful"?

 

[quatona]

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.

Well, if we don´t know what the words used are supposed to mean it will be hard to understand each other, and there isn´t even ground for spotting agreements or disagreements.

I´m wondering the following: You have often posted dilemmas and hypotheticals here in E&M. Were they just intended to ask for our personal preferences and dislikes? Was an answer like "I don´t like it" all you expected and would you have found it doing justice to your scenario and question?

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.

He is actually quite funny and entertaining.

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?

Are you trying to trick me into a patronizing statement?

From what I can tell from my experiences and observations on the E&M forum these discussions are ruled by fundamental misunderstandings founded in unclear use of words.

I guess in our heads, we try to be concise and non patronising.

I´m not sure what it is with this "patronizing" thing. I don´t advocate patronizing. This is a perfect example: I have no idea what this term might mean in the context of this discussion. I don´t know whom you find patronizing, what you find patronizing, and why.

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.

Well, the OP didn´t feel that he understood the use of the term sufficiently (and I feel the same), so substantiating your harsh criticism of the OP by saying "we think the listener will likely understand us" makes no sense. He said he didn´t understand and he asked for clarification (exactly that which you agree one should do in case of confusion). He didn´t say anything to the effect that we should go into great detail all the time.
He wanted to go into detail in this particular question, and the lack of straightforward answers - and instead a lot of criticism for even asking this question - indicates that there is good reason for seeking clarification.

 

[stan1980]

So what confusion do you think I could possibly run into if taking this for a statement of your subjective taste? What else do people usually mean when they say "beautiful"?

Just as you might not understand the word wrong, I figured you might not understand the word beautiful. The reason, there could be many reasons why a person thinks an object is beautiful, just as there could be many reasons why a person thinks an action is wrong.

I´m wondering the following: You have often posted dilemmas and hypotheticals here in E&M. Were they just intended to ask for our personal preferences and dislikes? Was an answer like "I don´t like it" all you expected and would you have found it doing justice to your scenario and question?

No, but then again, not many people, if any, make a habit of responding like that.

From what I can tell from my experiences and observations on the E&M forum these discussions are ruled by fundamental misunderstandings founded in unclear use of words.

I'm not so certain about that, can you give me some examples?

I´m not sure what it is with this "patronizing" thing. I don´t advocate patronizing. This is a perfect example: I have no idea what this term might mean in the context of this discussion. I don´t know whom you find patronizing, what you find patronizing, and why.
Well, the OP didn´t feel that he understood the use of the term sufficiently (and I feel the same), so substantiating your harsh criticism of the OP by saying "we think the listener will likely understand us" makes no sense. He said he didn´t understand and he asked for clarification (exactly that which you agree one should do in case of confusion). He didn´t say anything to the effect that we should go into great detail all the time.
He wanted to go into detail in this particular question, and the lack of straightforward answers - and instead a lot of criticism for even asking this question - indicates that there is good reason for seeking clarification.

I get the impression that the very people who would ask such questions, are exactly the same people who actually have a very full understanding of such words. Perhaps I'm incorrect to think this or make assumptions about the OPs motives.

 

[quatona]

Just as you might not understand the word wrong, I figured you might not understand the word beautiful.

I tried to point out that my experiences don´t make a misunderstanding of the way you use "beautiful" in this sentence (i.e. as a merely subjective statement of taste) probable (exactly that which you describe as a sufficiently reasonable assumption of the sort that is necessary to even enable economic communication).
If I had reason to assume you could expect me to understand it as communicating something beyond a subjective statement of taste (e.g. if I knew that in real life you are casting models for advertisement campaigns and therefore your judgement might refer to the in this context more relevant question whether this girl is beautiful in the opinion of the majority of a target group or the general population), I would ask - and I would not like to be shot down for this question with a "I don´t believe you don´t know what beautiful means!"
The problem is not so much that I can´t conceive of meanings in which a certain word could be used - but rather that there are too many different, and partly even irreconcilable or contradicting, possible meanings in use.
Depending on how often I have run into misunderstandings when simply assuming the meaning the person opposite is using the word in, I will more likely ask early in order to avoid confusion and states of disinformation.

The reason, there could be many reasons why a person thinks an object is beautiful, just as there could be many reasons why a person thinks an action is wrong.

Well, I don´t know about the OP, but I am not asking for the reasons the person thinks something is "wrong" (or at least this is not my first and prominent question), but for the meaning he uses the word in.
"Wrong" as in "it interferes with my hedonistic desires" (meaning A) and "wrong" as in "it violates the natural order of things determined by a higher power" (meaning B) are not merely different reasons, but completely different concepts which unfortunately happen to be expressed by the same word. If two persons try to communicate using this word for these two entirely different ideas they will miscommunicate thoroughly.
E.g. even though both in fact agree on all accounts, in that the issue in question
1. interferes with their hedonistic desires and
2. does not violate the natural order of things determined by a higher power,
they will find themselves in a controversial discussion with person A insisting that the issue is "wrong" and person B insisting it is "not wrong".

No, but then again, not many people, if any, make a habit of responding like that.

Yes, a lot of people (including myself) who are interested in clear communication start pretty much every response to the question "is this moral/immoral" with the ever same explanation as to how they understand the question, or why they are not sure what the person asking wants to know when asking this question. This increased effort required to avoid the confusion that the use of a highly ambiguous term like "moral" typically results in suggests that the use of this term would better be replaced by terms that allow for the relevant distinctions that are necessary for successful communication.

I'm not so certain about that, can you give me some examples?

I think that the use of the word "wrong/right/immoral/moral" is the best and most frequent example.
A person (who thinks of morality as a god edicted conduct prescription that is not necessarily congruent with popular human ideas of how to behave) starts a thread asking "Is X wrong?" .
I (a person who uses "wrong" as "is not to my taste") anwers: "No."
Result: I haven´t answered the question as meant by the OP, and my response results in disinformation on her part. She naturally understands my response as "No, I think it does not violate god´s conduct prescripitions", while I actually didn´t intend to make any such statement.
I might (if being aware of the multiple meanings of "wrong", and willing to do the work that the OP actually should have done) try to be clearer in what I mean by answering: "No, I personally enjoy it."
Whilst my effort has helped avoiding a fatal misunderstanding, the OP still has no answer to the question she has asked - she still doesn´t know what I think god thinks about it, and a statement about my personal taste was about the least she was interested in.

I get the impression that the very people who would ask such questions, are exactly the same people who actually have a very full understanding of such words. Perhaps I'm incorrect to think this or make assumptions about the OPs motives.

There is no such "full understanding" of a word. The relevant meaning of a word for every practical purpose of communication is the meaning in which the person opposite uses this word.

The relevance of the meaning (and the emphasis on which part of the meaning the person opposite uses) on top depends on the purpose of the communication.
I´ll borrow an example from Watzlawick´s book.
We all know what honeymoon is, don´t we? If asked to define the word, all of us would come up with a sufficiently similar description, and this description would also be found in the dictionary.
A couple (married for 8 years) visits a councelor because of partnership problems. En passant they mention that they had their first serious dispute already on the first night of their honeymoon. Having dinner in the hotel, the wife seeked a conversation with the couple sitting on the next table. The husband rejected to take part in this conversation. Finally, and in great frustration and anger, they both returned to their room, and a bitter dispute followed in which they accused each other of ruthlessness. They never really got over this early frustration and disappointment of each other.
Not until the day they visited the councelor they found out about the problem: The wife naturally understood the purpose of honeymoon to be the first opportunity to practice and enjoy her new societal role as a wife, whilst the man naturally understood the purpose of honeymoon to concentrate on and enjoy the exclusiveness of the partnership in a way that everyday life won´t usually allow for. Both felt the other purposefully obstructed the purpose of the honeymoon.
Both knew what the word "honeymoon" means, yet the - for their endeavour - relevant meaning of honeymoon was essentially different in their realities. A disinformation with fatal results.

 

[stan1980]

I think that the use of the word "wrong/right/immoral/moral" is the best and most frequent example.
A person (who thinks of morality as a god edicted conduct prescription that is not necessarily congruent with popular human ideas of how to behave) starts a thread asking "Is X wrong?" .
I (a person who uses "wrong" as "is not to my taste") anwers: "No."
Result: I haven´t answered the question as meant by the OP, and my response results in disinformation on her part. She naturally understands my response as "No, I think it does not violate god´s conduct prescripitions", while I actually didn´t intend to make any such statement.
I might (if being aware of the multiple meanings of "wrong", and willing to do the work that the OP actually should have done) try to be clearer in what I mean by answering: "No, I personally enjoy it."
Whilst my effort has helped avoiding a fatal misunderstanding, the OP still has no answer to the question she has asked - she still doesn´t know what I think god thinks about it, and a statement about my personal taste was about the least she was interested in.

Most people, in fact I'd wager that more than 99% of people are aware that there might be a difference between what God sees as wrong and what an individual would see as wrong, so I'm still not convinced that "the discussions in E&M are ruled by fundamental misunderstandings founded in unclear use of words". Differences of opinion? sure; misunderstandings? not so sure that they are that common.

There is no such "full understanding" of a word. The relevant meaning of a word for every practical purpose of communication is the meaning in which the person opposite uses this word.

Full understanding was the wrong way to describe it. I'd say a good conscious understanding of the way different people may arrive at the conclusion something is 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'right' or 'moral' etc.

 

[Zor]

The thing is, I am taking an ethics class and I'm confused with what ethics actually means. I wanted someone to clear that up for me by telling me the words' definitions. That's why I started this thread.

Today I asked my ethics teacher what the definition of good was. She said there wasn't one. Instead she listed off what some philosophers thought was good, and she began making statements like:

"life is good"
"happiness is good"

What I wanted to know was what the word "good" brought to the table. Because it seems to me that she was saying "good is another word for life" and "good was another word for happiness". She also said we approach good, but never arrive at it. I then asked if it was okay for me to deny the existence of good, and she said that I would then be a materialist. But I keep on thinking, why do we have lots of dicussions about a word without a definition?

Any thoughts? Am I crazy?

 

[quatona]

Most people, in fact I'd wager that more than 99% of people are aware that there might be a difference between what God sees as wrong and what an individual would see as wrong, so I'm still not convinced that "the discussions in E&M are ruled by fundamental misunderstandings founded in unclear use of words".

Sure most people know there is or might be a difference. The problem is that people don´t know what the other persons is actually talking or asking about.

Most people know that there are two fundamental meanings to the word "fan". If someone asks "What do you think of fans?"they nevertheless don´t know what the person is asking about.

Full understanding was the wrong way to describe it. I'd say a good conscious understanding of the way different people may arrive at the conclusion something is 'wrong' or 'immoral' or 'right' or 'moral' etc.

We are talking about different things. I am not talking about the awareness that and how different people arrive at different meanings of the words, but which person actually uses the word in which meaning.

 

[quatona]

The thing is, I am taking an ethics class and I'm confused with what ethics actually means. I wanted someone to clear that up for me by telling me the words' definitions. That's why I started this thread.

Today I asked my ethics teacher what the definition of good was. She said there wasn't one. Instead she listed off what some philosophers thought was good, and she began making statements like:

"life is good"
"happiness is good"

What I wanted to know was what the word "good" brought to the table. Because it seems to me that she was saying "good is another word for life" and "good was another word for happiness". She also said we approach good, but never arrive at it. I then asked if it was okay for me to deny the existence of good, and she said that I would then be a materialist. But I keep on thinking, why do we have lots of dicussions about a word without a definition?

Any thoughts? Am I crazy?

Not at all, imo. The way a persons uses these words is typically the result of her philosophical convictions, and without understanding these particular philosophy you can´t have a good idea what she actually means.
Furthermore, when people use these words, they often use them to argue for their philosophical conviction.
Your question is a threat to the perceived validity of such circularities, and people don´t like that.

I think your ethics teacher`s explanation started off quite well, but then messed up completely (to tell from the bits and pieces you gave us about the conversation, that is).
Yes, different philosophers use this word in fundamentally different meanings, and, yes, some philosophers work from the definitions she gave you (or arrive at them as a conclusion, or, in the worst case, both).
However, equating good to life and equating good to happiness simultaneously doesn´t give a proper definition, unless you work from the premise that life is happiness. Which again wouldn´t go well with the idea that "good" cannot be arrived at. We do live, after all.
Finally, the conclusion that if not believing in the existence of life and/or happiness you must be a materialist doesn´t follow at all. This conclusion is presumably based on other parts of her philosophy that she didn´t even mention.

 

[stan1980]

Sure most people know there is or might be a difference. The problem is that people don´t know what the other persons is actually talking or asking about.

Most people know that there are two fundamental meanings to the word "fan". If someone asks "What do you think of fans?"they nevertheless don´t know what the person is asking about.







We are talking about different things. I am not talking about the awareness that and how different people arrive at different meanings of the words, but which person actually uses the word in which meaning.

I can't say I have been having any problems with distinguishing which person uses the word in which meanings, which is why I tend to think the problem is overstated.

 

[quatona]

I can't say I have been having any problems with distinguishing which person uses the word in which meanings, which is why I tend to think the problem is overstated.

Well, I have them all the time, and I also find it intriguing that many people can´t or don´t want give the meaning in which they personally use these words - as yet another time evidenced by this thread.

Like, when you (as in you, stan) started all those "what would be the good/ethical thing to do" dilemmas, I never knew in regards to which meaning of the words you wanted the question to be answered. IOW, I actually didn´t know what the question actually was.
Or, in yet other words, these hypothetical questions have a fine philosophical tradition of having the very purpose to reveal and help people find out how and why and based on what philosophical convictions they feel something is good (i.e. helping them get aware of the meaning they use this word in), and to check how consistent(and practically applicable) their philosophical convictions are and how consistently they apply them (e.g. without changing the meaning midgame and without notification).

 

[stan1980]

Like, when you (as in you, stan) started all those "what would be the good/ethical thing to do" dilemmas, I never knew in regards to which meaning of the words you wanted the question to be answered. IOW, I actually didn´t know what the question actually was.

Okay, the idea normally was, I ask a question, which may or may not spark some debate. I wasn't normally too concerned about exactly how people tackle or approach the question, which is why I think I normally left the questions open. If for example, one person thinks X is unethical because it says X is unethical in the bible, that is fine to respond like that, if another person thinks X is ethical because they believe the harm X does is negligible, that is equally fine for that person to respond like that. Then hopefully the opposing views will spark some sort of debate, and I can either join in and give my 2 cents, or if I wish, sit back and watch the fireworks

 

[visionary]

Hard to have morality without the Lord defining it.

 

[quatona]

Okay, the idea normally was, I ask a question, which may or may not spark some debate. I wasn't normally too concerned about exactly how people tackle or approach the question, which is why I think I normally left the questions open. If for example, one person thinks X is unethical because it says X is unethical in the bible, that is fine to respond like that, if another person thinks X is ethical because they believe the harm X does is negligible, that is equally fine for that person to respond like that. Then hopefully the opposing views will spark some sort of debate, and I can either join in and give my 2 cents, or if I wish, sit back and watch the fireworks

Well, to each his own, but I personally don´t get much out of a discussion in which people use the same word for completely different ideas founded in completely different realities and possibly even lacking any common ground.

Maybe I´m just wired differently, but I also can´t seem to understand why someone asks a question just to spark some sort of debate without being concerned about an actual topic. Like, the purpose of asking "What do you think of fans?" without being concerned whether the discussion will be about football fans or ventilators is not intelligible to me.

Another example came to mind. We are discussing "freewill" as an assumed (obscure) human condition. Enter someone who says "You seem to be a compatibilist", thereby changing the topic towards something that happens to be called "freewill" also, but is a completely different concept: an instrument to distinguish between certain societal situations. I find that frustrating. It may be a quirk on my part, but I find the attempt of being clear about the topic a prerequisite for fruitful conversation. If I want to know whether someone likes something, I don´t want to hear what he thinks the bible says. If I want to discuss what the bible says about something, I don´t want to hear whether the person opposite enjoys it.

 

[stan1980]

Well, to each his own, but I personally don´t get much out of a discussion in which people use the same word for completely different ideas founded in completely different realities and possibly even lacking any common ground.

My description was clearly simplified and general, but I think it is interesting to see different peoples viewpoints, and how they arrive at the conclusions they do. Personally, I think it has helped to sharpen my thoughts on many issues, by simply listening to others and taking in what I perceive to be the best arguments.

Maybe I´m just wired differently, but I also can´t seem to understand why someone asks a question just to spark some sort of debate without being concerned about an actual topic.

I don't think I've ever not been interested in a topic I've started or taken part in.

Like, the purpose of asking "What do you think of fans?" without being concerned whether the discussion will be about football fans or ventilators is not intelligible to me.

Well, yes, I can agree with you there, it would be silly not to clarify what you mean.

Another example came to mind. We are discussing "freewill" as an assumed (obscure) human condition. Enter someone who says "You seem to be a compatibilist", thereby changing the topic towards something that happens to be called "freewill" also, but is a completely different concept: an instrument to distinguish between certain societal situations. I find that frustrating. It may be a quirk on my part, but I find the attempt of being clear about the topic a prerequisite for fruitful conversation. If I want to know whether someone likes something, I don´t want to hear what he thinks the bible says. If I want to discuss what the bible says about something, I don´t want to hear whether the person opposite enjoys it.

Again, I just like to hear as many view points as possible. On the occasion I don't, I'll make sure to clarify myself. For example, if I were to ask, "why is incest wrong?" but don't want to see any references to the bible, then I'd make that clear.

 

[quatona]

stan, do whatever you want and ask questions the way you want. That´s fine with me, even though I may find the approach troublesome at times.
I just don´t get the touchiness with which an imo perfectly reasonable and justified request for clarification is met in this thread.
Someone has a question, and the response is 'I don´t believe that you don´t understand (after all, I myself am quite content with the confusion potential that is there if the question is not answered, so you should be, too).'

Reminds me of a situation yesterday: I asked a friend "Do you happen to know which formula they use to calculate Pi and come up with this endless figure of digits?" He explained to me that Pi is the relation between perimeter and diameter (which I already knew), he explained to me how we can practically measure an approximate figure (which I knew also), he explained to me how it can be empirically estimated and so forth, but he didn´t answer the question (apparently because he didn´t understand it). So I clarified over and over what I was actually asking for, and once he had understood it he got a little impatient and went on a rant telling me how weird it was that I wanted to know such useless things and how for his purposes it was sufficient to know the first 4 digits of Pi, anyway.