A Rational Definition of Morality

[dann]

What Is Morality?
Morality: The Good Conscience of Class Society

 

[Radrook]

Fallacy of Equivocation!

That's NOT the sense in which either the USA Constitution or the Enlightenment thinkers were using the word "rights".

 

[articulett]

Fallacy of Equivocation!

That's NOT the sense in which either the USA Constitution or the Enlightenment thinkers were using the word "rights".

Fallacy of "divine knowledge"-- you cannot claim to know what people were thinking. Moreover, given that we don't recognize your expertise in the area of thinking, it's only you who is taking yourself seriously here.

 

[CFLarsen]

Humans are social creatures. Our sense of morality is the product of our evolutionary heritage of living among other humans: relying on some, competing against others, etc.
As our needs changed, our morality has transformed.

Claiming morality came from a God, or gods, might have been useful in the past, when options of survival strategies were limited. And, controlling the masses was an issue.

Today, we can afford to live in a world where everyone has freedoms, (as long as they do not infringe on the freedoms of others), without guilt or shame or blame (again, as long as no one else's rights are infringed upon).

It's just too bad most people don't realize this. The sooner we can have everyone give up dogmatic reasons for morality, the sooner we can have some peace on this planet!

[Devil's advocate]

Who says freedom for all (as long as etc., etc.) is relevant to morality?

[/Devil's advocate]

The only way to view morality is in the context of a hierarchy of values.

You have good points and all - but don't say that your way of viewing morality is the only way.

That makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

 

[athon]

You have good points and all - but don't say that your way of viewing morality is the only way.

That makes you no different than a religious fundamentalist.

Suggest how else to view morality in a way that makes sense, in which case. Sure, I could make up an alternative meaning to the word, which I'm certain you're quite familiar with doing, but it would hardly be relevant to the conversation.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Suggest how else to view morality in a way that makes sense, in which case. Sure, I could make up an alternative meaning to the word, which I'm certain you're quite familiar with doing, but it would hardly be relevant to the conversation.

I'm not saying that your suggestion doesn't have good points. I'm saying, don't make it seem as if yours is the only one that makes sense.

To whom? To you, perhaps. But it also made sense to Alphas as well as Epsilons to have a society based on Fordian morality.

 

[athon]

I'm not saying that your suggestion doesn't have good points. I'm saying, don't make it seem as if yours is the only one that makes sense.

To whom? To you, perhaps. But it also made sense to Alphas as well as Epsilons to have a society based on Fordian morality.

Can you at all speculate on a way of describing morality that would make sense to anybody without taking into account values? Yes or no.

If yes, let's hear it. If no, then on what basis do you make this call?

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Can you at all speculate on a way of describing morality that would make sense to anybody without taking into account values? Yes or no.

If yes, let's hear it. If no, then on what basis do you make this call?

Athon

Can you at all accept that I am not saying you were (necessarily) wrong? You actually make a good case.

But others do that as well, only they don't claim that their opinion is the only way to look at it.

 

[athon]

Can you at all accept that I am not saying you were (necessarily) wrong? You actually make a good case.

Thanks.

But others do that as well, only they don't claim that their opinion is the only way to look at it.

Hence why I'm asking - and you don't seem to be answering - how morals can be discussed independently of values. I know people will do that, but it makes no sense. It's like discussing chemistry without acknowledging particles of any sort - it's a meaningless system.

If you're implying that people will simply do that in spite of it being a meaningless argument, why accuse me of echoing the actions of a religious fundamentalist? People are capable of stringing all sorts of words together. It's not like they actually consider what they're saying at all.

Now, one last time - speculate how morality can retain meaning for anybody independently of values.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Thanks.

You're welcome.

Hence why I'm asking - and you don't seem to be answering - how morals can be discussed independently of values. I know people will do that, but it makes no sense. It's like discussing chemistry without acknowledging particles of any sort - it's a meaningless system.

You didn't merely say that morality could be discussed independently of values. You said (emphasis mine):

The only way to view morality is in the context of a hierarchy of values.

If you're implying that people will simply do that in spite of it being a meaningless argument, why accuse me of echoing the actions of a religious fundamentalist? People are capable of stringing all sorts of words together. It's not like they actually consider what they're saying at all.

Now, one last time - speculate how morality can retain meaning for anybody independently of values.

The qualifier you use - "making sense" - is problematic. What does that mean? Who does it "make sense" to? You, only?

If so, then, by demanding that it has to "make sense" to you, you are saying is that if something that makes sense to you doesn't make sense to other people, they are automatically, by default, wrong.

Similarly, whatever argument you don't like, you can always dismiss as it not "making sense" to you.

Ergo, you can never be wrong.

The key question is:

What will it take for you to be convinced that something else is making more sense than your own idea?

 

[athon]

What will it take for you to be convinced that something else is making more sense than your own idea?

Let's start with any example of a definition of morality which can make sense without comparing values. One that makes sense to anybody. Can you do it? I'm not suggesting that discussing morality with reference to a hierarchy of values is the best way of defining it. I'm saying that morality can't make sense without somehow acknowledging a hierarchy of values.

Obviously you know of a definition of morality-sans-value-weighting which makes sense to people. Please describe it.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's start with any example of a definition of morality which can make sense without comparing values. One that makes sense to anybody.

Do you mean anybody - or everyone?

Just as we can find an explanation of aliens that "makes sense" to anybody - e.g., some believe in reptilian aliens taking over the planet, we can find someone who thinks that morality can only be explained by interpreting horoscopes.

However, I don't think that will persuade you.

If you mean everyone, then I doubt you are arguing that we can find just one thing that everyone on this planet will think "makes sense" to them.

So that doesn't answer the question either.

Add to that, it still doesn't explain what you mean by "making sense" in the first place.

Can you do it? I'm not suggesting that discussing morality with reference to a hierarchy of values is the best way of defining it. I'm saying that morality can't make sense without somehow acknowledging a hierarchy of values.

But if it is the only way, how can that not be the best way?

Obviously you know of a definition of morality-sans-value-weighting which makes sense to people. Please describe it.

I'm not participating in the discussion about which definitions that make sense to people. I'm objecting to your absolutism on what "makes sense".

 

[dann]

Morality is the good conscience of the acquiescent citizen, the one who doesn’t want to know about the real world, nothing more. This is also why it is so closely associated with religion, of course. You can therefore forget about your hierarchy of values. Having sex is something that people simply enjoy, most of the time, so it is not really a value anyway:

The only way to view morality is in the context of a hierarchy of values.

(...) A situation arises which causes a conflict in values, such as the opportunity to cheat - it comes down to the hierarchy. Which value is higher up the ladder at that time?

But let’s be a little more concrete, please:

The everyday life of competition consists of the fact that I pursue my interest, and thus limit the interest of others and destroy their success. The Sunday of mutuality consists of the fact that it is staged so that competition is nevertheless not the last word. This activity where everyone is genuinely altruistic sometimes, where everyone is there for once in his activity only for the others, this activity has its purpose and its value in the demonstration and actuation of this attitude. And one notices that charity is unimportant in relation to its helpfulness. Charity is the story that one has made a donation, one did something nevertheless. The question what this really helps if in the African continent millions starve because they do not find means of living because they have AIDS etc., and then 1000 people save up to build a well in some corner? The question -- what it helps -- is rejected. People say: I already know that it is only a drop in the bucket. And that is then not just the argument that it does not help then, but it is the argument: because I know that, one may not itemize that to me as a demerit of my good deed. Thus bourgeois society has this need just because it is the lived conflict of interests and because it always has doubts that good is only an empty illusion simply on the basis of the evidence, and to say: if I activate the good, then it proves nevertheless that it is not only an empty illusion. And the beauty is: If humans are moved and must cry, then that always comes from their faith in the good that they have in each other finding a confirmation: Yes, others are also good. Then come the tears.
http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/moralyes.htm

 

[athon]

Do you mean anybody - or everyone?

Strange how I use the word 'anybody' and you still find the need to ask for clarification. If I wanted to say 'everybody' then, oddly, that'd be the word I'd use.

Just as we can find an explanation of aliens that "makes sense" to anybody - e.g., some believe in reptilian aliens taking over the planet, we can find someone who thinks that morality can only be explained by interpreting horoscopes.

Reptilian aliens taking over the planet isn't a term which is in common use. Morality is. I'm asking for a way of using the word morality which can still make sense to anybody - anybody at all - while having nothing to do with comparing values.

It's a little thing called falsification, Claus. All swans are white. Find me a black swan. I've set it up for you, and you choose to instead continue to rabbit on.

Add to that, it still doesn't explain what you mean by "making sense" in the first place.

Fine. Try 'the term 'morality' as it is used in common vernacular requires an understanding of compared values in order to retain its accepted meaning'. To disprove this, you simply need to find me a situation where the term morality is used without comparing values.

But if it is the only way, how can that not be the best way?

Again I'm reminded of how poor your grasp of language is. I should keep a post-it next to my computer to alert me in the future - most of Claus' arguments arise from poor language skills.

I'm not participating in the discussion about which definitions that make sense to people. I'm objecting to your absolutism on what "makes sense".

'The term 'reading' only makes sense when taking into account the interpretation of symbols.'
'Hey, that's absolutist! You're sounding like a religious fundie!'
'Um, but that's what reading means. It's the translation of symbols to make meaning out of them. You can't say 'I'm reading to work today' and still have it make sense, for instance.'
'To who? Some people might make sense of another meaning of 'reading'. You're being absolutist.'
'Ok. Show me another situation where reading has another interpretation which does not require the interpretation of symbols.'
'...'
'No, please. Falsify this statement. I don't mind. But the word 'reading' only makes sense when you take into account the translation of symbols.'
'What do you mean by 'makes sense'?'

*sigh*

Athon

 

[athon]

Having sex is something that people simply enjoy, most of the time, so it is not really a value anyway:

Do you know what a value is?

A value is an ambiguous concept that governs human behaviour.

Put simply, a value is a standard, principle or quality considered desirable or worthwhile[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]. [/FONT]The enjoyment of sex, as a quality, is a value.

Athon

 

[jimtron]

FWIW, the folks at Motley Fool CAPS don't seem to be too enamored of it:

http://caps.fool.com/Ticker/CC.aspx

 

[CFLarsen]

Reptilian aliens taking over the planet isn't a term which is in common use. Morality is. I'm asking for a way of using the word morality which can still make sense to anybody - anybody at all - while having nothing to do with comparing values.

It's a little thing called falsification, Claus. All swans are white. Find me a black swan. I've set it up for you, and you choose to instead continue to rabbit on.

Kaspar Hauser.

Again I'm reminded of how poor your grasp of language is. I should keep a post-it next to my computer to alert me in the future - most of Claus' arguments arise from poor language skills.

Oddly enough, my "poor grasp of language" hasn't prevented me from writing rather well, sometimes even eloquently, in several languages.

What am I missing?

Do you know what a value is?

Put simply, a value is a standard, principle or quality considered desirable or worthwhile[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]. [/FONT]The enjoyment of sex, as a quality, is a value.

Some people also have sex without enjoying it. Is that kind of sex a value?

 

[athon]

Kaspar Hauser.

No response? I admit, I didn't expect one.

Oddly enough, my "poor grasp of language" hasn't prevented me from writing rather well, sometimes even eloquently, in several languages.

Yes. It is oddly enough.

What am I missing?

You're missing a coherent response. Thanks for pretending you have an argument, though.

Some people also have sex without enjoying it. Is that kind of sex a value?

For somebody who can write articles in several languages, you have great problems reading and translating English:

The enjoyment of sex, as a quality, is a value.

Since which is 'having sex without enjoying it' equivalent to 'the enjoyment of sex'?

It's become obvious you can't falsify my comment. Next time, try to think through your protests before committing them to pixels. It'll save further embarrassment you could well do without.

Athon

 

[CFLarsen]

No response? I admit, I didn't expect one.

Kaspar Hauser.

Yes. It is oddly enough.

You're missing a coherent response. Thanks for pretending you have an argument, though.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Could you clarify, please?

For somebody who can write articles in several languages, you have great problems reading and translating English:

Since which is 'having sex without enjoying it' equivalent to 'the enjoyment of sex'?

It's become obvious you can't falsify my comment. Next time, try to think through your protests before committing them to pixels. It'll save further embarrassment you could well do without.

Maybe you should read what Dann said: "most of the time". It was you who ignored this (I'm not saying that you didn't understand, since you are so quickly to deride other people for their "poor" language skills).

Now, you said that a value was "an ambiguous concept that governs human behaviour". You added that it had to be considered "desirable or worthwhile". Nothing in the (full) wiki reference says anything about that.

Sex that isn't enjoyed is still human behavior, isn't it? So, is having unenjoyed sex a value?

 

[Robin]

Is it possible to arrive at a rational definition of morality that you can use to judge situations?

I'm asking because I don't personally believe there is a rational basis for morality. I have a code of personal ethics, and I believe it is possible to determine actions that, as a society, will have a positive or negative impact upon the society, but I can't figure out a rational way to create moral judgments.

So here's my question: Is there any way we can judge any subset of human actions - murder, necrophilia, charitable donations, homosexuality, idol-worship, volunteer work, saving someone's life, whatever - right or wrong without positing a force greater than ourselves that establishes the criteria for this right or wrong?

Since the very idea of a moral code derived from some higher power is incoherent, it follows that any moral judgements we make must either be rational, emotional, inculturated or based on biological programming.

There is no reason to reject any of these as perfectly good inputs, the information derived from the evolution of a successful social species and from the long-winded, clumsy and step-wise negotiation process that resulted in our current social contract should not be easily dismissed..

The main dynamics that have led to this contract are self-interest on the one hand and the requirement, necessitated by survival, of operating as a successful society on the other.

So "right" and "wrong" are simply ideas. But they are ideas that have been bought rather expensively by our species and should not be easily dismissed.

My own criteria for judging right and wrong is to prefer those actions that help to maximise individual freedom across society. Naturally this makes things like murder and violence wrong since they are they remove freedom of action from others. Charitable donations are good since they remove limits to freedom, on the other hand they have limited value and we should prefer more structured approaches to solving economic disadvantage such as a flexible and efficient market structure and a sensibly designed welfare system.

Giving aid and donations to Third World countries is good, but removing trade barriers to allow these countries to grow in wealth is better.

Things like homosexuality and idol worship are morally neutral since they neither enhance nor impinge on individual liberty.