Resolved: Morality is BS

[Kimstu]

@Rand Rover

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.

Well, yes, this is a not uncommon assumption—for the simple reason that many people do care whether other people consider their actions moral.

I don’t understand why you’re acting so naive about this. It’s pretty simple: many moral principles are very widely shared. Consequently, many people care what other people think about the morality of their actions. Consequently, people frequently assume that their moral judgements are of interest to those whose actions they are judging. There’s nothing in the least unexpected or unreasonable about this.

You appear to be trying to serve notice to the public at large, or at least to the public on these boards, that you personally reject the assumption of shared moral principles and want to be exempted from having your actions called immoral (“keep your opinions to yourself”) when other people disapprove of you on moral grounds. Knock yourself out, but don’t imagine that you’re making a valid argument about morality in general.

Oh, and luvu2, Birdmonster.

[Rand_Rover]

@Kimstu

You appear to be trying to serve notice to the public at large, or at least to the public on these boards, that you personally reject the assumption of shared moral principles and want to be exempted from having your actions called immoral (“keep your opinions to yourself”) when other people disapprove of you on moral grounds. Knock yourself out, but don’t imagine that you’re making a valid argument about morality in general.

I don’t think that that is all I am doing. I think debating whether **anyone’s **actions are moral or not is worthless and meaningless, whether that person is me or anyone else.

[Kimstu]

@Rand Rover

I think debating whether anyone’s actions are moral or not is worthless and meaningless, whether that person is me or anyone else.

Yeah, but that’s because you personally reject the idea of shared moral principles as having any validity whatsoever. Most people don’t agree with this assumption of yours, so your arguments based on that assumption are pretty much irrelevant.

[Randy_Seltzer]

@Rand_Rover

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”).

Hm. I liked my interpretation of your argument better. Let me try to get this straight. Correct me if I’m straw-manning you.[ul][li]All moralities are subjective.[]Subjective moralities are worthless.[/ul]therefore[ul][]All moralities are worthless.[/ul]Is that essentially it?[/li]
If so, you’ve got problems with both your initial premises. I’ll leave the first one alone, since clearly that’s not what you wanted to debate here. But there are some problems immediately evident with the second premise.

Subjective moralities need no intrinsic value if they have extrinsic value, which you have acknowledged they do in this thread. The discussion of the morality of female genital mutilation an important one to the tribesman if the wrong decision will make your country invade his. If Kimtsu’s approval is important to you, knowledge of Kimtsu’s system of ethics is vital. If driving my M1 Abrams around my suburb is considered immoral, then I need to know that before I try to borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor.

If I’ve missed your point again, it’s possible one or both of us has had too many sodey pops tonight.

[Rand_Rover]

@Kimstu

Yeah, but that’s because you personally reject the idea of shared moral principles as having any validity whatsoever. Most people don’t agree with this assumption of yours, so your arguments based on that assumption are pretty much irrelevant.

I addressed your objection in the OP. Sure there are shared moral principles, but this does not mean that (i) everyone applies them in the exact same way (a weak argument, I admit, as your poison ivy example points out) and (ii) everyone accords the same punishment to someone who acts not in accord with their moral principles.

Also, people debate about whether an action is immoral even when it would be impossible or unlikely for any (or many) other people to find out that the person did the action. Therefore, violation of a shared moral principle with assumed consequences does not support all arguments about whether an action is moral or not.

Also, people debate about whether an action is immoral even when lots of people do that action without apparent consequences (or with mildly bad consequences). For example, the many threads on whether it is immoral to drive an SUV.

[The_Bith_Shuffle]

@Rand_Rover

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.

I agree with you overall, but disagree with you when you say what you think people mean when they say something is wrong. When people say that something is wrong, I actually think they are making a realistic claim (in the philosophical sense) about a quality that a certain action possesses.

The problem is that the quality just can’t exist. Where is the “wrongness” in rape? Can you please show it to me? I’d love to look at it or listen to it. Honest. Just show it.

[Odesio]

I’m pretty sure **Rand Rover’s ** position is referred to as ethical relativism or ethical nihilism. It’s something philosophers have discussed.

[Kimstu]

@Rand Rover

I addressed your objection in the OP.

And as you just admitted, your argument was weak. The reason most other people don’t agree with you about whether it’s meaningful to express an opinion on the morality of an action is that they accept the idea of shared moral principles, and you don’t.

@Rand Rover

Also, people debate about whether an action is immoral even when it would be impossible or unlikely for any (or many) other people to find out that the person did the action. […] Also, people debate about whether an action is immoral even when lots of people do that action without apparent consequences (or with mildly bad consequences).

Of course they do. Because they believe that evaluating actions on the basis of shared moral principles is meaningful independently of the practical consequences of the actions. You, on the other hand, don’t.

At this point, I’m afraid we’re stuck in a loop. I will keep explaining to you that most people recognize the concept of shared moral principles, and you will keep repeating that you reject that concept, and consequently that you consider expression of moral judgements to be meaningless.

[The_Second_Stone]

Not every action that is illegal is immoral and not every action that is immoral is illegal. It is illegal to use pot. It is not immoral. It is immoral to repeat the private medical conditions you have been voluntarily told to you, but it is not illegal (assuming you aren’t a medical provider under a duty for privacy.) There may be overlap, but for a large part there is not: illegality is something that is controlled by laws, morality is a necessary element of culture and individuals belonging to the culture. The general public has a lifelong conversation in public forums (message boards, church gatherings, newspapers, etc.) over what the values of these people are, and they differ. It has been the spice of civilization for thousands of years.

The assertion of some people that morality doesn’t really exist is more of a plaintiff cry that these people do not want to be held to this aspect of culture, and by the way, please don’t shun or denounce them, which is the policing method of morality in a culture. The reason the Randians are so despised is that they demand the benefits of the culture without the obligation to support the morality of the culture at large, substituting instead their own code: The hippies took the opposite approach and were also "cast out" for their 'argument' that was of no value.

A nation cannot operate at either of these extremes because neither is workable for the whole as there is no civilization without an economy, nor an economy without trust based on human interaction.

[Lakai]

@Rand_Rover

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.

You know I wasn’t talking about Hitler. It would be moral to kill Hitler. That’s not a good example.

I’m not sure why you are talking about the abstract here. I’m talking about morality in the real world. In the OP it sounded like you were saying that morality is BS in reality, not in the abstract.

And just because you don’t have enough incentive, doesn’t mean you have no incentive. You still haven’t answered my claim that empathy is our main incentive to be moral when there is no one else to pass judgment on our actions. Can you refute that? Can you argue that empathy is meaningless? That how society judges your behavior is meaningless?

[panache45]

@Rand_Rover

Also, note that my views on this differ from the Aynster’s. I’m OK with that.

“Differ”? I think you misspelled “diametrically opposite.”

[The_Second_Stone]

@Lakai

It would be moral to kill Hitler.

No, it would not be moral to kill Hitler unless you were a time traveler knowing that the breach of morality in the early 30s was going save war in the late 30s and 40s. Once the war gets started, assassinating the opposing leader is simply a strategy of war a reasonable war aim.

If you were just a bystander in a parade with a gun who had read Mien Kampf and believed that Hitler was going to do pretty much what he said he was going to do and assassinated Hitler that would be an illegal act and an immoral act: we do not go around killing KKK leaders, nor should we. It only becomes a moral act once history has happened. And besides, Himmler or Goering in charge might have been worse. Himmler or Goering might have deferred to the generals in instances where Hitler lost whole army groups, like Stalingrad and Kursk.

[VarlosZ]

Rand Rover, first, I’m puzzled by your continued mention of punishment for immoral acts. Morality is simply not about acting to avoid unpleasantness for oneself. The law is only incidental to morality, and vice versa. That you keep bringing up punishment suggests to me that your talking about something other than “morality,” as commonly understood.
Second, and more significantly, you’re not giving Kimstu’s point about shared moral values the proper consideration, IMO. Let me try to put it this way:

To me, human suffering is “bad,” and, all else being equal, intentionally causing human suffering is wrong. Do you feel the same way? I’ll assume that you do. If you propose to do X, and I feel that X will lead to the suffering of others without leading to any significant happiness to counter that suffering, I might tell you that I think your proposed action is immoral according to both your personal ethics and mine. Perhaps I would then be able to convince you that X is inconsistent with your sense of ethics, and suffering would be avoided. Alternately, perhaps you might convince me that I had misapprehended the situation in some way, and I would thenceforth be better prepared to act in accord with my own ethics in similar situations. Even if we could reach no consensus, the discussion would nevertheless help us to clarify our own ideas of right and wrong.

In those ways, saying “that’s immoral” is far from meaningless. Now, if you were to tell me that you didn’t care about the suffering of others, then my criticism would, in fact, be pretty pointless. However, very few people could fail to agree on such a basic principle, and if you’re one of them then you’re an exceptional case, and the argument in your OP should reflect that.

[The_Hamster_King]

Morality is a socially constructed fact. It has no existence apart from our collective belief in it.

However, the same thing can be said for most aspects of society:

Money has no inherent worth. It only has value because we collectively believe it does.

There is no such thing as property. Ownership only exists because we collectively believe it does.

There is no such thing as law. It only exists because we collectively believe it does.

There is no objective basis for marriage. It only exists because we collectively believe it does.

If you want to reject morality because it has no objective existence, by all means, go ahead. But logic dictates that you must reject everything else that exists solely through social consensus as well. Since you no longer believe in money, property, law or marriage, I’d be by shortly to collect your car. And since you’re no longer married, can I get your ex-wife’s digits?

[Rand_Rover]

@Kimstu

And as you just admitted, your argument was weak. The reason most other people don’t agree with you about whether it’s meaningful to express an opinion on the morality of an action is that they accept the idea of shared moral principles, and you don’t.

Of course they do. Because they believe that evaluating actions on the basis of shared moral principles is meaningful independently of the practical consequences of the actions. You, on the other hand, don’t.

At this point, I’m afraid we’re stuck in a loop. I will keep explaining to you that most people recognize the concept of shared moral principles, and you will keep repeating that you reject that concept, and consequently that you consider expression of moral judgements to be meaningless.

Kimstu, I don’t think you’ve really moved the ball all that far here. You still haven’t shown any consequences to violating shared moral principles. It is still useless to debate about whether an action is immoral or not.

[Rand_Rover]

@The_Hamster_King

Morality is a socially constructed fact. It has no existence apart from our collective belief in it.

However, the same thing can be said for most aspects of society:

Money has no inherent worth. It only has value because we collectively believe it does.

There is no such thing as property. Ownership only exists because we collectively believe it does.

There is no such thing as law. It only exists because we collectively believe it does.

There is no objective basis for marriage. It only exists because we collectively believe it does.

If you want to reject morality because it has no objective existence, by all means, go ahead. But logic dictates that you must reject everything else that exists solely through social consensus as well. Since you no longer believe in money, property, law or marriage, I’d be by shortly to collect your car. And since you’re no longer married, can I get your ex-wife’s digits?

Come on now. You are illustrating the opposite of what you are attempting to illustrate. That is, if you take property that I believe belongs to me, then I can sue you in a court to reobtain possession of that property. Similarly, my marriage is a relationship that is recognized by the law that I could prove up if need be. The rules on who owns what and who is married to who are real rules because they have real consequences. Not so with the rules of morality.

[Rand_Rover]

@VarlosZ

Rand Rover, first, I’m puzzled by your continued mention of punishment for immoral acts. Morality is simply not about acting to avoid unpleasantness for oneself. The law is only incidental to morality, and vice versa. That you keep bringing up punishment suggests to me that your talking about something other than “morality,” as commonly understood.
Second, and more significantly, you’re not giving Kimstu’s point about shared moral values the proper consideration, IMO. Let me try to put it this way:

To me, human suffering is “bad,” and, all else being equal, intentionally causing human suffering is wrong. Do you feel the same way? I’ll assume that you do. If you propose to do X, and I feel that X will lead to the suffering of others without leading to any significant happiness to counter that suffering, I might tell you that I think your proposed action is immoral according to both your personal ethics and mine. Perhaps I would then be able to convince you that X is inconsistent with your sense of ethics, and suffering would be avoided. Alternately, perhaps you might convince me that I had misapprehended the situation in some way, and I would thenceforth be better prepared to act in accord with my own ethics in similar situations. Even if we could reach no consensus, the discussion would nevertheless help us to clarify our own ideas of right and wrong.

In those ways, saying “that’s immoral” is far from meaningless. Now, if you were to tell me that you didn’t care about the suffering of others, then my criticism would, in fact, be pretty pointless. However, very few people could fail to agree on such a basic principle, and if you’re one of them then you’re an exceptional case, and the argument in your OP should reflect that.

I think something is seeping into my thick skull from this post. So when you say “Bob, action X is immoral,” what you mean is “Bob, you miscalculated when you decided to do action X because, in my opinion, action X will actually cause more harm than good (contrary to your calculation that the opposite will be the case).” That is a debatable topic to me. Each party can present their evidence for their belief and off we go.

However, I don’t think that every use of “that’s immoral” can be translated into “you have miscalculated the costs and benefits of your actions.” Rather, many people say “that’s immoral” based on the application of a priori principles, and they never even consider performing a cost benefit analysis.

[VarlosZ]

@Rand_Rover

However, I don’t think that every use of “that’s immoral” can be translated into “you have miscalculated the costs and benefits of your actions.” Rather, many people say “that’s immoral” based on the application of a priori principles, and they never even consider performing a cost benefit analysis.

Sure, but as long as those a priori principles are held in common, the same kind of discussion can take place (note that “suffering is bad” is itself an a priori principle). I’m a utilitarian, so for me it’s always going to boil down to harm/happiness, but there are other moral values that people tend to agree on, and they often compete. For example, two friends might each value honesty and fairness for their own sakes, but the two may not always be compatible, and the friends might disagree about which value ought to be pursued in a given case.

Of course, it need not be that complicated: “Bob, I know you agree with me that theft is wrong, and yet every year you steal hundreds of bottles of wine from the liquor store you work at because, according to you, you’re boss is an immoral jerk (who doesn’t take inventory). It seems to me that you’re merely rationalizing behavior for which you would rightly admonish others.”

[Oy]

First of all, The Hamster King has it right: morality is meaningless outside of a social context. That doesn’t mean that you yourself have no morality when you are alone and unwitnessed, because you (the generic you, not any specific individual) have morality acquired from your time within a society, which you may or may not have modified with your own thoughts over time.

So morality exists only within a social context. And the definition is pretty straightforward: morality is that behavior on the part of its individuals which allows the society to exist and flourish.

This splits into two parts. The first is those behaviors agreed upon by virtually every society that we’re aware of: don’t kill, don’t lie, don’t steal. There’s one other that is a bit more problematical that I’ll get into a bit later on.

The second part of morality is those things unique to an individual society: religious observances, shibboleths, marital rules, dietary restrictions, membership rituals such as circumcision, etc. They’re things that, regardless of why people believe them important, primarily serve the function of distinguishing this society from others and, not incidently, a tool for the powerful to establish or acquire and retain power over citizens of that society. As far as I personally am concerned, this portion of morality is largely as Rand Rover described in his opening paragraph, especially in a multi-cultural society like the US. As long as one is willing to accept the shunning that some portions of society may inflict in response, one can break any of these rules to their heart’s content, insofar as they don’t violate the first part of morality.

So back to the first part. We have three very straightforward rules for individuals: don’t kill, don’t lie, and don’t steal. (I say individuals, because as a whole, the society as embodied by its government/priesthood, may kill and/or steal <i.e. tax> without necessarily being considered immoral. In recent years, modern societies have started holding their officials to some of the same standards to which they hold individuals - not a bad idea in my eyes, at least in some cases)

But there’s a fourth universal rule of morality that makes everything a lot more complicated. It boils down to: don’t make the people around you miserable. Or as the SDMB says it, don’t be a jerk. Unfortunately, this covers a lot of extremely nebulous ground, from torture to just being a pain in the arse.

But these rules are not just “made up” by the individuals, Rand Rover. Every known society believes in them, and the vast majority of individuals within those societies believe in them. What screws it up is balancing competing claims, both of morality versus individual self-interest, and of one piece of morality versus another. For example, we tend to agree that killing someone who is trying to kill you is OK, but deciding the precise point at which it is definite that that someone is trying to kill you is often not clear-cut. It’s not that the rule varies, but the assessment of the situation varies. That’s why, in our society, we have courts, not only for criminal cases, but for civil cases as well. Every other society that I’m aware of has had some similar institutionalized form of arbitration, often as simple as the ruler making the judgment.

It may seem like hairsplitting to you, Rand Rover, but to me it’s the essence of human societies. The rules tend to be close to universal and absolute (except for the “don’t be a jerk” rule, which is absolute in essence but often exceedingly difficult to determine in practice), but situations themselves are rarely straightforward and clear-cut, and the various rules at times weigh against one another. This does not, as far as I am concerned, invalidate these rules or absolve the individual from doing one’s best to behave morally.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Rand_Rover

Come on now. You are illustrating the opposite of what you are attempting to illustrate. That is, if you take property that I believe belongs to me, then I can sue you in a court to reobtain possession of that property. Similarly, my marriage is a relationship that is recognized by the law that I could prove up if need be. The rules on who owns what and who is married to who are real rules because they have real consequences. Not so with the rules of morality.

Nonsense. You can only sue me because everyone agrees that property laws exist. If everyone stops believing in them, they evaporate. This happens all the time in countries where civil order breaks down. Or look what happened to Germany in the 1920’s. People stopped believing in the money and it stopped being money and turned back into mere pieces of paper.

Actually, I’d argue that morality is MORE real that money, property, laws, etc. Even tribal societies that lack all those things have a sense of what’s right and wrong. The social order has to collapse utterly before people no longer believe in morals.

And if you don’t believe that violating moral rules have real consequences, start lying to your friends all the time. I guarantee there will be consequences – expressions of disapproval, shunning, etc. (The same consequences exist for other immoral acts like killing and stealing, but since there are legal consequences as well, they’re not as useful as test cases.)

Sure different groups have different senses of what constitutes right and wrong – just like different groups have different currencies, different laws, different ideas of how property works, and different ideas of what constitute marriage. Hell, we’re in the middle of a big debate right now of redefining what constitutes marriage!

But individuals don’t get to create their own morality. Or, rather, they can, but it’s meaningless. It’s like drawing some pictures on paper and announcing you’ve created your own money.