We are all amoral beings

Humans lack morality. Being moral is a fictional, unattainable quality. Most people say they have morals but in reality no-one follows them. My argument is that it is impossible for a human to follow a system of morality. In essence we are amoral beings. Discuss.

You've made a statement, but you haven't demonstrated it at all.

Simply saying it is unsound is not an argument. Do you have anything else to say?

Everyone has a different idea of morality thus even if objective morality is true like I said that doesn't mean it is universally defined. Hence it is impossible to follow.

No random does not mean an equal chance of doing any possible act. It just means there is no correlation between an event before or after. This is true of a non-universally defined moral system since there is no way of guessing whether you will follow it one second or the other. Remember you said yourself that you don't always follow it. Are you saying there is a pattern to whether you decide to stop following it or not?

Nothing to do with predicting the point you might stop. Btw it is the cross country runner who decides. When she feels it is too painful. When she knows she can not possibly win anymore etc etc. Unless you believe in determinism (i.e. our actions are caused by factors out of our control)?? This is what you seem to be saying. Also prove that point exists. She might not reach that point, did you consider that.

So you concede that there might be justification for putting your preferences over another. From that point on it is not hard to argue that you should put your preferences over everyone you know, and then one step further to everyone that exists

That's a strong claim against many philosophers who use evolutionary thinking in their arguments. (Do you not accept evolution?) Read: Descriptive Evolutionary Ethics, Prescriptive Evolutionary Ethics or Evolutionary Metaethics to widen your worldview. You can't just dismiss these with 'appeal to nature', not good enough.

From the fact that a certain trait is an adaptation, which evolved through natural selection by virtue of its positive feedback effects on germ-line replication of the alleles that generate the trait, nothing at all seems to follow about whether it is morally good or right, or something we ought to embrace and foster. Certain dispositions may be present in us for good evolutionary reasons without any implication that these traits benefit us, or are moral virtues or produce behaviors that are morally right.

A brief survey of some of the traits that are likely biological adaptations in a number of species—such as a tendency to kill ‘step-children’ or to philander—ought to convince us that even if similar tendencies are likewise adaptations in human beings, present in us for similar evolutionary reasons, this would be no argument at all that we ought to engage in such behaviors. Clearly the burden would be on the prescriptive evolutionary ethicist to explain why a trait's having been good at propagating the alleles coding for it tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago should be thought to have anything at all with the rational or moral justification of our embracing it. And the prospects for meeting this burden have never seemed strong: it is hard to see how such evolutionary facts can possibly have normative authority or force for a rational agent

And it seems you rejected them all with little introspection just like I thought. I do not feel the need to give you more justifications but you can read around my explanations if you want a better understanding.

If I'm not rational then neither are you.

And finally, you don't see anything wrong with your view making you an immoral person some of the time? Are you joking?

Humans lack morality. Being moral is a fictional, unattainable quality. Most people say they have morals but in reality no-one follows them. My argument is that it is impossible for a human to follow a system of morality. In essence we are amoral beings. Discuss.

Definitions:

Agreed. Morality is but a fiction.



Apart from being racist, nothing that you have said contradicts my argument. You have not said why you think we are not amoral.



The world isn't one society, but apart from that you may have a point (albeit not very pertinent).



Ok, since you agree with me that morality is made up by individuals (btw you have not said why you disagree with me) then it is easy for me to argue that humans don't stick to their own subjective rules. And then one step to claim we are amoral.

P1. Humans act according to their own motivations
P2. There is no universal system that defines morality
C1. Morality is no different than any other human motivation
P3. Human motivations change all the time
C2. Morality changes all the time
P4. It is impossible for a human to follow something that changes all the time
C3a. It is impossible for a human to follow a system of morality
C3b. Humans are amoral beings

This could only be true if there was an objective morality, I do not see how morality is objective, it is obvious that religious morality is set in it's human creation. Can anyone find some moral that is universal and ageless?

You are going to have to prove P1. P4 is the sticking point, we do accept change, the death penalty argument is now over if you look at the stats, it could easily swing the other way. Morality does not change all the time but evolves over time and like most evolution is a slow process.

If you read my argument you would discover that I agree there is no objective morality.



What problem do you have with this premise (P1)? I do not need to prove a premise. If every premise could proved or disproved don't you think philosophical problems (and related subjects such as maths) would have been solved long ago? What do humans act according to then if not their motivations? They act according to some mystical force? They act randomly? They at according to whatever is available to them at the time? They act whatever is the path of least resistance? Tell me why you think this premise is incorrect.

P4 does not say we can't accept change. That is a complete straw man. Give me one example of something humans can follow that changes all the time.

Note that 'follow' has many definitions but the one I am using in my argument is:

verb: follow
3. To accept the guidance, command, or leadership of: follow a spiritual master; rebels who refused to follow their leader.
4. To adhere to; practice: followed family traditions.

Ok. You didn't answer the question. Are you saying there is a pattern to whether you decide to stop following it or not? Also are you a Christian (or religious at all for that matter)? That would be very interesting.

Good, I knew the only answer was that you decide. Which is what I've been saying all along that we act according to our own motivations.

It is your right to disagree with these arguments. However that does not mean that you have in any way proved your own argument and it certainly is not correct by default. I would argue the opposite actually, that your argument is wrong by default since it makes an extraordinary claim that there exists some objective morality in the universe. And then one step further to argue that utilitarianism a universal moral system.

It's funny: you seem to be confused with morally right or wrong and factually right or wrong.

Answer this: what consequences to you occur as a result of you acting immorally?

We do have a problem here, I being someone who finds philosophy and it's methods to be faulty, you who think you can make an unobserved truth. Mathematics are not a preserve of philosophy but of science, I would agree that being a human construct that math is probably the only science with a duality of discipline, but there are very few mathematicians who are philosophers and those that are, are predisposed to agnosticism than theism.

For P4, you claimed that humans cannot accept change, why do I need to provide an example, even though I did? Are you really claiming that we have to accept a teaching by some priest/spiritualist/american con man?

Insofar as I am aware, there's no pattern. I'm an atheist (most utilitarians generally are!).

In a trivial sense, but I believe our motivations can be moral or immoral, whereas you believe that they cannot be.

Utilitarianism is a universal moral system: it applies universally to every sentient being, whether they like it or not, because there isn't a sentient being out there who doesn't try to maximise its own preference-satisfaction.

This is an interesting criticism, but ethics is about answering the question "how am I to live?", and this gives an answer: the correct answer.

There need not be any consequences for it to be true that I am acting immorally. As I said earlier, I don't believe that there's a celestial being watching over us.

You haven't answered my questions. Also you are displaying high amounts of ignorance about philosophy. You can't say its 'methods' are faulty. Faulty according to what? You would have to use philosophy to make such an argument. Secondly, there are many mathematicians who are philosophers (ever heard of a man called Bertrand Russell?). Most unis even offer a joint course in maths and philosophy.

You didn't read anything I wrote. P4 does not say we can't accept change. That is a complete straw man. Give me one example of something humans can follow that changes all the time.

I will use the same argument that Laurence Krauss used, we all use philosophy, it is akin to 'common sense' but common sense is a poor replacement for truth. Once you use a method of preposition the whole enterprise is faulty.

I read P4 and it definitely claimed we cannot accept change. Morality is always changing, it is not a static belief.

That's a point of view. You will have to justify it if you want it to be taken seriously.

"P4. It is impossible for a human to follow something that changes all the time"

Anyone with basic comprehension skills will tell you this does not mean "we cannot accept change".

You will have to justify all your P's, that is the fault of philosophy. I can use the common sense idea of philosophy, you can't not if you want to prove something. One question, I have asked this before and never received an answer.

Name one proof that has been discovered by philosophy. There are lots of things philosophy got wrong.

If its good you do it if it isnt you don't?

If you are making an argument then no you don't have to justify premises. If there is not argument by the premise is the conclusion then this is not allowed.

You seem to have not even comprehended this thread. So far only one person has attempted to challenge my argument.

Name one thing philosophy 'got wrong' according to you.

Philosophy by definition doesn't deal with proofs, it deals with arguments. When you argue something, you know that it can not be absolutely shown to be correct so that everyone agrees with it. Otherwise you would be wasting your time to argue it when you could just show the magic bullet and people will believe you.

By those definitions, I make distinctions between right and wrong, and I follow most of them most of the time, so I can subjectively call myself not amoral / I can subjectively call myself quite moral / more rarely immoral.

Well it is refreshing to hear a philosophical person to finally admit that philosophy does not deal in proof.

As for what philosophy gets wrong either your knowledge of science is ailing or your knowledge of philosophy is, but probably both. How long did we keep the geocentric idea of the universe for? Thanks to Ptolemaic philosophy for almost most of our history, it could have caused the death of Galileo and probably caused the death of other 'lesser' people. How many more examples of the flawed ideas of philosophy do you need. I cannot see much difference between the philosopher (whether he is atheist or not) and the religious, both are sticking to their belief and using bias to preserve it.

That's not an argument. It might be easier to just address mine.



Science and philosophy are not in conflict. One is the pursuit of knowledge, the other is the pursuit of wisdom.

Also philosophy =/= ideology. You really should see the difference between a philosopher and a religious person. One is not necessarily the other.

Science and philosophy are in conflict, you are just sticking to your belief that philosophy has something to offer, it probably does at some unimportant level, but as a way of discovering truths and evidence it is useless.

What is not an argument? Are you talking about your misconception that philosophy has no errors? You may be interested to know that Science is a self correcting discipline, I do not see that with philosophy, all I see is a bunch of lazy intellectuals(wannabees) who do not have the intellect or the get up and go to study science, and then have the gall to tell me that I do not see their argument.

They both have something to offer? Maybe not to you, but open-minded people can benefit from both disciplines.