An 8 armed hug is just 4 regular hugs.
That’s almost perfect. It just need to be pink!
Let’s see how this works…
… ugh, not at all.
How about…
I didn’t say anything about neutrality. I simply showed the flaw in your claim. You defined morality as “what you should do.” Then you said that this, by definition, meant that it must apply to all decisions. I pointed out situations where both actions would be equally moral, and thus morality cannot be what you use to make that decision.
I wasn’t getting into what actually counts as moral. I simply demonstrated that your definition does not in fact require that all decisions must be moral in character. You can believe, as I do, that morality means “what you should do” but still believe that there are decisions that are not moral in nature.
There are many moral systems out there, and most do not propose that every single decision is a moral one. That is not some inherent aspect of moral systems, either.
It’s at the kid’s table. Go back and sit down.
It’s disturbingly easy to find these.
https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/cartoon-octopus-ready-for-a-hugging-vector-id871809062
No. Just no.
ETA: For those who don’t like walls of text, this link should take you to the next post (if there is one).
Not quite. Since we’re well into the realm of philosophy I have to be especially nitpicky.
Detailed explanation (click to show/hide)
I wrote,
I make two independent claims here.
- A moral system purports to answer the question, “How should I act?”
- There may be better phrasing than “purports to answer” that means “claims to answer, but isn’t always used to actually answer”.
- A moral system is defined such that it applies to all decisions.
I didn’t use the word “morality” in the above quote. I could have, but didn’t. “Morality” is an ambiguous word,
- If you say “she should be commended for her morality” or “he isn’t known for his morality”, you mean a person’s morally positive way of doing things.
- If you ask, “what is the morality of [doing] [some action]?” you are asking about moral value.
- If you say “morality says/indicates/requires/demands […]”, “Christian morality”, “common-sense morality”, “public morality”, etc, you mean a moral system, usually your own unless otherwise specified or implied.
Keeping this in mind, I disagree with the following statements,
Morality (in the sense of a moral system) is defined as “what you should do”.
Morality (in the sense of moral value) is defined as “what you should do”.
Morality (in the sense of a person’s morally positive way of doing things) is defined as “what you should do”.
I do not define morality (in the sense of a moral system) as “what you should do.” You should do things that have positive moral value. I would define a moral system as a set of beliefs used to assign moral value to any action. A moral system is helpful in determining what you should do, but it is not itself an action for you to “do”.
I do not define morality (in the sense of moral value) as “what you should do.” I define moral value as a relative measure of right and wrong; it can be anywhere from most positive (right/good/virtuous) to neutral to most negative (wrong/bad/wicked). Moral value is not itself an action to be performed, though it can be a property of an action.
I do not define morality (in the sense of a person’s morally positive way of doing things) as “what you should do”, because a morally positive way of doing things is a property of one’s character and not an action that can be performed.
I agree with these statements,
- Morality (in the sense of a moral system) is defined as “a set of rules used to assign moral value to any action”.
- Morality (in the sense of moral value) is defined as “a relative measure of right and wrong.”
- Morality (in the sense of a person’s morally positive way of doing things) is defined as “the characteristic of being virtuous”.
- I don’t identify law with morality (meaning my moral system) itself.
- One purpose of morality (meaning a moral system) is to answer the question “what should I do?”
- Other purposes include, what should I have done? what should someone else do? what should someone else have done? etc. Morality can potentially be used to judge animals, forces of nature, or God.
- Morality (meaning a moral system) does not always provide a clear answer to the question, “what should I do?”
- Morality (meaning a moral system) is not always consulted while making a decision.
- Morality (meaning a moral system) can be applied after a decision is made.
- Morality (meaning a moral system) can be applied to all decisions, by definition.
- You can question and ascertain the morality (meaning moral value) of any decision.
- Given the choice, you should take the most morally positive action.
This must be admitted.
You demonstrated no such thing.
You didn’t have my definition until I gave it in this post. All you had was my claim that a moral system applies to all decisions by definition.
How is a moral system applicable to a decision? There are two ways, and I suspect you only thought of one. First, a moral system is applicable to a decision when it is used to make the decision. You argued, correctly, that in some situations where all choices have the same moral value, morality cannot be used to make a decision. Second, a moral system is applicable to a decision when it is used to determine whether the moral value of making that decision. Even in those situations where all choices have the same moral value, a moral system must apply to the decision to give it neutral moral value.
To recap, here is my definition of a moral system:
Morality (in the sense of a moral system) is defined as “a set of rules used to assign moral value to any action”.
And the direct argument for the claim that a moral system applies to all decisions:
- A moral system applies to all actions. (my definition)
- All decisions are actions.
- A moral system applies to all decisions.
If you want to argue that my definition does not require all decisions to be “moral in character” (that is, have moral value), you have assumed my definition for the sake of argument.
The only possible counterargument I see is to reject the major premise. I hardly expect you to argue against that.
This is from your previous post. Originally I was thinking “of course every decision is a ‘moral’ one”, that is, has moral value. Even when a person makes a decision between choices of equal moral value, the decision has neutral moral value. However…
Hmm…
Maybe you should? The only way what you are writing makes any semblance of sense is if I assume your usage of “moral” means “moral value” but excludes neutral. A decision between two things that are morally equivalent is morally neutral, so if “moral value” excludes neutral then that decision has no “moral value”. Suddenly your position seems coherent. But it doesn’t counter mine at all.
I think of “moral value” as somewhere on a spectrum going from most positive to most negative with neutral in the middle. You don’t have to agree with me, this is a semantic point. It doesn’t matter once we know what the other means. Perhaps you are thinking of it as a compound term between “morals” and “value” - there’s no use in worrying about a morally neutral act so it has no “value”.
It’s possible @Atamasama thinks of moral value the same way. Roll back the conversation to Atamasama’s post #842.
Atamasama’s point, I reason, is that the choice between chocolate or vanilla flavor is so trivial that it has no moral value. I had assumed he has a personal preference for one of the flavors analogous to a personal preference for one kind of vegetable over another. “Morality should actually mean something”, he writes, to reinforce his point that I am diluting the concept of morality. Atamasama seems to say decisions must pass some sort of grave threshold before we can ascertain whether it is right, wrong, or neutral, and to what extent. This seems to me a deeply flawed position, as the threshold must necessarily be moral: you must determine how right or wrong the decision is in order to determine whether the decision is right, wrong, or neutral. That’s circular. I say no, a moral system must have general applicability.
Perhaps Atamasama is really saying the decision has no moral value because he thinks the choices of chocolate and vanilla are morally equal. Therefore the decision has no “moral value”. To which I say either Atamasama likes both flavors equally or he doesn’t believe in a moral duty to satisfy one’s personal desires like I do. But in either case he’s not justified in accusing me of making “moral value” a meaningless and redundant label…
Unless he also rejects the notion that ethics (morality) is subjective rather than universal. That is, the notion that it could be immoral for me to do something, but if you were in the exact same circumstances, it could be moral for you to do the same thing. If you believe in a universal or objective ethics, then yes, as far as you are concerned when I speak about subjective morality you will find my words meaningless and my arguments redundant.
~Max
Max, some things just don’t fucking matter. You are arguing that everything matters. Functioning human beings don’t think that way.
Morality is, by definition, judging whether a choice is right or wrong, and making a decision based on that. Some things are neither morally right nor wrong. You can call such things “neutral” if you need to in your mind, but again, normal people don’t think that way. It’s not a spectrum that every decision falls under. Many decisions, most decisions aren’t on that spectrum at all.
Let me break this down, this is the decision tree that most people have.
Step 1: Is this something that I need to give a shit about, morally?
- Yes: Go to Step 3
- No: Go to Step 2
Step 2: Do whatever you want to. End.
Step 3: Is it the right thing to do?
- Yes: Go to Step 4
- No: Go to Step 5
- Maybe: Go to Step 6
Step 4: Do it because it’s the right thing to do. End.
Step 5: Don’t do it, because it’s the wrong thing to do. End.
Step 6: Do the negative consequences outweigh the gain from doing this?
- Yes: Go to Step 5
- No: Go to Step 4
Most of a person’s decisions will be unimportant from a moral perspective, and you are done at Step 2. You only need to analyze the morality when necessary.
You seem to be arguing that a person should operate differently (and presumably, you operate in that way). Where everything is analyzed for morality. You start at Step 3. Normal people don’t do that. Because it’s not healthy. If you must analyze the morality of every decision, you risk analysis paralysis.
The opposite, of course, is when a person is a sociopath or has some other disorder that won’t allow them to do anything other than going to Step 2.
Neither. The world is not so easily defined. It’s a mixture of both; there are universal ethics, but they are refined by subjectivity. Real life is complicated.
Well, if you want to think of it like a computer routine I can work with that. I also do a heuristic moral analysis. You tell me if I’m doing this weird or risking ‘analysis paralysis’.
ETA: { I am assuming, of course, that I am thinking about this decision in the first place. As a counterexample, when I go to the restroom, I wash my hands by habit. (That kind of decision still has moral value, even though I do not involve moral analysis in the decision making process. See the middle of my previous post, “How is a moral system applicable to a decision?”.) }
Step 1: Is this something you don’t want to do?
Yes: Goto Step 3
No: Continue to Step 2
Step 2: Is this something you are definitely obligated not to do?
Yes: Goto Step 6
No: Go to Step 5
Maybe: Goto Step 4.
Step 3: Is this something you are definitely obligated to do?
Yes: Go to Step 5
No: Go to Step 6
Maybe: Continue to Step 4
Step 4 / Analysis: Do the negative consequences outweigh the gain from doing this?
Yes: Go to Step 6
No: Continue to Step 5
Step 5: Do it because it’s the right thing to do. End.
Step 6: Don’t do it, because it’s the wrong thing to do. End.
~Max
Is it morally positive to lecture people about how they’re doing morality wrong?
Probably not at this hour.
~Max
To be more correct, these should read “because I think it’s the wrong thing to do.” It is sometimes possible to forget one’s responsibilities.
I want to add to this a little. I think morality must apply even when a person makes a decision amorally (without regard for morality). I’m not sure whether you agree with me in principle.
Washing your hands normally has positive moral value. It is a matter of respect for the health of yourself and others, both of which I think we have a broad duty to care for. We teach children they should wash their hands. It becomes habitual. I don’t think about the morality of handwashing every time I use the restroom. I don’t even think about whether I want to wash my hands. I just do it. Yet, washing my hands is a decision, not a physical reflex. Furthermore it has more positive moral value than skipping handwashing (in most cases at least), because to a small extent it satisfies moral obligations to care for the health of yourself and others.
But as a habitual behavior, I didn’t make my decision based on morality. I still think the decision has moral value. What do you think? Look at the flipside, is it meaningful to say a person who habitually decides not to wash their hands acts wrongfully? Is it meaningful to say a person who habitually texts and drives makes an immoral decision, even though they didn’t rely on morality at all when deciding to text and drive?
The last part of your definition should be cut.
Morality is, by definition, judging whether a choice is right or wrong
, and making a decision based on that.
Now I can agree with it. An amoral decision is one made without judgement of right and wrong, but if someone makes an amoral decision we can still say they decided right or wrong. Compare my own definitions,
Morality (in the sense of a moral system) is defined as “a set of rules used to assign moral value to any action”.
Morality (in the sense of moral value) is defined as “a relative measure of right and wrong.”
Morality purports to answer the question, “How should I act?” It also purports to answer the questions, “How should someone else act?”, “How should I have acted?”, and “How should someone else have acted?” The primary purpose of morality is to inform future behavior, but often times a necessary component of that is to judge past behavior.
~Max
It’s on the menu at the Klingon restaurant.
You said, and I quote:
That is a closed statement. You made a claim about what something means, and then said that something else followed from that, “by definition.” I pointed out that this logic does not hold.
A definition that you have not yet stated is a claim that has not yet been made. A claim that hasn’t been made isn’t part of an argument, and thus cannot be used as a defense of said argument.
Your definition of moral system is wrong. It does not mean “a set of rules used to assign moral value to any action.” Most moral systems assign moral value to only some actions and not others. And these are the moral systems most of us use.
If you want to talk about something else, it’s up to YOU to find or invent a different term, not misuse an existing term. Not only does this make it easier for you to communicate your ideas, but it helps make sure you don’t conflate your definition with how everyone else uses those words.
Instead of just talking from your own head, why not google “moral system” and find out what the term actually means? Not just one definition. Read the different views, and see what they all have in common. And what parts of your definition don’t fit.
Don’t you think I addressed these points already?
That’s why I posted the definition.
I thought I anticipated this. Did you get to this section of the post?
Or do you still think I’m not getting it?
~Max
Note that “your position” is extremely unusual.
If I decide I want to call hats “shoes”, and call shoes “hats”, and then go into a clothing store to buy accessories, I’m a massive asshole when I start lecturing the salespeople there the way you are in this thread.
This has to be the most boring Pit thread ever.
What happens when a bunch of people are trying to discuss things rationally with a sociopath.
Dear god, I laughed!!!