Determining what is “moral”

Originally posted by whodey
Why is that the best way to explain these feelings?

Because it explains all the observed patterns. I am not away of any other explanation for any of the patterns at all. Are you?

After all, life forms could exist in a parasitic form, and some do.
And how is that relevant? If anything it supports my claim.

In addition, Christ said that he layed down his life for his friends, none of which had his DNA to pass down. How then do you explain this sacrifice?
You clearly don't know much about DNA. We all share most of our DNA.

Again, saying that the Golden Rule exists is simply stating the facts. So your explanation must be that mankind invented religion to explain a phenomenon that has no origin, it simply "evolved", or you say that religion is simply following the power that implanted the Golden Rule in our hearts.
Religion is not the Golden rule, or even based on it. Religion takes advantage or the golden rule to spread. ie a Christian says 'well you know the golden rule is true therefore I must be telling you the truth about all these other things'.

As for my religion, it states that God is love. In fact, this alterable and constantly changing world is fleeting as where love is eternal and never changing. You might even say that the material world is nonexistant in comparison to love in that regard. If true, wouldn't that be ironic?
It just doesn't make any sense unless you mean something different by it than what most of us mean by it (which wouldn't surprise me). But without a translation, I do not understand you.

Originally posted by RBHILL
I believe what someone says about the word moral is an opinion.

Why are so many people convinced that the very definition of 'moral' is relative when it is quite clear from this thread that we all mean the same thing by it. What is relative is how we apply it to given situations, but that doesn't change the core definition.
Morality allows for other motivations including selfishness and love, and what is relative is what weighting we give those other motivations.

Originally posted by KellyJay
In your opinion there a "right" way to behave or live a "should" that we are bound
too that when we move away from it convicts us or causes us guilt, or is it all just
whatever we make up as we go?
Kelly

Kelly, I teach ethics for a living. Do you honestly think that I think that morality is just a matter of opinion, or that we can make it up as we go? I don't think there is one right way for everybody to behave or to live, but I think there are better and worse ways of behaving, and better and worse lives we can lead.

Originally posted by bbarr
In philosophy, the term 'reason' is used in a variety of ways. Here are some uses, phrased with regard to action. (and these are just typical uses; different philosophers use even these refined notions differently):

Theoretical Reason: Considerations that relate to what one believes or should believe.

Practical Reason: Considerations that relate to wh cations for our actions. So, again, I am unsure of what your distinction is all about.

“…So, you see, when you talk of emotional reasons and moral reasons, I have no idea what you're talking about. Your examples here do not help much….”

I don’t see how on earth I can make it more obvious what it means:

If you have an “emotional reason” to do X then that means you have an emotion that makes you want to do X. in other words:
“emotional reason to do X” = “having an emotion that makes you want to do X”.

If you have a “moral reason” to do X then that means you have a moral belief that to do X is the morally right thing to do. in other words:
“moral reason to do X” = “having a moral belief that to do X is the morally right thing to do”.

I fail to see how much more clear I can make the semantics.
What part of the above definitions do you find unclear?

“…Certainly, my love motivates me. Certainly, my love explains a lot of what I do. But my love also justifies my actions….”

How does love “justifies” your actions? If you hated her and killed her, would that hate “justify” your actions?

You seem to be unable to disentangle the emotions in your thought processes from the moral beliefs in your thought processes. Not being able to separate the two does not mean they are the same things. I can separate the two from my thought processes with no difficulty.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…So, you see, when you talk of emotional reasons and moral reasons, I have no idea what you're talking about. Your examples here do not help much….”

I don’t see how on earth I can make it more obvious what it means:

If you have an “emotional reason” to do X then that means you have an emotion that makes you want to do X. in other words:
“emot ...[text shortened]... they are the same things. I can separate the two from my thought processes with no difficulty.

“…You seem to be unable to disentangle the emotions in your thought processes from the moral beliefs in your thought processes…”

It has just occurred to me that this is a very common human flaw!
I will make another thread about this now.

Originally posted by bbarr
Kelly, I teach ethics for a living. Do you honestly think that I think that morality is just a matter of opinion, or that we can make it up as we go? I don't think there is one right way for everybody to behave or to live, but I think there are better and worse ways of behaving, and better and worse lives we can lead.

Well, to tell you the truth I'm not sure how you come to your views upon what is
and isn't right if you are not making it up as you go. When I say you’re making it
up as you go, I do not mean "you" personally, but mankind in general. Mankind
makes it, modifies it after some time, things change so man modifies it, things
change so mankind modifies it and so on. Point being, there isn't anything set, it
can be whatever people want whenever they want to change it to suit their
needs, wants, or desires. Morals would be just whatever suits those in power with
the ability to influence either through argument or force, nothing really binds
anyone to any set standard so really anything goes.

Yesterday homosexuality was frowned upon today it is celebrated, today polygamy
is frown upon tomorrow it could be celebrated, yesterday children were marrying
as early as ~14 today its 18, tomorrow marriage could be between people and pets
who knows if we are in an ever changing world of what is and isn’t accepted. Slavery
could make a comeback into the social order of things! Since there are not set
standards they can come into and go out of popularity depending upon whatever
is desired by those that can make it happen.

I’d like to hear your views if you think I’m wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…So, you see, when you talk of emotional reasons and moral reasons, I have no idea what you're talking about. Your examples here do not help much….”

I don’t see how on earth I can make it more obvious what it means:

If you have an “emotional reason” to do X then that means you have an emotion that makes you want to do X. in other words:
“emot ...[text shortened]... they are the same things. I can separate the two from my thought processes with no difficulty.

Interesting. You don't see how providing an explanation for a putative distinction may be clearer than merely providing an example that illustrates that distinction?

In any case, now you have provided an explanation:

Emotional Reason: Having an emotion that causes a desire to act.
Moral Reason: Having a belief that an act is morally good or right.

I find these definitions relatively clear. Put thus baldly, however, I'm unclear about the relevance of these notions to questions in moral philosophy or moral psychology.

Your distinction relies on a tacit assumption that emotions and beliefs are substantially different types of things. That's fair enough, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. Emotional states serve to orient our attention to practical reasons, and to motivate us in accord with those practical reasons. Emotions are reason-responsive and reason-providing, not simply feelings. There is certainly a phenomenology to compassion. We feel it. But what actually goes on when we feel it? Our attention is drawn to features of the world that fall within the scope of compassion. We notice that somebody is distressed or in pain. We are made uncomfortable by the fact that this person is distressed or in pain; it bugs us, nags us, makes us anxious and upset. We start thinking about what we could do to help, play through options, or in some cases we just see what needs to be done and we do it. In short, emotions of this sort are have not only affective and conative features, but doxastic and cognitive features as well. When one experiences an emotion, one thereby represents the world to one's self in a manner similar to a belief. Emotions help us to lay bare the evaluative/normative structure of the world.

But what about moral beliefs? Sincere moral beliefs go beyond simply attributing rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness, to actions, events or what have you. If somebody said "I sincerely believe that stealing is wrong", but then regularly stole, you would think they were lying, or that they used the term 'stealing' or 'wrong' in some weird way. But why should you have this reaction? It is because there is a practical component to all belief, and evaluative/normative beliefs in particular (of which moral beliefs are an instance). When we believe something, we thereby form something like an intention to act as though the world is accurately represented by our belief. If somebody has a sincere evaluative/normative belief, then we expect them to act as though the world is accurately represented by that belief. So, if somebody sincerely believes that, for instance, preventable suffering should generally be alleviated, we expect them to be upset by preventable suffering, for it to "get under their skin", for them to be motivated to alleviate it, and so on. Beliefs of this sort have affective and conative features.

So, again, I think that your distinction between emotional and moral reasons is overly simplistic, and actually obfuscates the important and ubiquitous ways in which emotions partake of moral reasoning and are implicated in moral beliefs and judgments.

Now, you ask how an emotion can justify an action. I find this question bizarre, because it indicates that you are disconnected from typical modes of moral discourse, or that you are feigning ignorance for rhetorical purposes. Perhaps this is why Aristotle said it was pointless to try and teach ethics to young people; they just don't have enough experience in the world to see why certain traits are virtues, norms are reasonable, and some considerations actually reasons.

In the interest of your edification, I will explain. I suspect that you will respond with skepticism, instead of thinking about how humans are in fact disposed to respond to questions about whether their actions are justified. But hope springs eternal, so:

Love, compassion, loyalty, etc. are "thick" ethical concepts, in that they include in their conceptual content both descriptive and normative components. "Thin" ethical concepts like rightness, goodness, value, etc. solely have normative content. Love is broadly related to taking another as a non-instrumental source of reasons (though it goes much deeper than this, of course). Compassion is broadly related to the alleviation of preventable suffering, and so on. This is the descriptive content; it has to do with what these concepts are about. Also, since these concepts can, and often do, refer to emotional states, these concepts tell us what these emotional states typically aim at in the world, or with regard to ourselves and others. But these concepts are also normative. It is good to be loving, and to have loving relationships, and to have love feature prominently in one's life. It is good to be compassionate, to exercise compassion when it is called for, etc. Conversely, it is bad to be hateful, callous or cruel, spiteful, jealous, etc. These concepts, like all concepts, have conditions of appropriate deployment. Actions can appropriately or inappropriately be called 'loving', 'compassionate', 'spiteful', 'cruel', etc. Also, and more importantly for our purposes, the emotions to which these concepts often refer can themselves be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the context and situation. There are situations where it is appropriate to feel compassion, and it stands to our credit when feel compassion in these situations.

I cooked dinner for the girlfriend last night. Suppose somebody asks "why did you cook dinner for her?". An appropriate response is "I love her". Every normal person understands this response. That I love her provides both instrumental and non-instrumental reasons for doing things for and with like cooking dinner. That I have this emotion, or this constellation of dispositions of which an emotion is a part, justifies my action in a couple of ways. First, my action is shown to be rational, in an internalist sense, by the presence of the emotion. Given my other goals, purposes, values, etc. that I love her renders my action rational. It makes sense of the way the action coheres with my psychology, what I take to be my reasons, etc. Second, my action is shown to be reasonable, right or good, because of the normative centrality and importance of love for creatures like us. The response "Because I love..." can justify because of the nature of love and because of the nature of creatures like us.

This does not entail that love cannot, in some instances, be inappropriate. Much less that any emotional state justifies whatever actions it brings about. Some emotions get aimed at inappropriate objects, or arise in inappropriate circumstances. Some emotions are harmful, or damaging, or ugly. But, again, some beliefs about what is right and what is wrong are false, harmful, damaging or ugly. Just as the possibility of being wrong about what is moral doesn't entail that beliefs and judgments can't justify, so the possibility of having inappropriate emotions doesn't entail that emotions cannot justify.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well, to tell you the truth I'm not sure how you come to your views upon what is
and isn't right if you are not making it up as you go. When I say you’re making it
up as you go, I do not mean "you" personally, but mankind in general. Mankind
makes it, modifies it after some time, things change so man modifies it, things
change so mankind modifies it and hose that can make it happen.

I’d like to hear your views if you think I’m wrong.
Kelly

Well, I've come to my ethical views by being raised by educated and loving parents, thinking seriously about what it means to flourish as a human being, what makes lives better or worse, and so on. I then subjected these views to sustained criticism by moral philosophers over a decade of schooling.

The question, I think, is where do we begin our inquiry into ethics? What do we, and by 'we' I mean you, me, our community, etc. judge to be of fundamental ethical importance? We don't have to reinvent the wheel here. We all know that, everything else being equal, suffering is bad, as is deceit, coercion, and so on. We all know that, everything else being equal, love and friendship are good, as is honesty, compassion, loyalty, autonomy, integrity, and so on. We use these basic, foundational moral judgments in our assessment of proposed ethical principles, outlooks, frameworks, etc. Suppose, just hypothetically, that a new book, written by Jesus Christ himself had been found. Suppose that Jesus said "It is O.K. to slaughter the children of your enemies". I mean, really suppose that Jesus actually said this. I know you think it is impossible, but try to imagine it. Even if Jesus Christ himself had said this, you would still think it is wrong to slaughter children. That is something you take as deep and fundamental. It is something basic to us, as humans, and any moral theory or framework that allows the slaughter of children is thereby found false. There is simply no way it could be O.K.; that's just a premise of ethical investigation and inquiry. So, I'm not really worried about people saying crazy things about torture, slavery, etc. Those things are wrong, full stop. To claim otherwise is to fundamentally misconstrue ethics; it is to ignore those very beliefs that are bedrock and provide the foundation for our differing ethical frameworks. We can only disagree so much before somebody just gets it wrong. That said, there is some flexibility in ethics. Not every good life looks identical. Some people place more importance on justice than mercy or compassion. Some folks place more importance on their family on friends than distant or unknown others. These are real and important differences, but they are not foundational differences. They are recognizable as within the sphere of ethical options. They are the sorts of differences about which we can have meaningful and persuasive discussions.

Originally posted by bbarr
Interesting. You don't see how providing an explanation for a putative distinction may be clearer than merely providing an example that illustrates that distinction?

In any case, now you have provided an explanation:

Emotional Reason: Having an emotion that causes a desire to act.
Moral Reason: Having a belief that an act is morally good or right. ...[text shortened]... priate emotions doesn't entail that emotions cannot justify.

In other words, you agree that there is a difference
between moral reasons and emotional reasons 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well, to tell you the truth I'm not sure how you come to your views upon what is
and isn't right if you are not making it up as you go. When I say you’re making it
up as you go, I do not mean "you" personally, but mankind in general. Mankind
makes it, modifies it after some time, things change so man modifies it, things
change so mankind modifies it and ...[text shortened]... hose that can make it happen.

I’d like to hear your views if you think I’m wrong.
Kelly

So you believe that slavery is morally wrong? And yet this practise is condoned in the bible. Therefore it would seem to me that you must either accept that the bible is wrong about this, or you must accept at least some degree of moral relativism.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you believe that slavery is morally wrong? And yet this practise is condoned in the bible. Therefore it would seem to me that you must either accept that the bible is wrong about this, or you must accept at least some degree of moral relativism.

Thanks for being patient and pointing out one of the many glaring flaws in the bible....again😉

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, I've come to my ethical views by being raised by educated and loving parents, thinking seriously about what it means to flourish as a human being, what makes lives better or worse, and so on. I then subjected these views to sustained criticism by moral philosophers over a decade of schooling.

Great stuff as always. Hope people recognise the value of what you are giving them for free.

The challenge that - without god - we need to dig down to some alternative metaphysical bedrock has always struck me as bogus.

In life we have no problem recognising, debating, finessing, and acting according to moral concepts.

The interesting moral questions are difficult; but I don't really see why we should accept that morality itself is somehow mysterious.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you believe that slavery is morally wrong? And yet this practise is condoned in the bible. Therefore it would seem to me that you must either accept that the bible is wrong about this, or you must accept at least some degree of moral relativism.

Condoned? Where, exactly?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So you believe that slavery is morally wrong? And yet this practise is condoned in the bible. Therefore it would seem to me that you must either accept that the bible is wrong about this, or you must accept at least some degree of moral relativism.

I believe God sets some rules we should not break no matter if we join hand in
hand together saying we want this not that, and there are other things we judge
for ourselves. I believe life is like that with the absolute and the relative, we see
a mixture throughout the universe in all areas of life.
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, I've come to my ethical views by being raised by educated and loving parents, thinking seriously about what it means to flourish as a human being, what makes lives better or worse, and so on. I then subjected these views to sustained criticism by moral philosophers over a decade of schooling.

The question, I think, is where do we begin our inquiry ...[text shortened]... the sorts of differences about which we can have meaningful and persuasive discussions.

I was raised where my dad drank and I have as many memories of him bouncing
my mom off the walls than them being loving towards one another. I would say
that coming from a broken home gives me a perspective you more than likely
don't have and I'd not wish on you. That said, there are others on the planet
whose views of what is and isn't proper comes from lives much better and worse
than either of our lives. I'd be willing to bet that in many places not everything is
equal, and some lives are valued and others not so much. So are they wrong, is
there something about all of us that makes the playing field level regardless of
how we grew up, what are values are?
Kelly