diana

In the course of other discussions I'm having here at the moment, a couple of people have conceded that they themselves do things they consider immoral, but don't have the discipline to stop and/or aren't willing to face the consequences of stopping.

My belief is this: my morality is defined by my actions, not my stated beliefs. For example, I may say I believe it's immoral to lie, but if I lie under any circumstances and for any reason, then clearly I don't really believe lying is immoral without qualification. My own moral position, in this instance, is clearly too complex to be summed up in the simple adage "lying is wrong."

I may believe it's wrong to lie, and adhere to this rule, until the day I find myself in the position that telling the truth would have worse consequences. For an extreme example, if I were in WWII Germany and the authorities asked me if I knew where any Jews were hiding, I would lie without compunction. At that point, I must revise my moral "rule," because it clearly is too simplistic to apply in reality. It may change to "Lying is wrong unless the truth would get someone killed."

I may go through life believing this until I realize I also tell people they look great when in fact I don't really believe this, but I understand they need the boost. Now my rule becomes "Lying is wrong unless the truth would hurt someone or unless the lie would fail to inspire when needed."

At some point, I realize I lie to people who ask me rudely personal questions. I don't have a problem with this, either. Now I must--if I'm honest--revise my rule again. It is now edging toward "Lying is ok if it will prevent violence/pain, if it makes someone feel good but is otherwise harmless, and if it protects my privacy."

At some point, I rethink my position that lying is wrong under any circumstances. It might be more to-the-point to state that I believe it's a bad idea in most circumstances, but is a good idea in others. But wrong?

This is just an example. The idea is this: how can you honestly believe that something you do is wrong, but continue to do it? Is this compartimentalization? How much do you really believe it's wrong if you continue to do it? Clearly, it's right for you in some sense.

d

The AntiChris

Competing desires?
Only if you take the view that acting on any desire is inherently right.

Whilst it makes sense to me to say that for something to be morally right I must in fact desire it, it doesn't follow that all that I desire is therefore morally right.

Chris

diana

Good clarification, Chris. Thank you.

I didn't intend it to be so broad. I don't do everything I desire because everything I desire is not what I'd consider moral. I refrain from punching people who are desperately begging for it from time to time. I would very much enjoy punching them, but I feel it's wrong to translate my offense at someone's being a jerk to physical violence.

What I'm saying is that if I do something, I do not believe my action is immoral. The logic works like this:

A: I believe something is immoral.
B: I don't do it.

If A, then B.

Therefore, if not B, then not A. (If I do something, then I don't believe it to be immoral.)

What I don't understand is how people can say something is immoral (presumably, in their own opinion), but do it anyway.

d

The AntiChris

I suspect most people would be puzzled by a a moral framework within which it would be impossible to commit, in one's own estimation, an immoral act.

It seems that according to your values, that which is morally right is defined by what you, in actual fact, do!

Chris

EricK

That is, I think, what the OP was saying.

It is a very interesting point of view, and it seems to have a large element of truth in it. Why, after all, do we find hypocricy to be so bad? Part of the reason must be becuase we think that the morality some people are trying to impose on us, is not the morality they themselves hold. So in that sense we do think people's morality is to be judged on what they do rather than on what they say they believe.

My quibble with the OP would be this: What about the actions you do but then feel guilty about? Doesn't the guilt show that you really do believe the act to be immoral?

Eric

diana

Actually, what I am willing to do under certain circumstances.

My point is this: If you're willing to do something, under whose code would you consider the act immoral?

I think your willingness to do it means you don't consider it immoral under your own code. If you are doing it, you have justified it, at least in this instance. That is, according to your personal code, it is ok.

Your code may include a stipulation that when confronted with only two choices, both of which are immoral, then the most moral thing to do is to choose the least immoral. In other words, the moral choice would be to choose the one that violated your personal code the least.

I got to thinking about this issue several years ago after a brief conversation had with a neighbor who told me that he's a Christian and how he knows what he should be doing...then he paused to drink his beer and take a toke. I've since noticed how many people claim to believe one thing while their actions belie them. I don't think this young man had any moral problems with smoking a joint. He claimed to, but...he certainly went through a lot of weed without any hint of guilt I ever saw.

I think we tend to have two moral codes: our personal set and the one society has given us.

You state you can violate your own moral code. What happens when you do? How do you feel? What do you do about it?

d

diana

Excellent question, Eric!

I think most people don't realize they are trying to adhere to a code that someone else has foisted on them, which they do not entirely agree with. Guilt is a way of punishing oneself for breaking a code. But whose code?

I feel guilty when I think a cop has spotted me speeding, for example. I personally have no moral compunction that prevents me from driving at any speed I deem safe under the circumstances. However, the code I'm being judged by is someone else's, and my guilt is my response to being caught violating that code. Consider: you may drive 10,000 miles at speeds well above the posted limit and never think twice about it, let alone feel guilty. That all changes when you see those lights flashing behind you.

If you've broken some rule and you feel guilty without having been caught, then perhaps you need to stop to consider whose moral code you're wasting your guilt on. If it's yours, then you either change your behavior or you change your code.

d

The AntiChris

Doesn't this explain shame?

Chris

Jinksy

Not necessarily. I believe in a logical, non-intuitionist approach to ethics, so I think eg. that it's bad to eat meat because the animal almost certainly suffered inordinately during the process (so if, as I do, you reduce ethics to suffering and pleasure, it would be 'immoral' under the animal's code). But I continue to eat it on occasion, because I want to, and because, sadly, I don't live in a society that looks down upon such behaviour.

If you reduce ethics to the actions we actually perform, it becomes meaningless. Why would you shoot at enemy soldiers if they're all being completely moral by definition? Even if they were carrying out orders from Saddam Hussein, or someone similar, they'd still have chosen their actions, as would the brutal dictator in question.

diana

I have not even pretended to define morality or ethics for the world. I have stated what my morality is, and how I suspect other people's individual morality is. A serial killer does not violate his own moral code. Your actions are indications of what you believe is right for you to do from one moment to the next. And like all codes, your personal moral code is open to change as you mature and experience more. You may believe it's just fine to sleep around until you realize you're hurting people, at which point you revise it. And it works the other way, too: you may believe it's wrong to lie, until time and experience teaches you that there are many exceptions to the rule.

I'm pointing out something that is, to me, obvious. People say "I do this even though I believe it's wrong." I don't see how you can honestly believe something is wrong and do it. The action itself seems to indicate that you can somehow justify the action.

How is it you believe people behave in ways adverse to their personal convictions of what is right and wrong?

When you do something you think is wrong and someone asks why you did it, you can give them reasons, I suspect. To me, this is an indication that you believe the act to be wrong in the general sense, except in certain instances (such as the ones you provide to your questioner). (For the record, "Because I felt like it" means you don't personally believe the action at all reprehensible, regardless of what you may claim.)

d