What is morality?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TorpidPhil
Let's say I'm a murderer. Should I murder again? Should I be thrown in jail for my crime?
it's a morally grey area. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that morally it is wrong, but I don't like murder because it makes me sad and this is why I react against it. Consequences of acts have nothing to do with morals, they merely exist to help society function in a way which suits the majority.
Morality, is arguably just a system like any other (laws, rites of passage, religion..) which has been constructed to create a civilised, developed society - take morality away from this system, either completely or partially - and you no longer have a functioning* society. You can see this with Assad in Syria etc.
The only difference is that like many other posters argued, morality feels more innate and personal. But really it is subjective to development so everyone is right(ish).
There is no morality in the animal kingdom, for the most part!
*though this functioning is based on moral foundations - the most common in the modern world, and is not the only paradigm in which a society succeeds in its ideal.
So to answer the question: "what is morality?" I would suggest embarking upon a Philosophy degree, then a postgrad and continue for decades asking the same question - and then end up at the exact same point that every philosopher reaches; there is no answer, only the question!
The only difference is that like many other posters argued, morality feels more innate and personal. But really it is subjective to development so everyone is right(ish).
There is no morality in the animal kingdom, for the most part!
*though this functioning is based on moral foundations - the most common in the modern world, and is not the only paradigm in which a society succeeds in its ideal.
So to answer the question: "what is morality?" I would suggest embarking upon a Philosophy degree, then a postgrad and continue for decades asking the same question - and then end up at the exact same point that every philosopher reaches; there is no answer, only the question!
Original post by picklescamp
it's a morally grey area. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that morally it is wrong, but I don't like murder because it makes me sad and this is why I react against it. Consequences of acts have nothing to do with morals, they merely exist to help society function in a way which suits the majority.
I don't care about your feelings. Murdering you would make me happy becuase I find you obnoxious. But oh those big bullies of the police just have to come along and try to lock me up don't they? Well what right do they have? They're slaves to those who have more power than them. Why can they not just open their eyes and see that they're just fulfilling the emotional desires of those puppet-masters that control them? Sheep. That's all they are. **** the police. **** the judiciary system. It only exists to control us and bring about the desires of those in power.
Why would the puppet-masters care about that which benefits society the most if after-all morality is merely a reflection of personal emotional disposition? They are only serving themselves and we are fools to tolerate this.
Original post by hellodave5
Interesting! I now see what you and @NYU2012 mean to some extent I think, now, maybe.
Though would that not assume that humans actively make decisions though? It seems more like a computational systemic morality calculation without error which would work in an organism which calculates everything they do; but humans rely extremely heavily on biases to function. Higher functioning people will I guess recognise these biases and countermeasure them in instances they aren't useful, maybe like 'Jeremy B'.
So I guess although maybe you could define objectively morality (really interesting notion!) - I'm not sure where this would stand with highly flawed biological systems.
Though would that not assume that humans actively make decisions though? It seems more like a computational systemic morality calculation without error which would work in an organism which calculates everything they do; but humans rely extremely heavily on biases to function. Higher functioning people will I guess recognise these biases and countermeasure them in instances they aren't useful, maybe like 'Jeremy B'.
So I guess although maybe you could define objectively morality (really interesting notion!) - I'm not sure where this would stand with highly flawed biological systems.
One doesn't have to be able to identify the objectively true moral facts of the world in order for them to exist. Just like the fact that we can never have a perfect theory of everything within physics doesn't mean that there is no single set of facts that could describe the world perfectly.
Original post by TorpidPhil
One doesn't have to be able to identify the objectively true moral facts of the world in order for them to exist. Just like the fact that we can never have a perfect theory of everything within physics doesn't mean that there is no single set of facts that could describe the world perfectly.
I have tended to look at such things from the biological perspective, so that didn't occur to me. Thanks for clearing that up a bit.
So essentially, it is theoretically possible to define in a set of rules, an objective morality? Its just that we have not yet found the best way to objectively define and measure them, or something?
In their application, would it be useful for things like law generally, like in human rights, and in robotics?
Original post by TorpidPhil
I don't care about your feelings. Murdering you would make me happy becuase I find you obnoxious. But oh those big bullies of the police just have to come along and try to lock me up don't they? Well what right do they have? They're slaves to those who have more power than them. Why can they not just open their eyes and see that they're just fulfilling the emotional desires of those puppet-masters that control them? Sheep. That's all they are. **** the police. **** the judiciary system. It only exists to control us and bring about the desires of those in power.
Why would the puppet-masters care about that which benefits society the most if after-all morality is merely a reflection of personal emotional disposition? They are only serving themselves and we are fools to tolerate this.
Why would the puppet-masters care about that which benefits society the most if after-all morality is merely a reflection of personal emotional disposition? They are only serving themselves and we are fools to tolerate this.
well that went from 0-60 real quick
*tries to engage in philosophical debate*
*is met with overly aggressive responses from people who have no reason to be angry*
every time
I have studied this at reasonable depth. You don't seem to actually have an opinion on the existence of morality. If you do you're not expressing it so I have no reason to argue against your perspective or indeed agree with it.
The development of our current judiciary system is anthropological purely- it serves to function society which is in itself unnatural and as such needs unnatural laws placed to govern it. It in part derives from a consensus of emotional responses to actions because at the end of the day a good society is one in which people are happy. If you don't follow those laws there are repercussions.
This doesn't mean good or bad exists in the world. Where is it? Can I see it? Can I sense it? No.
Isn't 'morality' just a word which is essentially to act in a way in which we view things as ever 'good' or 'bad'. Not the definition, just a working term.
What do you mean by across moralities?
The evidence which I was thinking of wasn't based on opinions but rather psychology and neuroscience literature I have peeped at in passing in the past. I recall that very young children maybe about 9 months of age (or something similar, maybe slightly older) can make basic statements of if something was 'fair' or not - which essentially equates to a moral evaluation of if the action was good or bad. This would suggest that the behavior is sort of inbuilt
I'll see if I can find a paper.
Found a video of summary (only 3 mins long) of the notion by Paul Bloom, who seems to be a big fan of this area - I find this quite interesting, though not a developmental psychology fan: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14812776
Then there is neuroscientific evidence of neurological substrates in humans which is responsible for morality: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163302/
But I'm assuming you're referring to a sort of morality which is separate to its functional/operational basis in humans? I struggle to understand what you're getting at cause I'm thinking of how it is used generally, but I think you're meaning morality on a sort of theoretical basis?
What do you mean by across moralities?
The evidence which I was thinking of wasn't based on opinions but rather psychology and neuroscience literature I have peeped at in passing in the past. I recall that very young children maybe about 9 months of age (or something similar, maybe slightly older) can make basic statements of if something was 'fair' or not - which essentially equates to a moral evaluation of if the action was good or bad. This would suggest that the behavior is sort of inbuilt
I'll see if I can find a paper.
Found a video of summary (only 3 mins long) of the notion by Paul Bloom, who seems to be a big fan of this area - I find this quite interesting, though not a developmental psychology fan: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14812776
Then there is neuroscientific evidence of neurological substrates in humans which is responsible for morality: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163302/
But I'm assuming you're referring to a sort of morality which is separate to its functional/operational basis in humans? I struggle to understand what you're getting at cause I'm thinking of how it is used generally, but I think you're meaning morality on a sort of theoretical basis?
Original post by da_nolo
Is it objective or subjective or something else completely?
Where does it come from or is it a conscious creation?
Are we born with some connection to morality or is it purely environmental?
Where does it come from or is it a conscious creation?
Are we born with some connection to morality or is it purely environmental?
there is no objective reason why murder, torture, sadism etc. are wrong. so live your own life and **** whatever box other people try to put you in to.
Original post by Kiytt
I believe morality is entirely subjective; our perception of moral right and moral wrong is moulded by our life experiences, social influences and interactions.
It is not a conscious creation by any means; our moral compass is merely an inherent byproduct of our species' superior intellect and cognitive capacity. The human ego seeks to simplify what it is capable of comprehending, and does this by categorising certain actions and beliefs across a spectrum of right and wrong—and we use this as guidance to justify our decisions in day-to-day life. We refer to this as our "conscience", and this could be considered a subconscious creation of the psyche.
Our ability to comprehend our surroundings and experiences is interdependent upon our capacity for empathy, ultimately affecting our conscience; brain damage often leads to limited comprehension, which reduces our capacity for empathy and therefore hinders the effectiveness of our conscience (or nullifies it entirely).
It is not a conscious creation by any means; our moral compass is merely an inherent byproduct of our species' superior intellect and cognitive capacity. The human ego seeks to simplify what it is capable of comprehending, and does this by categorising certain actions and beliefs across a spectrum of right and wrong—and we use this as guidance to justify our decisions in day-to-day life. We refer to this as our "conscience", and this could be considered a subconscious creation of the psyche.
Our ability to comprehend our surroundings and experiences is interdependent upon our capacity for empathy, ultimately affecting our conscience; brain damage often leads to limited comprehension, which reduces our capacity for empathy and therefore hinders the effectiveness of our conscience (or nullifies it entirely).
12/12
Superbly written Kiytt.
Original post by picklescamp
it's a morally grey area. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that morally it is wrong, but I don't like murder because it makes me sad and this is why I react against it. Consequences of acts have nothing to do with morals, they merely exist to help society function in a way which suits the majority.
If murder violates your preferences and causes you to suffer, then objectively it is wrong. Suffering is bad, and this isn't a made-up value statement, but a fact about consciousness. It follows that murdering anyone in general whose preferences would be violated as a result of doing so is wrong; there's no justification for putting your own preferences above those of others, or, as Sidgwick put it: 'the good of any one individual is of no more importance than the good of any other'.
So, if you'd attempt to ensure that you were not murdered, it follows that you must ensure that others are not murdered, for example by not murdering them.
Original post by hellodave5
Interesting! I now see what you and @NYU2012 mean to some extent I think, now, maybe.
Though would that not assume that humans actively make decisions though? It seems more like a computational systemic morality calculation without error which would work in an organism which calculates everything they do; but humans rely extremely heavily on biases to function. Higher functioning people will I guess recognise these biases and countermeasure them in instances they aren't useful, maybe like 'Jeremy B'.
So I guess although maybe you could define objectively morality (really interesting notion!) - I'm not sure where this would stand with highly flawed biological systems.
Though would that not assume that humans actively make decisions though? It seems more like a computational systemic morality calculation without error which would work in an organism which calculates everything they do; but humans rely extremely heavily on biases to function. Higher functioning people will I guess recognise these biases and countermeasure them in instances they aren't useful, maybe like 'Jeremy B'.
So I guess although maybe you could define objectively morality (really interesting notion!) - I'm not sure where this would stand with highly flawed biological systems.
You bring up some good points. Unfortunately, humans are not perfect utilitarians; evolution certainly didn't give us the capacity to be perfect utilitarians. Maximising expected preference-satisfaction (utility) impartially would require us to be perfectly rational, calculating machines, and may require us to have information that it would be hard to possess. (Having said this, there are some hardcore utilitarians who follow polyphasic sleeping patterns in order to only get three hours of sleep a day; the rest of their time is devoted to maximising happiness in some way; and many utilitarians donate a substantial proportion of their incomes to the most cost-effective charities, are vegans, and so on.)
As you note in your final sentence, this doesn't mean that morality doesn't objectively exist (indeed, we seem to be, at least to an extent, in agreement that reason can lead us to an objective moral system - utilitarianism), but it does mean that we won't be able to follow it at all times.
That's why concepts such as laws and rights are important: they're useful heuristics to follow which will, overall, increase utility compared to what would happen if humans, with all of their cognitive biases, were to try to calculate the expected utility of every action that they take.
So, one example of a heuristic is 'do not torture'. In the vast majority of cases, it's good not to torture sentient beings. But, if a bomb was about to go off and kill thousands of people, and the only way to acquire its location was to torture a terrorist, then utilitarianism would state that it would be right to do so. That doesn't mean that it should be made legal to torture, though, because in most cases, humans would probably misjudge how likely the torture would be to achieve this goal and how likely it is that the person being tortured is the culprit, and some may also abuse the system to torture at random. All of this we've seen in the real world. So, overall and in the long-term, keeping torture illegal is the right thing to do. Someone who did choose to torture in the hypothetical ticking time-bomb scenario may have done the right thing, but should still face the legal consequences of his actions.
(edited 8 years ago)
in business morality is this
if i sell something for a customer and we agree 10% on £32,000 then if i have good morels i have £3,200 and the customer gets £28,800 but if i account all my costs and it cost a grand then i fake a receipt and take £5,000 the take a further £2,700 so the customer gets £24,300
if i sell something for a customer and we agree 10% on £32,000 then if i have good morels i have £3,200 and the customer gets £28,800 but if i account all my costs and it cost a grand then i fake a receipt and take £5,000 the take a further £2,700 so the customer gets £24,300
Thanks for the explanation and clarification.
I think the difference is that psychologists and neuroscientists are about the human construct of morality (which exists innately as something we are likely born with to some degree, has its own neuroarchitecture, and strong evolutionary basis - with its importance highly evident). The interesting thing about the baby thing is that babies don't really have much ability to think, its just cognition in its simplest form and they don't know why they are making the judgement they are - but rather, just are.
I think it seems like your explaining and discussing morality as a construct - one where it is difficult to define what is objectively right or wrong. I'm not sure but I feel we are somehow talking about different perspectives. You philosophical, whilst I only know of its biology so referring to that.
Though I find the dichotomy of what humans have as morality and the sort of true essence of morality (I think?) sort of difficult to untangle?
I mean, isn't the whole purpose of morality to be a guideline for biological life for implicit human decision making?
This is highly confusing from my perspective. But admittedly, interesting stuff.
I think the difference is that psychologists and neuroscientists are about the human construct of morality (which exists innately as something we are likely born with to some degree, has its own neuroarchitecture, and strong evolutionary basis - with its importance highly evident). The interesting thing about the baby thing is that babies don't really have much ability to think, its just cognition in its simplest form and they don't know why they are making the judgement they are - but rather, just are.
I think it seems like your explaining and discussing morality as a construct - one where it is difficult to define what is objectively right or wrong. I'm not sure but I feel we are somehow talking about different perspectives. You philosophical, whilst I only know of its biology so referring to that.
Though I find the dichotomy of what humans have as morality and the sort of true essence of morality (I think?) sort of difficult to untangle?
I mean, isn't the whole purpose of morality to be a guideline for biological life for implicit human decision making?
This is highly confusing from my perspective. But admittedly, interesting stuff.
Original post by Tom Jickleson
there is no objective reason why murder, torture, sadism etc. are wrong. so live your own life and **** whatever box other people try to put you in to.
I agree. There's no evidence for an objective morality, but people by and large still have to live within our invented moral constructs, unless they want to spend most of their life in prison!
Original post by TorpidPhil
What do you mean by a subjective view? Do you mean an opinion? Do you mean a view that cannot be factually true or false? Either way, yes, atheists hold both, as do theists. But our opinions on this debate are not like that as this debate has clear cut answers that are either true or false. Also, whether one is a theist or an atheist doesn't force you to be a moral objectivist or subjectivist or non-cognitivist. I for example am a moral objectivist despite being an atheist, whereas the majority of atheists seem to prefer moral non-cognitivism. Quite a few theists are moral subjectivists since they believe in divine command theory. It is possible to believe in a God like deity and be a moral non-cognitivist too. Religion is only tangentially important to this debate.
If you're arguing that the term subject is used incorrectly here... Well, that's just how the term is used within academic meta-ethics. Hey, terminology can always be improved, but that doesn't undermine an argument made on this topic...
If you're arguing that the term subject is used incorrectly here... Well, that's just how the term is used within academic meta-ethics. Hey, terminology can always be improved, but that doesn't undermine an argument made on this topic...
Actually, agree with your viewpoints here, and think I just needed some clarity. So, thank you.
There can be morality without God. It depends on how one justifies their moral claim. If it's through foundationalism, it's shaky, but through constructivism, I believe some form of objective morality can be agreed upon.
Again thanks for further clarification.
So from that I take it you suggest that there may be a sort of objective morality that exists, in which every thing (behavior/choice) can be given an objective rating (somehow) of its morality on a scale from good-bad; but yet, is or may be a component of the world extraneous to biological cognition.
Not sure if a good analogy, but it makes me think of chess: though it is extremely difficult to discern by a human, a computer can put a weight on the strength of board position. So would this form of morality not be sort of like a more computational theory of morality, rather than using subjective judgement (as in the case of biological beings, which do not operate using a strictly mathematical approach to judgement).
Our morality (subjective) is still morality (in that it is the same thing), but rather a subjective version of (possibly an objective) morality? But you suggest that morality is or may be completely extraneous to the biological life that utilises morality, and somehow part of the extraneous world or universe. But in what way would this be, and what basis is there for such reasoning?
In order to operationalise this view in my mind - I imagine the film 'The Matrix' where the constraints of a world are placed (like the constraints of our universe, whereby there are things such as gravity), and morality is one such 'force'.
Ultimately I see no a priori reasoning to believe that morality is part of something independent of a development of biological organisms, whereby it has evolved in order to foster co-operation etc. It seems like simply an academic exercise of 'what if' which philosophers tend to do (not a dig, but seems from my limited knowledge of philosophy - but not saying such intuitive reasoning isn't valuable, it is).
I sort of understand a computational approach to morality in which everything can be weighted (although not by the biological life that currently makes use of morality), but perhaps by robotics which make decisions based on mathematical alorithms. But then, what algorithms could ever operationalise morality (something, presumably, with so many different variables)?
So from that I take it you suggest that there may be a sort of objective morality that exists, in which every thing (behavior/choice) can be given an objective rating (somehow) of its morality on a scale from good-bad; but yet, is or may be a component of the world extraneous to biological cognition.
Not sure if a good analogy, but it makes me think of chess: though it is extremely difficult to discern by a human, a computer can put a weight on the strength of board position. So would this form of morality not be sort of like a more computational theory of morality, rather than using subjective judgement (as in the case of biological beings, which do not operate using a strictly mathematical approach to judgement).
Our morality (subjective) is still morality (in that it is the same thing), but rather a subjective version of (possibly an objective) morality? But you suggest that morality is or may be completely extraneous to the biological life that utilises morality, and somehow part of the extraneous world or universe. But in what way would this be, and what basis is there for such reasoning?
In order to operationalise this view in my mind - I imagine the film 'The Matrix' where the constraints of a world are placed (like the constraints of our universe, whereby there are things such as gravity), and morality is one such 'force'.
Ultimately I see no a priori reasoning to believe that morality is part of something independent of a development of biological organisms, whereby it has evolved in order to foster co-operation etc. It seems like simply an academic exercise of 'what if' which philosophers tend to do (not a dig, but seems from my limited knowledge of philosophy - but not saying such intuitive reasoning isn't valuable, it is).
I sort of understand a computational approach to morality in which everything can be weighted (although not by the biological life that currently makes use of morality), but perhaps by robotics which make decisions based on mathematical alorithms. But then, what algorithms could ever operationalise morality (something, presumably, with so many different variables)?
Original post by Tom Jickleson
there is no objective reason why murder, torture, sadism etc. are wrong. so live your own life and **** whatever box other people try to put you in to.
I see a logical issue on this. if everyone were to do what ever, then there would hardly be a society. Everyone would come to some center in which society could exist - which means an agreement on laws and societal norms.
If I may torture and murder another and there be no moral obligation but a general dislike by others...there is real conflict here as that very action changes a person's mentality.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- OCR A Level Law Paper 3
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- the problem of evil
- OCR A-level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) - 17th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A-level Law Paper 3 (7162/3) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Would you end all human life instantly if you could?
- A-LEVEL AQA English Lit NEA 'Dorian Gray' with Beauty Value HELP PLS LMAO!!!!!!
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- aqa philosophy alevel 2022/2023
- need help on bonhoeffer :( !!!
- if i will only date a vegetarian/vegan will i be unlikely to find a gf
- Freedom of Speech (Rights & Responsibilities)
- SQA Higher English
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 2 (H573/02) 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Is it okay for a vegan to work for a supermarket?
- Could anybody tell me if this paragraph is too long, not specific enough, etc etc?
- Non-Cognitive statements
- Edexcel A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (9RS0 01) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Ocr a level law predictions 2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
