THE VERY BIG QUESTION OF MORALITY

by **SubmissMe** » January 19th, 2006, 11:45 am

Calling all philosophers, I need some help.

I am doing an important essay on AJ Ayer and his views on morality in the book Language Truth and Logic, see chapter 6.

Basically Ayer argues that the statement "stealing is wrong" means no more than saying "stealing, BOO! " in other words morality is just a reflection of feelings towards a particular subject.

Is he right? Or do our morals come from more than just feelings? Any views or analogies would be much appreciated and probably used in my Thesis.

Looking forward to all views.

by **manlian** » January 19th, 2006, 12:24 pm

Well, you could say that morality is an evolutionary construct that developed to facilitate a species with complex social interactions.

In my view, this kind of fits. Most morality and ethics can be seen in light of preserving the collective, with its constituents embarking upon mutually acceptable and, in some cases, beneficial behaviour.

This system of interpersonal standards probably gains its most concise articulation in Kant's categorical imperative, or the "do unto others...." type thinking.

I think this is termed evolutionary psychology, but I coud be wrong, so wtfux.

Well, hope this helps you.

by **dgrade** » January 19th, 2006, 4:23 pm

I recommend reading Nietzsche if you really want to understand morality. You'll impress the hell out of your professor too doing a comparison of Ayer and Nietzsche.

Short version:
Morality is a set of rules civilization applies to its self because it views its self as little more than cattle. Applying this wide brush acrossed everyone is sloppy at best. It is, Nietzsche asserts, harmful in the case of artists who are expected to live within the confines of a civilization while demonstrating to said civilization new ways of thinking.

A practical example is, of course, Leonardo DaVinci. Digging up dead people is still frowned upon today, even if you're an artist, when will we ever learn.

by **SubmissMe** » January 20th, 2006, 11:40 am

Funny you should mention the great Freidrich Nietzsche, as I have actually incorperated him.

I've also tried to get Hume's If / Ought Gap in there. If you don't know about that, I suggest you look it up becuase its just ingenious.

Can anyone think of any other real theories about morality I could use? The Leonardo DiVinci analogy is a great one. I want to come up with an origional analogy though, and its bloody hard.

Anything else anyone?

by **Primus** » January 20th, 2006, 12:55 pm

I'll tell you where morals don't come from... and then maybe you'll understand why I can never go back to Sea World.

Seriously Morals are grains of a greater truth that we cling to. If more people could share or even agree on some ground level morals like don't kill people... (Some people say that the death penalty should be used but if Bob doesn't kill Jimbo why would Bob need to be put to death?) then perhaps the utapian society we're all searching for wouldn't be so far off.

Where Morals Come From: Race memory stored in the collective consciousness from a more civilized time.

Where Morals Go: Right out the window when things start going sideways.

Morals are kinda like holes, you can easily have more than a few. There will always be a few people who say that they just hold you back, and a few others who will tell you that you need more.
Always be wary of those who offer more, that advice and Boba Fett

by **SubmissMe** » January 20th, 2006, 2:00 pm

I was interested in your response Primus, and you came up trumps. I KNEW that would be your view on morality.

But consider this :

John is drowning.

You ought to save John.

Are these two statements interlinked? Does the second statement directly follow the first?

by **aeroue** » January 21st, 2006, 5:11 pm

As you said the is ought gap is rather ingenius.

Also you may want to check out emotivism, basically that morals are just the result of our emotions.

Morals in my opinion are bull, just a cunning ploy people came up with to justify their decisions.

But at the same time they are useful and needed in society.

by **Jack** » January 21st, 2006, 6:33 pm

Morality and ethics are the implements for a society to continue to exist. They define a society. They give society direction, and keep it cohesive.

by **SubmissMe** » January 22nd, 2006, 8:20 am

Yes Jack, that is true.

I feel Ayer's emotivism is a tad too superficial. I feel that we have many different sets of morals, and apply them to the circumstances of our living.

In the words of Russell "We have, in fact, two sets of morals. One which we preach but seldom practice, and one which we practice and seldom preach."

Its no Is Ought Gap but its a start.

by **Primus** » January 22nd, 2006, 10:47 pm

the answer to whether or not john should be saved depends on several things left unmentioned... why is he drowning? if he was stupid enough to walk out into a lake whereing iron boots than no I should not save him. My morals dictate that things like that require people to die it's "Thinning the herd" however should he have been thrown into a lake due to an accident then yes John should and would be saved... as long as he's not at sea world, see afformented allusions.

by **SubmissMe** » January 23rd, 2006, 5:50 am

An interesting tangent, although it's not Hume's view.

Hume says that we only ought to save John if this statement is true:

When someone is drowning you ought to save them.

And that is a question of value. Thus you can never derive an ethical statement from a purely factual one.

by **Hyp-know-fetish** » January 26th, 2006, 10:17 pm

OK. I suppose I should add my two cents as well. I'm going to try to not mention any religion in particular, or even any at all if I can help it. But if I do, know that I am considered Evangelical. Consider yourself warned. :wink:

Morality is basically a set of unwritten rules of right and wrong, correct? When a person is on their own, they have a desire to survive. This is not true morality, it is pure instinct that animals have. However, if you get a group of humans in even the smallest society, morals begin to shape.

As was brought up, humans have a desire to protect their species as much as possible. This is the premise behind police, firemen, and even libraries, as it can be considered moral to educate the mind, to not follow stupidity.

Morals are truly in question, however, when situations that require decisions must be made. If you drive along the road and see a wrecked car, what are your choices? Frankly, it's either to ignore it, or stop and help if you can.

In this scenario, let's say the driver goes along his merry way, ignoring the wreck. But soon, how likely is it that the "ignorant" driver will soon feel intense guilt for what he has done? He may ponder what happened to the car, and it's driver. And what about the passengers? Could there have been children in the vehicle? And what did it look like to the wrecked driver as you passed, uncaring? The man may be tormented for a day or two by guilt that he didn't help.

Why, though? Why should he care? Logically, he has no reason to. He doesn't know the wrecked driver personally. (Well, he might, but we'll assume he doesn't) There was little he could do if he stopped, except fetch a tow truck. If the man inside was dying, what could he do? The cold, logical answer is: Very little. And yet, he feels bad. Why?

This is the basis of basic morality: That other human life is valued at at least your own. That you care enough to help. That you offer your talents to someone who appreciates them. And that you help without seeking personal gain, though there is nothing wrong with helping yourself in the process, so long as it doesn't cause harm. All this is morality.

This may offend a few people, but my stance is this: Morality is independant from religion. Being a man of God/Allah/Buddha/etc., etc... is a good thing in my opinion, but that doesn't make you moral. And being moral doesn't necessarily cause you to have faith in a Diety of your choice. So you can be a good person in society's view, and yet be an atheist. I know several very good and decent people who don't believe. Do I try to convert them? Not seriously, but I do poke fun at my g/f for it, just to tease. (Hey, she's right on so many issues that I have to get back at her somehow. And I don't get all mad because she doesn't believe)

So, this is my thesis on morality. If you disagree, that's fine, but everything I've written is the result of years upon years of pondering the biggest issues of mankind. So this isn't off the top of my head. :)

by **SubmissMe** » January 27th, 2006, 11:05 am

Good post.

But the fact we have libraries and firemen and police ect is probably common sense more than anything else.

The point that religion and morality are not interlinked is a good one. The idea that we get our morals from God is the stupidest thing i've ever come across (no offence).

If anything religion copies our morals to seem more appealing rather than our morals coming from religion.

by **Hyp-know-fetish** » January 27th, 2006, 11:45 am

SubmissMe wrote:Good post.

But the fact we have libraries and firemen and police ect is probably common sense more than anything else.

Well, the idea of police and firemen is to protect your fellow man/woman, so that seems a tad on the moral side. But not really centering on morality. :)

The point that religion and morality are not interlinked is a good one. The idea that we get our morals from God is the stupidest thing i've ever come across (no offence).

None taken.

If anything religion copies our morals to seem more appealing rather than our morals coming from religion.

Well, if you are a believer, then God was around before morals were. ;) But seriously, following some diety of choice can cause you to do moral actions, like I hope I got across in the first place. So don't get me wrong; following your God if you have one does go hand-in-hand with morality. But one does not directly cause the other. There are some "Christians" who really aren't moral.

A true test of morality would be to see what your reaction to this would be. It left a scar on my childhood, though not a deep one. As a boy, I had a nice pastor. He was an older man, around his sixties at the time. (Yes, he still lives) He was a people person who maintained his role as a pastor. He would inject the occasional humor into his sermons, making it enjoyable to listen. He took kindness to me and my family, as well.

Around my 10th year Mr. Hake wanted to go on a motorcycle trip with his friends in the church. My father was one of them. I rode on the back of his motorcycle while we all went out to a restaurant I'd never seen before. The pastor was very nice to me. On another occasion, I went out with 6 of his friends to play Canasta. See, he was a very good person, and the people loved him.

Another man, an upstart, wanted to have the church. He spread false rumors about him, and about my family. It was a troubled time. I still blackly remember eating lunch in Jr. High only to have a kid come up behind me and say, "Dude, your dad raped someone?" I kicked his ass but good. He was down on the ground.

In the end, the upstart forced Mr. Hake to leave. The patrons, once his fans, now gave him cold stares as he left the room in tears. And we got them too. We were no longer welcome.

We left the church but not the faith. But I still get all teary-eyed today remembering those black memories. I really wish that hadn't happened.

Getting back to morality, was what the upstart did right? My answer is "of course not!" In my opinion it was completely immoral to force someone out of a position just so they could advance the career.

After seizing the position, he took advantage of the church by having them build a house on church grounds. Now, I used to be able to roam the fields around the church, to play in the grass, visit the small dam. But not after that. They threatened to call the cops on me for trespassing. ON CHURCH GROUNDS! How immoral can one "pastor" get?

by **SubmissMe** » January 28th, 2006, 12:01 pm

A sad story indeed. But this only confirms my point that religion and morals are in fact not connected. How could two pastors exhibit two completely contrasting moral values if religion and morals go hand in hand?

I think Ayer's view on morality is best used here, showing that complex moral issues like this simply boil down to, in your case "Overthrowing a well-liked pastor and family friend, BOO!".

Surely you can't believe morals are metaphysical? Can you?

by **Mallic** » January 28th, 2006, 6:06 pm

No, I don't think 'immoral'.... Amoral would be better fitting.

by **Hyp-know-fetish** » January 28th, 2006, 8:41 pm

Well, the two words mean basically the same thing (not exactly, but close) so you got the jist of what I was saying. :)

by **SubmissMe** » January 29th, 2006, 8:01 am

Posts round here are wearing a bit thin. I think the problem is that because philosophy is such a big area a lot of people feel excluded when posts appear on a subject they don't know much about.

The one about God was good because that's an issue that we all have at least some knowledge and something to contribute.

We need to here from more people rather than the same old "regulars".

by **aeroue** » January 30th, 2006, 10:12 am

Just to say,

Immoral and Amoral are in no way the same thing.

If something is amoral it is neutral.

Immoral something bad or wrong.

by **Hyp-know-fetish** » January 30th, 2006, 11:34 am

I Wikied the words. You're right, sorry, my mistake. :)

by **SubmissMe** » January 30th, 2006, 11:45 am

I'd love to see the definition of morality. How can immorality be defined? Everyone's morals vary so how can we have a true definition?

by **Primus** » January 31st, 2006, 11:09 pm

According to my english teacher my senior year, I am quote 'the very definition of immorality' so since morality is the opposite of immorality if I am the defination of immorality then the definition of morality is not me... and since you are all not me than you are all moral

This has been Primus with your daily dose of Confusism

by **Hyp-know-fetish** » January 31st, 2006, 11:54 pm

I understood it... :)

by **Jack** » February 1st, 2006, 7:06 am

Your english teacher was WRONG. =) They were just jealous.

by **SubmissMe** » February 1st, 2006, 7:59 am

but are we all the exact opposite to you? According to Liebniz Law, no.

by **Primus** » February 1st, 2006, 1:07 pm

true not everyone is the exact diametrically opposition to myself... no one here is identical to me either (damn good thing) so some of you might be slightly immoral for the most part you must be moral to some extent... either that or I need more caffine and I'm starting to rant like a retard

by **SubmissMe** » February 1st, 2006, 4:16 pm

You can't use morality to define a person, only to define their actions.

by **aeroue** » February 1st, 2006, 4:54 pm

That can't be true.

The immoral actions stem from the fact that they themselves are immoral.

So the person must be immoral.

Moral people dont make immoral actions.

Not just because they don't happen to have done them but because they decide first whether or not to.
Just as the immoral person knows that they are going to be acting immorallybefore they act.

The morality is measured actions.
But the result is not a judgement of the actions but of the person who made the decision to carry them out.

Possibly, I am too tired. May have got the wrong end of the stick.

by **Primus** » February 1st, 2006, 6:43 pm

don't worry what's moral today... wait a hundred years or so and see how your actions are remembered. Some of the most moral people we remember in history were tyrants in thier own time, and of course the reverse is true what tried to be a kind and moral action backfires

by **SubmissMe** » February 2nd, 2006, 11:27 am

aeroue wrote:Moral people dont make immoral actions.

So a moral person must ALWAYS do moral actions? Can't a person do an immoral deed but make up for it with more moral actions?

by **Primus** » February 2nd, 2006, 6:19 pm

if a moral person must do moral things... than if you do a single immoral thing you must be immoral because moral people don't do that? and if you commit a single immoral deed on the path to greater moral good... than is that still an immora deed or is it by virtue of the greater deed moral retroactivly?

Assuming that a single deed makes you immoral and there is no possible recovery from becoming immoral than we are all immoral people by the age of about 7 and therefore the whole question of morals becomes moot since we obviously don't have them by commiting just a single immoral deed

by **Mallic** » February 2nd, 2006, 10:46 pm

Yes, but of course everyone will remember that immoral action and forget the count moral actions, such as in your preacher story.

by **SubmissMe** » February 3rd, 2006, 11:16 am

So I think we have proved that a person cannot be considered moral or immoral as a whole, but we can divide a person's morality into their actions to get a greater spectrum of their moral deeds.

Next up, are morals given to us by God?

by **Mallic** » February 3rd, 2006, 4:38 pm

No, thats just an excuse that people make up to disclaim responsiblity for themselves not having the same moralas someone else.

by **Jack** » February 3rd, 2006, 5:39 pm

(Most) People are fallible.

(Most) People are not completely moral or immoral.

People and their actions can only be considered moral or immoral in comparison to another subject(usually another person, action, or another persons action(s)).

Morality is usually determined by societal, political, and/or religious groups/organizations/assholes.

I think there is a moral from which all other morals seem to have degenerated or been generated from.

by **whatthe75** » February 3rd, 2006, 6:38 pm

Some peoples view of morality or what is moral would not match that of someone else's view of whats moral or not. So really anything you do could be seen as immoral if you asked enough people,or vice versa.

by **Jack** » February 4th, 2006, 1:59 pm

*nods*

by **Mallic** » February 5th, 2006, 1:01 am

We are the hypocritical, this conversation is futile...

by **SubmissMe** » February 5th, 2006, 9:00 am

Jack, are you suggesting that morals merely show approval and disapproval of actions? i.e "murder is morally wrong" is only morally wrong because we as a society disapprove of murder?

by **Jack** » February 5th, 2006, 10:03 am

Mostly. There are some societies and some situations in some societies that allow murder to be a moral action.

by **skot** » February 5th, 2006, 12:55 pm

Jack wrote:Mostly. There are some societies and some situations in some societies that allow murder to be a moral action.

Right. The current situation in the U.S. proves the quagmire: There are those who somehow believe it's moral to kill people who have killed people, because the people who kill the people who have killed people think that killing people is morally wrong.

by **Jack** » February 5th, 2006, 2:41 pm

skot wrote:Right. The current situation in the U.S. proves the quagmire: There are those who somehow believe it's moral to kill people who have killed people, because the people who kill the people who have killed people think that killing people is morally wrong.

Where do you see a quagmire? In my own state we put an expressway in the process for executions several years ago. If more than 3 people see you kill someone, you go to the front of the line.

I believe it is moral to kill someone if they are a direct threat to another persons life. It's a kind of infinite regress in that the rule applies to each person down the line.

ex: Let's say that I killed someone who wasn't a threat to my life or anyone elses, and they hadn't killed someone else who wasn't a direct threat to their life or someone elses(etc), then it would be moral for someone to give me the death sentence/take my life.

or: I killed someone who was a threat to my life or someone elses and neither myself nor that hypothetical other person had killed someone who wasn't a direct threat to either their life or mine.. then it would be immoral to kill me/give me a death sentence.

by **Jack** » February 5th, 2006, 2:56 pm

SubmissMe wrote:Jack, are you suggesting that morals merely show approval and disapproval of actions? i.e "murder is morally wrong" is only morally wrong because we as a society disapprove of murder?

Approval and Dissaproval are basically equivalent to saying "I (dis)agree that what you did was moral in this society."

Many/Most people approve of freedom of speech so long as you do not slander another entitys' reputation in this society.

Many/Most people would agree that it is moral in this society to freely speak your mind so long as you do not slander another entitys' reputation.

The two preceding sentences say the same thing using different words and structure.

by **SubmissMe** » February 5th, 2006, 5:06 pm

oooooooo you've fallen down a bit of a manhole here I think.

If you just define morals as feelings then you make moral discussion impossible, which we are proving clearly isn't the case.

The likely solution is that we each have fundamental values as to what is right and what is wrong and we are not affected by society.

Hell, as Mrs Thatcher said "There's no such thing as society."

by **aeroue** » February 5th, 2006, 5:28 pm

If you define morals as just feelings it does not make moral discussion impossible but meaningless.

Thus we can have the conversation, it will just amount to nothing.

So the theory does work

by **Jack** » February 5th, 2006, 5:37 pm

SubmissMe wrote:oooooooo you've fallen down a bit of a manhole here I think.

If you just define morals as feelings then you make moral discussion impossible, which we are proving clearly isn't the case.

The likely solution is that we each have fundamental values as to what is right and what is wrong and we are not affected by society.

Hell, as Mrs Thatcher said "There's no such thing as society."

Explain yourself.

by **Jack** » February 5th, 2006, 5:44 pm

Btw, you think people are made to stay in scool merely so they can learn what the courses teach, don't you?

Where do morals come from?

How do we enforce morality, even in ourselves?

Where did I ever say morals were feelings?

How does one define a society or the influence of groups on individuals and the influence of individuals on groups?

by **Mallic** » February 5th, 2006, 6:37 pm

Self-preservation is a base instinct. Does that make it right to killl someone in self defence? I say yes, but thats just me

by **aeroue** » February 6th, 2006, 12:03 pm

Jack, you said morals were feelings when you said they are just opinion/approval/whatever.

That amounts to feelings about a particular subject.

i.e. I feel murder is wrong
It is my opinion that murder is wrong.
I dissaprove of murder.

by **Jack** » February 6th, 2006, 7:25 pm

All morals are subjective.

Entities express things like "That feels right." when something/one meshes well with their belief(s), moral(s), and/or ethic(s).

In other words, one has to have an accepted idea, before one has a kinesthetic response.

What's the difference between you and a cold-blooded murderer? You accept/respect the idea that each person is an individual and by existing deserves the right to continue that existence(self-preservation) because you want that right yourself. A cold-blooded murderer does not respect/accept this concept, but rather usually the idea that each being- in order to continue existing- must be able to fend for itself, and if it can't... too bad for that being when it crosses their path.

When people violate(note: this implies action(s) without consent) this concept of the right to a continued existence(murder), people feel bad(usually) and wish the punish the offending entity. The only difference between you and a murderer is that that the idea(self-preservation) you hold has prevalence with the majority of human beings on this planet at this time.

THE VERY BIG QUESTION OF MORALITY

THE VERY BIG QUESTION OF MORALITY

Who is online