Morality

[Blowtus]

It seems I can only deal with broad topics

I am starting a course at university and with introductory ethics as a subject I wanted to pin down my present notions of morality, as something of a thinking start in the subject and something to look back on to see if any development / modification has occurred.

I was hopeful you lot might want to pull it apart or respond in some manner



Morality (a conceptual, guiding tool for life, created by others, pushed upon / taken on board by the individual, and then sometimes modified) is only taken up by an individual because that individual desires it – feels it to be ‘good’, adding value to their life, furthering whatever drives (however vague or subconscious) the individual harbours. If they didn’t believe it to be ‘good’ (whatever that may mean for the individual) they would not utilise it.

I don’t see that this negates any further discussion of morality – as with any tool, it can be improved. The improvement process is more difficult and less clear for morality for a number of reasons; It has a broader goal (that of being a guiding code for life itself) with less clarity as to what achievement of that goal entails (what really makes life ‘better’?); We develop within a specific environment, with specific moral values imbued (or attempted to be imbued) upon us, and any future judgements we make are influenced by such; The motivations towards us of those who would imbue such values, do not necessarily correlate with either that which we ‘think is best’, nor that which ‘is best’. (Neither of which necessarily correlate with the other, either)

To properly evaluate any tool, the purpose of the tool must be clear, and the result of its use assessable in some manner. That every member of a family would experience ‘good’ (the purpose of morality) in the same way, seems a reasonably large assumption to make – let alone every member of a society, every human, or every living being. One could however, easily suggest that such population’s notions and experience of ‘good’ are likely to be centred around an average. The interplay of individuals ‘notions of good’, and the individuals power and desire to exert influence on those around them, results in the broader moralities of families, societies, religions, and other groups. These can be compared with reference to our own specific morality, or that of our or other groups. Insofar as we think it possible to assess others ‘notions of good’, their ‘state of good’, and the contribution their morality has made to that state, we can rationally assess how effective the morality is for them and the effect on other morality defining entities.

 

[Norsemaiden]

An adult can be stuck at any of the following stages:

At the first level of morality, someone is motivated to obey the morality out of fear of punishment and also actually thinks that not behaving according to the moral is only "wrong" becausethere is a penalty for going against it.

At the next stage of morality, people are still motivated by fear of punishment but appreciate more that morality can be flexible with different views on how right or wrong something is.

At the third stage people see morality as being important for good community relations and as being important in order to fit in with society.

The fourth stage adds to this the importance of keeping order in society - and make things run smoothly.

At the fifth stage people realise that a smoothly running society isn't always a just society and that dissent may be ethically required at times.

At the sixth stage - which is something speculative since few people are supposed to ever be able to understand it at all,
people realise that there can be a more holistic morality that goes beyond looking at things from either one's own point of view or through the eyes of other people.

This is based on Kohlberg's morality stages.

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

At the sixth stage - which is something speculative since few people are supposed to ever be able to understand it at all,
people realise that there can be a more holistic morality that goes beyond looking at things from either one's own point of view or through the eyes of other people.

God's?

 

[Norsemaiden]

God's?

It wouldn't mean that the person with level six morality was appreciating the world in any truly objective sense though, since we can only be limited to seeing things subjectively - but they get the idea that there is an ethical concept that is more holistic than human concerns over justice and fairness and that sometimes won't feel just or fair to any individual. If I could explain it then I'd have achieved it, and yet only others who had achieved it could understand. Obviously I would like to think I have got there.

You could have an understanding of a high moral stage but choose to not bother living up to it though. Don't we all do that to some extent? Sometimes we won't do exactly what we know we should do, or we do what we should not. Agreed?

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

You could have an understanding of a high moral stage but choose to not bother living up to it though. Don't we all do that to some extent? Sometimes we won't do exactly what we know we should do, or we do what we should not. Agreed?

Yeah. What's your point?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Yeah. What's your point?

The point is that how someone acts doesn't necessarily indicate their level of ethical understanding. Not a very useful point, but then philosophy is generally considered not to have any use.

 

[kmik]

Moral development is not fucking Pac Man. It's not a ladder you climb on until you reach level 6 and beat the game. People don't always act according to their beliefs, and their beliefs cannot systematized so easily, much less in some sort of chronological order. That said, I have no idea what the 6th level is supposed to mean - it's a catch 22 of sort, that only people who understand can explain, but only those who can understand can understand. So "the ends justify the means" is probably pretty esoteric.

Interestingly, there's this novel about a guy who reached level 7 called Crime and Punishment

 

[Norsemaiden]

Moral development is not fucking Pac Man. It's not a ladder you climb on until you reach level 6 and beat the game. People don't always act according to their beliefs, and their beliefs cannot systematized so easily, much less in some sort of chronological order. That said, I have no idea what the 6th level is supposed to mean - it's a catch 22 of sort, that only people who understand can explain, but only those who can understand can understand. So "the ends justify the means" is probably pretty esoteric.

Interestingly, there's this novel about a guy who reached level 7 called Crime and Punishment

It has been scientifically demonstrated that a child must pass through these moral stages to achieve their final position, and their development can pretty much stop at any one of them. I always like to point out that the way the Bible argues that God is right and must be obeyed BECAUSE if you don't you are damned and if you do obey you get Heaven is just like the most infantile level of morality. You must have faith and not figure out why anything is right or wrong, just obey the religion.

 

[kmik]

No, it's infantile to think of religion like that. There is manipulating texts for political profit, and there's faith, which has little to do with the actual text. Not all religious people act out of fear - they act according to what they believe is right, and because of their (moronic!) belief in divine justice, they say that sinners will go to hell. It's not the other way around. Genuine religion belongs by definition to the 6th stage.

But the thing is that these stages don't make any sense. What is morality, exactly? It is not a set of rules, because those are generally considered not to represent justice at all - morality is holistic. Is there a moral dilemma in every action? It's all too ambiguous. There are many actions one does for both personal profit and because he recognizes its importance, some that he does out of instinct, some that one person will recognize as moral and the other as immoral! I mean, it doesn't make any sense.

By the way, you say you'd like to belong to the 6th stage but from your posts at least I've been convinced otherwise. You promote actions that bring desirable consequences regardless of cost, and those desirable consequences are resurrecting the Age of Heroes, no? (Correct me if I'm wrong). This is a utilitarian view that replaces "max happiness for max people" with "creating a good civilization". It's more like stage 5, I think. But then again, I think it's wrong to call it moral development because if you act out of fear of punishment you're not moral by definition. Morality is irrational, it's a feeling, related to our place in the world as humans. It is what torments your consciousness after you've done something wrong, not because you're afraid to get caught, because you feel sorry for the victim, or because it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective - but because it's WRONG.

 

[Norsemaiden]

No, it's infantile to think of religion like that. There is manipulating texts for political profit, and there's faith, which has little to do with the actual text. Not all religious people act out of fear - they act according to what they believe is right, and because of their (moronic!) belief in divine justice, they say that sinners will go to hell. It's not the other way around. Genuine religion belongs by definition to the 6th stage.

But the thing is that these stages don't make any sense. What is morality, exactly? It is not a set of rules, because those are generally considered not to represent justice at all - morality is holistic. Is there a moral dilemma in every action? It's all too ambiguous. There are many actions one does for both personal profit and because he recognizes its importance, some that he does out of instinct, some that one person will recognize as moral and the other as immoral! I mean, it doesn't make any sense.

By the way, you say you'd like to belong to the 6th stage but from your posts at least I've been convinced otherwise. You promote actions that bring desirable consequences regardless of cost, and those desirable consequences are resurrecting the Age of Heroes, no? (Correct me if I'm wrong). This is a utilitarian view that replaces "max happiness for max people" with "creating a good civilization". It's more like stage 5, I think. But then again, I think it's wrong to call it moral development because if you act out of fear of punishment you're not moral by definition. Morality is irrational, it's a feeling, related to our place in the world as humans. It is what torments your consciousness after you've done something wrong, not because you're afraid to get caught, because you feel sorry for the victim, or because it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective - but because it's WRONG.

The reason nihilists claim to reject morality, but not ethics is because "morality" is the term used for rules that are adopted from an external influence, while ethics can refer to one's own sense of what seems right.
Do you understand this distinction?

This doesn't fit in with the moral stages of Kohlberg, because he has occasionally labelled ethical choices as being moral choices.

I hope never to bow to "morality". But sometimes my ethics cooincidentally match morality.

 

[kmik]

The reason nihilists claim to reject morality, but not ethics is because "morality" is the term used for rules that are adopted from an external influence, while ethics can refer to one's own sense of what seems right.
Do you understand this distinction?

This doesn't fit in with the moral stages of Kohlberg, because he has occasionally labelled ethical choices as being moral choices.

I hope never to bow to "morality". But sometimes my ethics cooincidentally match morality.

I agree, then. I guess I was confusing definitions. I still think his model is extremely inconsistent without even talking about the supposed evidence for the reason I cited.

 

[Blowtus]

I don't see that the distinction between ethics and morality is clear cut like NM would have it, so I don't think you were necessarily confusing definitions... though I think it would definitely make sense to have seperate terms for notions of 'personal morality' and 'broader morality' that could probably be seen as too accepting of individual choice when it comes to behaviour towards others

 

[kmik]

What do you mean personal and boarder morality?

 

[Blowtus]

personal being a personal idea of how life should be lived / people should act, and broader being a social average of such.

 

[kmik]

Sorry for being stupid but I still don't get it... average of what? Is it an idea of an ethical civilization or society?

I don't buy the idea that there are isolated actions and social actions, if that's what you mean. All, even "private" actions influence society, though to different degrees; but all actions should conform to to the same ethics, and your "actions towards yourself" and others should be consistent, so I see no reason to differentiate between the two

 

[Blowtus]

Yeah, no reference to private or social action from me, seems a pretty black and white view to take when, as you say, everything has some effect.

I have my own personal views on what it is to live a 'good life' and how interaction between myself and others should best occur. Others have their own personal views. Even when I do not know those others in my society, I am able to make an estimate of their values based on my conception of the society I live in. In a public interaction with a friend, my idea of my values, my idea of my friends, and my idea of my society's, may all differ, and I must strike whatever balance I deem most appropriate. The consequences incurred upon me from each party will likely differ depending upon how closely aligned the action is to the values of each.

Any closer?

 

[Seditious]

This is based on Kohlberg's morality stages.

what I affectionately refer to as Kohlberg's self-righteous arrogance. Wilbur pulls the same shit.

it's as good as saying an atheist, having no spirituality, is spiritually inferior to a Christian. its just question begging

 

[Seditious]

a couple terms I'd propose you reconsider.

phrasing it as 'created by' others. A result of intrinsic tendencies and social norms, it is a social reality, created of the interactions of the social world, and, especially in a world hot on 'intelligent design/creationism', 'created' seems to imply design, which among the ignorant masses it surely isn't. I'm reminded of a quote from George Santayana (however irrelevant it may be), "Most men's conscience, habits, and opinions are borrowed from convention and gather continually comforting assurances from the same social consensus that originally suggested them."

suggesting one conforms to ('takes up') moral conventions because they actually desire them. Rather than 'adding value' we might speak of it as 'reducing loss'. A pedophile doesn't strive to maintain the appearance of conforming to society because he wants to, but because he can only go about his behavior in secret if to get away with it. He doesn't desire such restrictions, he demands them of himself in so far as necessary to protect him from losing his freedoms or life. When black slaves were punished for fleeing, it makes no sense to say they 'desired to stay in slavery'---conform to the morality of the master.

 

[kmik]

I don't think that if what you think is righteous is in conflict with the social norm you should change your beliefs or make an average out of it. This is in itself unethical. Of course, it is impossible to always act according to what you believe, but the mere fact that something is commonly accepted means nothing - it's only a practical consideration

 

[Blowtus]

Seditious - I agree with your first suggestion, but the second seems to be a little meaningless. We desire less pain just as we desire more joy. I agree that it makes no sense to say "they desired to stay in slavery" but it does make sense to say that "they desired to avoid harm". If I still don't get it, perhaps you could point to a specific element of the wording... but perhaps it is too generalised.

Kmik, I agree, but in many of our interactions with others there is something of a compromise in values, a meeting in the middle, such that things are workable (advantageous even) for all. That is the very essence of the 'broader moralities' I talk of.