Morality - Ethics

also, I don't see why you should think that uncertainty about the harms we do absolves us from responsibility for our actions. that forces the skepticism about harm to blow up a little too quickly - why should it? it just makes things harder.

mike I kiss you

Well, actually it seems like you are misinterpreting it.
It says you should do to the other what you would have done to you. You are saying you are doing the rubbing to your girlfriend how you would want to have it done to you. The rubbing is not the real act. I would say the act is finding the way she likes her belly rubbed and doing it that way. Wouldn't you want the other person to find the way you like your belly rubbed, and to do it that way instead of rubbing your belly the way they like it rubbed.

That's why I think a combination of the liberal ideals and conservative ideals would be good, so that these are not left out.

I actually think this is right. Why does it seem insane?
I would add that morality is: Putting real effort into your guess when deciding what to do to do no harm to others, and if possible, help them.

pretty sure I made a 100% otmfm genius level post about the golden rule once. cannae find it though.

anyway revived this to save the watchmen thread from bullshit, post all yr morality bullshit here. dan said

The morality question is a major philosophical discussion that could make up its own thread. Personally, I think the inherent ambiguity of the terms "good" and "bad" render this statement incorrect: A system that ignores suffering or even promotes it is by definition amoral or immoral. The reason I believe this is because I do not think morality in its strictest terms is about alleviating suffering; it is about adhering to a code of ethics, whose rules in and of themselves have been designated as desirable or "good" based on a set of observations and principles that are by no means guaranteed to be liberal, humanistic, or particularly nice.

I would say that morality is concerned with 'how best can we live', so the 'best' in that is defined as the promotion of life, flourishing. 'how can we flourish', if you life. what may be illiberal or unhumanist about certain moral systems is that the 'we' in that statement is not all inclusive.

ledge:

1) "Humanist" does not mean "concerned with humanity.

2) Thinking about morality exclusively in terms of alleviating suffering is a very modern, Western phenomenon. In most pre-modern or non-Western cultures, lack of suffering is at most a fortunate side-effect of moral behavior, and morality is defined largely through other concepts. (cf. Confucianism)

― i fuck mathematics, Friday, 27 February 2009 16:00 (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

1) in a sense, yes it does
2) are these pre-western moralities concerned at all with life and the promotion of it? if not then what is their main concern (genuine question); and if so, if they are really not concerned with suffering (of the in-group) then there must be some internal contradiction

my point, ledge, is that "morally good" has no meaning outside the confines of a moral system. moral systems are arbitration devices. they're like god. they simply label certain things as "BAD" and other things as "GOOD". whatever god says is good is good. period. there need be no definition of "the good" beyond the understanding that it is what god likes.

therefore, when i say "morally," i simply mean, "according to the precepts of the moral system in play". some moral systems prize a kind of moral logic (for instance the idea that that which decreases suffering is more moral than that which increases it), but others do not. objectively speaking, neither approach is more moral or more valid than the other.

― That's not just me saying that, that's the Pentagon. (contenderizer), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:15 (53 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You're just avoiding the question! BAD how? Bad for my health? For my chances of getting into heaven? For my chances of not being cast out of the tribe?

According to your all-encompassing 'definition', 'being good at darts' is a moral law of my local pub darts team.

― ledge, Friday, 27 February 2009 17:20 (48 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I don't know if it's a moral law but it's certainly a virtue!

― Lots of praying with no breakfast! (HI DERE), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:22 (46 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

thing about your darts team's expectations is that they (probably) don't result in moral judgement. to suck at darts isn't to be a "bad person", but rather to be useless for the purposes of the team. this is a pragmatic, utility-based judgement rather than a moral one.

i'm not avoiding your question though, just trying to reframe is. thing is, there is no single answer to the "bad how?" question. different moral systems define the bad differently. rorschach's moral system, for instance, defines the BAD as softness, weakness, relativism, cowardice, corruption, lust, etc. it does not seem to be based on a pragmatic determination that these things often cause unwanted effects, but rather on an idealistic judgement that they are intrisically wrong, regardless of what outcomes they generate.

― That's not just me saying that, that's the Pentagon. (contenderizer), Friday, 27 February 2009 17:31 (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

can this all be put on hold until the movie comes out?

― Fight scenes don't hold a candle to Asian action (forksclovetofu), Friday, 27 February 2009 18:00 (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

It's true that moral badness often seems to be intrinsic, neverthless there must something at the core of these concepts, otherwise why do we seem to know what judgements are moral ones, and why do moral systems always seem to convern themselves judgements about the same kinds of things? When examined properly, I'd argue that the domain of morality is (human) life and living - generally, how to live for the good (ie flourishing) of the tribe.

― ledge, Friday, 27 February 2009 18:02 (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The determination of the "goodness" or "badness" of a particular concept is tied up in a bunch of social and biological determinations, equally split between "things that help us survive" and "things that explain stuff we find mystifying". Most "be nice to others"-based ideology comes about when being nice to each other helps the community grow; however, you can also grow by adopting "crush those that oppose us" methodology as well, and in extremely combative societies that type of struggle is not seen as immoral or wrong.

A lot of the context you are putting on morality is driven by the relative wealth of Western society over the past 2 millenia; basically, we have been able to afford the luxury of having "be nice to others" as the foundational tenet behind our morality because, as an overall society, we have not often been in danger of being wiped out wholesale by competing societies with different ideologies.

arright, fine. from dat other thread:

didn't wanna move to other thread, cuz then i'd feel compelled to read and deal. both of which i'm averse to. but i'll quit after this:

lemme just say that while i agree in general w what yr saying, ledge, i think the semblance of intrinsic-ness (intrisicity?) is a big part of what makes moral systems what they are. if a moral system were truly and transparently pragmatic in ALL respects, it wouldn't really be a moral system anymore. it would simply be a flexible, situation dependent, bean-counting approach to relative costs and benefits (costs & benefits being considered in as many senses as possible, objective & subjective, long & short term, individual & group, etc). i'd argue that moral systems are distinguished in part by their insistence on the existence and value of idealized & codified absolutes that do not require this kind of objective, outcome-based validation.

― That's not just me saying that, that's the Pentagon. (contenderizer), Friday, February 27, 2009 10:14 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
watchman dat ho

― That's not just me saying that, that's the Pentagon. (contenderizer), Friday, February 27, 2009 10:15 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I agree; like I said above, if the 'we' in 'how we should live' is just your tribe then you're morally free to do what the hell you like to anyone else.

xp

I see "morality" as the imposition of fixed order on all of these shifting relativistic variables; whether that imposition is founded in humanistic principles or not is another matter that has nothing to do with whether the chosen order is moral or not since that can only be evaluated in the context of another moral code.

There are plenty of moral systems which are completely transparent and extrinsic - e.g. plain vanilla utilitarianism, do whatever maximises the happiness of the most people. xp again.

if the 'we' in 'how we should live' is just your tribe then you're morally free to do what the hell you like to anyone else.

xp

― ledge

i disagree. some moral systems might define "good" and "bad" behavior strictly with regard to one's interactions with tribal members, but others could be more universal.

HIDERE OTM. said something very similar in the watchmen thread: that to evaluate the moral validity of a given moral system is fine, but sort of beside the point WR2 this discussion. that a given moral system seems immoral from my viewpoint (from within my own moral system) does not make it not a moral system. it merely makes it a different moral system.

There are plenty of moral systems which are completely transparent and extrinsic - e.g. plain vanilla utilitarianism, do whatever maximises the happiness of the most people. xp again.

― ledge

i would argue that TRUE "plain vanilla utilitarianism" is not a moral system at all. but true utilitariansm wouldn't necessarily place value on either happiness or the majority. it would depend on the situation, possible outcomes over various lengths of time, etc.

on the other hand, an ostensibly "utilitarian" position that places intrinsic value in happiness and "the majority" IS a moral system simply because it is not truly utilitarian.

the attempt to usurp religious/idealized morality with scientific/utilitarian logic may succeed, but to the extent that it does, morality is rendered obsolete.

others could be more universal.

sure, if they define the tribe as humanity. (so in that sense i concede that not all moralities are humanist.)

morality is rendered obsolete.

this has become a semantic argument ;_;

(or hooray!, 'cause now it's over)

i don't think this is a simple matter of arbitrary semantics, though. (???) re: rorschach, we were asking whether or not he could be described as a "moral" character.

the typical definition of morality = a set of rules concerning "right" and "wrong" (good and evil) in human behavior. in concerning itself very specifically with rules (with codes, fixed principles), morality seems to assume the existence of absolute good and evil.

of course, "morality" can also encompass the philosophy that determines such rules, and it is possible to at least consider the construction of a life-organizing rule-set in the absence of any belief in absolute good/evil. but this sort of theoretical speculation isn't really germane to the issue of rorschach's morality, and has very little to do with the way human morality tends to operate in the here and now. even the most pragmatic moral systems devised by man typically have some component of faith-based absolutism (such as the valuation of happiness and/or "the majority" suggested in your earlier post).

therefore, the morality vs. non-morality distinction isn't semantically arbitrary. we're not arguing about what words we use, but why we use those words

This was pretty much nailed on the other thread, but I called Rorschach the most moral character in the story because he is the one who had the most rigid construction of "right" and "wrong" and he stuck to it, come hell or high water. The other characters either didn't know precisely where their moral compass lay until the story's end (Nite Owl, Silk Spectre), were actively going against their moral code for the greater good (Ozymandius), were completely detached from the concept of morality (Dr Manhattan) or had a completely arbitrary shifting set of rules based on whatever gave them instant gratification in a given situation (The Comedian). (Although now that I write that, I am more sympathetic to Lorax's claim that The Comedian was also a moral character in the sense that that most of his position in the story is to function as a celebration of amorality, aside from his attempts to reconnect with Sally.)

I called Rorschach the most moral character in the story because he is the one who had the most rigid construction of "right" and "wrong" and he stuck to it, come hell or high water.

See I don't think this is really true, because Rorscach would start from the position that, say, preying on the weak is wrong. And yet he himself preys on those weaker than him. Or, say, that crime is wrong. But Rorscach is a criminal. Or, say, murder is wrong. Except Rorscach kills people. His "morality" and his conception of "right" and "wrong" are completely self-serving, and are not fixed at all.

or, to take the most obvious example - Rorscach doesn't think that Ozymandias' mass-murder is wrong because mass-murder is wrong, he thinks it's wrong because HE DIDN'T THINK OF IT

in this sense Rorschach is really closer to the Comedian, except that the Comedian has no delusions about his being a moral person. The Comedian knows he's an amoral, self-serving jerk and accepts and acknowledges it at numerous points in the story. Rorschach does not, because basically he's in denial, and has to construct this weird fantasy where he is the final arbiter of right and wrong in order to justify his own pathology.

morality seems to assume the existence of absolute good and evil.

this is where I fundamentally disagree - to me, morality is just as pragmatic as any other value system (like the darts team, who don't accept bad darts players). the idea of 'absolute' good and evil [or bad] just does not make sense, good and bad can only be judged in terms of reaching a goal.

even the most pragmatic moral systems devised by man typically have some component of faith-based absolutism (such as the valuation of happiness and/or "the majority" suggested in your earlier post).

i see where you're coming from but this faith-based idea is not intrinsic to morality, it is rather a failure to figure out exactly what the true goal of morality is. faith is in place of reason but only 'cause we haven't fully figured out a rational moral system.

when i said this was a semantic argument was when you said that a fully scientific system of how to behave would not be moral - i think that such a system is the ultimate goal of morality.

where i thought this became a semantic argument was when you said that utilitarianism is not a moral system.

^ oopz discard last paragraph. it's the booze.

the best you can say about rorshachchc is not that he's the most moral but that he's the most consistent. what's immoral about changing yoru mind?

brian eno type sketches for future dialogue: meta-morality. is a moral system that encompasses all humanity (or all intelligent life) better than one restricted to a small subset or tribe? yes. but why? ok tiem for bed.

btw I never said The Comedian was a moral character, I just said he had principles

http://qz.com/566579/most-violence-in-the-world-is-motivated-by-personal-morality/

protagorean relativism 1500 years later