Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sabine Grant · 12-28-2002, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven
Sabine: I also think that as much as some of us differ in the concept of " who inspires that moral", ( divine entity or humanism), we all agree on the overall goal to reach which is to not harm others.

But is there any reason other than "mere" preference to strive toward the goal of not harming others? Obviously not, I'd say.

Hello DRF seven... one can choose to harm others to serve his personal agenda. That choice is always available. I addressed my comment to the group of participants engaged in that debate. It appears that none of us are striving to affirm our moral preferences by ignoring the welfare of others. Maybe one of you guys believe that it is Ok to kill a couple of people .... it does not appear so though.

Thomas Ash · 12-28-2002, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pomp
The problem is that, in saying that morality is, by definition, what one should do, you're making a moral assertion. Such an assertion is only meaningful to someone who has already accepted morality as governing his or her actions. Look at your first sentence, with one slight change to make it clear that you are defining morality as whatever one should do:

"It doesn't make any sense to say that just because X is a source of morality that doesn't imply that you [are morally obligated to] be moral."

Do you see the problem? You're invoking a moral obligation to be moral, but that isn't any more defensible than a logical argument for why logic works.

I'm not using just my post above as an argument for why you should be moral! But if you accept that morality exists in the first place (some people may not...), then I think it's fair to say that the question 'why do what you know is moral?' is crazy. I think there is a moral obligation to be moral - that's what the idea of some things being moral involves, that you are under an obligation to be moral.

I mean, you can't very well say "I totally accept the existence of objective morality, but it's completely arbitrary whether I'm going to choose to follow it or not", can you?

Of course, if you don't think morality exists in the first place, none of this applies.

Primal · 12-28-2002, 03:19 PM

For me and my moral system, this is a very easy question to answer, and my answer is two-fold.

1) Because it is advantageous to other values. Human beings must adapt to an enviroment in such a way as to be able to get the most of what we want. In a moral society, like ours, this means behave in a moral manner or get selected against. That's one reason to be moral. True one can put up a facade and be immoral but that increases the chance of being caught. Now one can say: why keep society moral? Well because if we do not, the consequences are disasterous. There is too much disorder leading to insecurity, lack of technology etc. In general, lack of cohesion, which is bad for us as we are 1) social animals. 2) have many of our wants satisfied via a co-operative enterprise that demands social cohesion.

2) Personal preference. This goes along with the above well as they reinforce eachother. Basically we prefer to behave in a manner and promote behavior that we consider to be moral. Basically I think a little kid should not be raped because I do not want it to happen. I believe in justice because I want justice. This is not to promote relativism but to support a realistic viewpoint. In essence we are moral, for the same reason we are sexual,clean,and like food. For the same reason we avoid pain.

Another question which needs to be raised though is "why be immoral?" Not just, what is immoral etc, but if you can get something just as easily by being moral, why be immoral? That can likewise be answered by the above. In my system though, for most, it'd be like asking "why avoid pain?" "Why not do something you really don't want to do?"

So in the end it does come down to personal preference both directly with number 2 and directly with number 1 in a recirprocal manner. I am moral, because I am in the end: a moral animal.

Primal · 12-28-2002, 03:22 PM

I'd have to agree with digital chicken: you are merely going in circles. To say "being moral is a moral obligation" is circular. I don't see what's so impossible about saying "there is an objective morality, but I'm not going to follow it." That falls perfectly within a rational choice as it means there is an objective amoral, or immoral stance that can be just as easily followed.

Thus the question is not all as simple as "do you believe in morality or not?" Because saying "yes" to this doesn't demand you have to be moral at all.

DRFseven · 12-28-2002, 10:15 PM

Sabine: Hello DRF seven... one can choose to harm others to serve his personal agenda. That choice is always available. I addressed my comment to the group of participants engaged in that debate. It appears that none of us are striving to affirm our moral preferences by ignoring the welfare of others. Maybe one of you guys believe that it is Ok to kill a couple of people .... it does not appear so though.

Hello, Sabine. I'm just saying that we consider behavior to be moral or not according to personal opinion; i.e., learning. Even if we all are of the opinion that we should behave morally, we still can't justify the "should." There is always the question, "Why should we?", that can't be answered.

Thomas Ash · 12-29-2002, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primal
I'd have to agree with digital chicken: you are merely going in circles. To say "being moral is a moral obligation" is circular. I don't see what's so impossible about saying "there is an objective morality, but I'm not going to follow it." That falls perfectly within a rational choice as it means there is an objective amoral, or immoral stance that can be just as easily followed.

Then could you clarify what you would mean by saying 'there is an objective morality'? I'm not saying what I've said is a proof of morality, because then I would have been circular. But I don't think it's circular at all to say that objective morality means that there are some things that you should (or should not) do.

Quote:

Thus the question is not all as simple as "do you believe in morality or not?" Because saying "yes" to this doesn't demand you have to be moral at all.

Oh yes it is.

Pomp · 12-29-2002, 09:11 AM

Thomas Ash,

I'm not using just my post above as an argument for why you should be moral! But if you accept that morality exists in the first place (some people may not...), then I think it's fair to say that the question 'why do what you know is moral?' is crazy.

That all depends on what you mean by "morality exists." I certainly accept that what we normally call "morality" exists but, in my view, morality is more a collection of social conventions and principles that smooth interactions between individuals than anything else. I suppose you would call my view a loose flavor of social contract theory.

I view moral principles more as best practice guidleines than as hard and fast rules. That is to say, it is advisable to behave morally in most conceivable situations, but certain circumstances make moral behavior a poor choice.

I think there is a moral obligation to be moral - that's what the idea of some things being moral involves, that you are under an obligation to be moral. I mean, you can't very well say "I totally accept the existence of objective morality, but it's completely arbitrary whether I'm going to choose to follow it or not", can you?

Sure you can. An example:

Smith totally accepts the existence of objective contractual obligation, by which I mean the principle that one is bound to adhere to the terms of any contract one signs. However, he is an opportunistic contract breaker, by which I mean that he enters into contractual agreements but only adheres to the terms of those agreements when it suits his purposes. For example, he will sign loan agreements, but refuse to pay back borrowed money.

Now, in a burst of inspiration, you convince Smith to sign a contract stating that he will no longer break contracts, and will adhere to their obligations just like anyone else. After all, now he has a contractual obligation to adhere to contracts, so he can't break them in the future, right? Of course not. Smith cares nothing for contractual obligations, including this new contractual obligation to adhere to contracts.

I see a moral obligation to behave morally in the same light. Unless Smith has a preexisting reason to behave morally, a moral obligation will not compel him to do so because he accepts no moral obligations, including the one to behave morally.

Now, it's valid to say that your version of morality includes a reason to behave morally: by definition one ought to behave morally. Unfortunately, however, this is not a compelling reason to behave morally. This, in my mind, is the key weakness in most traditional conceptions of morality; they lack any compelling reason for anyone to behave morally. The strongest conceptions of morality, again IMO, are those that provide some built in compelling reason to behave morally. Many such conceptions, for example, define moral behavior in such a way that it is the obvious choice for any rational being (I don't agree with any such conceptions, btw). Others provide some self-interested reason why a being would generally want to behave morally. Contractarian theories, for example, present morality as a social agreement for the mutual benefit of its participants.

The AntiChris · 12-29-2002, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pomp

I view moral principles more as best practice guidleines than as hard and fast rules. That is to say, it is advisable to behave morally in most conceivable situations, but certain circumstances make moral behavior a poor choice.

I'd really like to see your definition of a "moral principal". I'd also be interested to know for whom you had in mind when you stated that to "behave morally" might be a bad choice?

Not a trick question, just seeking understanding.

Chris

idiom · 12-30-2002, 03:23 AM

God doesn't ask that you be moral. Just that you would decide one way or the other and stick to that decision.

Also, what is wrong with slaughtering innocents?

There is a funny line of thought that says that God is not moral because he does immoral deeds. Who says he does immoral deeds? Well the know-it-all-philosopher of course.

Many a would be philosopher creates a moral scheme to suit himself and denounces God for not following it.

Thomas Ash · 12-30-2002, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pomp
[B]Thomas Ash,

I'm not using just my post above as an argument for why you should be moral! But if you accept that morality exists in the first place (some people may not...), then I think it's fair to say that the question 'why do what you know is moral?' is crazy.

That all depends on what you mean by "morality exists." I certainly accept that what we normally call "morality" exists but, in my view, morality is more a collection of social conventions and principles that smooth interactions between individuals than anything else. I suppose you would call my view a loose flavor of social contract theory.

I view moral principles more as best practice guidleines than as hard and fast rules. That is to say, it is advisable to behave morally in most conceivable situations, but certain circumstances make moral behavior a poor choice.

Well, I mean something different by "morality exists" - ie. the existence of an objective morality which is more than simply prudential. So there are certain actions you are obligated to perform, even if in some cases they're not in your self interest at all.

Quote:

I think there is a moral obligation to be moral - that's what the idea of some things being moral involves, that you are under an obligation to be moral. I mean, you can't very well say "I totally accept the existence of objective morality, but it's completely arbitrary whether I'm going to choose to follow it or not", can you?

Sure you can. An example:

Smith totally accepts the existence of objective contractual obligation, by which I mean the principle that one is bound to adhere to the terms of any contract one signs. However, he is an opportunistic contract breaker, by which I mean that he enters into contractual agreements but only adheres to the terms of those agreements when it suits his purposes. For example, he will sign loan agreements, but refuse to pay back borrowed money.

Now, in a burst of inspiration, you convince Smith to sign a contract stating that he will no longer break contracts, and will adhere to their obligations just like anyone else. After all, now he has a contractual obligation to adhere to contracts, so he can't break them in the future, right? Of course not. Smith cares nothing for contractual obligations, including this new contractual obligation to adhere to contracts.

Smith clearly doesn't accept the existence of objective contractual obligation - he doesn't feel that there's any moral obligation to obey contracts. He accepts that there's a commonly felt tradition of honouring contracts, but this isn't the same thing as accepting the existence of an objective morality. You say below "he accepts no moral obligations"...

Quote:

I see a moral obligation to behave morally in the same light. Unless Smith has a preexisting reason to behave morally, a moral obligation will not compel him to do so because he accepts no moral obligations

12-28-2002, 03:19 PM	#23
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	Good question For me and my moral system, this is a very easy question to answer, and my answer is two-fold. 1) Because it is advantageous to other values. Human beings must adapt to an enviroment in such a way as to be able to get the most of what we want. In a moral society, like ours, this means behave in a moral manner or get selected against. That's one reason to be moral. True one can put up a facade and be immoral but that increases the chance of being caught. Now one can say: why keep society moral? Well because if we do not, the consequences are disasterous. There is too much disorder leading to insecurity, lack of technology etc. In general, lack of cohesion, which is bad for us as we are 1) social animals. 2) have many of our wants satisfied via a co-operative enterprise that demands social cohesion. 2) Personal preference. This goes along with the above well as they reinforce eachother. Basically we prefer to behave in a manner and promote behavior that we consider to be moral. Basically I think a little kid should not be raped because I do not want it to happen. I believe in justice because I want justice. This is not to promote relativism but to support a realistic viewpoint. In essence we are moral, for the same reason we are sexual,clean,and like food. For the same reason we avoid pain. Another question which needs to be raised though is "why be immoral?" Not just, what is immoral etc, but if you can get something just as easily by being moral, why be immoral? That can likewise be answered by the above. In my system though, for most, it'd be like asking "why avoid pain?" "Why not do something you really don't want to do?" So in the end it does come down to personal preference both directly with number 2 and directly with number 1 in a recirprocal manner. I am moral, because I am in the end: a moral animal.

12-28-2002, 03:22 PM	#24
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	Ash I'd have to agree with digital chicken: you are merely going in circles. To say "being moral is a moral obligation" is circular. I don't see what's so impossible about saying "there is an objective morality, but I'm not going to follow it." That falls perfectly within a rational choice as it means there is an objective amoral, or immoral stance that can be just as easily followed. Thus the question is not all as simple as "do you believe in morality or not?" Because saying "yes" to this doesn't demand you have to be moral at all.

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

12-28-2002, 10:15 PM	#25
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	Sabine: Hello DRF seven... one can choose to harm others to serve his personal agenda. That choice is always available. I addressed my comment to the group of participants engaged in that debate. It appears that none of us are striving to affirm our moral preferences by ignoring the welfare of others. Maybe one of you guys believe that it is Ok to kill a couple of people .... it does not appear so though. Hello, Sabine. I'm just saying that we consider behavior to be moral or not according to personal opinion; i.e., learning. Even if we all are of the opinion that we should behave morally, we still can't justify the "should." There is always the question, "Why should we?", that can't be answered.

12-29-2002, 09:11 AM	#27
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Thomas Ash, I'm not using just my post above as an argument for why you should be moral! But if you accept that morality exists in the first place (some people may not...), then I think it's fair to say that the question 'why do what you know is moral?' is crazy. That all depends on what you mean by "morality exists." I certainly accept that what we normally call "morality" exists but, in my view, morality is more a collection of social conventions and principles that smooth interactions between individuals than anything else. I suppose you would call my view a loose flavor of social contract theory. I view moral principles more as best practice guidleines than as hard and fast rules. That is to say, it is advisable to behave morally in most conceivable situations, but certain circumstances make moral behavior a poor choice. I think there is a moral obligation to be moral - that's what the idea of some things being moral involves, that you are under an obligation to be moral. I mean, you can't very well say "I totally accept the existence of objective morality, but it's completely arbitrary whether I'm going to choose to follow it or not", can you? Sure you can. An example: Smith totally accepts the existence of objective contractual obligation, by which I mean the principle that one is bound to adhere to the terms of any contract one signs. However, he is an opportunistic contract breaker, by which I mean that he enters into contractual agreements but only adheres to the terms of those agreements when it suits his purposes. For example, he will sign loan agreements, but refuse to pay back borrowed money. Now, in a burst of inspiration, you convince Smith to sign a contract stating that he will no longer break contracts, and will adhere to their obligations just like anyone else. After all, now he has a contractual obligation to adhere to contracts, so he can't break them in the future, right? Of course not. Smith cares nothing for contractual obligations, including this new contractual obligation to adhere to contracts. I see a moral obligation to behave morally in the same light. Unless Smith has a preexisting reason to behave morally, a moral obligation will not compel him to do so because he accepts no moral obligations, including the one to behave morally. Now, it's valid to say that your version of morality includes a reason to behave morally: by definition one ought to behave morally. Unfortunately, however, this is not a compelling reason to behave morally. This, in my mind, is the key weakness in most traditional conceptions of morality; they lack any compelling reason for anyone to behave morally. The strongest conceptions of morality, again IMO, are those that provide some built in compelling reason to behave morally. Many such conceptions, for example, define moral behavior in such a way that it is the obvious choice for any rational being (I don't agree with any such conceptions, btw). Others provide some self-interested reason why a being would generally want to behave morally. Contractarian theories, for example, present morality as a social agreement for the mutual benefit of its participants.

12-30-2002, 03:23 AM	#29
idiom Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 49	God doesn't ask that you be moral. Just that you would decide one way or the other and stick to that decision. Also, what is wrong with slaughtering innocents? There is a funny line of thought that says that God is not moral because he does immoral deeds. Who says he does immoral deeds? Well the know-it-all-philosopher of course. Many a would be philosopher creates a moral scheme to suit himself and denounces God for not following it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.