diana

G'day, Nexus.

Interesting input. I would argue that your animal lusts/emotions compel you to do things you really want to do. Isn't that what lust and failure to exercise self control is all about?

No, actually. I hadn't. Thanks for adding this thought to the discussion. This strikes me as Christian thinking, incidentally--the idea that we're all imperfect worms who aren't worthy (although you weren't so extreme).

The psychology of it, in my limited experience (i.e., based on people I know, but I'm not a shrink, obviously), is that they believe themselves flawed which is actually license to fail to live up to the code they claim they should live up to, if they were better people, which they aren't, so it's okay. It's a mindfuck, really.

I think they're living up to their own codes which are far less restrictive than the codes they claim...just like everyone else.

However...as Chris pointed out early on, my position is non-falsifiable. Just as his is. That's the bugger about discussing any theories tripping in the direction of psychology and personal experiences/beliefs. And as Jinsky has pointed out, everyone but me is on the side of current scholarly concensus here, which makes me wrong (or ahead of my time).

d

Viti

Well, d, this thread got me thinking...and the more I think about it the more sure I am that my original statement is the best way to go within a personal moral code "Do what is more right in any given situation".

While I can sit here right now and say "Torture is wrong", I can think of circumstances where I would hook up the electrodes my damn self. So, I don't say "torture is wrong". Really I think the best we can do is say "X is wrong in most/many/some circumstances" or something equally vague.

The AntiChris

I'd assume the former.

If someone actually wanted to know what I do, then I'd expect them to ask me what I do.

I think the following illustrates the mistake I think you're making.

I don't see this as a question of who is 'right' or 'wrong'.

Those who consistently violate their own professed moral code are either dishonest (hypocritical) or simply have a hopelessly unrealistic approach to ethical behaviour and it could reasonably be argued that these are pretty ineffective moral frameworks. However, those who define their morality by their actions, as you do, could equally be accused of merely paying lip service to the notion of principled moral beliefs (you condemn those who fail to act on their moral beliefs while your moral code, by defintion, can never be violated).

I suspect most of us fall somewhere between these two extremes - principled but pragmatic.

I really have no idea how you'd go about determining whether your approach is in fact 'right' and the rest of us were 'wrong'.

Chris

diana

Pretty much, yes. That's how I feel, as well. And if it were one of those situations where I was hooking up the electrodes (to be honest, I can't think of any right off-hand, but let's just say), I made the choice to do it at the time for a reason. I weighed all the available knowledge/evidence/choices and that was my choice. That is, it depicted exactly what my moral code really stated in that circumstance. I will not look back on it and feel guilty, because I chose to do it in the first place. If, however, I feel that the choice was a poor one, I will make amends to anyone I hurt and change my code to reflect the lesson learned.

Whatever I do, I will not stand there and tell you I did it against my beliefs of what I should I have done. I may, however, tell you my beliefs have changed since then or even as a result--but my actions must follow or my words are empty. That's all I've been saying, really.

d

diana

Good morning, Chris.

You're getting much closer to understanding what I'm trying to say. I can only hope I'm getting closer to understanding your position, at the same time.

Fair enough. I've already explained why I think they aren't interested in what standards I think I should live up to, but what standards they can expect to observe in me.

You're very close. I'm not condemning those who fail to act on their moral beliefs; I think their actions portray their true beliefs.

And you're right: I think I cannot violate my own moral code. I can violate someone else's, and others can violate mine. Also...I do have principled beliefs, my good man. They're the ones I do not violate.

The main difference is that I don't maintain an ideal and say I believe in a moral ideal. I do not believe in moral ideals. I believe very much that morals are situational; therefore, I have guidelines. When I encounter a situation in which I am willing to violate my guideline, I must acknowledge that the guideline had not taken everything into account, and adjust it accordingly. Or, if my choice to violate that guideline turned out to a poor one, I cease the behavior.

Or vice versa, for that matter.

When people continue to commit acts they claim to believe are immoral, what purpose does their "moral code" serve, anyway? In the end, neither of us ends up more or less "moral" than the other. What have they gained--other than an opportunity for guilt--by claiming to believe an ideal?

d

Viti

I couldn't at first either, so I came up with it as a statement of "X is wrong" I actually could make. Then I thought "What if one of my loved ones was in danger and someone was withholding pertinent information from me" (yes, this is personal and selfish and somewhat hypocritical becase I think governments should never, ever torture. I am just admitting to my human frailty here).

I seriously might torture someone to save my hubby, or my child, or even you if I thought it would truly help.

So anyway, if I can't even point blank say "torture is wrong", I can't say anything is wrong all the time in every circumstance.

Nexus

I don't think people always do things they "want" to do? If they are over come by emotions like anger they do things they truly don't want and regret later.

Or perhaps fear prevents them from doing things they consider moral and want to do.

viscousmemories

Sorry for the late response, diana. I rely on email notification of new posts and didn't realize they aren't working here. I'm also running out the door here soon, so I apologize in advance for not being able to respond in more depth.

I thought perhaps your argument depended on the assumption that people don't do that which they truly believe to be wrong, but I wasn't sure because that seems also to be the conclusion you're arguing for. In other words it seems like you might be making a circular argument.

Also, I'm not saying that it seems self-evident to me that people do that which they truly believe is wrong, I just don't think your argument that the contrary is self-evident is compelling. I've met hundreds of people who have acted in ways that they claim to believe are wrong, and none (until now ) that claim that everything they do is right by definition.

So based on my personal experience and limited knowledge of human behavior my belief is that people are being sincere when they claim to believe certain of their actions are morally wrong, even when they repeat them. For me to believe otherwise it'll take more of an argument than just asserting that the opposite seems self-evident to you.

I'm sorry again if this is rambling or garbled... in a bit of a rush.

The AntiChris

In post #30 you suggested such people were hypocrites. That seems pretty condemnatory to me?
This doesn't make sense. Principled beliefs are normally understood to be what influence our behaviour. You've already admitted that your behaviour defines your moral beliefs. I don't see any room for principle here.
I think you may be confusing moral ideals with moral absolutes.

Moral ideals and situational morality aren't normally thought of as mutually exclusive. It's quite possible to fail to live up to a moral ideal whilst still believing morality is situational.

Moral absolutes and situational morality are mutually exclusive. In any event, most people don't genuinely subscribe to moral absolutism - it's not much practical use.
I don't understand. Are you saying that you have, in fact, violated your own guidelines (without subsequently adjusting those guidelines)? If so, then we probably aren't in disagreement.

If not, then what you're saying is that on every occasion that you violate an existing guideline you simply adjust your guidelines to include the new behaviour. This is the very epitome of what's normally meant by 'unprincipled'.
I've already conceded that consistent violations of one's moral code are indicative of either hypocrisy or hopeless optimism (although there may well be exceptions to this such as drug addiction or certain mental disorders).

However, I've had the distinct impression throughout this thread that you view any infraction of one's own moral code as evidence of either insincerity or a mistaken moral belief. If this isn't what you've been saying then I suspect we've been talking at cross-purposes. :huh:

Chris

diana

Hi, Chris.

They are hypocrites if they persist in a behavior while they insist they believe that behavior is wrong. Back to the question of the man who's cheating on his wife. He continues to do so after he tells you he believes it's wrong. At what point, Chris, do you decide he's a hypocrite? Or, if you refrain from such judgment calls, what would you think of him and why?

It seems to me that both of our approaches to morals acknowledge at some point that the person doesn't really believe what he claims to. We just draw the line in a different place. I'm wondering where your line is (or anyone else's, for that matter).

When I said my behavior defines my moral beliefs, I meant my behavior reflects my beliefs. I clarified after the OP, because I realized my use of the word "define" was causing some confusion.

I think I was confusing them. Thank you very much for the explanation. I'm still wondering, though: if you believe morality is situational, then you leave room for believing that your actions in this moment, while they violate your personal ideal, are still moral. Yes? If so, then we agree, more or less. In light of this distinction, I will say I do have "ideals," but I accept that morality is situational. Thus, I consider those things that violate my ideal--which I choose to do anyway--moral in the given situation; or at least, not immoral. (There is plenty of amoral room in the middle, as taoist has been careful to point out to me elsewhere.)

I stated before that I don't have ideals because...what's the point if you provide for exceptions? That's the same as saying you have guidelines, IMO.

Yes. At the time I violated the guideline, though, I had rationalized the action and did not believe it to be immoral. If I am in the middle of an action and decide I will regret it later, I stop. At any given moment, my actions reflect what I believe to be moral--or at least, not immoral. (The emphasis on the negative from the beginning was intentional, so as to avoid falling into the amoral pit.)

If I find myself in the position to do that same thing again and I do it, it's time for me to rethink--very hard--what I believe is right and wrong and why. What you won't find is me commiting the same infraction repeatedly and claiming to believe it's wrong.

I realize you said "If not," but I did a quick look on "principled" and the definition was: "1 (of a person or their behavior) acting in accordance with morality and showing recognition of right and wrong : a principled politician. 2 (of a system or method) based on a given set of rules : a coherent and principled approach." If you violate your own code of morals, are you any more principled than I?

If a person does X even though he professes to believe that X is wrong, he has rationalized it. That is, he has changed his code to accommodate it. Frankly, the notion that he can commit X though he believes it is immoral and without rationalization of any sort is beyond my ability to understand; this may be the crux of your problem in trying to explain to me why I'm wrong. I simply cannot accept that a man who believes X is wrong in the present moment will do X.

Incidentally, I assume we all understand we will occasionally find ourselves in situations where we must do something that is "the lesser evil." I accept "the lesser evil" as the moral choice.

Here's an interesting sidebar note: if you, as a non-theist, do something you believe to be immoral,...then what? I know this road has been traveled in a derisive sense by theists who would point out the inherent immorality of atheism. That isn't what I mean. I know I am a moral person. I have never met an atheist who wasn't--in words and action--as moral or more moral than their theist counterparts. I'm just wondering what purpose is served by pronouncing something you do as "immoral" if you're going to do it anyway.

d