Glory

Pug846,

You keep telling people that they are wrong without revealing your oppinion on the question. If self preservation isn't the motivation for moral or ethical behaviour, what, pray tell, is?



What do you call morals? If you continue to refuse to answer this question then arguing with you is pointless.



You already have the answer to this, self preservation. You can argue that self preservation has nothing to do with preservation of the culture or society, but simply asking again and again "why ought we do this, why ought we do that?", and then rejecting the answers as not referencing morals is not thought provoking or productive. It's just annoying.

Glory

Longbow

This is a common error that most philosophers seem to make. So what? So morality is not its own motivation. Kant would not agree with this, but what if it were even true that sometimes it is in your rational self interest to be immoral? What does this show? How is this a contradiction?

Indeed he does. In fact, he claims that all fo philosophy is a priori. You probably have to go back to the Critique of Pure Reason to get an elaboration on that sort of thing. But, personally, I think it is absurd to say otherwise.

A common error people make in their characterization of Kantian moral philosophy is to say that acts done out of self-interest are somehow "wrong". Kant says no such thing. He merely says that self-interest is not the basis for morality. So, that means then it cannot be virtuous just because you did what's in your own self-interest and otherwise unjust acts do not become suddenly just so long as you were acting in your own self-interest. If you say that this is absurd, then what you are really saying is that Kant's whole moral philosophy falls apart because he made the fatal mistake of not subscribing to your very specific moral world view.

Of course, he's not an egoist! You can't just observe that fact and dismiss him. Or, doing this constitutes no kind of substantial criticism of his views, at any rate.

pug846

To keep this manageable for me, I’ll just respond to Glory’s last post.

Looking back, I was jumping a head a few steps and diving into ethical theory, but I’ll start all over. Sorry for the confusion, but some of the posts were confusing me and I was interpreting the points they were trying to make incorrectly. Or so I assume…

Self-preservation can be a motivation for moral behavior. What I’m objecting to is claiming that it is the only motivation for morals and I’m trying to get someone to argue why self-preservation is the purpose of our moral code. Everyone here seems to be equivocating moral code with social code, which I object to. I don’t believe “the” purpose of a moral code is to keep society functioning. More below...

Morality is a code of conduct put forth by an individual (or “society”) to prescribe his or her conduct. The reasons for having such a code are numerous.

A social rule is generally something along the lines of prescribing conduct that society has enacted for whatever reason.

A moral “rule” would be something that prescribes conduct because it is the “right” thing to do. What you define as the right thing to do would depend on your ethical theory, obviously.

In some cases, these two can be the same thing. Several of you seem to be asserting that they are the same thing; the “right” thing to do is what is “good” for society and the purpose of moral rules is to keep society functioning. This is the most charitable way I can interpret your statements; if I’m incorrect, please point out where my analysis has failed.

My contention is 1) that’s a bad way to define morality and I don’t think that really captures what we most people mean when they say they ought to be doing X and 2) that’s not the only way to define morality.

I’m rejecting the answers as absolutely correct. One of the moral oughts you gave me was “I ought not steal.” This would be a social rule under the definition you have laid out. Telling people they can’t steal is clearly a “good” social rule if the purpose of social rules is to keep society functioning. On the other hand, if my ethical theory dictates that what is “good” is what I feel is good at that moment, stealing very well might be a good thing to do. Yet, you and others seem to be asserting that the only benchmark for understanding moral conduct is as rules that keep society functioning. Either 1) I’m not following you or 2) You are arguing that there is one standard by which all moral conduct is to be judged: the “preservation” of society or of the self.

By continually asking “why, why, why,” I’m trying to show you that your answer isn’t a very satisfactory one nor does it really describe a moral code and the “right” thing to do.

Glory

I understand you much better now. Thankyou for the clarification.

How about empathy? Often one decides to follow their idea of right and wrong because they have empathy for others. This leads to guilt. Guilt is also a motive for moral behaviour.



This sounds like what I said before. Not all social rules are morals, but morals tend to be social rules, although, the social rules in question may be rather broad.
For example:

Social Rules which are not IMO morals: Wear clothes in public, don't pee in public, wait your turn...

Social rules which are morals: Do not steal, care for the weak, do not murder...

Morals which are also social rules in the broader sense: Take responsibility for yourself and your actions, the good of the many outweighs the good of the one, violence is never justified.

Of course we each base our moral code on different criteria, but the rules of society usually reflect the individual's morals and vice versa. When I attempt to examine my motives for following my sense of morality, I keep coming back to I want to feel good about myself, I want people to like and love me, I don't want to hurt other people, I don't want to let people be hurt for my personal gain or convenience. In other words, I want to be a part of society.

Glory


[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

Starboy

Pug846, Webster’s lists ethics and morals as:

Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
Date: 14th century
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values &lt;the present-day materialistic ethic&gt; c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group &lt;professional ethics&gt; d : a guiding philosophy


Main Entry: 2mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-; 3 is m&-'ral
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 a : the moral significance or practical lesson (as of a story) b : a passage pointing out usually in conclusion the lesson to be drawn from a story
2 plural a : moral practices or teachings : modes of conduct b : ETHICS

Thus morals == ethics. I am having difficulty understanding your distinct usage of the word ethics. You seem to think that ethics refer solely to an individual but morals refers to a group. Apparently you are unaware that ethics is also applied to groups such as doctors and lawyers.

Starboy

Amos

All sentient beings have a soul or socialization could not even be possible and therefore not even the most unsocial animals get raped.

Yes I understand your term "social animal." It is a term coined for the mentally handicapped.

I think the wise owl is one of them except when they sit in parlement.

Amos

I corrected you because it was clear to me long before you began to explain your error.

Thanks.
Edited to add:
Sorry Glory, it was K who made the error and you tried to help out.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Glory

Amos,



Piss off.

Glory

K

Pug:

I believe I understand what you're trying to say, but I still don't believe it is accurate to say that morals are anything more than evolved drives that allow us to function in social groups.

I think the confusion comes because of our differing views of morality. You seem to believe that morals are PRESCRIPTIVE rules of conduct that we follow. I believe that morals are nothing more than DESCRIPTIVE characterizations of one of our behaviors. Therefore, you are trying to find some "right" or "ought to" foundation for morals. I, on the other hand, don't believe there is any such thing as truly right and wrong. Just as I dismiss free will (can of worms wide open).

Please don't take the previous paragraph out of context. My drives for morality are as strong as my drives for food and sex. I just don't believe they are tied into some cosmic right and wrong.

It may not be very satisfying to you, but I do believe that all morals are tied directly to natural selection. If this isn't the case, please indicate where else you believe morality comes from. If there is a True Good (tm), there must be some standard against which everything is measured. What is this standard?

Keith Russell

Glory:

If we want to try to use a moral code as a guide for our actions, yes, we might violate it, and feel guilt--if our moral code is of the 'black/white', 'right/wrong' variety.

That seems like applying fad dieting tactics to morality.

Also, I am not sure that children can be said to 'violate' their moral codes: part of being a child is finding your moral code, and you have to have one, before you can violate it.

I have done a few things of which I am not proud, since becoming an adult. My moraltiy recognizes that people make mistakes, but it requires that one make amends for their mistakes,learn from them, and not to continue to make similar mistakes in similar situations in the future.

One can thus take pride from improvement, not guilt from failure.

Keith.