What is morality?

[Zor]

The words I posted don't have a set definitions, rather they're just placeholders for anything anyone wants to say they are. Or other words, they can mean anything, so they mean nothing.

 

[quatona]

The words I posted don't have a set definitions, rather they're just placeholders for anything anyone wants to say they are. Or other words, they can mean anything, so they mean nothing.

Then again, this is a common trait of all words.

 

[stan1980]

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).'

Perhaps it is the way the question is often approached I find a little irritating (the flat out denial that you know what these words mean). I am pretty certain anyone who would even think of bringing up the question has done much more reading or put a lot more thought into objective morality and the rest, than I or many others have, so they should already be pretty well aware that when someone says something is 'right' or 'wrong' they are only really giving their overall opinion after mentally weighing up one or more factors in their head (perhaps they even use such words to emphasise their argument.. but so what?), and if you haven't already been able to ascertain how someone came to their conclusion that X is wrong, then you can easily just ask there and then.

I find if you ask someone, say, "is homosexuality is wrong?", they will normally go into some length to explain their answer, and it is normally pretty obvious how they got to their overall conclusion, and if not, you can easily press them to get a fuller explanation. The denial of knowing what 'wrong' means seems as silly as the denial of what 'beautiful' means. Most words don't mean much on their own, but they do start to mean a lot more when put into context.

 

[acropolis]

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.

totally unrelated to the topic of the thread, but the coolest way to calculate pi is using Buffon's Needle. the fact that it's possible to estimate the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius by dropping a needle on lined paper just blows my mind.

 

[Zor]

Then again, this is a common trait of all words.

That just blew my mind.

Perhaps it is the way the question is often approached I find a little irritating (the flat out denial that you know what these words mean). I am pretty certain anyone who would even think of bringing up the question has done much more reading or put a lot more thought into objective morality and the rest, than I or many others have, so they should already be pretty well aware that when someone says something is 'right' or 'wrong' they are only really giving their overall opinion after mentally weighing up one or more factors in their head (perhaps they even use such words to emphasise their argument.. but so what?), and if you haven't already been able to ascertain how someone came to their conclusion that X is wrong, then you can easily just ask there and then.

I find if you ask someone, say, "is homosexuality is wrong?", they will normally go into some length to explain their answer, and it is normally pretty obvious how they got to their overall conclusion, and if not, you can easily press them to get a fuller explanation. The denial of knowing what 'wrong' means seems as silly as the denial of what 'beautiful' means. Most words don't mean much on their own, but they do start to mean a lot more when put into context.

Well, I can understand what beautiful is.

Beautiful: is that which brings positive feelings to a person (assumably the person talking).

Wrong on the other hand, is a more mysterious word. Wrong, like beautiful, can be said to be subjective. But what is wrong? Beautiful is a thing that brings a positive feeling(s) to person X. Wrong, on the other hand, is a thing that [BLANK] to person X. Can anyone fill in the blank that identifies the wrong?

 

[allhart]

That just blew my mind.


Well, I can understand what beautiful is.

Beautiful: is that which brings positive feelings to a person (assumably the person talking).

Wrong on the other hand, is a more mysterious word. Wrong, like beautiful, can be said to be subjective. But what is wrong? Beautiful is a thing that brings a positive feeling(s) to person X. Wrong, on the other hand, is a thing that [BLANK] to person X. Can anyone fill in the blank that identifies the wrong?

Irrational feelings tend to run on impulses.People tend to shoot them selves in the foot in there one side agendas. Like work ethics you can be so safe that you wouldn't tend to get much done or you can pretend to be really safe and do nothing at all. Only to be asked later on what you did or didn't do.

 

[stan1980]

That just blew my mind.


Well, I can understand what beautiful is.

Beautiful: is that which brings positive feelings to a person (assumably the person talking).

Wrong on the other hand, is a more mysterious word. Wrong, like beautiful, can be said to be subjective. But what is wrong? Beautiful is a thing that brings a positive feeling(s) to person X. Wrong, on the other hand, is a thing that [BLANK] to person X. Can anyone fill in the blank that identifies the wrong?

I don't know why you would think 'wrong' is any more a mysterious word than 'beautiful'.

Lets say we're walking along the street and I see a woman, and I say "she is beautiful". You say, "why?". It's likely I would have actually had made a quick judgement without even thinking too much about what makes this person beautiful. I could go on to explain that, "I like her eyes, her mouth, her hair, the symmetry of her face etc", and go into great detail into what I find beautiful about said person. There might even be one or two physical characteristics I don't like about the person in question, but nevertheless, I'm making the overall judgement that the things I like about her outweigh the things I dislike, hence my conclusion she is beautiful.

Later on, we see two people having sex in public, and I say "that is wrong". Again, you say "why?". Again I would have made a quick judgement on the situation, just like I did when I reached the conclusion the woman was beautiful. I could go on to explain my reasons, "it is indecent, it makes me feel uncomfortable etc" I might even see some things that aren't so negative, like "it looks like they are enjoying themselves", but nevertheless, the negative stuff appears to outweigh the positive stuff for me, so my overall conclusion is this is wrong.

Neither statement, "she is beautiful" or "that is wrong" appears to be a 'cut and dried' case, such is the nature of subjective words, but they do both appear to give the speakers overall judgement on a matter to the listener, albeit you might think, with missing detail.

So in answer to your question, if beautiful brings overall positive feelings to person X, then similarly, wrong brings overall negative feelings to person X.

So tell me again, you say you find beautiful easy to understand, then why is 'wrong' not so easy to understand in a given context, even after explanation?

 

[Zor]

I don't know why you would think 'wrong' is any more a mysterious word than 'beautiful'.

Lets say we're walking along the street and I see a woman, and I say "she is beautiful". You say, "why?". It's likely I would have actually had made a quick judgement without even thinking too much about what makes this person beautiful. I could go on to explain that, "I like her eyes, her mouth, her hair, the symmetry of her face etc", and go into great detail into what I find beautiful about said person. There might even be one or two physical characteristics I don't like about the person in question, but nevertheless, I'm making the overall judgement that the things I like about her outweigh the things I dislike, hence my conclusion she is beautiful.

I don't see how there can be a "why?" in this. I think a "what?" would be more appropriate. For example, someone says that a woman is beautiful. The question is, what aspect of her is beautiful to you? Her eyes? Then her eye's are beautiful. Etc. If someone asked me "why are her eyes beautiful to you?" I would say that they just are. I react positively to her eyes at this moment. I don't think it's possible to answer why someone has positive feelings about something, all that can be clarified is the thing that brings the positive feeling.

Later on, we see two people having sex in public, and I say "that is wrong". Again, you say "why?". Again I would have made a quick judgement on the situation, just like I did when I reached the conclusion the woman was beautiful. I could go on to explain my reasons, "it is indecent, it makes me feel uncomfortable etc" I might even see some things that aren't so negative, like "it looks like they are enjoying themselves", but nevertheless, the negative stuff appears to outweigh the positive stuff for me, so my overall conclusion is this is wrong.

If I asked, why does people having sex in public make you feel uncomfortable (negative feelings)? I'm guessing that you would say that it just does. I think, instead of calling something wrong, people should just say what negative feeling that they experience from a given event as well as the specific aspect of that event that is giving them the negative feeling. I think that would be more clear.

Neither statement, "she is beautiful" or "that is wrong" appears to be a 'cut and dried' case, such is the nature of subjective words, but they do both appear to give the speakers overall judgement on a matter to the listener, albeit you might think, with missing detail.

The thing is, when we talk about wrong in the class I'm taking, we're not talking about feelings, nor have I ever heard anyone say that wrong was a feeling. So, I'm still confused about that. But I'm okay with the definitions, as long as they are working definitions.

So in answer to your question, if beautiful brings overall positive feelings to person X, then similarly, wrong brings overall negative feelings to person X.

So tell me again, you say you find beautiful easy to understand, then why is 'wrong' not so easy to understand in a given context, even after explanation?

Good = that which brings postive feeling; Bad = that which brings negative feeling. I guess that is satisfactory for me. I'm just not sure if my ethics teacher will find that acceptable.

 

[stan1980]

If I asked, why does people having sex in public make you feel uncomfortable (negative feelings)? I'm guessing that you would say that it just does. I think, instead of calling something wrong, people should just say what negative feeling that they experience from a given event as well as the specific aspect of that event that is giving them the negative feeling. I think that would be more clear.

Sure, I agree, but I guess sometimes, for quickness, people like to put across their opinion without going into detail and they probably expect their opinion to just be accepted without being questioned. Maybe other times, people don't like to talk about their precise feelings, for example, seeing two people having sex might invoke feelings of jealousy, insecurity, or other feelings that they are not comfortable sharing, so they prefer to just give a blanket statement, such as "this is wrong".

The thing is, when we talk about wrong in the class I'm taking, we're not talking about feelings, nor have I ever heard anyone say that wrong was a feeling. So, I'm still confused about that. But I'm okay with the definitions, as long as they are working definitions.

My opinion, on what is 'right' and 'wrong', is when all is said and done, it all boils down to personal feelings. It just so happens, that a lot of people take into account other people's feelings as their own feelings or even what the law or the bible says when reaching their conclusion. For example, some people might say taking illegal drugs is wrong because it is against the law. That would appear to be circular logic, but the fact remains that they believe breaking the law is wrong, so taking drugs is wrong. Personally, when making my mind up about what is right or wrong, I tend to ignore what the law or bible says, preferring to make my own mind up. So my feeling is that if taking drugs only effects the individual, then it solely up to the individual whether to take said drugs.

Good = that which brings postive feeling; Bad = that which brings negative feeling. I guess that is satisfactory for me. I'm just not sure if my ethics teacher will find that acceptable.

I'd go along with that, but like I say, it is probably non-existent that any subject matter is cut and dry. There is just as much, no such thing as good, as there is no such thing as beautiful. Neither really exist, that isn't to say I wont have an idea of how a person feels on something when they use such words though.

 

[Braunwyn]

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?

For me, morality is rooted in compassion with compassion being a desire to alleviate suffering. I don't recognize/acknowledge the terms evil or immoral. Creatures are either moral or amoral in my worldview.

 

[cantata]

Stan, for some people, whether something is wrong doesn't involve any weighing up, e.g. God says it's wrong, so it's wrong. The problem is that someone could use the word "wrong" to describe things that fall into any number of categories: things that God doesn't like; things that cause suffering; things which satisfy carnal desires; things which limit someone's freedom. And yet when many use the word "wrong", they don't just mean things which fall into one of the categories above. They mean to say that there is an extra quality to these acts of not-to-be-done-ness. Weird!

When someone says "That's wrong," we can't even assume they have negative feelings about it. Some people believe that smoking marijuana is wrong, but they still enjoy smoking marijuana. Indeed, they seem to have weighed up the positives and negatives of smoking marijuana, and come to the conclusion that the positives outweigh the negatives, because they smoke it - and yet, they still think it's wrong!

So really, words like "wrong" and "right" are not very clear at all. And I think the OP may also wish to make the point that, in the sense of the not-to-be-done-ness, they don't refer to anything real, despite the fact that a lot of people think they do. (Refer to Mackie's error theory if you're interested in how that happened.)

 

[stan1980]

When someone says "That's wrong," we can't even assume they have negative feelings about it.

I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say if someone says something is 'wrong', we can DEFINITELY assume they do have at least some negative feelings about it. Whether those negative feelings come from the legal status, health risks, the bible, harm to others or even their mother's disapproval, we can definitely assume some negative feelings came from 'somewhere' for them to say an activity is wrong. And yes, people do still do activities they believe or say are wrong.

 

[cantata]

I'm going to stick my neck on the line and say if someone says something is 'wrong', we can DEFINITELY assume they do have at least some negative feelings about it. Whether those negative feelings come from the legal status, health risks, the bible, harm to others or even their mother's disapproval, we can definitely assume some negative feelings came from 'somewhere' for them to say an activity is wrong. And yes, people do still do activities they believe or say are wrong.

Well, okay. But I think that is the most we can assume.

We can't assume that they don't want anyone to do it. We can't assume that they want people to be prevented from doing it. We can't assume why they have negative feelings about it. We can't assume in what those negative feelings consist. In short, they could have given us the same amount of certain knowledge as if they'd said "That makes me feel bad."

And in fact, by the way, an amoralist might say "That's wrong" and have no negative feelings about the act in question whatsoever, but simply be repeating the general consensus that he or she has observed in other people who experience moral feeling. In which case, we can't assume negative feelings.

 

[visionary]

God defined good and evil. He draws the line.. Man would like to change that to suit their own sinful inclinations.

 

[Braunwyn]

God defined good and evil. He draws the line.. Man would like to change that to suit their own sinful inclinations.

I for one would like to see that line moved a bit so Man would stop torturing, slaying, and eating the flesh of innocent animals. Guess we all want something.

 

[visionary]

I for one would like to see that line moved a bit so Man would stop torturing, slaying, and eating the flesh of innocent animals. Guess we all want something.

Back to the garden of eden... I presume

 

[Braunwyn]

Back to the garden of eden... I presume

Most humans don't seem interested. eta: unfortunately