Why are people stuck on morality? Watch

The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 5 years ago
#41
(Original post by felamaslen)
It seems like every day I hear about somebody whining about how morality is subjective, we have no way of telling right from wrong, we can't say that one way of life is better than another, etc.

The figures don't add up. What is morality? Surely it is simply what the majority of us agree is the behaviour which is most likely to result in a healthy society, by which we mean one with the highest possible amount of well-being? We can disagree on what exactly well-being is, but it surely has got to be based in reality just as mental health is based in reality?

What are your thoughts on this? Why do people always claim that there is no scientific truth in morality?
I think there's somethings that are absolute, because most countries would adhere to the same ruling ie: murder is immoral, but execution might be seen as moral or immoral depending where your from, your religious stance etc.... maybe because it's murder by state

Or how some people in the UK would consider it immoral that some Chinese people eat dogs, when to them it's nothing different to eating cow (or horse), and perhaps people in India think its immoral to eat a cow because of the religious affiliation?

The major things I guess are absolutes ie: rape is immoral, murder is immoral, kidnapping is immoral etc... but the things that are subjective are *relatively* minor, except perhaps with people's views on capital punishment perhaps
0
quote
reply
chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#42
Report 5 years ago
#42
(Original post by The Angry Stoic)
Morality is a confusing topic especially when you can't talk face to face!

With consent it's naturally fine to hurt someone to benefit them but the difficulty is when they don't consent. If a child refuses to have the vaccine should we still do it? Or if he doesn't want to go to school should we make him? If a Jehovah witness doesn't want a life saving blood transfusion should we make him? And if we should do some but not others where do we draw the line?

I think morality has to be purely based on emotions as if we were entirely rational we wouldn't need morality. It wouldn't exist. To put it bluntly, if everyone was entirely rational and recognised all emotions as irrational we'd all just sit down and wait to die. What rational reason would you have to do anything?

What is emotivism?

I don't like when people say morality is just decided by the society we live in. In no way was slavery or witch hunts were moral. Actions can't be inherently wrong in one place and right in another. People may have thought it was right but that doesn't make it so.
Consent is a important but that's a whole other topic :lol: my views on it aren't too clear but the last time I focused on consent was in the context of taxation and justice.

The second point is worth talking about. We aren't purely rational beings, I think that's fair to assume. However, that doesn't mean we need to ignore rationality completely! In fact, I don't think we can do that too well (unless it's a flash decision). If we were purely rational it doesn't mean morality wouldn't exist... it'd mean we're all good (according to Kant). Plus, we can rationalise seemingly bad actions right now but I'll assume that everyone follows the same set of rules in this perfect society. But you can enjoy rational actions can't you? Just because you may not act on impulse but that doesn't mean you'd just die straight way. But that point is kind of off topic.

Moral statements are nothing more than emotional attitudes. So 'killing is wrong' = 'I don't like killing'. Ayer is probably the most famous emotivist.

I'm not much of a cultural relativist myself either.

Apologies if my second paragraph is all over the place... I blame the holidays.

(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
if you're a 'teacher' then yes
We'll agree to disagree :wink2:

(Original post by de_monies)
I think there's somethings that are absolute, because most countries would adhere to the same ruling ie: murder is immoral, but execution might be seen as moral or immoral depending where your from, your religious stance etc.... maybe because it's murder by state
Are you arguing that absolute morality can be determined because a majority believes in it?
0
quote
reply
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 5 years ago
#43
okayy
0
quote
reply
The Angry Stoic
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#44
Report 5 years ago
#44
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Consent is a important but that's a whole other topic :lol: my views on it aren't too clear but the last time I focused on consent was in the context of taxation and justice.

The second point is worth talking about. We aren't purely rational beings, I think that's fair to assume. However, that doesn't mean we need to ignore rationality completely! In fact, I don't think we can do that too well (unless it's a flash decision). If we were purely rational it doesn't mean morality wouldn't exist... it'd mean we're all good (according to Kant). Plus, we can rationalise seemingly bad actions right now but I'll assume that everyone follows the same set of rules in this perfect society. But you can enjoy rational actions can't you? Just because you may not act on impulse but that doesn't mean you'd just die straight way. But that point is kind of off topic.

Moral statements are nothing more than emotional attitudes. So 'killing is wrong' = 'I don't like killing'. Ayer is probably the most famous emotivist.

I'm not much of a cultural relativist myself either.

Apologies if my second paragraph is all over the place... I blame the holidays.



We'll agree to disagree :wink2:



Are you arguing that absolute morality can be determined because a majority believes in it?
It's such a complex topic. I'll keep thinking and reading on it.
0
quote
reply
The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 5 years ago
#45
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Are you arguing that absolute morality can be determined because a majority believes in it?
To an extent, yes, but not majorly. It's more something that's ingrained in humans ie: we must have learnt thousands of years ago, that it's not OK to kill people ie: perhaps evolution played a part in our morality as well
0
quote
reply
chickenonsteroids
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#46
Report 5 years ago
#46
(Original post by The Angry Stoic)
It's such a complex topic. I'll keep thinking and reading on it.
It's pretty good. I'll try digging up some reading material you might be interested in (about morality or anything in philosophy). PM me if you're interested

(Original post by de_monies)
To an extent, yes, but not majorly. It's more something that's ingrained in humans ie: we must have learnt thousands of years ago, that it's not OK to kill people ie: perhaps evolution played a part in our morality as well
That's a pretty big claim since minorities have had a long history of being persecuted. Slavery wasn't abolished even 200 years ago. The immoral treatment of minorities is a criticism of utilitarianism (which you seem to be proposing).
0
quote
reply
Ashahedow
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#47
Report 5 years ago
#47
(Original post by Dualcore)
Depression can still arise in someone who has had a comparatively easy life how would you explain that.
Isolation appears to be the common denominator in depression. Whether that isolation is tangible or in their mind.
All these things can be a factor in a shift in virtues and morality, causing distress. This is when suicidal behaviours are most likely to occur.

People can become depressed for a whole host of reasons.
Say you're presented with two depressed patients. One patient experienced an emotionally and physically abusive upbringing. The other lead a wholesome, affluent lifestyle. Both exhibit symptoms of major depression. You cannot shun the affluent individual because they had an easy life. That's why therapists diagnose based on the patient's present state instead of history.

Even then, there's only so much therapists and psychiatrists can do.
0
quote
reply
The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report 5 years ago
#48
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
It's pretty good. I'll try digging up some reading material you might be interested in (about morality or anything in philosophy). PM me if you're interested



That's a pretty big claim since minorities have had a long history of being persecuted. Slavery wasn't abolished even 200 years ago. The immoral treatment of minorities is a criticism of utilitarianism (which you seem to be proposing).
Hmmm thats true perhaps. Im only trying to put a slant on it. Truth is I don't really know, and I don't think any one *really* knows either
0
quote
reply
The Angry Stoic
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#49
Report 5 years ago
#49
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
It's pretty good. I'll try digging up some reading material you might be interested in (about morality or anything in philosophy). PM me if you're interested



That's a pretty big claim since minorities have had a long history of being persecuted. Slavery wasn't abolished even 200 years ago. The immoral treatment of minorities is a criticism of utilitarianism (which you seem to be proposing).
The problem with stoicism, as much as I find it incredibly useful, is that it try's to solve the problem of where the original categorical imperative to do good by people by saying that all life is connected and all part of 'God'. That being a pantheistic style sort of god. Kind of like in Avatar

Not that I believe that.
0
quote
reply
Kiss
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 5 years ago
#50
Ohhhhhhhh too many reasons OP, why don't you look them up instead of jumping to conclusions? Scientific logic doesn't come anywhere near philosophy.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#51
Report 5 years ago
#51
(Original post by felamaslen)
It seems like every day I hear about somebody whining about how morality is subjective, we have no way of telling right from wrong, we can't say that one way of life is better than another, etc.

The figures don't add up. What is morality? Surely it is simply what the majority of us agree is the behaviour which is most likely to result in a healthy society, by which we mean one with the highest possible amount of well-being? We can disagree on what exactly well-being is, but it surely has got to be based in reality just as mental health is based in reality?

What are your thoughts on this? Why do people always claim that there is no scientific truth in morality?
There is no rational basis of morality and hence no scientific basis. This means that morality is not derived from reason which implies that morality is not objective. Morality is the set of preferences an individual or group has regarding ways of living. Morality is as based on reality as the arts or any non rational thing is.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#52
Report 5 years ago
#52
(Original post by de_monies)
To an extent, yes, but not majorly. It's more something that's ingrained in humans ie: we must have learnt thousands of years ago, that it's not OK to kill people ie: perhaps evolution played a part in our morality as well
Subjective term.
We are social animals so staying together is innate. But we are also individual who compete for resource so there is competition. Hence you can see the clash.
There is currently no scientific evidence supporting the idea that morality is an evolutionary adaptation. Suggested evidence points towards the idea that morality (or rather, concern for others) is not necessarily an advantage.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#53
Report 5 years ago
#53
(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
Consent is a important but that's a whole other topic :lol: my views on it aren't too clear but the last time I focused on consent was in the context of taxation and justice.

The second point is worth talking about. We aren't purely rational beings, I think that's fair to assume. However, that doesn't mean we need to ignore rationality completely! In fact, I don't think we can do that too well (unless it's a flash decision). If we were purely rational it doesn't mean morality wouldn't exist... it'd mean we're all good (according to Kant). Plus, we can rationalise seemingly bad actions right now but I'll assume that everyone follows the same set of rules in this perfect society. But you can enjoy rational actions can't you? Just because you may not act on impulse but that doesn't mean you'd just die straight way. But that point is kind of off topic.

Moral statements are nothing more than emotional attitudes. So 'killing is wrong' = 'I don't like killing'. Ayer is probably the most famous emotivist.

I'm not much of a cultural relativist myself either.

Apologies if my second paragraph is all over the place... I blame the holidays.



We'll agree to disagree :wink2:



Are you arguing that absolute morality can be determined because a majority believes in it?
I think we are rational beings in the full sense of the word. But sometimes we suffer from irrational "spasms" strong emotional states that cloud our judgement. Regarding, the subjective nature of morality, I agree with you.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#54
Report 5 years ago
#54
(Original post by de_monies)
To an extent, yes, but not majorly. It's more something that's ingrained in humans ie: we must have learnt thousands of years ago, that it's not OK to kill people ie: perhaps evolution played a part in our morality as well
absolute morality can be determined because a majority believes in it?

You said: Yes.
I say: nonsense. And what do you base your claim that absolute morality can be determined because a majority believes in it? Absolute implies objectivity. Do the beliefs necessarily reflect an aspect of reality? No.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#55
Report 5 years ago
#55
(Original post by The Angry Stoic)
It's such a complex topic. I'll keep thinking and reading on it.
Peter Singer is by far the most eminent ethics philosopher. If you have not read his Practical Ethics, I encourage you to read it.
0
quote
reply
The_Internet
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 5 years ago
#56
(Original post by Juichiro)
absolute morality can be determined because a majority believes in it?

You said: Yes.
I say: nonsense. And what do you base your claim that absolute morality can be determined because a majority believes in it? Absolute implies objectivity. Do the beliefs necessarily reflect an aspect of reality? No.
I gave my argument above, and yes I was proved wrong. That's not the case. Stop beating a freaking dead horse. If you must, at least go and sell it to Tesco
1
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#57
Report 5 years ago
#57
(Original post by xMr_BrightSide)
Because morality is like justice. It doesn't exist empirically, it is an aspect of existence that we have created. You can't inspect something, like ethical naturalists think, and objectively determine it's morality.

Morality is always an open question - you are always able to question whether something was right or wrong, good or bad, precisely because it is not empirically decided.
I agree with this.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#58
Report 5 years ago
#58
(Original post by de_monies)
I gave my argument above, and yes I was proved wrong. That's not the case. Stop beating a freaking dead horse. If you must, at least go and sell it to Tesco
No need to get upset.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#59
Report 5 years ago
#59
(Original post by The Angry Stoic)
You'll have to bear with me on this one as its not one of my opinions I've perfected explaining.

It's not a catagorical imperative or imperatives based on individual emotions, so you wouldn't say 'chickenonsteroids hates being raped so its imperative not to rape him', but rather the negative affect an act has on your emotions in the sense that you are hurt, in any sense, so you would say 'chickenonsteroids hates being raped because it hurts him and it imperative not to hurt him' as you may like getting raped so it wouldn't hurt you. Or maybe being whipped is a better example here. No one likes to be raped!

The next problem is sometimes it is useless to hurt someone against their will to help them in the long term most commonly with children and stupid people. I'm trying to decide on what's the right thing to do myself. Kant would say people are an end to themselves not a means to an end so shouldn't be manipulated but I'm not sure if that holds if the end they are being manipulated to is to benefit themselves so they are in part both the means and the end.

Furthermore people's emotions can be manipulated. What should you do for a man who likes to be a slave?

I'm not trying to say this morality is 'objective', whatever people mean by that theses days I don't know and if they mean it never changes then this system would be objective once the kinks are worked out, but 1.emotions are the only thing we have to base morality on. 2.They may be inherently irrational but that doesn't mean they can't be used rationally.

This sort of system is generally what most atheists already do I believe.

How well did I explain that? Terribly I fear. It's something I'm still thinking about myself.
1. You hit the jackpot. Let me hit the final one: society needs morality for the sake of its survival.

2. It does mean that they can't be used rationally. Reason is objective. Morality is not. I can't reason with Hitler that killing people is nice. As much I hate it, I will explain in terms of game theory, that his interest of killing people conflicts with the interests of the people to live and hence since there is no reason for him to carry out his interest, we will resort to force if necessary to stop him from carrying out his interest. This is not rational. We can play game theory but only in a very incomplete sense. I guess that's all we have.
0
quote
reply
Juichiro
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#60
Report 5 years ago
#60
(Original post by Rich00)
Morality serves to keep society stable, not to keep a stable state of well being. Ironically, a lot of mental health disorders today are due to conflicts between our hunter gather instincts and demands of the modern world.
That is why religion has been so important until now.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (137)
18.49%
No (450)
60.73%
Not really bothered about them (154)
20.78%

Watched Threads

View All