Personal Morality is Just Morality
Morality is many things, but for me, primarily, it is the ability to perceive things as right/wrong, fair/unfair and just/unjust. This manifests as social control, where the group's belief in the wrongness or unfairness of an act, and their feelings towards perpetrators or would-be perpetrators, discourage it. Ways of determining a moral view are many and varied, but that it has this effect is a core feature of what morality is.
Some claim to approach morality, not with the goal of social control, or even any interest in telling anyone else what to do. That one follows their own moral code or principles and will remain steadfast in that their aims are only personal. One only has these rules for just themselves, with the only purpose being to live a good or honourable life, with no interest in being told or telling others what to do.
To me, this is a distortion of the truth of both what morality is, and what is being done by this individual. Personal morality is not separate or distinct from social morality but rather a part of it.
One has moral views such as that a man beating his wife is "cowardly", that "incest is disgusting", or that "a man should provide for his family" or whatever else. Then frames them as a personal code or conceptual idea, representing only one's opinions and guiding how this individual should live.
The intention & motivation are distorted but are the same in every way it matters. Moral views can't involve cold practicality & indifference, they have an emotional weight behind them that characterises moral thinking. It is not an emotional feeling triggered only when involving oneself but in general.
One will still feel anger towards and lose respect for those who act immorally and they will still argue against rules or conventions that go against their principles. The role their moral beliefs still plays is identical to normal. Encouraging moral behaviour and discouraging immoral behaviour in others, and applying one's moral beliefs in every context as one would normally.
The concepts involved in moral thinking have universal applicability, for example, an idea such as "a sucker punch is cowardly", doesn't just apply to oneself, but to anyone. As one should aim to be brave and courageous instead, and as cowardly acts are frowned upon, the message is clear. If you would, as part of your own moral code, insult and demean, and show hostility to someone who sucker punched someone else, there's literally zero difference in that and how morality works in any other case.
The separation seems most useful to someone who resents the attempts of others to influence their behaviour, despite approving of the practice overall. "I follow my own moral code" as in, "don't preach to me", but nonetheless in following that moral code, one will still do the same to others. I believe this is the attraction of the distinction, but it could also be inspired by a resentment of social control in general, and a wide range of possibilities are valid.
Personal moral beliefs, though seemingly individualistic, ultimately align with the core features of morality, including social control, emotional responses, and the application of moral principles to oneself and others. I would argue there are very few, if any, notable differences between either approach.
A non-personalised approach to morality, which may explicitly demand the compliance of others, isn't distinct in how an individual experiences it from a personal one. They both involve strong emotional reactions towards what is deemed wrong, unfair or unjust. Both are experienced on a personal level and neither treat moral views as merely tools for social control.
Some claim to approach morality, not with the goal of social control, or even any interest in telling anyone else what to do. That one follows their own moral code or principles and will remain steadfast in that their aims are only personal. One only has these rules for just themselves, with the only purpose being to live a good or honourable life, with no interest in being told or telling others what to do.
To me, this is a distortion of the truth of both what morality is, and what is being done by this individual. Personal morality is not separate or distinct from social morality but rather a part of it.
One has moral views such as that a man beating his wife is "cowardly", that "incest is disgusting", or that "a man should provide for his family" or whatever else. Then frames them as a personal code or conceptual idea, representing only one's opinions and guiding how this individual should live.
The intention & motivation are distorted but are the same in every way it matters. Moral views can't involve cold practicality & indifference, they have an emotional weight behind them that characterises moral thinking. It is not an emotional feeling triggered only when involving oneself but in general.
One will still feel anger towards and lose respect for those who act immorally and they will still argue against rules or conventions that go against their principles. The role their moral beliefs still plays is identical to normal. Encouraging moral behaviour and discouraging immoral behaviour in others, and applying one's moral beliefs in every context as one would normally.
The concepts involved in moral thinking have universal applicability, for example, an idea such as "a sucker punch is cowardly", doesn't just apply to oneself, but to anyone. As one should aim to be brave and courageous instead, and as cowardly acts are frowned upon, the message is clear. If you would, as part of your own moral code, insult and demean, and show hostility to someone who sucker punched someone else, there's literally zero difference in that and how morality works in any other case.
The separation seems most useful to someone who resents the attempts of others to influence their behaviour, despite approving of the practice overall. "I follow my own moral code" as in, "don't preach to me", but nonetheless in following that moral code, one will still do the same to others. I believe this is the attraction of the distinction, but it could also be inspired by a resentment of social control in general, and a wide range of possibilities are valid.
Personal moral beliefs, though seemingly individualistic, ultimately align with the core features of morality, including social control, emotional responses, and the application of moral principles to oneself and others. I would argue there are very few, if any, notable differences between either approach.
A non-personalised approach to morality, which may explicitly demand the compliance of others, isn't distinct in how an individual experiences it from a personal one. They both involve strong emotional reactions towards what is deemed wrong, unfair or unjust. Both are experienced on a personal level and neither treat moral views as merely tools for social control.
Comments (112)
Quoting Judaka
Are they moral reasons or aesthetic? Beating anyone may or may not be cowardly, the salient moral issue is it is causing suffering to another conscious creature. Incest being disgusting is an aesthetic response, isn't it? It may be a moral transgression, where it doesn't involve consent and results in significant birth defects and suffering.
Quoting Judaka
Personal morality is / must be derived from the social milieu in which one is reared. We may have some innate, simple forms of right/wrong, fair/unfair, but these innate forms are too limited to count as 'morality'.
(Even other animals can be observed to object to unfair treatment (in very structured situations). Primates in experimental situations stop cooperating if the rewards are unfairly distributed or are of unequally quality (cucumber vs. apple). Dogs are satisfied as long as they get something; they don't weigh quality of reward. Dry bread instead of meat counts among dogs.)
Not many children survive without adult assistance, and thus we do not have adults who really devised their own system of right / wrong. People who "march to the beat of a distant drummer" are following social morality as much as anyone else is. That someone feels the distant morality is superior to the local version is a social decision.
Quoting Tom Storm
In my OP I set out with the understanding of morality as the ability to percieve fairness and things being right/wrong. Thus it's not a choice, or something that can be turned on or off. I'd guess that you weren't able to follow the OP due to reading it using your understanding of morality rather than mine. As I don't understand your critique either, unless I just think of it as a critique of my explanation of morality.
Quoting Tom Storm
We're approaching morality from very different perspectives, though as a sidenote, I don't think it matters for the topic of the OP.
From my perspective, the conceptualisation of morality as something like the ten commandments functions like an adjacent form of morality with the same name, but distinctly different than what I'm referring to.
I don't think of morality as necessarily involving logical or well-reasoned rules, it is simply the ability to periceve acts or situations as right/wrong, fair/unfair or just/unjust.
So, yes, for me, the idea that a man beating his wife is cowardly is a moral argument/belief, any reason would do, just so long as we're claiming a man beating is wife is wrong/unjust/unfair and it provokes an emotional response out of us if we see it.
Though, by the way, what do you mean by "aesthetic"?
Thanks, I do agree that other social mammals display the same way of thinking as us, as your examples suggest. I also agree that what we percieve as right/wrong, fair/unfair isn't totally innate, and would argue it is very flexible, as especially religion as shown.
Quoting Judaka
Could be.
Quoting Judaka
I think people often select positions based on whether they find them attractive or ugly. Like selecting some music. 'I think homosexuality is wrong' for instance, may just be a synonym for, 'I find it gross'. The statement, 'I believe in god' may just mean, 'The world is more beautiful when I attribute a creator to it.' That kind of thing.
Morality devoid of the impulse to impose is simply what a personal moral code is.
Note that not imposing one's views upon others does not mean one cannot discuss views, or judge others.
You begin with the idea personal morality is just morality.
If I begin with the idea morality is personal, would you say were beginning with the same general idea?
Quoting Judaka
You and I had an exchange about this in a previous thread. What you've written here is a good summary of how I see things.
Quoting Judaka
I see them as different, although certainly related, things. Personal morality is the path I follow when acting from my heart - empathy, fellow-feeling, friendship. I act in accordance with social morality out of fear or duty. Clearly they overlap a lot.
Quoting Judaka
You don't have to judge people or their behavior, call them cowardly or disgusting, in order to hold those people responsible for their actions. The important thing about beating people or incest is the harm they cause to the victims, not the acts themselves. In those cases, social and personal morality overlap. On the other hand, consensual sexual behavior or drug use alone generally don't harm anyone but the person acting. In those cases my personal morality does not match social morality.
Quoting Judaka
I don't necessarily feel angry at people who behave in a manner inconsistent with my personal morality or social morality, although I might. My feelings are not what's important, it is the safety and integrity of those who are harmed that matters.
Quoting Judaka
This is an uncharitable, and mistaken, interpretation, at least for me. I recognize the value of society's rules and it is part of my personal morality to follow them unless there is a good reason not to. I can't say I never feel resentment towards people trying to get me to do what they want, but as an adult I've learned, reasonably well, how to handle conflicts between my personal desires and what other people want from me.
Quoting Judaka
No, at least not necessarily and not for me.
Quoting Judaka
Yes it is, at least generally and for me.
I think they are the same in that they are expressions of personal values and feelings as opposed to reason. Is that what you mean?
Quoting Tom Storm
Notice the circularity in moral proscriptives like these.
Stealing is defined at taking that which isnt rightfully yours. Its not just killing but murder, or wrongful killing that we disdain. It is not just causing suffering but intentionally willing the suffering of others that we disapprove of. These descriptions are just redefinitions of immorality as willful disregard of what is right. They come down to saying that wrongful behavior is a failure to do what is right. Looked at through this vapid lens , its no wonder morality doesnt vary all that much across cultures.
Are you saying the observation I made is vapid, or the way morality is generally framed across cultures is vapid?
Quoting Joshs
I partly understand this point, but it's the question of what is defined as wrongful behaviour that is the issue, isn't it? Does what you say change the fact that stealing (which may have various definitions) is generally considered wrong across cultures? (And I am not saying all cultures, or all people in all cultures and I'm not talking about situational exemptions, etc)
How do you understand morality?
Hmm - I'm trying to see this, nor can I see how this might help us in the matter. Can you sharpen this for me?
If we say, for instance, that the mass murder of a minority group is wrong - is this just a redefinition of immorality as 'willful disregard of what is right' and is so what is the alternative?
The challenge here is to use a morally neutral term in place of stealing and then attach a judgement of wrongfulness to it. Obviously , if we simply described stealing as seeing an object and walking away with it, we dont have enough of a context to make a moral judgement. We want to know why the person took it, what they were thinking, if they assumed the object belonged to someone else, if they also assumed that other person didnt have a right to the object. At some point , a non-neutral concept must be inserted into the description of an action to make it moral or not. How do I understand such moral concepts? A very simple definition might go like this:
Traditional morality comes into play when the intention behind the actions of a person runs afoul of previously established expectations and trust between that person and others. That person knowingly disappoints a standard of conduct for no good reason.
Quoting Joshs
Thank you.
What I was attempting to say was that a personal morality that doesn't seek to influence others is not, in my view, really a morality - it's aesthetic preference. My understanding is that it's the intention to influence others which distinguishes moral values and aesthetic preferences
I think that's kind of what I was thinking too.
Well I'm glad we clarified my misunderstanding. Now I can feel more comfortable disagreeing strongly with you.
I made a distinction that lasts only for my argument, to highlight the difference between a view of morality that exists only for oneself and one where morality involves aiming to influence group behaviour. Morality is personal, in this, all perspectives agree, but I am arguing that morality is always both personal & social, and never just personal. What you've said doesn't indicate whether or not you agree with that.
Quoting T Clark
Hmm, you've interpreted these terms "personal morality" and "social morality" in a different way that I had meant to have laid out. I took them as mutually exclusive ways of viewing morality. Personal morality as a code limited to oneself, and social morality where views are applied in social contexts, to influence others and the rules of the group.
If you want to piece-by-piece categorise your moral views, as either personal or social, or alternatively using a less binary view, that's a different approach.
However, even here, it's hard to imagine that the personal remains personal within the context of morality. So long as your feelings are genuine, then your empathy and compassion will inenvitably manifests in attempts to influence or coerce others. After all, you wouldn't sit back and watch someone else be treated cruelly and unfairly, as though it had nothing to do with you, right? You would want to intervene, and tell the belligerent to cut it out.
Quoting T Clark
You can argue that harm is always wrong, and then list exceptions. Or you can say harm is not inherently immoral, and then argue for the cases where it would be. I'm not sure there's much of a difference. Moral systems always involve these games... You won't condemn harm when it's done under conditions that you consider fair & reasonable, so, yes, it's necessary to judge the acts as unfair, wrong, unreasonable and so on.
Quoting T Clark
You'll have to define these terms, it's very clear that you've made them your own.
Quoting T Clark
Certainly, your motivations are more nuanced that what I've written, to be sure, but surely, even putting emotions aside, common sense dictates that you should address the cause of the harm in some way, right? I'm not against it, by the way. I have no hidden motive.
Quoting T Clark
I don't think what's written there describes you. You've tried to argue, as I understand it, that your concern is for the victim, and your motivation is to help people, not influence. It's not as though all moral issues have such a clear perpetrator/victim narrative that can be applied. I'd like to hear how you've been defining personal/social morality, and whether you really need to debate with me, that your moral views do not contain attempts to influence anything beyond yourself. I'm sure you can see it false.
I wanted a better understanding of what you mean by personal morality is just morality.
I disagree morality is both personal and social. Morality is personal as a function of will, ethics is social as a function of behavior. A decidedly minority opinion, to be sure, but Im ok with it.
I agree morality is a function of will, but it has a social function & effect, and my OP is arguing that this effect is present regardless of whether one characterises their particular approach to morality as being a code they live by. Btw, did you read more than the title? I am curious as I feel a good portion of responses to my threads lately seem a response to the title and nothing else.
Assuming a moral relativist view, any and all notions of morality are nothing but personal fancy (aesthetic preference), and the only question is who gets to impose their personal fancies on other people; "might makes right."
Assuming a non-relativist view, morality is, regardless of what people believe (e.g. Plato's 'the Good'). It's neither personal nor collective. It's up to us to discover, which is what a lot of philosophy, religion and spiritual practice have dedicated themselves to.
I broadly agree with the view that all 'notions of morality' are essentially 'nothing but personal fancy' (personal values).
However, it doesn't follow that because 'notions of morality' and aesthetic preferences are both
based essentially on personal values that they are the same.
For me, the crucial distinction is that moral values are those values we wish to see adopted by others. One way of saying this is that we feel these values ought to be shared by others.
That's fine, I suppose.
However, if this indeed is the crucial distinction then it doesn't get us very far. There are many groups who have views on which values ought to be adopted by others.
Many such groups are terribly destructive.
Is what they are doing moral?
Based on what you've provided, I think you'll have to answer in the positive.
Personally, I'm not a moral relativist. I think morality loses all its meaning when it is viewed through moral relativism and you simply end up with morality being whatever the strongest group manages to impose on the rest of the people - "might makes right."
I think you're confusing two meanings of moral.
The first describes any value/opinion/preference broadly encompassed by what is generally agreed to be the human activity, morality.
The second (the usage you're using I think), is "moral" as shorthand for morally good/permitted.
So I would answer that what they are doing is moral[ity] in the first sense. It simply doesn't make sense to ask if their values are moral in the second sense without specifics.
Quoting Tzeentch
Isn't that what happens now?
Quoting Tzeentch
Only if you believe that what ever is imposed is necessarily "right". I don't.
The goal of criticizing immorality isnt social control, whatever that means, but appealing to conscience and reason. One cannot control anothers morality anyway, and anyone who views coercion as immoral will avoid it in favor of moral arguments and leading by example, neither of which have any effect beyond the one who abides by them.
If one happens to change his ways in light of this criticism, it wasnt because he was pushed to do it, but because he came to agree and followed his own conscience. So I think the so-called effect of personal morality on others is overstated.
If morality is "opinions that one believes ought to be adopted by everyone", then having such opinions is moral in and of itself, no?
If morality is relative, then "morally good/permitted" is a tautology. Any moral opinions one holds (i.e. opinions that one believes ought to be adopted by everyone) are morally permitted.
Quoting ChrisH
Indeed, but if one holds a moral relativist view, the specifics cannot matter.
The reason all of this might sound confusing, is because moral relativism makes the term 'morality' become meaningless (and therefore it makes little sense, in my view). That's the point I'm trying to get across.
Quoting ChrisH
Often times yes. An unfortunate state of affairs to be sure!
Quoting ChrisH
But then it makes no sense to believe morality, personal or collective, are aesthetic preferences.
Morality can have a social effect, certainly, but I dont think that makes morality any less an irreducibly personal condition.
Yes I read the OP. Interpreting the title as I did, I questioned whether the initial argument was sufficient support for it.
I don't know what you mean by moral in and of itself.
Such opinions are moral opinions (in my first sense above) but as I said:
Quoting Tzeentch
I haven't identified as a moral relativist and so it would be helpful if you directed your comments at what I actually say rather than at what you believe moral relativism entails. I'm still not sure you've grasped the distinction I've drawn between the two senses of "moral".
Quoting Tzeentch
I thought I'd clearly said I didn't think they were the same?
Well, I don't think trying to distinguish between personal and collective morality is going to lead to a very coherent argument. This is what I tried to make clear in my first response to you. But have at it.
What those arguments tend to boil down to is that when many people believe a thing, it is moral. When a person believes a thing it is personal opinion.
I think that holds no water.
They're either all personal opinions (moral relativism), or they're all subject to objective moral 'laws' that human can try to discover (in which case there's no distinction).
As I said then, the essence of morality as a kind of duty (Kant) which makes us better is a much more satisfying concept and appeals to a great many people, versus this pessimistic and sad outlook.
Perhaps the question of who sees morality in what kind of way is understandable as an aspect of the psychological question of an internal versus an external locus of perceived causality. This aligns with the tendency to feel like one is responsible for what one does. I can see where some people would prefer to feel like they are not responsible for what they do.
The title is ambiguous by itself. You've interpreted it how you have, and now treat it as a claim to be challenged, but your interpretation of the title isn't my argument. I've defined morality as the ability to percieve right/wrong, fair/unfair, and this ability belongs to an individual. Only an individual can do this, so, I agree, it is inherently and irreducibly a personal condition.
The "personal" origin of morality wasn't in question. It's about whether morality purpoted to act only as a moral code for oneself is actually any different than otherwise, particularly in having an active social impact.
Ironically, those referenced in how I've used "personal" morality, are quite likely to think of morality as objective, and decidedly not personal in origin. They probably would've disagreed with you if you had made an OP with this very same name but using your argument.
One who saw coercion as immoral, and by coercion, I mean an unbiased interpretation, and refused to engage in it for the most part, could avoid it, although it'd be very unusual. I'm not arguing against that.
However, surely, your personal moral code involves standing up against injustice? It involves invoking consequences against others for their actions? How can your moral code just be to act morally and ignore the world around you, save for "leading by example"? How is that possible.
Quoting Pantagruel
You find it pessimistic because you define morality as goodwill. The coercion in morality comes from the intolerance of evil, and a desire for justice. It not inherently bad. But, this thread is not about that anyway.
Well, at least not exclusively.
The "disposition" to see morality as imposed versus chosen can be explained through the external versus internal perceived locus of causation (as cited), which is a psychological feature.
YEA!! That means I interpreted the title correctly. Or at least, sympathetically. Morality is personal.
Objective moralists will indeed disagree with me, as you say. But an objective moralist is an ill-disguised behaviorist, which means he begins by barking up the wrong tree.
Anyway, problem solved, and ..thanks.
No this does not follow. All that follows is that it is moral in the opinion of many people not "it is moral".
If I understand correctly that is your position, since you mentioned you weren't a moral relativist, but do make said distinction.
I'm a bit skeptical as to whether that can be formed into a coherent argument, which is what I (perhaps clumsily) have been trying to express to you.
As many do, you read my title "Morality is Coercive" and created an argument using your interpretation of it. What you've decided that title necessarily means I'm arguing for has nothing to do with me. Even learning that we're using the word morality very differently has had no notable effect. The context for reading me is that I'm arguing for how you've interpreted my thread title, and you're unwilling to question it. I imagine the belief you think I have is one I disagree with. If you'd like, try outlining what that view is, and probably we can agree it's wrong together.
This is the thrust of your thesis, correct? So, whatever your personal morality is, it is inherently just? So you are claiming that, regardless of any putative "objective" or "intersubjective" moral code, the implementation of that code is always a matter of personal discretion, ergo the only true morality is a personal morality?
Standing up against injustice. Do you mean retribution? I do believe in retribution. One has to be just. What that has to do with social control, Im not sure. Youre not encouraging or discouraging anything with retribution. Youre satisfying a desire for justice.
Frankly, its all a little weird for me to suspect that following ones own conscience has the effect of encouraging and discouraging others, as if were training animals. It sounds to me more of an admission of guilt than a statement of fact.
I don't identify as a moral relativist because it is much misunderstood (particularly by moral objectivists).
You appear to to take the view that moral relativism entails normative moral relativism - the view that
moral relativism implies that we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. This is an extreme form of moral relativism that is not endorsed by most philosophers.
Most moral relativists hold that it is perfectly reasonable (and practical) for a person or group to defend their subjective values against others, even if there is no universal prescription or morality.
(Much of this is taken straight from the Wiki entry on Moral Relativism)
What I said was that moral relativism makes morality meaningless. It turns morality into a buzzword that is used to make one's opinions sound more authoritative than they, by one's own confession, really are.
Quoting ChrisH
That's an open door, isn't it? If everything can be moral, then it is exceedingly easy to defend one's subjective values.
We are training animals. Evolution resulted in us having instinctive reactions to things, which result in us training each other.
As I see it, the point of a moral position is not simply to defend one's views but, more importantly, to persuade others.
Are you saying that proselytizing is a feature or purpose of morality? Morality is fundamentally performative in nature. The best defense of a moral position is the things that one has in fact chosen to do, consonant with that position.
I certainly think it's an important aspect of moral discourse. It seems inconceivable to me that one could take the position that X is immoral but not be concerned if anyone actually does X.
But is moral discourse an essential feature of morality? Or only incidental? Do you think morals are more explicit or implicit in nature?
I think so (I include unspoken demonstrations of approval/disapproval in the general term 'moral discourse').
Quoting Pantagruel
Not sure what you mean.
But let's assume one answers in the affirmative.
The obvious follow-up question would be, by what metric?
This creates an interesting problem. Any appeals to objectivity are off the table as it would imply objectivism. I wonder if one could answer that question in a way that isn't circular.
This happened last time we talked too - I misunderstood what you were trying to say in the OP. If I remember correctly, I classed social morality in as just another part of social control but you didn't see it that way. I see from comments in this thread that is still a disagreement between us.
Quoting Judaka
Are you saying my approach is less binary. I would have thought you saw it as moreso.
Quoting Judaka
First off, I strongly disagree that "feelings of empathy and compassion will inevitably manifest in attempts to influence or coerce others." As I noted in my first post, If someone is being bad and hurting someone else, my motives would be to help the victim, not to punish the evildoer. That might involve attempts to influence or coerce, but there are many instances where it wouldn't, e.g. stopping at a car accident and giving aid to the injured.
Quoting Judaka
You've missed my point. I'm not taking about killing in self-defense or something like that. I'm saying it is not necessary to judge or be angry at someone who is doing something bad. All you need to do is protect the victims and potential victims. Protection of real and potential victims might also include physically stopping the wrongdoer and putting them in jail.
Quoting Judaka
Here's how I defined personal/social morality earlier in this discussion.
Quoting T Clark
Would it help if I clarified that I don't think my personal morality isn't influenced by social factors? Everything I do is influenced by my interactions with others and what I learn from them. I didn't think that's what you were talking about. It's not what I was.
Do I ever try to influence others. Sure. I don't see that as a reflection of my personal morality. It's more of a way of trying to live my life in social situations. How I go about doing that is a matter of personal and social morality, especially if it comes to coercion.
I don't know what you mean by this. Equally valid in what sense?
And even if one agrees or disagrees with a certain opinion, it doesn't make it any more or less valid as a moral view.
E.g. if people believe stoning someone to death for a minor crime is moral, it is. A moral relativist has no grounds to say that it isn't.
Quoting Tzeentch
That doesn't follow. What I think you mean to say is that they have no objective grounds.
From this it doesn't follow that there are no grounds for disagreement. Moral disputes are routinely couched in appeals to common human values.
Pointing towards something like common human values in my view implies objectivism.
I always understood that objective moral truths, if they exist, do so without regard to anybody's personal values.
And when those values are examined they are almost certainly tied to a belief about objective moral truth - a rational thought process which explains the value.
Further, why wouldn't the stoning of criminals for petty crimes be considered a common human value? It was common in history. We see similar practices today in certain parts of the world.
So apparently there's also a heirarchy that determines whether a certain value belongs in the 'common human value' category or not.
I suspect that stoning people does not belong in the 'common human value' category because it violates an underlying value, which is the hidden objective moral truth upon which one's idea of common human value is based.
This looks as though you're assuming the truth of what's in question here.
I only asked that you attempt to bring clarity to our discussion... Your response should've helped me to understand what were arguing against instead, just makes it more ambiguous.
Quoting Pantagruel
What you've quoted is arguing that a moral code that one follows still exerts pressure on others to act morally, and on systems to be organised fairly and justly. It has nothing to do with most of what you've talked about.
The term "just" reflects agreement or approval in a moral context. For example, a "just" punishment is one that is correct. A "just" system should be fair and reasonable, and produces desirable outcomes.
The concept of justice could be omitted from morality without any meaningful change. Justice exists when things are done "right" and are "fair", it is the latter two that matter. What is "right" or "fair" sits between being subjective and objective, in a way that is difficult to define, I won't go too into that right now.
It's in a similar place with other things human percieve, such as beauty, brilliance, nobility, kindness, courage, and etc. They're not entirely objective, there's room for disagreement, but there's a limit, some views would pervert how we periceve these concepts too much for us to accept them.
I have no idea what "true" morality means, so I just clarified my views on the subject. If we're going to talk past each other, may as well be honest about it.
Quoting NOS4A2
Really? You're not discouraging anything? "Listen, this is your life, do with it what you will, I would prefer you to act morally, If you want to do X thing, that's your choice, I can't force you not to. However, if you do X thing, there will be consequences for that. You'll reveal to all your low worth, I will lose respect for you, and I will make sure to punish you". How is that not discouraging? Why wouldn't people fear retribution and act to avoid it?
If the majority agree with the need for retribution, then of course, that would create an environment that discouraged those acts. Would it not? I am not condemning this, and you could easily just say that you have no problem with creating an environment that discouraged the acts you find immoral, it's not a trap.
Quoting T Clark
I hope it's clear that I do see morality as involving social control, as I have stated in the past and in this OP. I differentiated morality from other forms of social control because morality involves interpretation and characterisation, while other forms of social control tend to focus on only one's actions. That difference was relevant in my previous thread, but we can ignore it in this one, or not, up to you.
Quoting T Clark
That wasn't my intention, your approach seems binary, but it could work as a spectrum too. Spectrums can be simpler, as we can avoid issues with categorisation, but it doesn't matter.
Quoting T Clark
I agree with that.
"Personal morality" was meant to refer to an approach to the whole of morality, as a code that one follows, without any intent to influence other people or the systems they live in. My argument isn't that every moral feeling necessarily aims to influence others. For example, one might aim to help the unfortunate because they feel it's unfair and wrong for them to be abandoned. That might occur in the case of a natural disaster, where no perpetator or wrongdoer exists. So, I think we agree here, it was just a misunderstanding.
I acknowledge that my response to you definitely did not make it clear that I felt this way, my apologies.
Quoting T Clark
I see. I interpreted your point as being one against my OP, and thus misunderstood you. I agree with your overall point, and I have a very strong preference for your approach. Much of my distaste for morality comes from the hatred it can inspire, and it was reasonable for you to criticise what was an unbalanced presentation, that lacked the kinds of examples that you've brought up. I acknowledge this.
Quoting T Clark
My intention was for "personal morality" to be characterised by possessing no attempts to influence others. I believe our understandings on this topic are similar, if not the same. You did reveal some of the biased aspects of my laying out of the facts, and I'll have to spend some time considering whether it's really in my best interests to present things in that way.
I think one ought to be careful in meddling in the worlds' affairs, and be critical of one's own ability to change things for the better. Carelessness in this regard leads to more harm than good.
'Ignore' isn't the word I would use - 'accept' seems better.
Accepting that the world is and will remain a flawed place, and accepting that one's ability to have a positive influence is exceedingly limited, and one's ability to do harm through forceful meddling is much greater.
It is limited largely because of one's own flaws. Recognizing one's flaws and limitations is what humility is, and humility should awaken one to the fact that if they wish to change the world for the better, they needn't look beyond themselves - 'put one's own house in order first.'
When you ask, "how is that possible?", I'm inclined to reply: how could there be any other way?
I don't think that there is such a thing as "moral thoughts." You can think about morality. But ultimately only one's actions can be classed as moral. As such, morality is always a specific response to a specific request for support being made either by a specific person or persons or (as society enlarges) made by groups who are suffering under some known systemic burden, an implicit request.
You may feel discouraged by the moral criticism, advice, and the arguments of others, but the feelings you feel are your own. Do you feel that way because you fear the consequences? Or is it because your conscience is telling you something?
Yes, collective moralities tend to create an environment hostile to certain behaviors. I dont think a personal morality does. My neighbor hates dogs, for example, so naturally she doesnt like mine. I dont feel discouraged owning a dog. To each their own. If everyone in town hated dogs, I would feel discouraged, and probably wouldnt own a dog.
I guess I don't see that difference, or at least it's not one I pay attention to. For me, social morality is a method of social control, although it's source, e.g. religion, and impact, e.g. emotional response, might be different than others.
Quoting Judaka
Yes, I think you're right.
Quoting Judaka
Yes, I think you're right. Seems like we are just looking from different perspectives.
So right & wrong, fair & unfair, and concepts of justice aren't part of morality?
Must this "specific request" for help be answered with a fair & just solution? If so, then inevitably there will be a deliberation on what is right/wrong, fair/unfair, just/unjust, reasonable/unreasonable. The path you took to get there isn't important, they are infinite, where it took you is what matters.
Great!
Quoting NOS4A2
Huh? How intellectually dishonest. Why wouldn't people fear the consequences, if the consequences are scary? Many people are embarrassed by just saying please or thank you at the wrong time, and other things of far less significance than "moral criticism". It's not just fear. People want to be liked, they want to please others, they want to be respected and cared for, and so much more, and all of that is threatened by acting in a way deemed immoral by one's society.
Instead of using your own moral ideas as the basis, and thus creating an incredibly biased perspective, use another culture instead. Morality informs laws, it can be used as a basis for firing people, ending a friendship, or becoming estranged from family members. You aren't approaching morality properly unless you're taking into account the aggregate impact of it across society, or at least in a group setting.
A personal morality plays a role in that, does it not? Why can't you just own it? As I said, it doesn't make what you're doing wrong, there are no negative consequences for agreeing with this.
Right and wrong are evaluations made of actions that are judged to take place in the context of morality. So you can heed a legitimate cry for help and do right, or ignore the plight of your fellow man and do wrong.
Justice is the interpretation of morality at the social level. One human being doesn't get to be just (unless he is a judge). Also, I think some of what you are discussing might be more ethical - a formal presentation and codification - than moral. For me, morality speaks loudest in actions.
Are you yourself controlled by someone elses personal morality? I ask because all this talk of consequences and aggregate impacts and peoples feelings leads me to believe youre approaching morality from the perspective of consequentialism. I think it is the consequentialism that leads you to believe, cynically, that personal moralities tend to (and intend to) control others socially.
I cannot agree and find your analysis specious because there are people who do not approach morality from the perspective of consequentialism. They wish to act right no matter the fee-fees of some person, with no care for the consequences or social costs, and with no desire or goal of controlling others.
If you want to obsequiously serve anothers personal morality, be my guest, but at some point you might have to live according to your own moral code or you wont be able to live with yourself.
:up:
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
As I said, personal morality is just morality, and we all live in a society. You're so interested in framing this as my personal failure, but none of my arguments have been based on myself. I'm an outlier, and analysing through oneself, as you do, and as you show it does, leads to very biased conclusions.
Look through what I write, I'm evidently unafraid to make highly controversial arguments. I think for myself. I'm disagreeable and individualistic, I don't mince my words or avoid conflict. You've read enough of me that you should know that, but, it's a convenient ad hominem, so off you go, speculating about something ridiculous.
Quoting NOS4A2
I am approaching morality as a thing, detached from my own moral views. Ironically, it was you who told me that only actions mattered in your thread about ethics and thoughts, and I argued against that. Now that it's convenient, it's being framed as though it were the opposite.
Morality is inherently social. When you say "X thing is wrong", are you saying it for just yourself, or in general? If you're being honest, then you'll admit it's the latter. It's even harder to argue against this when you view morality as partially or entirely objective.
We can agree on this, the intention to "socially control" may not be there, or it may, as it does with me since I do seek to impose my moral views on others. Though rarely would anyone ever actually phrase it as "socially control" because of the negative connotations, people describe things they like using positive language. @Pantagruel will call it "motivating" or "guidance" and so on, referring to the same thing, but making every effort to make it look as good as possible.
It's just amusing to me, I'm saying something so absolutely basic here, that morality isn't just a personal code. The entire premise of the OP is that "personal morality" means, an explicitly stated lack of intent to influence or coerce others. Do people explicitly and emphatically state their lack of intention to influence or coerce others? Of course, they do. That you've decided to give this a 100% weighting in how we characterise "personal morality" is silly, we need to look at what's actually being done. You've done everything you can to avoid that and just point to my supposed moral failings, I've no wonder why, my claims are irrefutable otherwise.
As I've tried to point out in my earlier replies to you, this is not necessarily true.
That the ignorant masses subconsciously use morality as a guise to fulfill a base desire for power while maintaining a good conscience, is not necessarily relevant to philosophical discussions.
If we look at the views of history's sages, wisemen and philosophers we find that many of them view morality as first and foremost a personal endeavor marked by the cultivation of virtue.
For example, Plato describes in the Republic how it is better to be a just man who is seen by society as unjust, than an unjust man who is seen by society as just.
The implication here is quite a fundamental one; to be just is its own reward, and to be unjust its own punishment.
In the eyes of Plato, the Good (capital 'G') is what all men desire. Therefore the unjust man is only sabotaging himself in his quest for Goodness, despite his reputation among other men which ultimately counts for nothing.
The just man in turn would best serve his own interest by maintaining his virtuous conduct, regardless of the punishments society seeks to enact upon him.
In my view, ideas about morality make little sense without this understanding. We find similar views in Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese philosophy, Christianity, etc.
The central message: worry first and foremost about one's own virtue, and let others worry about theirs.
If one doesn't embody moral virtue, it is hypocritical to lecture others. Once one does, it is superfluous.
Quoting Pantagruel
You're saying that right & wrong don't define morality, and the terms just describe whether you heed or ignore a legitimate cry for help? Do you acknowledge conceptualising morality to fit your ideals, or not?
Quoting Pantagruel
I've defined morality as the ability to perceive right/wrong, unfair/fair, just/unjust, it doesn't get less formal than that.
I agree that moral views apply inwardly, and must do so. I'm also not arguing that morality entails subjugating oneself to their society, and the many or the powerful to dictate to them how they should think.
To be honest, unlike the others, you've made the right sacrifices, to allow for a case against my OP while being intellectually honest. Notably, in your argument of detachment from politics, and your strong emphasis on not trying to influence anyone. Your refusal to engage in moral wordplay goes a long way with me, you're clearly very comfortable with yourself. I feel confident that you're genuine and your argument holds, I'm not sure yet how I want to fit what you're saying into the grand scheme of things.
Monks have been known to seclude themselves from society for decades, to live in isolation and yet continue to aspire to and live by their philosophical ideals. Not so that one day they can influence someone else to do so, but just for its own sake. They did so both in intention and result, and so are good examples of how it is possible.
Most moral ideals entail an emphasis that calls or obliges them to act. To stand by, to focus only ever inwardly, it's unusual.
Do you think your approach would be possible for one in a position of power? Or do you see power as inherently incompatible with your approach?
Wanting to do good is easy. Doing harm is easy. But doing Good is difficult.
The inward focus is an acknowledgement of that. It's an act of humility.
Quoting Judaka
Excellent question.
I don't have a definitive view on this. My sense is that wielding power over others inherently implies non-consensuality and forcefulness (to impose one's will upon another), and therefore implies harm.
Further, I share the common belief that power corrupts, and that the dynamics of power have an innate tendency to bring out the worst in people. So any person walking the spiritual path should tread carefully.
Perhaps it is possible to hold public office or a position of leadership, assuming the ties one has to one's followers are ones of genuine voluntariness. Needless to say, one must also be prepared to give up such a position as soon as it is no longer compatible with one's principles.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but the question you pose is central to the character Liu Bei from the Chinese classic Romance of the Three Kingdoms.
To make a long story short, Liu Bei is an imperial scion, who for a large portion of the book wanders ancient China with a handful of retainers and troops, as everywhere he manages to establish himself he is eventually forced to choose between holding onto power and holding onto his principles.
Although your thoughts are almost the opposite of how I think about morality, I do respect your stance.
The coercive aspects of morality are integral to its function as a correcting influence, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Concepts of fairness, right or wrong, justice, and what is deserved, play their social role, and will inevitably result in consequences for actions that will unavoidably result in a coercive environment.
I understand morality differently than you do. Moral ideas are dynamic and flexible, due to the role interpretation plays, again, for better and for worse. It's capable of brutality and oppression, such as in the case of Nazi Germany. Although you might see in such cases, pretenders who invoke moral concepts for their own gain, I instead think morality capable of incorporating interpretations that are quite shitty, and so people can be shitty while motivated by genuinely moral ideas.
The relationship between power and morality can be unsettlingly for many. The two are inextricably linked, but the use of power can contradict our principles. The truth is that most of us do not want to have others impose their views on us, but we do want to impose our views on others. Though rarely articulated so plainly, it's implicit in all moral systems, though perhaps you and others like you are exceptions.
It's not that "might is right", but rather, that when a group's majority holds the same moral view, that itself manifests as power, just agreement alone within a moral context.
We have reservations about the attempts of others to do good though for different reasons. A notable difference is that when you use the term "morality", you are generally referring to what is moral, whereas I am referring to it as a generic concept. So, while we may see the same problems, where you might conclude people are failing to be moral, and that moral behaviour could be a solution, I see issues with morality. That's a stark contrast between how we interpret this issue.
Power corrupts in part by exemption. We understand the need for compromise and for order, the need for rules that benefit the group as a whole. While it might make sense that if I steal someone's stuff, that's good for me, it wouldn't be good for me if unchecked theft destroyed my community. Even someone who would personally love an opportunity to get rich from theft will likely play a role as an enforcer against it.
In the same way as racism, classism, sexism, or religion corrupt, they provide exemptions. We might agree to horrifically harsh measures as necessary and fine, but whoever implements them must be assured of their own safety. Rulers pursue lofty goals, that justify all sorts of cruelties, to accomplish something great, but importantly, know that they'll not be paying the price for it.
For me, the issue isn't that morality is coercive or social, it's about what we're enforcing, and sometimes it can be good. If people feel like there are no consequences for being rude, for hurting and exploiting people, then they'll be more likely to do it. I have no faith in self-regulated moral behaviour as an overarching theme. There must be enforcement of conduct, we ideally make moral behaviour logical and rewarding, and immoral behaviour illogical and punishing, and let people rationally decide to do good.
Even if the people enforcing the good behaviour are hypocrites, even if they're being dishonest, it's fine. We can't wait for moral paragons to guide us, in a world where politicians are consistently corrupt and religious institutions abuse children & cover it up. Accountability & enforcement are critical, and although I often don't agree with what's actually being enforced, and my position is more nuanced than I laid out.
This response was too long and covered too much ground, but hopefully, the gist of my perspective got through. What's your opinion on the need for accountability & enforcement? What compromises are you willing to make for them and how do they violate your moral principles?
Likewise, and I appreciate the discussion.
As you said, our views seem to be contrary, so I will not spend too much time pointing out differences, so instead a question:
Quoting Judaka
Why not?
History is full of moral paragons, and a lot of them have written things that are quite consistent with one another. The problem is that most have no real desire to follow their example!
Quoting Judaka
As flawed as I am, I do not feel like it is my place to hold others accountable, or to enforce my views of morality on others.
What purpose would it serve?
Quoting Judaka
The short answer is 'none'.
Quoting Tzeentch
A few reasons, firstly, we cannot read someone's moral compass. Even if there were such moral paragons, we wouldn't be able to sort them from the charlatans.
My "Morality is Coercive" OP covered that moral deliberation necessarily excludes and takes priority over personal factors. It's a domain of thought that is necessarily unrealistic. Moral conclusions are supposed to take priority, which theoretically solves this problem, but in reality, that solution has proven itself heavily flawed.
Morality as overriding only makes sense in terms of enforcement, and those who would actually sacrifice their personal ambitions, their goals, their livelihoods, and their freedom, for moral purposes, are a rare breed. Enforcement brings moral behaviour and rational calculus into alignment. Give a person unchecked power and ask them to be moral, and it'll bring misfortune upon us, give a person power, but introduce accountability for misuse of power, and they may choose to act morally.
I am concerned about conflicts of interest. When acting morally is by far the best choice, due to being incentivised, and a lack of benefit in alternatives, then you get moral behaviour. Giving someone the ability to benefit from acting immorally, and then trusting them to avoid that temptation, it's dangerous.
Quoting Tzeentch
It helps others to act morally because it influences their decision-making. If ignoring immoral behaviour was the norm, it would encourage it.
Though, I'm approaching this from a theoretical perspective, as is fit for moral discussion. I don't actually like morality that much, enforcement can be heavy-handed and malicious, and morality is a weak logic, unrealistic and filled with double standards and flaws. I am describing my own views, but I feel uncomfortable advocating them to others since as I said, I'm interested in imposing my views, not having others impose on me. That's where the politics begin, as is inevitable.
Oh, come on! That's easy!
Are you telling me you are afraid that in your quest for wisdom you'd fall for some charlatan's trap? I think you're selling yourself short.
Quoting Judaka
If doing Good were easy, we'd all be doing it. We look up to people with a virtuous character precisely because of those things you mentioned. And it's up to us whether we follow their example.
Quoting Judaka
No, you get a facade of moral behavior. The immoral behavior will then take place in the shadows, or on a level where accountability no longer exists.
The question here is whether it's possible to coerce a society into behavior morally. I would say that it isn't, simply because someone has to do the coercing, and that happens at a level where there is no (real) accountability. And it's at that level the new immorality will manifest, while the rest of the people are simply oppressed into said facade.
For example, someone might erroneously believe that nation states manage to successfully coerce their societies into behaving morally. However, since there is no one to coerce nation states, the immorality is simply elevated to that level, and nation states get up to all kinds of immoral behavior!
Quoting Judaka
Certainly, which kind of begs the question why we put our lot in the hands of politicians. But that's really beyond my ability and desire to change.
Quoting Judaka
Would it? If I were indeed 'enforcing', then I would simply be coercing them into a facade of morality. They wouldn't reap any benefits, because they act 'morally' out of fear, and not as a result of actual virtue they possess.
In addition, I think coercion is immoral to begin with, so I'll just have to respectfully disagree.
Quoting Judaka
On the contrary, I think 'turning the other cheek' is a very powerful message. And most importantly, a message that doesn't require immoral behavior on one's own part.
Quoting Judaka
Is it inevitable? You seem aware of your own somewhat contradictory stance with regards to imposing, so what's stopping you from simply resolving the contradiction?
Quoting Tzeentch
All I can say is that charlatans are praised the world over. I generally find bias to be healthy, it is good to think of oneself well. But in terms of understanding the world, it's ideal to exclude oneself from the analysis. I'd like to think I can do it, but I can see that neither intelligence nor wisdom makes one immune to being fooled, and so I know that in all probability, I'm not immune either.
Quoting Tzeentch
You're right, but I have no faith in "us", I only have faith in systems of incentives and punishments, that which manifest as environmental factors to influence decision-making. Though I appreciate the idea of "Be the change you want to see in the world", it's a noble approach.
Quoting Tzeentch
Moral behaviour is behaviour that is moral, no? So long as that behaviour is occurring, then it is real. Though, I don't think it's a facade. It represents the environment one grows up in, and that influences how one thinks. Basically, if one is surrounded by opportunities to do evil, they'll be corrupted by it.
Quoting Tzeentch
I think the law already does it. Look at lawless states, where corruption is ripe and crime goes unpunished. The moral facade, as you put it, significantly disappears.
Quoting Tzeentch
Ideal governance involves anti-corruption bodies, and legal agencies, who do not have the same incentives as the officials they're monitoring. Accountability is circular, not top-down, and this is crucial.
Nobody should be trusted to act morally, we should never rely on self-accountability.
It's important also to remember, while within the moral context, we could "agree" to do away with power, that's never going to happen in reality. The existence of power must be assumed, and so, besides circular accountability, there is only self-accountability, and I have no faith in that.
Even if we could know the moral paragons, the selection bias for who has power isn't based on that. It'd be easy to, within the moral context, say "Well, we shouldn't allow that", but this is again, overreaching. Morality doesn't govern the world, those with influence, wealth, and power, aren't selected by their goodness, and that should also be an assumption we have to make. Thus, self-accountability can't be relied upon, you know those with power will not be moral paragons, and often, those with power are the ones you least want to have it. Those without moral scruples, choose the optimal route to power and thus outperform the ones with a strong moral conscience.
The ideas of "we" and "us" in moral terms shouldn't be taken literally, there is 100% no "we" or "us", it's just the language of moral thought. So while "we" are technically the most powerful, capable of doing anything, that hardly matters when we're so disunified. This underpins my realism and highlights how unrealistic moral thought can be. It's also this misunderstanding of "we" that leads to moral ideas against politics, because if we're a unified body, who all agree and work together, then politics is unnecessary. This "we" contains my enemies, it contains incompatible views, incompatible ideals, and a disunified, unlinked mass of people, whom I'll never be working with, and who won't be working with me. One must be realistic, and not rely on solutions that can't possibly be implemented, in my view.
Quoting Tzeentch
Fair enough. I do appreciate this approach in most cases, and dislike heavy-handed responses.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, it's inevitable.
Within moral systems, or most of them, we condemn concepts such as "coercion", but then just label acts something else when we agree with them. Most would never call what they're doing coercion or imposing, but that's exactly what they're doing, they just replace it with flowery language to make it seem better.
Moral systems benefit from this intellectual dishonesty but would struggle to function without it. What's moral is what's right or what's fair, and deciding that will often involve choosing the lesser evil. If something is necessary, because it is superior to the alternatives, then for most, it will be the moral choice. Whether it relies on supposedly immoral acts or not is irrelevant.
I too choose moral outcomes over moral acts and I prioritise accountability over morality. Clearly, this is a stark contrast between us. There are merits to your approach, and I can promise there will be cases where my approach produces worse results, but in the long run, I can't trust self-accountability.
Not starting on such a worthwhile endeavor as the search for wisdom and moral virtue, on the off chance one may fall for a charlatan, seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, no?
I think in general charlatans prey on the fickle of mind. A modicum of scrutiny is enough to sniff such characters out.
Quoting Judaka
A bit grim, but ok.
Systems that put no faith in people's ability to discern right from wrong tend to gravitate towards total control. Just something to think about.
Quoting Judaka
In my view, a moral act must consist of both a good action and a good intention.
How does coercing someone into behaving morally not create a facade? Whenever the coercion stops, or wherever it isn't present, the person will inevitably fall back into their immoral ways.
Quoting Judaka
This is essentially my message, with which I intended to show that coercing people into behaving 'morally' doesn't really solve anything.
It puts power in the hands of people who by any means shouldn't be wielding it, and puts those same people in a position where they're above the coercion.
Ideally there should be 'checks & balances', but one glance at the world we live in will show you what that looks like in practice. That's no surprise - the people in power don't want to be checked and balanced, and they will find ways of avoiding it. They have the power, after all.
You're quite right that this is a situation we cannot change. All the more reason to focus on oneself!
Good OP. Although I myself wouldn't follow you towards emotivism, I think your general point is true and much needed. For me the question is whether "personal morality" is coherent.
I should think that this proposition holds true: <If something is moral/immoral for me, then it is also moral/immoral for others>. There are minor exceptions such as oaths and whatnot, but in general it seems to hold. This is the sort of thing that apparently underlies the Golden Rule.
Quoting Judaka
Yes, but also and increasingly because there is a strong strand of secular morality which attempts to eschew traditional forms of morality, and even goes so far as to try to undermine normative behavior claims altogether. From this flows the idea that to call something immoral or wrong is passé. Surely this is rooted in the resentment you speak of, but it has become a force unto itself which shapes moral inclinations. Many now deem it mildly immoral to accuse someone of having done something wrong, and in some cases even the private judgment of wrongness is censured. In consequence we see the attempt to have it both ways: to have personal moral standards while at the same time professing that these standards are in no way applied to others.
Quoting Tzeentch
Even if I was immune, I've spent thousands of hours thinking about philosophy, we don't represent the average person, and I am certain that they are unable to tell, based on the results that make our world.
Quoting Tzeentch
There is a lot of freedom within the domain of acceptable behaviour, but it is why we have the law. If an act is immoral but should be legal, then it will be socially enforced, but in cases, one doesn't fear such consequences, or they're inapplicable, it'll be up to them. Though, we can still educate people and attempt to sell people on the merits of acting morally, and if that succeeds, then great, but it'll never replace law.
Quoting Tzeentch
True, I agree, I had just meant in terms of creating a society of people who acted well.
Quoting Tzeentch
The coercion becomes part of a person's environment, which nurtures their way of thinking. Within this environment, they learn that by being aggressive and acting with malice and disregard for others, they will be disliked or punished. They themselves will learn to compromise, share, and act kindly towards others.
In fact, this very thing happens during early childhood, when children must learn socially acceptable behaviour, to respect other people's things, and the feelings of others, so that they are liked and can form relationships. Failure in this process can have devastating effects later on, as one will continue their socially unacceptable behaviour, and will thus struggle to form relationships.
Those who would steal, bully, cheat, lie and hurt others will often end up a victim of their own behaviour, consistently getting themselves into trouble. If one exists in an environment where they can exploit others, and are rewarded for it, then they will not cease that behaviour. Joffery from GoT is a good example of it.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's important to remember that the "state" is not a monolith, it is possible to have a government with independent anti-corruption agencies that have the power to prosecute those in power. I know from a US perspective it might be hard to believe, but many democracies around the world are showing it possible. Government institutions that uphold the law, and hold elected officials accountable, are the most crucial parts of a government. It's within these institutions, that I hope our "moral paragons" are situated, but we live in an imperfect world, and there are no easy answers.
Quoting Tzeentch
Fair enough, I have no desire for you to conclude any differently.
Quoting Leontiskos
Thanks.
Quoting Leontiskos
Yes. Moral views should also manifest in what kind of system one would advocate for or oppose, and how they treat others, in ways that constitute as going beyond the personal.
Quoting Leontiskos
That's a fantastic insight, I've underplayed these elements. To lessen the blow of one's views on others, for whichever reasons, could motivate the "personal" characterisation. One's moral view might be deemed inappropriate, and mightn't be tolerated by others, and the personal characterisation makes sense there too. I've seen some very passive-aggressive cases of it as well now that I think about it.
______________________________
Quoting Leontiskos
This is a rather uncharitable representation of those who follow a personal moral code, and one which I cannot agree with.
The focus of the sage on self-cultivation is as old as philosophy itself, and perhaps older. We can judge by the nature of their behavior (asceticism, isolation, etc.) and writings that these were in fact genuine motivations towards self-cultivation, and not attempts to 'have it both ways.'
What may make this disposition appear threatening to some, is that it avoids the common pitfall of using notions of morality as a means to meddle in the affairs of others, and it disarms those who would.
I'm not seeing how morality alone 'meddles' in the affairs of others in this way.
I can see a way in which strong social approbation might 'meddle', but that doesn't seem any different to what you're attempting here (trying to 'meddle' in other people's affairs in getting them to stop 'meddling' in other people's affairs).
If your arguments are persuasive, then you have undeniably 'meddled'. If I'm persuaded, I will stop the meddling I would have otherwise done, you have meddled with how my affairs would otherwise have progressed.
How is that any different to my attempting to get you to, for example, give more to charity, by cranking up the guilt and trying to persuade you that way?
It seems either way we're attempting to get someone to do something they wouldn't have done were it not for our intervention. You want them to stop their meddling, I want them to give more to charity.
I didn't mean to imply that it did. I believe it's a common pitfall, but not an inherent one.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing anything, nor am I attempting to persuade.
This is a discussion forum. People come here voluntarily to discuss their ideas, so there is no meddling, only voluntary interaction.
But you've previously argued that morality is not solely about intent. If the result of your posting here is that I'm persuaded to act other than I would have, then you've meddled in my affairs. You might not have intended to, but you've previously denied that as a credible excuse.
Nor is it solely about effect.
But since you are here, interacting and reading my messages voluntarily, there's no meddling taking place. Meddling has an unwelcome quality to it, do you agree?
If by some fluke you are on this forum against your will, and find my arguments most compelling for reasons that have nothing to do with their merit, then that would be tragic.
One does well to avoid tragedy, but such is the nature of tragedy. Sometimes one does ill unintentionally.
Wouldn't the same be true for almost all moralising? Very rarely do the would-be moralisers herd people at gunpoint into rooms before speaking.
Moral approbation is done on people willingly in the vicinity, people willingly putting themselves in the position to be morally appraised. I can't think of many examples where people are forced to listen to moral arguments.
I would define morality as the active process of evaluating things and assigning them a value of either right or wrong, rather than passively perceiving them as such.
I think a lot of moralising falls into the meddling category, though certainly not all, and there are plenty of cases in which the responsibility lies with oneself to leave the conversation.
A gun isn't necessary though, since individuals can be forceful in non-physical ways.
Think for example of applying social pressure, using misleading rhetorical devices, non-horizontal dialogue, etc.
These are all common, non-kosher ways of discussing morality.
Then there is morality that's implicit in law, which is applied through the threat of violence ('at gunpoint').
And of course, if the intention isn't genuine this is also a problem, and I would argue that's the case for a lot of moralising too.
What is it about these that you find 'non-kosher'?
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, I agree this is different. I'd like to focus for the minute on persuasion, if that's OK.
Quoting Tzeentch
Genuine being...? I assume if I want to persuade you to give more to charity, my intention is as genuine as if you want to persuade me to meddle less?
Perhaps we take two positions and see where they diverge...
I think people ought give away their excess wealth to charity (assume for now some objective measure of 'excess', say food, shelter etc)
You think people ought not meddle in the affairs of others.
As it stands these both seem of the same kind right now - ideas about how other people ought act.
I see a wealthy person and say "it's really greedy of you to keep all your wealth, children are starving!"
You see a meddling person (for example me, in the above situation) and say "you didn't ought meddle in that man's affairs, it's up to him what to do with his money, morality is about personal virtue, not imposing on others" (or something like that).
Assume all people involved are on a forum, voluntarily.
Are we still both on a par? Have I crossed a line yet in my intervention which you haven't crossed in yours?
Their forceful nature.
Quoting Isaac
Persuasion seems to assume the correctness of one's own position and the incorrectness of the other's, which in itself seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue.
If I make a law out of the conviction that to do such is a moral good, my intention is genuine. If I make a law with as my goal personal gain, or out of a desire to control, a desire to hurt, etc. my intention is not genuine.
Quoting Isaac
That's not really something I would say, though.
I may think something along those lines (and of course here on this forum, I write down what I think), but the meddling only happens when there's an unwelcome effort to influence someone.
Similarly, I wouldn't accuse you or anyone else of meddling just because they post their thoughts on a forum.
Same for an argument here though, no? The argument...
Quoting Tzeentch
... seems to be trying to persuade me of a position you think is right. Is that then unethical?
Quoting Tzeentch
That seems a very weak distinction. In the example I gave I could simply be 'thinking' the man greedy and happening to vocalise what I think.
Quoting Tzeentch
How would you know it was unwelcome in advance? What kind of action do you think people ought take to ensure their efforts are not unwelcome?
Quoting Tzeentch
That's the kind if distinction I'm trying to clarify. I'm not yet seeing the difference you're trying to get at between a forum like this and any other normal conversation. Any and all moral declarations attempting to influence others will take place during some voluntary conversation. It's an extremely rare event that someone is physically forced to listen to someone else.
I'm not trying to persuade you, or anyone on TPF. My purpose here is testing my views, and looking for interesting insights that I may have failed to recognize.
Quoting Isaac
If there is truly no intention to meddle, this belongs to the realm of tragedy and ignorance. Unfortunate, but no one is perfect.
I think in general we ought to be thoughtful in how our actions can affect others.
Quoting Isaac
You can't. But a thoughtful approach will ensure no major damage be done until one can discern whether their involvement is appreciated.
Quoting Isaac
Horizontal dialogue, for example, which is characterized by respect for the other's view point.
Quoting Isaac
I don't think so.
One example would be how many moral 'lessons' take place when one is still a child - when one's brain isn't fully developed and one doesn't really possess the tools to give any pushback to the ideas that are being presented.
Another could be how people are repeatedly exposed to moral messages, in the news, in media, in commercials, etc. A lot of this may even take place subconsciously. I would argue that the nature of those things isn't exactly voluntary.
Quoting Isaac
A normal conversation would be subject to the same criteria, though is generally a lot more personal (and thus powerful) in nature.
If we imagine some type of philosophy conference where people come to express their views and listen to those of others, I would regard it the same as what we're doing here on this forum. People engage voluntarily, and know the nature of what they're participating in.
When people voluntarily join in the exercise of sharing and discussing views, this is of course not meddling.
Yes, but intent is not enough. You sell yourself short. You do persuade. and unless you've been living in a cave for your adult life, you'll know that when you present arguments as you do here, they sometimes persuade. So morally, you're engaging in an activity which you know full well is likely to meddle in the lives of the people involved by persuading them of things. You can't really claim naivety as an excuse, your intentions need to be measured by the likely outcomes.
Quoting Tzeentch
Sure. But immoral. That's your claim. A moral action is good in both intent and outcome. Intent alone isn't enough. so any act of conversation which actually does persuade someone (even if you intended it not to) is immoral because it's had the effect of meddling in their affairs.
Quoting Tzeentch
I'm not seeing the link here. You said earlier that non-horizontal dialogue was one which assumes...
Quoting Tzeentch
... I can't quite see how that's linked to respect. I can respect you and still think you're wrong, I hope.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not involuntary though. And would this be exactly the same for teaching a child maths. they don't have the acumen to argue against that either, so you're meddling in their current ignorance. If you show a child how gravity attracts objects equally as opposed to by size (which many naively believe) you're meddling in their affairs by persuading them (by use of experiment) of a belief that's other than the one they would otherwise have held.
How is teaching a child morals different from teaching them language, or maths, or history, or biology...?
Quoting Tzeentch
But people can tun off the TV, no? If we're concerned about the subconscious, then your posts here have more to worry about than their general persuasiveness. There's a whole slew of subconscious messages they might be conveying. Again taking intent and effect.
Quoting Tzeentch
I think we can agree here, but as above I'm not convinced that most moral language doesn't actually crop up under these circumstances.
What I'm doing isn't persuading, at least not in the way I've characterized it. I'm conversing and exchanging ideas with people on a voluntary basis.
Sometimes that changes people's minds, but the form such interactions take matters, which is why I make the distinction.
Quoting Isaac
That is not a claim I make though, nor do I claim that any act that changes someone's mind is immoral.
Note also that I have shared my view on what constitutes a moral act, not on what constitutes an immoral act, and I believe the two don't function exactly the same.
Quoting Isaac
Non-horizontal dialogue is one in which one party expresses their views, and the other party simply listens and accepts or is not allowed to express their views, or their views aren't taken seriously. This usually means the former assumes the correctness of their position, and the incorrectness of the other, which is why I said persuasion seems to imply non-horizontal dialogue. The act of persuading someone is typified by a strong belief that one's own belief is better than the other's, no?
Horizontal dialogue on the other hand is typified by openness and respect.
Quoting Isaac
Respect me as a person, perhaps. But I don't think you can respect my views while simultaneously believing them to be categorically wrong.
Quoting Isaac
There isn't necessarily a distinction, and the same thing applies (though, in subjects that teach tools rather than views it seems less relevant). The nature and shape of the student-teacher relationship therefore is of great importance, because it too implies a non-horizontal relationship.
Quoting Isaac
People 'can' turn off the TV, but also for various reasons they won't, even when they probaby should.
And I wouldn't have these types of conversations with people who cannot push back against my ideas.
So yes, such things should be taken into account.
That's right, and I tend to think that personal morality denies a common human nature, by denying that things which are intrinsically applicable to oneself are intrinsically applicable to others.
Quoting Judaka
Thanks. I think that's right. I live in the passive-aggressive midwestern United States, so I see this often.
All that said, I do disagree with your view that "morality is coercive and unrealistic," but hopefully I will eventually find time to reply to you in that thread. :smile:
If you understand the context, we were considering the separation involved in personal morality. Judaka proposed the idea that the separation is particularly useful to those who resent others' attempts to influence their behavior. I then proposed a motivation for personal morality: the conviction that one should not impose their beliefs on others.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, but the sage does not adhere to personal morality as it has been defined in this thread. The sage teaches or writes in part because he wishes to influence the behavior of others.
I agree, but it clashes with your idea the morality is about intent plus effect. If the effect is to persuade then the action isn't moral. But then...
Quoting Tzeentch
...you have indeed, and I'd forgotten. So these acts of persuasion are not immoral, but not moral either. So ought we do them or not? Recall, this conversation started with...
Quoting Tzeentch
...so in what way 'pitfall'? If not immoral, then acceptable (but not actually moral). Doesn't seem much of a pitfall. Just a consequence with not value attached. I 'moralise', people are influenced (but I didn't intend that) - no 'pitfall' at all that I can see.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, I don't agree. If you and I were carrying a large object through the woods and reach a fork in the road. I think we ought go left and you right, I needn't have any strong conviction about left, nor you right, but we can clearly only go one way, so we must decide I must persuade you, or you I.
Most aspects of community living are like that. We're a co-operative species and we do most things together as shared enterprises, so we can't all be pulling in different directions. We needn't hold our beliefs dogmatically, but we do have to somehow decide which way to go if we're working together on something. that involves persuasion.
Quoting Tzeentch
Odd. There are loads of views I respect but thing are wrong (I don't see any need for 'categorically' here). A view I respect is one that's been arrived at rationally and with care for others (where appropriate). There are lots of those and they don't all seem right to me, some seem wrong.
Quoting Tzeentch
But 'of great importance' is a different kettle of fish entirely to 'pitfalls'. If we ought avoid moralising to children because of the potential pitfalls of meddling, the we ought avoid educating them for the same reason. We might meddle in another's ignorance. What's the difference? Why 'pitfalls' vs 'of great importance'?
Quoting Tzeentch
I wasn't necessarily speaking about being able to push back so much as the subconscious effects of your posts. You present a very unique standpoint, and repeat it with conviction. That might feasibly subconsciously cause me to doubt my own position. If subconscious effects have to now be taken into account, your posts become a lot more risky.
I can't help feeling all of this is a very long winded post-hoc way round the fact that your posts are fine because you have good intentions. You're not trying to hurt people and you're not trying to use them for your own gain, so it's fine that you post the way you do. doesn't that just seem simpler?
In my view, persuasion is skirting the line. I've explained that. It certainly can be immoral, but it doesn't have to be. Immoral acts depend first and foremost on the intention, and persuasion often serves selfish goals, and some common methods of persuasion, which I referred to earlier, indicate that.
Quoting Isaac
What I was hinting at with that comment, is that morality is often used simply as a means for exerting power over others - an excuse to interject oneself unwelcomely in the affairs of others.
Quoting Isaac
I don't know why you'd have to be persuaded if you didn't feel very strongly about left or right. I would say "Right" and you would shrug your shoulders and right we went!
Quoting Isaac
Obviously if you hold a view and someone else holds an incompatible view, you must in some way believe they are wrong, so believing someone else is wrong isn't the issue.
If one believes there's no merit whatsoever to their ideas, no room for doubt, no room for another's view, then I don't think it's possible to respect their ideas. That is my view.
But this discussion is getting lengthy enough as is, and I don't think there's a need to fret over every word used. Let's try to stick to the core of the matter.
Quoting Isaac
You asked how conversations could take place in a non-voluntary setting, and I pointed out how a child is taught moral ideas largely without their say in things, as an example of a non-horizontal 'discussion' that isn't exactly voluntary.
Now, obviously a child needs to be taught things, but due to this non-horizontal relationship, an asymmetry in power, the nature and shape of such a 'student-teacher' relationship are of great importance. Suffice to say that in my view it puts a great deal of responsibility on the shoulders of the 'teacher'.
Quoting Isaac
As I said, I do take into consideration the kind of person I'm talking to. I wouldn't discuss this way with someone who strikes me as being easily influenced.
Quoting Isaac
I mean, you interjected in my conversation with someone else and are showering me with questions. You're of course welcome to do so, but I'm not sure why you're turning this into something I'm trying to do, all of a sudden. :chin:
I've not heard you rate the two elements before (but I may be misremembering). Intention and effect are necessary but intention is 'first and foremost'. That complicates any judgement a little. How does this 'first and foremost' cash out in terms of moral judgement, for you? If a person really strongly intended a good thing, but a bad thing occurred, is that moral because their intentions is 'first and foremost'? The element of weighting adds a new dimension to my understanding of your moral system.
Quoting Tzeentch
Then I'm persuaded. Otherwise we'd go left.
Quoting Tzeentch
Why? Why meddle?
Quoting Tzeentch
Not my intention (which matters, yes?)
Consider these examples:
A person intends to harm, but fails to do so. Was the act immoral? I would say yes. In this case, apparently the intention is all it takes.
A person does not intend to do harm, but accidentally does harm anyway. Has this person acted immorally? I would say no. Because the person did not intend for this to happen, this has to be chalked up to ignorance or inevitability, and as such belongs in the realm of tragedy. It's impossible to avoid harm if we are not aware that we're committing it. Apparently, a harmful outcome alone is not enough to class an act as immoral.
Obviously we could fill a whole book with this subject alone, but this is my simple take on the matter and the types of intuitions I'm following.
Quoting Isaac
I think we're using different ideas of what persuasion entails. It seems persuasion to you means the act of changing another's mind. I don't think that's inherently immoral, and in my view, nothing immoral or questionable happens in your example.
Quoting Isaac
I'd appreciate you come to your point.
Quoting Isaac
Who cares about people discussing things and sharing their opinions, where "agreeing to disagree" is always a viable option, and there's no stigma attached to any views? That's utterly benign.
Without a doubt, what's being referred to here, are acts using morality as a justification, where those acts constitute unwanted meddling. Such as finding homosexuality or incest immoral, and then using that belief to justify harassing, insulting, shaming, taking actions to correct the behaviour, or offering clearly unwanted advice and critique.
@Tzeentch's view on personal morality would disarm such behaviours, and it's behaviours like these that he is referring to. There is no contradiction here, and it's bizarre to attempt to use persuasion to show how the view is inconsistent.
Quoting Jacques
Taking your statement at face value, I agree with you. Morality as a word, for me, refers to so many different, and entirely incompatible ideas that no single definition of it can do it justice. In terms of this "active" element, for me, it's in interpretation, and humans can interpret things as right/wrong or fair/unfair using sophisticated perspectives and arguments. Morality as a word is definitely used to refer to this process of interpretation, besides just the ability I described, and much more than those two as well.
However, within the moral context, the right/wrong value is unordinary compared to elsewhere. It carries strong emotional and psychological factors behind it. This isn't produced by mere intelligence, and the ability to think this way is distinctly part of our human biology. Some kind of evolved reptile with our intelligence, undoubtedly, would not possess this kind of thinking as we do. This is why I describe it as an ability of ours. Is that a more agreeable assessment for you, or do you disagree with it?
Yes, but to @Isaac's credit, what did the <post> that started this exchange have to do with unwanted meddling or moralizing? Why did @Tzeentch launch off on a diatribe about moral meddling when there was no contextual warrant for such a thing? In particular, that final sentence, which is what Isaac quoted from:
Quoting Tzeentch
The context is that we were stating the causes for one characterising their moral system as a "personal morality", and that you, or we, have given unflattering reasons for it. I interpret his response to be an attempt to defend the decision to follow a "personal morality", by offering a different, competing narrative that paints the decision positively.
Similar to how if one had speculated on reasons for belief in religion and given unflattering reasons, they might get a response listing the negatives of atheism as a counter.
I believe that's why he gave that response, and to clarify, I'm just responding to your claim regarding the context, and nothing else. It seems to me that Isaac has just taken issue here with the counter, just like some passerby atheist might've taken issue with the counter in my earlier example, and has now started arguing against it. That's how I interpret this, as silly as it is.
Thanks, that was a very strong post. :up:
I suppose my difficulty is that the only unflattering words in my post were, "have it both ways," and this phrase is precisely what he jumped on without giving any clear sense of his substantial objection. So in my opinion there was an undue escalation followed immediately by another undue escalation, both of which seized upon something out of context.
(Since I don't want to belabor this, this will be my last post on this tangent)
I'm not seeing outcome making a difference in either example. In both it seems to be intention that matters.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes. Does persuade mean something else to you?
Quoting Tzeentch
It's not a point, it's a question. You agreed that there were these strong similarities between persuading someone of a theorem and persuading them of a moral, only the latter is problematic. I'm asking what you see as being the difference. You said above that it was something to do with the idea of "obviously" needing to teach a child. It's obvious to me that a child needs teaching but that's because I care about their well-being and have zero problem getting involved in the affairs of others, but that would be immoral to you, so I'm wondering why it is obvious to you.
Quoting Judaka
In my view, requiring (and enforcing) basic moral standards in a community is benign, so how can you expect me to use what's benign as a guide to the charitable interpretation of @Tzeentch's posts? @Tzeentch presents here (and has presented) a very heterodox view of morality (which is partly what makes it so interesting to explore), but its absurd to suggest that, when faced with such an unusual view, I should shy away from any line of questioning which implies an unorthodox belief. Far from it. I'm fully expecting an unorthodox belief. When intelligent people arrive at unorthodox conclusions, it's very often because of an unorthodox foundational belief.
His patience is surprising. Your understanding of his position is willfully misrepresentative, you know the position you're interpreting him to have is idiotic, and you're pushing that interpretation despite being explicitly and repeatedly corrected. Your interpretation never made sense in the first place, he spoke of "Using moral notions as a means to meddle", not moralising. "Using moral notions as a means to meddle" could be used to describe things of extraordinary significance, and implies something of at least some significance.
So why are you talking about discussions in a casual setting as the basis of your inquiry? That makes no sense. Your entire inquiry is willfully misrepresentative, if a reporter did this in an interview, it'd be an extreme case of bias, but it's your standard for philosophical inquiry, apparently. Amazing. Though, hey, he's got an unorthodox view, so it's all good, makes sense.
... and what you're doing now, with me, is...?
has already given you a plausible alternative interpretation. I've also explained my approach. Yet here you are persisting with an interpretation of my questioning which, without even knowing anything about me, determines that I'm some kind of ... I don't even know what possible motivation you think I could have for doing what you accuse me here of doing... but "idiotic" would cover it, and you've certainly been "explicitly and repeatedly corrected ".
For me, it's in the evaluation."
Quoting Judaka
An intelligent reptile would likely make different evaluations than an intelligent chimpanzee, although there would likely be some overlaps, such as: not killing, not harming, not stealing... just to name a few.