Morality Is problematic
I think people are complacent about morality and appear to apply moral platitudes over moral commitments.
A primary problem is moral nihilism and the lack of moral truths. It is not clear there are any moral obligations or moral ought's or moral facts. And when debating things like abortion and assisted suicide you cannot resort to moral facts tor resolve the issue.
Then there is the problem of morality being too demanding. You could spend every moment of every day being more moral such as giving all your nonessential wealth to charity, protesting against injustice. There is the lying problem with the "axe murderer at your door" scenario making never lying untenable.
Then there is the ramifications of utilitarianism which has been shown to lead to absurd conclusions. For example say there are five people waiting for life saving organ donations. One of them is a Doctor on the verge of curing cancer. Should you sacrifice one innocent healthy life to maximize overall well being and save thousands of lives?
Another issue is the unworkability of morality where there too many complex moral dilemmas also framed in an amoral nature. Nature is exploitative and arbitrary and it is somewhat fantastical to try and make nature into some kind of moral paragon. This can tie with utilitarian dilemmas were nature is seen as too harmful.
And finally there is the ubiquitous moral hypocrisy and lack of moral commitment. Not many people are like William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano fighting to end slavery.
A primary problem is moral nihilism and the lack of moral truths. It is not clear there are any moral obligations or moral ought's or moral facts. And when debating things like abortion and assisted suicide you cannot resort to moral facts tor resolve the issue.
Then there is the problem of morality being too demanding. You could spend every moment of every day being more moral such as giving all your nonessential wealth to charity, protesting against injustice. There is the lying problem with the "axe murderer at your door" scenario making never lying untenable.
Then there is the ramifications of utilitarianism which has been shown to lead to absurd conclusions. For example say there are five people waiting for life saving organ donations. One of them is a Doctor on the verge of curing cancer. Should you sacrifice one innocent healthy life to maximize overall well being and save thousands of lives?
Another issue is the unworkability of morality where there too many complex moral dilemmas also framed in an amoral nature. Nature is exploitative and arbitrary and it is somewhat fantastical to try and make nature into some kind of moral paragon. This can tie with utilitarian dilemmas were nature is seen as too harmful.
And finally there is the ubiquitous moral hypocrisy and lack of moral commitment. Not many people are like William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano fighting to end slavery.
Comments (88)
Seriously though, ‘morality’ to me is about me. It is a deeply personal thing that tends to become diluted when explicated in public sphere. The true heart of my ‘morals’ lies in the darkest parts of myself and keeps me wishing to ‘adhere with rules’ rather than be ‘moral’.
For me the ‘purest’ moral act comes down to committing a hideous act knowingly for what you believe to be implicitly an overarching good - and this is done knowing you’ll become ‘lesser’ and suffer as a consequence. Of course this is merely hypothetical as there is no ‘implicit good’ we can see or a ‘pure’ moral act imaginable in the sense I outline. Basically I just mean to do good whilst expecting to suffer indefinitely. When the chips are down it appears enough of us humans do step up, but I don’t assume for a second I would but I know I wouldn’t like to - who would other than those with a desire to suffer?
I feel that morality is the main thing preventing nihilism. The idea of value and moral order. I think that the failure a moral system leads to nihilism.
I think moral values inform action and actions are problematic if there is a failure to justify them.
Also you are awesome for having brought these two up! I love Wilberforce and now you must tell me about Equiano as I'm unfamilliar but already fascinated :)
This is one of the most important points to raise in metaethics and ethics; Its called the Demandingness problem. It's a key question to ask of any moral philosophy, claim, prescription or argument "Is this possible? How demanding is carrying out the objective or goal here?".
My answer is; contributing to symbiotic and stable moral ecology and progress for all life.
Ok. But should demandingness be a positive or a negative criterion? Aristotle says "he who can learn things that are difficult, and not easy for man to know, is wise." I tend to view morality in a similar light. If morality was easy, everyone would already be moral.
What say you to a principle of challenge? I definitely agree with the sentiment behind your contribution that being moral is a challenging undertaking. Life is challenging.
What about those amazing individuals we all know who seem to not only want but need to put other peoples wants ahead of their own? Friends, family etc.. Certainly parents.
Edit: you can practice morality, then it seems to get easier, as with anything.
If we start broaching into thinking that some people are just morally evolved then we are treading into dangerous waters. There was nothing morally evolved about me as a child nor any other child I've ever met. I personally believe environment is the most contributing factor always. Sure genes plays its part, but only in that your genes will probably define how you react to certain environments. Human functional design is geographically relative.
I do not think that this is true. There are numerous challenges that we overcome.
This is a semantic problem anyway. There is a difference between something being a challenge and something being impossible.
I am moral nihilist and I don't think any moral claims are valid. But even If I was not I cannot see any workable moral claims.
This is exactly why morality is untenable. It is absurd to only expect a tiny proportion of society to be morally enlightened.
If people want to be moral they should do their own research.
I think the problem is that people have been offered poor and unreflective moral ideas to follow.
But I do not think ignorance is a sufficient moral excuse.
Does my use of the word problematic mean something that is impossible? That's not what I mean. I mean that all challenges inherently have problems as all challenges have a problem which requires solved. Problematic here merely means something which contains problems. Problematic is the nature of reality for us life forms... Or awareness of problems at least.
Is this due to a lack of justice in the world? Your belief I mean? Why do you really think morality is impossible? What is functioning morality to you? Really curious. Nihilism is a step in the right direction in my eyes so long as its only once and not a backstep.
I'm a nihilist, but I see the benefits to society of rules and punishments. Some people naturally color inside the lines and they need lines (to be super condescending about it) and some need to be defiant and so need something to defy.
Morality is a drama that unfolds between those who need to lay down rules and those who need rules. The fact that this drama has been working for thousands of years tells us that its benefits outweigh its burdensomeness.
My nihilism is the default until someone can provide me with moral facts.
I think if you took any of the current moral stances seriously they would undermine peoples actions. The problem I think is that people are exploiting moral concepts to justify action but not examining the validity of these concepts.
I don't think society should function on invalid values.
I don't think you can be a real nihilist and talk about benefits to society.
I am an antinatalist nihilist I do not see the point of continuing to propagate the human race.
I think that creating a society based on half truths, fantasies and a lack of rational justification is problematic. A bit like creating a delusion/illusion.
Why not? I'm not suggesting that society should be benefited, just that it is.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
There is no point. There wouldn't be any point to ending human life either. You're a misanthrope, which I'm guessing means you're fixated on the ugly part of humanity. Aesthetics and Ethics are joined at the hip.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
What's wrong with that? What's so great about the truth?
I think the problem is of defining society, whose society and how it is being benefited and what flourishing is.
What constitutes a thriving flourishing person and society and who decides? I think our societies are highly exploitative and parasitic etc including environmental damage which is to some extent for short term gain.
I am an agnostic nihilist so I don't rule out meaning but I think we can critique our current meaning systems and values for rationality.
Irrationality is dangerous because it is the equivalent of walking around near a cliff wearing a blindfold.
Beautiful dreamer, waken to me.
Morality, is nothing more than reins that society putted over the individual to control and command the way that the "own" thinks, lives, and exists. Without morality, with the "ego" in its full potential, humanity would develop at its maximum.
I like that.
Pragmatic moral truth is the best you can get in my opinion. Human truths or things that are true for life if not all of reality.
Maybe Moral Ecology is where you should focus some research.
Give me a DM if you want to discuss things in a more informal and friendly manner but I hope my suggestions might find you some measure of peace.
The reason I call Nihilism is a step is that the state of mind is showing of ones awareness of the great problems. Only you can decide how you will personally answer them in the way the helps you sleep at night and die knowing you tried your best in life. Good luck :) digging the journey you're on.
So if you want to be good or do good you have to perform certain actions or refrain from certain actions.
If there is no agreement on the definition of morality then that in itself undermines it.
I had a lot of involvement in the care of severely ill relative for many years (he died last week). I do not feel a glow of moral accomplishment for doing that. But it would be nice to know whether or not you did the right thing.
So I suppose that is the key issue. If people do not know whether there behavior is moral or not then what's the point?
Lots of dubious groups of people give praise to each other for behaviour deemed by many is bad. So anyone or any group can simply assert they are good or moral with no known boundaries.
I have wondered whether not making moral claims would benefit society. No one group could claim to be morally superior over another or more or less worthy.
I think the problem is that a lot of power and ideas are fueled by dubious moral claims including the notion of survival of the fittest which has been abused as a mark of worth. So I wouldn't advocate any kind of natural or unnatural hierarchy.
At best I think we need to constantly challenge assertions and ideologies and abandon failed ones.
For example imagine if someone had said thousands of years ago that slavery is indefensible and convinced other people then we could have maybe had thousands of years free of slavery.
I use the term indefensible as opposed to immoral because I am just talking about an argument challenging someone or societies behaviour not a condemnation.
It's all very well to say that protons are positively charged, electrons are negatively charged and neutrons have a balance of negative and positive; however you still have to figure out the properties of the three in order to properly define them.
Did you want to say this? That (some) people put their wants before other people's wants in order to satisfy other people's wants?
I know you said they put other people's wants ahead their own, but since this is their most importantly wanted thing, their wants to satisfy other people's wants takes precedence over wanting to want their own wants satisfied before other people's.
I want you to please peel this layer of wants and make a hierarchy of wants in a non-recursive not self-contradictory order.
If you need more causes why morality is problematic, please put a dagger through my throat before I left this post.
I FULLY expect all moral experts who are patting each other and themselves on the shoulder to completely ignore this post.
Aha. "This table is worth five dollars." I've done my good deed for the day, so I can go out and spend money recklessly on tables with no regard to their inherent value.
Aha. So insurance appraisers and home valuators, as well as antique clock experts are the most ethical people of all people. According to the quoted definition.
I should have thought that morality and ethics are complete synonyms, unless and if not separated by the author and specifying the differences. What you wrote, Mark Dennis, seems to purport that there is a difference in common, accepted English and in ethical philosophy as such. That is not true, methinks, but if you already knew that, I apologize.
Quoting god must be atheist
Some of their wants/needs* is really what I meant. For example a parent might care about the long-term wellbeing of their offspring but that doesn't mean they will always do what makes the offspring happy in the short term like feeding it copious amounts of cookies.
We all have different duties to juggle as part of our roles. I think the subject aspect of life comes from how we prioritise those duties, so long as we make efforts to duly consider them.
We should probably get into how to differentiate between a want and a need.
No you shouldnt have thought that because that would be wrong. There is a difference which I have already described. Ethics and morals are not synonomous with each other but are both studies of the same thing which is value. This is 101 level stuff here you can't really make this stuff up, it is free knowledge you can easily find Here and Here.
Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
No I am the one saying morality is impossible not just problematic. When I said problematic that probably wasn't a strong enough word because I certainly didn't mean challenging.
My criticisms in the initial post was of several moral positions that are established and motivating action. We could try and invent a new moral paradigm but I don't see that happening,
Oxford definition is okay if you're speaking to Lay people. You should get a hold of the oxford or Cambridge philosophy dictionaries if you can. Either that or use the online stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
There is a very good reason for this; certain concepts within philosophy are [B]not[/b] there dictionary definitions. This is why a philosophy dictionary is more appropriate. A lot of philosophers define words to what they think they mean and some philosophers are themselves the origin of some of the words and phrases we use commonly today. For example; "Reverence for Life" is actually Albert Schweitzers contribution to the English language although the concept itself predates English.
Another good example is Kants Sublime which is very different to how you or I would originally conceive the word. Then you have German words in philosophy, Kants sublime is more closer to the German Erhabenheit in definition than it is to a standard oxford dictionary definition of Sublime.
Have you done any research into ethical pragmatism or moral ecology yet? :) I really think you'll like it.
I am talking about the moral values of lay people
But also the most prominent positions in moral philosophy.
Scientists can do science without worrying about philosophers definition of science and would hope you believe that people can apply a moral position before doing a degree in ethics.
The issue I pointed out in my open post about moral nihilism and moral truth is that there are no answers to moral question. This means any moral system is undermined in its lack of authority.
I can look into ethical pragmatism and moral ecology and critique them as well if you want.
If you just want to quibble or argue about the definition of morality then like I said earlier that is not a topic with an agreed upon answer or a way to reach any consensus.
Finally if the philosophical meaning of morality is far removed the dictionary definition then it becomes meaningless and disconnected from what almost everyone else considers to be morality.
Except it isn't far removed; just expanded upon. Morality is the study of individual value preferences and ethics is the study of external rule systems and their value structures.
We here are not lay people. The only one who is attempting to make these words meaningless is you it would seem because you cannot accept the definitions.
No one is trying to claim authority with their moral views and observations, they are all guides. Most of them are guides to moral frameworks that have existed absent careful observed study and definition for as long as our written history can show, maybe longer.
If you want to get at the true meat of the matter from you perspective; you need to ask yourself what Meaning and Meaningless mean and question their very nature. Then ask if anything has meaning and ask if anything is meaningless.
To put matters really simply; All ethics supervene on moral principles, but not all ethics will match with Your moral principles. Its sort of like saying, all frogs are frogs but not every frog is MY frog even though some look like it. Just steer clear of the ponds who only have one or two non diverse frog species
I am criticising specific moral positions.
Kant was challenged about whether it was always wrong to lie and people have raised the absurdity of this position by pointing out that it could lead to other peoples deaths.
I don't know if you are trying to claim there is a consensus on the definition of morality. there is not a consensus and hence that undermines making moral claims.
For example you cannot agree with me that morality is to do with how to be good and I can't agree with your assertions so we are at an impasse.
These are irresolvable disputes.
I think claiming a behaviour is moral is begging the question.
I am making claims about the definition of the fields of study if you want it even more simply than I have laid out; you are practicing morality as a field of study by asking the question "What is morality". I can't make this any simpler. When you are asking if the group is moral you are talking about ethics.
I see you haven't answered my responses about Meaning.
Moral ecology makes no such claims. It merely describes differences between malignant, benign and beneficial moral and ethical ideologies in an effort to favour either low or high entropy social structures and civilisations.
Its the difference between your question "What does Morality mean to the Universe?" And my question "What does Morality mean to life?"
Would you like to direct your criticisms toward Value theory which is the theory the universe has values with which to frame our understanding of morality and ethics upon? After you have studied and reflected upon Meaning?
You denied that morality was about goodness but now you are using the words benign and beneficial.
Morality cannot justify assuming that any behaviour is morally good, benign or beneficial without begging the question and it has to justify why any system should be called moral.
If moral ecology is just claiming moral opinions are diverse then that is just a triviality if it is not asserting moral progress then I can't see the point in it.
Some of these new moralities appear to be disguised utilitarianism and utilitarianism has faced lots of criticisms.
But I find it all very manipulative and self serving where people are just trying to make their own world view flourish whilst feigning public concerns.
So for example for someone who has a partner and child and wants them to flourish and have free health care and good education, It is not in their interest to make a rigorous moral analysis but it is in their interest to hand wave and promote some general principles that tug on the emotions so they can maintain their lifestyles and values without too much scrutiny
Guides for what?
This would be a huge topic in itself.
The meaning of words is different than meaningfulness.
I can say a sentence like "The purple giraffe lived on the moon and was fed cucumber sandwiches"
You can create a mental image of this and understand the individual words without thinking it is something that could happen. So it is not meaningful as in having real. world import.
However I think moral claims don't seem to even reach this level of meaning. The word "Good" (or value) in isolation has positive connotations when it is not even attached to anything" Moral nihilism claims that good and bad don't mean anything or refer to anything concrete.
You can be agnostic about meaning and think that there is possibly some innate meaning in reality but speculating about some deeper meaningfulness and value does not mean you have found it can justify morality by this speculation.
I checked your references. Some say potato, some say potahto.
Please consider:
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word "ethics" is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual." Paul and Elder state that most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.[8]
Someone rescues baby Hitler from drowning an is deemed a local hero and admirable person. She inadvertently sentences millions of people to death.
Someone else is a twisted pedophile and murders young Hitler and is considered a monster but inadvertently saves the lives of millions.
The point here is that you need to know what the real ramifications of your morality are not just label certain actions and beliefs desirable or undesirable.
And utilitarian and consequentialist views often lead to absurdities if really applied consistently.
Generally, it is accepted that you can't define a concept or a word by using the word itself to describe its meaning.
Morality is not defined, and is not definable. It is like "love" or "life" or "god"; the concept is immediately understood by all humans, but the concept escapes definition.
Therefore there may be a way to study morality, much like there are ways to study life or god or love; but there is no authority on moral philosophy. Studying life or love has biology and psychology as sciences to back up claims. Religion and morals / ethics / morality have no scientific back-up as their practices and theories lead to self-contradictory claims (as per, for the instance of morality / ethics, the Baby Hitler example that precedes this post.)
I concur. Progress itself is a term laden with judgment. It is arbitrarily giving some value to change. It is true, and I accept, that progress is possible, but only if you specify the context, and the relativity of its occurrence.
Quoting Mark Dennis
Mark Dennis, although you were very careful in making my prediction come true, meaning that a post of mine will be completely ignored for content, inadvertently above you gave two answers to one point taken from my post which is ignored vehemently and adamantly:
Quoting god must be atheist
I do try to treat them as standalone concepts however I am prone to making the same mistake as everyone used to abide by some version of a percieved lay norm.
Quoting god must be atheist
They keyword before everyone's eyes that I used is "Study" or "field". Study has been defined unless you'd care to disagree with that and all I am claiming is that moral and ethical STUDY are defined as inquiries into values and principles.
So unless what you, I and everyone else is engaged in right now isn't study or inquiry then I really do not know what we are doing right now if I can't use those words. Fortunately I'm not stubborn so I like to think that words have to mean something and any argument from the standpoint that words don't mean anything should be backed up with silence.
If a concept escapes definition then by that logic so does the word "definition" and the sentence "I'm going to have a yesterday tomorrow" makes about as much sense and has as much meaning as everything else we write here.
So do you believe that there is no meaning at all? Knowing full well that your response to will therefore mean nothing?
I think the problem for moral progress is that moral attitudes have come and gone and reappeared.
There were always societies without slavery, societies with limited sexism and societies where homosexuality wasn't frowned upon. The 20th century with all its progress was one of the most barbaric.
So I am not sure that there are any new enlightened moral values. Likewise we will look back on our own values as wrong in the future.
Another old ethical issue is antinatalism which has been held by diverse groups including the Cathars throughout history and so is nothing new.
Except consensus does exist? Easy to claim it doesn't exist when one is outside of it.
Morality is the individualistic study. Tired of saying it, but this thread seems dead now.
Oh I responded so ive somehow proved your point that everyone ignores you? I can see that I'm wasting my time arguing with you when your logic seems to be breaking so often.
Precise statement, I concur with this. I don't think I am studying or enquiring what ethics is. I am into disproving that it is possible to objectively study ethics. This is different from STUDYING ethics. Much like it is possible to talk about the Hungarian language using nothing but English terms.
If like I mentioned earlier a Doctor about to cure cancer and save thousands of lives needs a heart transplant then it would really maximize the good to kill an innocent and healthy person because that really would maximize overall well being.
But hardly anyone would think that was acceptable meaning humans are not true utilitarians. So a lot of moral positions people claim to support are never followed honestly or consistently.
You did not break my logic, and it is not broken. My points get ignored when there is no logically reasonable defence against the logic involved in my posts.
And no, you did not respond. You INADVERTENTLY responded, not directly. You are losing the grip on what actually happens here, man.
And my point was not that I get ignored. My prediction was that that particular post will be ignored. Get a grip, man, get a grip.
Evidently you know nothing about adaptive pragmatism or it's approach to ethics. Nothing is true and that everything is permitted but not everything is yet at symbiotic balance. Balance is the key to all things and balance is the ultimate stable state of the universe. I can prove that physically too! Look at and study neutron stars and then ask yourself about the nature of black holes. If you research the charge of black holes you'll realise that they are most likely supermassive neutron stars with a gravitational pull so strong visible light can't escape them. So the end state of the universe will be numerous balls of highly balanced neutral matter that will slowly evaporate away into nothing which too is a very balanced state of no affairs.
Outside of what? Morality? Beg your pardon.
Outside of Ph.D. group? Yes. The Ph.D.'s consensus is not the same consensus as the common man's. It has been shown to you. Then you replied that Ph.D.s only expand on the concept of morality. So they expanded so much, that consensus does not exist any more. Therefore I claim that some overcomplicate things because they can present their pet theories after and believe them after overcomplication, because the concepts have been changed materially. You agree to that by agreeing that consensus between Ph.D.s and common man do not exist as far as ethics / morality are concerned.
Yes, I accidentally fell on the keyboard multiple times in a way that produced a identfieably correct human syntax. And I'm the one losing grip on reality? The sheer ignorance in your statement is astounding.
You don't even understand what logic is it seems. Please read Cohen's preface to logic before you next message or I will not reply.
Except I have not got a PHD so again your entire argument is based on a false premise and I've stopped reading now. Think I've figured out why people ignore you. They aren't the problem though, you are. Find a way to grow if you want to avoid being ignored in the future. Goodbye.
I know this was addressed not to me, but I am actually proud of my ignorance of adaptive pragmatism and its (and not "it's") approach to ethics.
I am proud, because it is but one of the ways Ph.D.s overcomplicate morality so it does not look anything like itself, and thus gives way to claims, such as that morality can be likened to the function of a black hole or neutron star.
This entire argument is about the usefulness of yourself to society, and your purported value as a professional human being. You said somewhere that you have a Masters degree in Ethics. Maybe I am wrong, and please correct me if I am. You sit on several committees acting as an ethics expert.
To you it is of importance to defend the ideas that sturctures, progress, and value exist in the study of ethics. Therefore your arguments are not ethical totally; they are self-serving.
My objections to your points do not stem from a fear by me of losing my livelihood if you prove to me that the study of ethics is structured, and its findings are objective, solid findings.
Think about this.
You said good-bye to me. I accept your good-bye, but please know that I haven't said god-bye to you.
Like everyone else in the world.
You are criticizing my position based on an elusive stance that a handful of people in the world hold.
Most people I have meet claim to want to minimize suffering. I am pointing out that they claim that but fail to take the necessary actions.
My opening post was not criticizing the minority positions that you are now espousing because these are not the moral ideas running societies.
I suppose the retort must be "Actions speak louder than word" Are people actually behaving in a way consistent with their moral claims?
A good point to raise. Personally I don't know. I know I try to be consistent in my moral claims but I am just as fallible as the next person.
For you; I suppose you need to ask yourself what your own values are and if they are worth trying or dying for. Not much else for us to do otherwise. I'd kill myself out of boredom otherwise.
Whether we makeup meaning or meaning is already there, I don't know. Life craves meaning it seems though and life values itself and everything the self says; even to the point of valuing the statement that "Life is meaningless" which is a strangely meaningful thing to say.
Also if you look into Moral Psychology on the Stanford encyclopedia you will find a number of experimental evidence which suggest, not proves, suggests that fundamentally people are more altruistic than they are egotistical by nature.
I honestly dont feel like you or others have effectively refuted my claims enough for me to believe the universe is absent value or meaning as I can see for myself that life is of the universe and life creates meaning out of what is offered by the perceptions of the universe. This is fact, life does this. Trying to stop it from doing this is an impossible task. The chemical reaction is happening and we don't know when it will fizzle out and this entity called life will collectively die. Tardigraades are pretty sturdy creatures so maybe they will evolve into a superior and eternal race at some point?
I don't really know but I think that is our conversations natural end. Think and research what I've said and try doing it without the motivation to prove me wrong and see if that changes your bias at all.
Lets say it is self serving, which I agree with but only in that it is serving the external self (the universe). Why would you care if you don't believe in the existence of tangible values? What is motivating you to attack me for mine if nothing really matters to you? Surely you'd be better served by sitting back and laughing at me for my ignorance while you sit back under no obligation to cure me of it? Seems fishy to me. You act a lot like someone who is motivated by internal principles and values in that you are communicating at all. Whoops, looks like someone isn't being consistent with their own beliefs or why the desire to communicate and regale us all with tales of your value system? How moral of you sir to care for me and my ignorance so.
I am not claiming this.
I am claiming that our moral systems have failed. And that this failure is being ignored because people are still relying on questionable moral ideas.
We are all still alive so doesn't seem like we have failed to me? We have been doing a good job of reducing suffering relatively speaking and are working on the equality issues. Our species used to be a baby and now its closer to a measure of maturity than it has been in awhile if not quite there enough yet for you and yes it slides backwards in some respects. If you're aware of the failures then pitch in and help or shut up really. Otherwise you're just wasting your own time. If it bothers you that an imperfect universe has imperfect life then I'm truly sorry but you're begging the question; What do You want?
But some people are not and are still suffering from failed moral ideals.
My issue is that failed moral ideologies are propping up a deeply problematic society.
I don't think that people who criticize modern morality should have to accept the current ideologies or be silent.
I don't endorse the notion of progress either.
You can be a moral nihilist and oppose society and critique society never having any need to endorse it or prop it up.
It is not a futile critique but it is clearly going to be distasteful to people who endorse a notion of moral progress. And whom in my opinion are complacent.
Yet some are helping? What does my entire job mean if its not an act to help? Arguments like mine are the ones which allow you to spew your nonsense. Freedom of speech is something you have no choice but to value because it gives you a voice whether I like it or not. So again you're still acting out of moral motivation. Unless you are so special that your brain functions by magic? You are asking me to basically ignore my knowledge of how the human body works and how life itself operates just for the sake of what agreeing with your incorrect claims that none of this exists which is essentially your inferred claim by your own beliefs and you can try and deny my appraisals of the faults in your logic all you like but here you are still valuing your time and spending it on me. Thanks for your time I guess. Pity it wasn't more fruitful for you.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
There is no failed moral ideology. There is a deeply problematic society. I would not assume what you call a ‘failed moral ideology’ is behind it. The problem with morality, from my perspective, is that there is an aspect of human nature that can chose to carry out acts that are a disadvantage to others, from theft to murder. That doesn’t mean we are not inherently moral creatures, it means we must enact that morality and at times we fail to. But having a moral code means that whenever we are faced with problems of this nature, what’s the right thing to do? we can refer to our moral code, that which has enabled us to become who we are and what we are over the last million years.
The source of our problematic society is not knowing what to do and not believing that there are morals to act on, even though we do so every day. As if you yourself are functioning successfully under some system alien to everyone else. And in fact if that was true it’s because of the moral nature of people that you could do so. It’s a great irony to me that having developed the great advantage of language we now seem to think that as soon as you give something a word to define it we then say the word is mere consensus and therefore means nothing. So by identifying something we then blast it from existence.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
... pointless, or arbitrary, because everything you/we say or value is pointless, or arbitrary, according to nihilism. Nihilism about nihilism refutes itself. Thus, merely a self-serving(?) fiction (or crutch).
[quote=Andrew4Handel]... the default until someone can provide me with moral facts.[/quote]
Altruism [moral]. Care for another without reciprocity or extrinsic benefit (i.e. utility). Suffering [fact] is a visceral appeal for help to which (most) fellow sufferers, ceteris paribus, involuntarily respond. Choice begins with how, not with whether or not, to help; sympathy (or it's absence) is dispositional and/or conditioned [moral fact]. And eusociality is the (highly correlative, or self-reinforcing) consequence - gossamer-thin veneer though it may be.
Quoting frank
Touché.
[i]"We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all ..."
"What are man's truths ultimately? Merely his irrefutable errors."[/i]
~Freddy Zarathustra
(emphases are mine)
Quoting Gus Lamarch
:roll: Yeah, like living "without ecology" ...
"The time would be easy to know, for then mankind would have become as the Great Old Ones; free and wild and beyond good and evil, with laws and morals thrown aside and all men shouting and killing and revelling in joy. Then the liberated Old Ones would teach them new ways to shout and kill and revel and enjoy themselves, and all the earth would flame with a holocaust of ecstasy and freedom."
~a Cultist
(emphasis is mine)
Quoting frank
Agreed. :up:
Quoting god must be atheist
An argument for moral good defined (pace Moore et al) by the negation of that which is (a) subject/pov-invariant (i.e. objective) moral bad.
I see the public justification of actions as inherently problematic (see my first post on first page).
Nihilism about everything might be self refuting but nihilism about morality isn't.
However I do not think the meaning of words and other symbols is the kind of meaning being refuted by nihilists. Saying "this sentences is meaningless" refutes itself. But saying life is meaningless is not saying the same thing.
I think the way you have phrased this is obscurantist.
Altruism is only moral if you accept the premise that altruism is moral.
Caring for one person is not the same as caring for everyone. Nazis sacrificed their lives for the Nazi ideology and the Übermensch.
Suffering is mostly tolerated and ignored. Professing a desire to end suffering is not the same as actually reducing suffering.
The kind of moral fact we need is the kind that would resolve the debate as to whether abortion is immoral. I don't think you could claim abortion is altruistic. I agree that it is a fact that people are altruistic but not that it is a moral fact.
I think the pleasure/harm dichotomy is not a moral issue. We usually don't consider natural disasters as having a moral dimension or natural harms. We don't consider all pleasures moral.
That would surely work, but of course, only for a "humanity freed of morals", and societal structures that only served to enslave the human ego, the "yourself".
"Altruism" on the absolute truth of the masses, is, and can only be moral. The concept of "Altruism" was constructed to make the "self" a serf of society, a serf of the dogmatic "absolute truth".
I don't follow ...
From the OP: "A primary problem is moral nihilism and the lack of moral truths. It is not clear there are any moral obligations or moral ought's or moral facts. And when debating things like abortion and assisted suicide you cannot resort to moral facts tor resolve the issue."
Morality (IMNSHO) is, fundamentally, an individual's value system. "What is good" presuppose the answer to the question "Good as valued by whom?". So "Moral Truth" itself presupposes a universal value system which therefore must be held by a universal holder of value. Attempts of secularists or atheists to define absolute value systems from reason and logic will ultimately fail. There are no absolute moral truths in this sense. So I see a range of further possibilities between moral nihilism and an all encompassing moral absolute.
However! Moral relativity (in the same sense of relativity principles of nature and not the moral relativism that has devolved into moral nihilism) can be formulates that establishes common values given the common context of those circumstances that define the human condition. Recognizing that there is still a context is important so as to recognize also that that context is a very stiff frame fixing aspect of moral relativity. One may debate ethics in the context "were we ants and not men" as one may debate the ethics of our striving toward or away from evolving into ants or men. But that ethical debate like all such debates is premise dependent. Each individual has their one moral premises. What is left to be debated is what, given a set of premises are, and what the reality of the contexts allows, is our best guess as to the value of our actions.
In a horribly simplistic example of this point consider a group of philosophers debating ethics but acknowledging that each individual has their own random value system. Rather than debating the virtue of self annihilation they simply wait a few minutes for those who hold that value supreme to suicide, and they can then continue with the opposite premise understood in future debates, without being judgemental on an absolute virtue in their stance. They argue "Those of you left we may presume value for whatever reason value continued existence and thus..."
Second comment: I've noticed the term "antinatalist" bandied about in this an other threads. Firstly I don't see the logic, of the individual holding that value waiting for species suicide rather than, if he is acting consistently on his principles, actively seeking the annihilation of all humanity. I'm not sure if I am understanding the concept correctly, there is one idea of self culling, taking one's on genetic code out of the picture, and there's the culling of others, which is eugenics by whatever means they seek to effect it. I still see it as anti-life since it has the inherent hubris of imposing the advocates' values on the subject of the implied action. I would recognize that the infant may very well grow to hold values far different from those imposed on them by the interventive "antinatalist". No matter how horrific the sufferings of life for an individual, they can at every instance judge the value of enduring that suffering vs escaping it via death and I feel it is presumptuous of me to impose my value system upon them... but of course I'm expressing my values. I state them merely to point out that there is an alternative position and thus a question of consistency in the alternative position.
Like the person trying to convince me that there is no free will, I argue to the moral nihilist that by your attempt to argue you are invoking that which you deny. If it is better to believe in nihilism then there must be a value in believing one system over another, and since your nihilism denies this it must be the wronger belief, or else you must be heretical in your actions within that belief system. Shame on you!!!
Ok, Final Comment: I see examples in this thread of an inconsistent application of an assumption of omniscience in arguing ethics. Specifically we must in our cognition, acknowledge our ignorance as it manifest and our limited power to actualize what we value.
Part and parcel of any value system we apply to our actions (my definition of ethics) are the two factors of knowledge about their effect and power to actualize those effects we deem are of value. These are arguable truths that provide a transcendental quality to the moral question. If one, say as a matter of faith, rejects the total absence of any value system, one must then acknowledge the existence of the utility of acquiring knowledge and power to effect one's choices for the furtherance of whatever value one may discover in the future. This is both the kernel seed of all moral paths and the permanent driving force behind any moral code we may pursue, given our knowledge of our lack of omniscience and our lack of omnipotence.
This is My basis of morality given my rejection of belief in deities or spirits with higher moral authority.
I seek to improve my knowledge of what is right and what that means. I seek to improve my power to effect what I then discover regarding this. I acknowledge that every other willful agent (a.k.a. person) is following their own path along those lines and facilitate those whom I feel are moving, in so far as my current tentative values dictate, in the right direction. All this I implement with appropriate humility and conviction as I can best judge.
So I say "Yes" Morality is Problematic. It is, obviously, the ultimate problem and I feel in the obviousness of our ever present but ever changing ignorance and impotence it is the eternal problem. Those of you looking for purpose in life, can you find any better to pursue? As Linda Hunt asked in "The Year of Living Dangerously" "What then must we do?" (Unfortunately, 42 just doesn't seem to fit as the answer.)
Some may hold that the answer is to ride down the street eliminating anyone they can. In my agnosticism of moral absolutes I acknowledge the legitimacy of their view while I also act upon my own best judgement of morality which is that I should put a bullet in their head as soon as they commit to such an action for the sake of the other seekers whom I value and they would annihilate. But that's just me.
Our belief about that which existed in it's entirety prior to our awareness of it can be false and/or seriously mistaken on the most fundamental of levels. Our moral sensibility is autonomous in it's basic beginnings... when it begins to emerge onto the world stage by virtue of being cultivated within the individual. We all have pretty much the same moral sensibilities prior to language acquisition and use. Things change as one begins adopting one's first worldview. Subjective particulars begin showing up as having direct influence upon important differences between different moralities(codes of conduct). So, there are indeed differences relative to one's own environment. These cultural, societal, and/or familial differences can include codes of conduct and/or principles governing one's behaviour that are in direct conflict with another's. So, there's that...
We also all know - as adults coming from a plurality of moral backgrounds - that it is not good, it is not moral, it is not acceptable, it is wrong, it is morally reprehensible to smack an old woman on the back of her head with a shovel for no apparent good reason.
So...
Perhaps it is best to realize that there are many trivial things we agree on, but agree nonetheless. If we agree on some stuff, there's room to explore why and/or how that became the case.
There are common denominators in all morality regardless of that which is influenced by and/or relative to the individual particular circumstances. Not one of us, regardless of individual particulars, likes to believe that we're being seriously hurt/harmed. All of us have some vague but strong visceral aversion to being physically and mentally hurt. This is equally true prior to language acquisition, and thus prior to adopting our first moral lessons(about how one ought act in what situation).
These are true statements about all morality. They are true solely by virtue of corresponding to what happened and/or happens everyday. Developing this kind of discourse provides a more fertile and solid ground for substantively addressing some of the historical problems of morality.