Freethought & Rationalism Archive

kctan · 10-23-2002, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Longbow:

Quote:

It doesn't make sense to speak of society as literally having morals. What such a statement would mean is that the individuals of that society generally held those moral beliefs.

Societies did literally have their morals. They are better known as laws or traditional practices.

Quote:

Just as what I personally believe to be true is distinct from what is, in fact, true, so too what is, in fact, moral is distinct from what people believe is moral. So social norms are clearly distinct from morality.

What you believe to be true is in fact true to you & you alone. For you, it will never be otherwise wouldn't it unless you change your mind ?

Moral is not distinct from what people believe is moral. Its moral as long as they believe its moral. Social norms are clearly not distinct from morality as social norms will change along with the society's sense of morality.

Quote:

When you say this, are you referring to people acting outside of a social norm? (Or because a certain social norma exists?) Taking it to mean the fomer, then of course those that do not act within social norms are typically ostracized because the social norm (where it is relevant to morality) reflects what most people in that society believes is morally required. So, if you think that someone is acting immorally, it would be rather strnage and inconsistent for you to act any other way than to ostracize them.

But it is certainly possible for a whole society of people to be mistaken, and so create mistaken social norms if that is what you are getting at.

Which means its a mistaken morality doesn't it ? Remember the slavery thingy ?

Quote:

You can philosophize all you want. (And, that is what you are doing, by the way, to make the very contention that morals are behaviors and not ideas.)

Morality is the idea. Actions (behaviour) are either moral or immoral.

Quote:

Certainly moral dilemmas are not just personal dilemmas and they certainly are not just about "how I should proceed right now." Moral dilemmas are just as much about legislators drafting laws and judges resolving disputes between parties they couldn't personally care less about.

In fact, it is more about such things as that than it is about some particular person trying to choose a particular course of action for themselves.

Yes they are personal dilemmas, be it legislators or judges. They have to come up with those thingies individually first before they can proceed from there. Its their ass they are protecting here. Consequences will result if they can't come up with something good.

Quote:

But, even if we do look at something like that, this line of reasoning fo yours is exactly what I am talking about when I say the general idea is not very well thought out. You can morally disapprove of an action and still take it, for instance. This is at least, in principle, true and is often what people do claim to do. And, they feel guilty about it afterwards! Choosing your course of action and evaluating a course of action are two different things that can happen quite independently of one another. So, that sort of "common sense" positivistic view of morality really doesn't withstand very much scrutiny at all.

This my friend is how we behaves isn't it ?

The moral of that moment is what it counts, not afterwards. You may think of morality all you like but the truth is that morals are simply how you behaved at that moment of time. You can regret it later on but you of course would have behaved differently then.

BTW Before you decide upon your course of action, you would've already evaluated it no matter how short a time you arrive at your decision. This is your subconsciousness at work.

Longbow · 10-23-2002, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kctan:
You may think of morality all you like but the truth is that morals are simply how you behaved at that moment of time.

Well, all I can say is that you can claim this all you like, but if you insist on it, then all you are really talking about is behavior. You simply are not talking about the same thing that everyone else is when they form sentences using ethical terms.

kctan · 10-25-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Longbow:
Well, all I can say is that you can claim this all you like, but if you insist on it, then all you are really talking about is behavior. You simply are not talking about the same thing that everyone else is when they form sentences using ethical terms.

Yup, evaluations of behaviour clothed in pretty words. It seems we did talk about the same thing after all only that mine's nekkid & your's is clothed.

Jamie_L · 10-25-2002, 08:51 AM

from Longbow:

Quote:

...what is, in fact, moral is distinct from what people believe is moral.

This is true only if morality is separate from what people believe, which is a bit of the arguement that's going on here. I would say that the reverse is actually true: morality is not independent from what people believe, and whay people believe is moral is moral - that is, people define morality.

As for the OP:
Morals aren't behaviors. Morals are codes of behavior and judgements of behavior, as has been previously noted. Such codes and systems of judgement allow people to be trained to intuitively act in ways that maintain order and security for society as well as for the individual. Generally, morals are "agreed upon" across a society or group of people, setting up a standard independent from the individual. However, this standard is still completely dependent on the humans involved for it's creation.

Jamie

Longbow · 10-25-2002, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
This is true only if morality is separate from what people believe, which is a bit of the arguement that's going on here. I would say that the reverse is actually true: morality is not independent from what people believe, and whay people believe is moral is moral - that is, people define morality.

Of course. There is a debate in the Philosophy forum raging over this very topic. Of course I am one of the few defending the view that morality is objective -- that moral sentences contain propositions that are either "true" or "false". Everyone else seems to take moral subjectivism for granted.

It is worth noting that many of them seem to think that such a view is the common view or at least the common view of atheists. It certainly is not.

kctan · 10-25-2002, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Longbow:


Of course. There is a debate in the Philosophy forum raging over this very topic. Of course I am one of the few defending the view that morality is objective -- that moral sentences contain propositions that are either "true" or "false". Everyone else seems to take moral subjectivism for granted.

It is worth noting that many of them seem to think that such a view is the common view or at least the common view of atheists. It certainly is not.

Not everyone but most of the people at this board. If you are really interested, you can do a search for past topics on moral subjectivity/objectivity & see how most of us moral subjectivists get moral objectivism to RIP.

On a serious note, apart from this board, IMHO most of the world still believe in moral objectivism rather then subjectivism.

BTW Have you ever seriously consider how moral a person is depends entirely upon that moment in time when s/he have to act upon it instead of just merely assuming as in a scenario ?

kctan · 10-25-2002, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:

As for the OP:
Morals aren't behaviors. Morals are codes of behavior and judgements of behavior, as has been previously noted. Such codes and systems of judgement allow people to be trained to intuitively act in ways that maintain order and security for society as well as for the individual. Generally, morals are "agreed upon" across a society or group of people, setting up a standard independent from the individual. However, this standard is still completely dependent on the humans involved for it's creation. Jamie

In short behaviours agreed upon by society.

'Codes' & 'judgement' are so decorative aren't they ?

Rephrasing,

Quote:

Generally, morals are behaviours "agreed upon" across a society or group of people, setting up a standard independent from the individual. However, this standard is still completely dependent on the humans involved for it's creation.

Not much difference from the original right ?

To conclude for the moment, can we agree that morals are behaviours that are agreeable to a group of people (society, tribe, nation etc...) ?

Longbow · 10-25-2002, 09:20 PM

Quote:

[QB]Originally posted by kctan:[/WB]
BTW Have you ever seriously consider how moral a person is depends entirely upon that moment in time when s/he have to act upon it instead of just merely assuming as in a scenario ?

Probably a couple of things are worth noting. For starters, I used to be a moral subjectivist. Now I know better. Also, I think that how moral a person is completely (logically) indpendent of how much knowledge they have of morality. Of course people that are ignorant of morality are going to tend to screw up, but beyond that it is quite possible for people to knowingly act contrary to what is morally required of them or for people to just happen to act morally without believing that they were morally required to act that way.

pug846 · 10-26-2002, 09:45 AM

Kctan, I�m not sure I�m following what you are trying to say either.

Quote:

Which means its a mistaken morality doesn't it ? Remember the slavery thingy ?

You have defined moral as whatever �society� defines as moral. So, how could slavery be �mistaken morality?� What criterion are you using to claim that slavery was mistaken?

Quote:

In short behaviours agreed upon by society.

I�m not even sure how to make sense out of this sentence. What do you mean by �society?� Give some non-trivial examples of behaviors that are agreed upon, so I can see what you are getting at. (I.e., something beyond the basic agreements that are needed for a society to funciton at all.)

Quote:

To conclude for the moment, can we agree that morals are behaviours that are agreeable to a group of people (society, tribe, nation etc...) ?

No, I don�t agree. When you say that morals are behaviors that are agreeable to a group of people, do you mean it is agreeable to all of them? A majority of them? The ruling class?

Longbow said:

Quote:

It is worth noting that many of them seem to think that such a view is the common view or at least the common view of atheists. It certainly is not.

And you know this how?�

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: pug846 ]

kctan · 10-26-2002, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by pug846:

Quote:

Kctan, I’m not sure I’m following what you are trying to say either.

You have defined moral as whatever “society” defines as moral. So, how could slavery be “mistaken morality?” What criterion are you using to claim that slavery was mistaken?

I think that's a reply to Longbow's reply about a whole society being able to be mistaken about a morality.

Quote:

I’m not even sure how to make sense out of this sentence. What do you mean by “society?” Give some non-trivial examples of behaviors that are agreed upon, so I can see what you are getting at. (I.e., something beyond the basic agreements that are needed for a society to funciton at all.)

Like some chinese societies (would group of people be better ?)bars the marriage of people with the same surname, eating pork, eating meat etc... that kind of stuffs.

Quote:

No, I don’t agree. When you say that morals are behaviors that are agreeable to a group of people, do you mean it is agreeable to all of them? A majority of them? The ruling class?

It could be all of them, it could be the majority, it could be the ruling class, its a set of behaviours that is agreed upon to be observed & followed. Even you yourself are following some of these agreed upon behaviour.

Longbow

Quote:

Probably a couple of things are worth noting. For starters, I used to be a moral subjectivist. Now I know better. Also, I think that how moral a person is completely (logically) indpendent of how much knowledge they have of morality.

Depend on what they think morality is & how it comes about. From a moral objectivist's standpoint, its a valid POV.

Quote:

Of course people that are ignorant of morality are going to tend to screw up, but beyond that it is quite possible for people to knowingly act contrary to what is morally required of them or for people to just happen to act morally without believing that they were morally required to act that way.

A person maybe ignorant of morality but by his/her own conviction of acting in a manner s/he deems right, who's to say that they will screw up more ? Even with an objectivist's stand point, it's not so valid.

Mayhaps that possibility could be attributed to your previous standpoint of subjective morality ?

Think about it again, how can you be sure that a behaviour is objectively right or wrong ?

Is there any meaning at all to an action ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.