Resolved: Morality is BS

Great Debates
1

Alright folks, I’ve brought up this topic in several different threads, and several different posters have suggested I start a separate thread to discuss it. This is that thread. I have had a couple of sodey pops, so please bear with me. I am going to express some ideas in a more or less stream of consciousness fashion. Perhaps ensuing discussion will bring some order to them.

I believe that most talk about morality and ethics is just so much mental masturbation. Every person has their own set of moral rules, even if they believe they follow a code or religion, because they must interpret the rules themselves in different unique situations, so it is essntially the case that they make the rules up themselves. If I do something that you belive is immoral, there are absolutely no consequences. It is therefore completely useless to discuss whether something I did or propose to do is immoral or not. The conversation is useless because nothing depends on the outcome.

Now, if I do something that lots of people believe is immoral, there may be consequences (i.e., those people won’t hire me or be friends with me, etc.). However, as per point # whatever above, everyone makes up their own rules of morality. Additionally, everyone has different consequences that they attach to a violation by someone else of their rules of morality. Therefore, anyone that argues that what I am about to do is immoral and believes that these consequences will ensue has the additional burden of showing that lots of other people have the same rule of morality and will attach those consequences to my breach of those rules. Almost nobody does this. Nobody on the SDMB does this. People just say “that’s immoral” without saying “that violates a rule of morality that everyone has and, moreover, most people attach consequence X to the breach of that rule of morality, so doing what you did will cause consequence x.”

When people say “that’s immoral,” I think they really mean (i.e., I translate it into something that makes sense) either one of two things. First, I think they may mean that the action should be banned by the government. I think that this is essentially making a policy argument without doing the work of showing that the new offered policy is better then the current policy. Second, I think they may mean that “I don’t like when a person does X and, moreover, I feel that my preference is objectively correct.” This is obnoxious. Your preferences are not objectively correct.

Also, the concept of “moral responsibility” is equally meaningless. There are no consequences to someone’s opinion that someone else is morally responsible for the action of another. It is therefore useless to debate whether or not someone bears moral responsibility for something.

Alright, I apologize for the rambling nature of this. Please convince me that the statment “doing X is immoral” has some content and is worth discussing. Using an example from a recent thread where I harped about this issue may be worthwhile. I may link to some and explain my stance later this weekend if I get some time.

Also, note that my views on this differ from the Aynster’s. I’m OK with that. I don’t think that discussing her views on the nature of morality in this thead would be useful.

2

You make some good points, but I disagree with your overall conclusion.

I agree that there is less incentive to being moral that people usually believe. If no one will catch you doing harm, then the only incentive you have not to do harm is your own empathy. Do you feel bad when other people get hurt? Is that not a good enough reason for you to stop hurting people?

Beyond that I admit there is nothing. If you can sleep soundly at night after beating down a senior citizen then I guess morality is really BS for you. But then again you don’t really work like the rest of us and you have a diagnosable psychological disorder.

Just don’t rule out empathy as hogwash. It’s real incentive. My life will suck if I do immoral things on a regular basis because I have empathy. I feel bad when I know that people are suffering. Most people I know have empathy too. As far as I know only a small percentage don’t. So as long as most humans care when other humans suffer, morality won’t be meaningless.

3

Beating up senior citizens is illegal. I don’t see how an illegal action is a useful example here.

I think that when someone says “you shouldn’t do x, it’s immoral,” that person hasn’t really said anything. Their statement is contentless. But if x is illegal, then I don’t see why it’s useful to discuss morality. Society has already decided that the person shouldn’t do x.

4

Rand Rover, do you think there can be any rules based on morals or ethics in a human society? Do you think there are some fundamental and basic rules that transcend all cultures and beliefs, such as, a person should not kill another innocent person, or a person should not forcibly rape another person, or a person should not behave in a physically violent manner against another innocent person? What about a rule against raping and murdering a young child? How do rules like this fit into your way of thinking?

5

This is the place where your argument falls apart into mere sophistry.

Yes, you’re right that when it comes down to fine details of interpretation, each individual’s view of morality is slightly different. However, many individuals share a broad consensus on general moral principles, a fact which you are blithely choosing to ignore.

Pretending that everybody “makes the rules up themselves” is like pretending that poison ivy isn’t a skin irritant, because everybody’s skin responds to it in individual ways, and some people aren’t even affected by it.

If we can’t generalize at all about broadly shared reactions just because those reactions are not universal or identical down to the smallest detail, then we’re merely substituting idiosyncratic word games for useful and realistic concepts.

Only if you don’t feel that my disapproving of you or despising you counts as a “consequence”. Many people feel that the moral disapproval of others does count as a negative consequence that they want to avoid. You may not feel that way yourself, but you shouldn’t blithely assume that nobody else does.

I don’t get the “lots of people” qualifier here. If even one person decides not to hire you or be friends with you because they despise you on moral grounds, that could certainly carry negative consequences, if that job or that friendship happens to be important to you.

Says who? Just because you don’t feel that any particular moral code has any objective validity doesn’t mean that other people aren’t entitled to feel differently. If you find their position obnoxious, I think you just need to suck it up, the same way you expect them to suck it up when they find your moral positions obnoxious.

Of course, the other way of dealing with moral disagreements is to approach the disputed point with mutual respect for each other’s conflicting views and the desire to achieve a resolution based on finding common ground. But that doesn’t sound like what you’re after here. You just want to declare that nobody else’s moral principles have any significance to you, while at the same time asserting immunity from being considered immoral. Well, good luck with that.

Nobody will be able to convince you of that, because you have already decided that nobody’s view of morality except your own has any validity. You have basically launched a thread for the purpose of proclaiming “I don’t care what you think”.

6

OK, I guess since my examples are illegal, then they don’t really work. Can you give an example of what you mean?

7

Define “rule” as used in this post for me please. Thanks.

8

Your argument presumes that all morality is based on subjective judgments, and that it is impossible to create a system of ethics based on consequences. Ayn would be disappointed in you.

9

Ok. Since societies decide what’s legal within them and that these illegal acts are outside the discussion of morality you want to have, I ask you to consider the following:

Let’s say you belong to a North African tribe that practices female genital mutilation. In this particular tribe, this act is not illegal. In fact, here, it’s both legally and morally acceptable.

In this small pocket of planet earth, this act is tolerated or even encouraged. Yet, an overwhelming percentage of humanity finds it abhorrent. In fact, it is viewed as sadistic and highly immoral. If I say to you, a tribesman in said culture, “you shouldn’t mutilate that woman, it’s immoral,” and you say “well, with my people, it’s fine,” does the “legality” of it in that context make it okay to you?

I’m aware this is an extreme case, but my point is that there are extreme cases where acts, regardless of their legality where they occur, are wrong and immoral. Do you disagree? If so, why?

10

No it doesn’t. You can create whatever system of ethics you want to create based on whatever you want it based on. If you tell me that something I want to do is unethical based on that system, my response will still be “so what?”

Agreed.

11

Also, I heart Kimstu

12

If the ethical system is based on the consequences of your actions, then the response to your “so what?” is “here are the consequences.”
ETA: Inasfar as you are saying that moral systems are stupid if based on things other than consequences, I agree with you.

13

As the tribesman, after you say “it’s immoral,” I would say “you have just strung words together to arrive at no meaning. You jabber like monkey. You have told me that you disapprove of my action. That does not mean that I am under an obligation to not do that action. If you tell me that your country will invade mine if I do this action, then I will take that possible consequence into account when deciding whether to do this action. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself. By the way, I think you are doing an immoral act by not circumcising your women. Does my saying that mean that you are now under an obligation to circumcise your women? By the way, it’s better for the women, too, they actually like it, and I have studies done by my shamans that show its benefits.”

14

I don’t think that point would fly when told to a judge from that system.

15

This is a good point, and I think you are right that I am glossing over the fact that many people would come to the same result on the question of whether an action is moral or not. I’m not sure what it means for my position, though.

Right. If you are a person whose approval I want, then I won’t do things to earn your disapproval. I’m not sure what you think this proves exactly.

What? No I haven’t. You can consider me immoral all you want. You are correct that “I do not necessarily care what you think.” But I think that that is a more significant statement than you do. People that like to debate whether an action is moral or not apparently think that people that do that action actually care what the debater thinks.

16

Never mind

17

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. You are talking about the design of a moral system. I am talking about my response to someone telling me the result of a moral system as applied to a particular action. So, someone could have a moral system based on the consequences of one’s actions (as you say), but if they apply that system to a proposed action by Bob and tell Bob that his proposed action is immoral, or start a thread asking for a debate on whether Bob’s proposed action is immoral, my response is as above (i.e., “this means nothing, not worth talking about”).

18

Well I did say somewhere in my post that I was talking about actions you can get away with. I figured that would amount to the same thing as an action being legal.

So pretend beating up senior citizens is legal. Would you do it? Would you feel bad about hurting another person? Wouldn’t that be enough incentive to stop you?

19

OK. In this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=512984&highlight=moral the OP argued that supporters of gun rights were morally responsible for the killing of several police officers by a guy who “feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.” I posted that whether or not one person is morally responsible for the actions of another is a meaningless concept and not worth discussing.

Example 2. In this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=512416&highlight=moral the OP said he drives an SUV and asked if he was evil.

tim314 posted this:

Kimstu posted this in reply:

I posted this in reply to Kimstu:

20

In the abstract, hurting another person is not enough incentive to stop me from doing something I want to do.

Here’s one example: I would have killed Hitler if I were alive when he was and had the opportunity.