Moral: a dangerous word & concept

[el22]

I’ll start with this simple reasoning:
Moral can either coincide with reason, or not. There’s no other possibility.

If it coincides with reason, it doesn’t add any value: If X is the reasonable thing to do, saying that it is also the moral thing to do doesn’t change anything. You would have done X in any case.

However, if it doesn’t coincide with reason, the existence of this (pretty undefined) word, is nothing more than an opportunity to hijack reason: if X is the reasonable thing to do, but Y the moral thing to do, there will be always people to advocate ‘the moral thing to do’.

At the very least moral could consume human time and nerves in meaningless debates.
What do you think?

[Duży Zaganiacz]

I’ll start with this simple reasoning:
Moral can either coincide with reason, or not. There’s no other possibility.

If it coincides with reason, it doesn’t add any value: If X is the reasonable thing to do, saying that it is also the moral thing to do doesn’t change anything. You would have done X in any case.

However, if it doesn’t coincide with reason, the existence of this (pretty undefined) word, is nothing more than an opportunity to hijack reason: if X is the reasonable thing to do, but Y the moral thing to do, there will be always people to advocate ‘the moral thing to do’.

At the very least moral could consume human time and nerves in meaningless debates.
What do you think?

If the moral coincides with reason, it gives you motivation to do what is too hard or risky, but otherwise reasonable.

Moral behavior results in satisfaction, even if it has apparently nothing to do with reason.

What is moral or not was strictly defined at least 2k years ago or even earlier, and it didn't change since then. Different explanations that exist are either compatible or false.

[Anusiya]

I’ll start with this simple reasoning:
Moral can either coincide with reason, or not. There’s no other possibility.

If it coincides with reason, it doesn’t add any value: If X is the reasonable thing to do, saying that it is also the moral thing to do doesn’t change anything. You would have done X in any case.

However, if it doesn’t coincide with reason, the existence of this (pretty undefined) word, is nothing more than an opportunity to hijack reason: if X is the reasonable thing to do, but Y the moral thing to do, there will be always people to advocate ‘the moral thing to do’.

At the very least moral could consume human time and nerves in meaningless debates.
What do you think?


If someone acts out of morality for the sake of being/showing moral, then he is nothing but dogmatic. Quite often dumb and cowering too.

[Duży Zaganiacz]

10 human behaviors that can be considered moral (watch quickly because agora.pl may remove it soon): http://deser.pl/deser/51,111858,11981500.html?i=0&bo=1

[el22]

If the moral coincides with reason, it gives you motivation to do what is too hard or risky, but otherwise reasonable.

Moral behavior results in satisfaction, even if it has apparently nothing to do with reason.

Some example for illustration?


What is moral or not was strictly defined at least 2k years ago or even earlier, and it didn't change since then. Different explanations that exist are either compatible or false.

Actually what's moral changes continually.
For example, is slavery considered a moral thing today?
Was it considered an immoral thing a few centuries ago?


If someone acts out of morality for the sake of being/showing moral, then he is nothing but dogmatic. Quite often dumb and cowering too.

Yes, but how do you define what's moral in any case?

[Sarmatian]

Some example for illustration?

Actually what's moral changes continually.
For example, is slavery considered a moral thing today?
Was it considered an immoral thing a few centuries ago?

Yes, but how do you define what's moral in any case?

Concept of moral norm of today is not what it was some centuries ago. Today it is kind of social agreement on the ways an action should be taken in order to make sure its not interfere with interests of individuals around you and society in general.

Centuries ago it was strictly personal guidelines with aim to ensure the ones personal integrity and piety.

[el22]

Concept of moral norm of today is not what it was some centuries ago. Today it is kind of social agreement on the ways an action should be taken in order to make sure its not interfere with interests of individuals around you and society in general.

Centuries ago it was strictly personal guidelines with aim to ensure the ones personal integrity and piety.

So it has changed. And there's no reason to assume that it won't change anymore.
For changes to be accepted they will need to be argued. So you can't escape from reasoning.

In other words, you can't add (consciously) any unreasonable thing to 'moral'. And you don't need to remove any reasonable thing out of it.

The best thing 'moral' can hope for, is to be a redundant word.

[Sarmatian]

So it has changed. And there's no reason to assume that it won't change anymore.
For changes to be accepted they will need to be argued. So you can't escape from reasoning.

In other words, you can't add (consciously) any unreasonable thing to 'moral'. And you don't need to remove any reasonable thing out of it.

The best thing 'moral' can hope for, is to be a redundant word.

Wrong. Reasoning and logic are as far from mentality of a crowd as one can get.

If you have some charisma and reasonable understanding of mentality of a crowd at the moment you can feed them with pretty much any bullshit and they will take it.

Most of moral norms of today are actually the old ones but tweaked to be justified on the level of social interactions. They still have their natural value but very few people actually understand it which is why questioning leave no reasonable answers most of the times.

[el22]

Wrong. Reasoning and logic are as far from mentality of a crowd as one can get.

If you have some charisma and reasonable understanding of mentality of a crowd at the moment you can feed them with pretty much any bullshit and they will take it.

Most of moral norms of today are actually the old ones but tweaked to be justified on the level of social interactions. They still have their natural value but very few people actually understand it which is why questioning leave no reasonable answers most of the times.

If I understood you correctly, what you're saying is that if you know how to manipulate the crowd, you can make seem 'moral' unreasonable/stupid/unworthy/dangerous things.

In other words moral at best can be a redundant word for a set of reasonable things, but more likely is worst than that. So back to square 1.

[Partizan]

I think "Kantian ethics" is what we exactly need.

[el22]

I think "Kantian ethics" is what we exactly need.

For as long as they are a product of thinking, which takes into account the accumulated experience, (in other words: for as long as they are reasonable), why not.

[Johnny Bravo]

Talk about opening a can of worms ... morality vs. Morality. I suppose one could do worse than tackle this issue from a perspectivist POV.

Moreover, people are intrinsically irrational.

@el22: How would you tackle the issue of 'morality' from your self-professed "Ultra Darwinian evolutionist follower" perspective? I am primarily referring to the idea that our perception of the world is an adaptive (Darwinian) feature that basically enables us to somehow get by in this world - with varying degrees of success.

[el22]

@el22: How would you tackle the issue of 'morality' from your self-professed "Ultra Darwinian evolutionist follower" perspective? I am primarily referring to the idea that our perception of the world is an adaptive (Darwinian) feature that basically enables us to somehow get by in this world - with varying degrees of success.

I already answered that since my first post.

I can try to make it more easy:

Name one thing that is moral but not reasonable. And we better don't lose that thing.

Or, alternatively

Name one thing that is both moral and reasonable, but if it wasn't moral we would loose something.

[Johnny Bravo]

Name one thing that is moral but not reasonable. And we better don't lose that thing.


Perhaps turning the other cheek.

[el22]

Perhaps turning the other cheek.

So, if I hit you, you turn the other cheek
I hit you in the other cheek (that's why you turned it, right?), you turn the first cheek
I hit you in the first cheek, you turn the other cheek...

Are you sure something moral is happening here?

Of course, this could be fun for me, but are you sure you don't want to escape (loose) from this loop?

[Johnny Bravo]

So, if I hit you, you turn the other cheek
I hit you in the other cheek (that's why you turned it, right?), you turn the first cheek
I hit you in the first cheek, you turn the other cheek...

Are you sure something moral is happening here?


If indeed you are a Darwinian (as opposed to a Spencerian), then you might be skating on thin ice here.

Humans have 'evolved' to a point where an escalation of violence (in a manner you poroposed) can quickly degenerate into a nuclear war. Humanity is, in evolutionary terms, at a point where we might not be able to afford any violence. One could even argue that perpetuating violence has never been a good idea to begin with.

At any rate, turning the other cheek might just be the moral thing to do.

[Duży Zaganiacz]

Some example for illustration?
Here (http://www.sociology.uiowa.edu/nsfworkshop/JournalArticleResources/Aquino_Reed_Self-Import_Moral_Ident_2002.pdf) are some citations on satisfaction from moral behavior in persons that have moral identity.

For example, is slavery considered a moral thing today?
Was it considered an immoral thing a few centuries ago?
Enslavement by kidnapping was always immoral, practiced only by racist countries, it was eventually criminalized after 1948 and replaced with enslaving of nations (still immoral but less perceivable).

[el22]

If indeed you are a Darwinian (as opposed to a Spencerian), then you might be skating on thin ice here.

Darwinism is about careful observations in collecting facts and a reasonable way in explaining them. There's nothing more solid to walk on.


At any rate, turning the other cheek might just be the moral thing to do.

You can call it moral if you want, but do you really appreciate this idea if you're the one that turns the other cheek, and I'm the one that hits you, endlessly?

[el22]

Here (http://www.sociology.uiowa.edu/nsfworkshop/JournalArticleResources/Aquino_Reed_Self-Import_Moral_Ident_2002.pdf) are some citations on satisfaction from moral behavior in persons that have moral identity.
Do you mind quoting here an example.


Enslavement by kidnapping was always immoral, practiced only by racist countries, it was eventually criminalized after 1948 and replaced with enslaving of nations (still immoral but less perceivable).

If the keyword is "kidnapping" for being immoral, let's try it differently.
Let's say a father sells his daughter to be a slave.

Is this moral today?
Has this been immoral throughout human history?

[Duży Zaganiacz]

Do you mind quoting here an example.There are so many sociology terms in that work, tables and parameters that I cannot extract it without breaking their method. But the work is covering the subject.


If the keyword is "kidnapping" for being immoral, let's try it differently.
Let's say a father sells his daughter to be a slave.

Is this moral today?
Has this been immoral throughout human history?Both kidnapping and selling own child can be moral or immoral depending on its effect. If making someone a slave saves them from death, it is moral. Throughout history, it probably didn't change much. Trading own children was not needed (and not allowed) in middle-age Europe and was always practiced in some Asiatic countries. However it doesn't mean that Asians (Indians, Chinese) have different morality than ours, they only have different level of understanding it.

[Johnny Bravo]

Darwinism is about careful observations in collecting facts and a reasonable way in explaining them. There's nothing more solid to walk on.

Too bad you skipped my core argument because my entire point hinges on it:


Humans have 'evolved' to a point where an escalation of violence (in a manner you poroposed) can quickly degenerate into a nuclear war. Humanity is, in evolutionary terms, at a point where we might not be able to afford any violence. One could even argue that perpetuating violence has never been a good idea to begin with.

You actually made quite a good point about morality earlier on. Most questions about morality are non-starters, whereas yours is quite answerable.


You can call it moral if you want, but do you really appreciate this idea if you're the one that turns the other cheek, and I'm the one that hits you, endlessly?

First of all, if I'm outnumbered, I'm almost certainly going to get my ass kicked. It would be almost futile to fight back (regardless of my background in martial arts). Moreover, you would be held accountable for your actions in any civilised society. Jail time is a good incentive to refrain from such actions.

[Johnny Bravo]

I think "Kantian ethics" is what we exactly need.

I was going to reply to your post, but you might want to flesh out your argument before I throw in my 2 Euro cents. Don't feel like barking up the wrong tree today. :coffee:

[el22]

Too bad you skipped my core argument because my entire point hinges on it

I skipped nothing.
I have put Darwinism in the field 'Religion'.
Which is to say I believe in science: "careful observations in collecting facts and a reasonable way in explaining them".

Darwinism is not 'all' science, but represents science in some important questions where science and religion compete with each other.


First of all, if I'm outnumbered, I'm almost certainly going to get my ass kicked. It would be almost futile to fight back (regardless of my background in martial arts). Moreover, you would be held accountable for your actions in any civilised society. Jail time is a good incentive to refrain from such actions.

Now you are reasoning.

You might be not outnumbered, and I maybe weaker than you, but according to moral, you can't do anything but play the (rather stuppid) role, where you alternate cheeks while I hit you, endlessly.

[Rastko]

moral is gay


like Christianity

[Johnny Bravo]

I skipped nothing.
I have put Darwinism in the field 'Religion'.
Which is to say I believe in science: "careful observations in collecting facts and a reasonable way in explaining them".

You still haven't replied to my argument that humans possess weapons that could destroy us if we don't calm the f... down and become more peaceful as a species. It's a matter of Darwinian adaptation and this particular adaptation, i.e. peacefulness, might just be crucial to our survival.

I'm under the impression that you're commiting a naturalistic fallacy here, which certainly isn't Darwinian either.


Darwinism is not 'all' science, but represents science in some important questions where science and religion compete with each other.


Sorta depends on what you mean by 'Darwinism', but point taken.



Now you are reasoning.

You might be not outnumbered, and I maybe weaker than you, but according to moral, you can't do anything but play the (rather stuppid) role, where you alternate cheeks while I hit you, endlessly.

The opposite attitude can lead to endless retaliatory acts which will ultimately bring about our demise as a species. Is that a better solution?

[el22]

You still haven't replied to my argument that humans possess weapons that could destroy us if we don't calm the f... down and become more peaceful as a species. It's a matter of Darwinian adaptation and this particular adaptation, i.e. peacefulness, might just be crucial to our survival.

I'm under the impression that you're commiting a naturalistic fallacy here, which certainly isn't Darwinian either.

Sorta depends on what you mean by 'Darwinism', but point taken.


Darwinism is in my profile. I can elaborate in another thread my answer to your concerns about Darwinism.

The only reason why Darwinism came out here, is because you saw it in my profile. This thread is not about Darwinism.

I was careful to focus this thread in a very specific question, and provided an adequate advocacy for my position about this question.


The opposite attitude can lead to endless retaliatory acts which will ultimately bring about our demise as a species. Is that a better solution?

We know now that morality can put us in an endless loop (as I showed you).

Now, can you bring a simple concrete example when reason might put us in a loop too?

[Johnny Bravo]

Well, I provided an example of a moral but not necessarily reasonable thing to do (one on which our very survival depends). The whole issue obviously depends on what you mean by reason in the first place. You could try to define it in Darwinian terms. That way you would at least have a tangible concept one could wrap his head around.

I would argue that 'reason' is, strictly speaking, a euphemism for 'rationalisation'.

[Edelmann]

If it coincides with reason, it doesn’t add any value: If X is the reasonable thing to do, saying that it is also the moral thing to do doesn’t change anything. You would have done X in any case.


This assumes that people are always reasonable.

If something is merely unreasonable it may be more easy to ignore objections than if it were both unreasonable and 'immoral'. Morality serves as a second wall with rationality against the unrestrained will.

Morality is more clearly a fiction than rationality, however, so it's ultimately easier to penetrate.