What is morality

Author: keithprosser

Posts

Total: 199
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Morality is an awareness of whether our thoughts and actions are affecting other living things in a loving or unloving way. 
However, many people believe killing an enemy is morally superior to pure pacifism (hippies/Tibetan monks).

"Loving" would not seem to be the primary measure of morality.
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
How is that a problem for the definition? Do you think that means that they believe that acting unlovingly is morally good? Or that acting unlovingly is morally preferable to acting lovingly?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Or that acting unlovingly is morally preferable to acting lovingly?
Please explain the difference.

If it is sometimes moral to act immorally if you personally, with absolutely no outside perspective at all, personally believe it will be "better" somehow "in the long run" whatever that means.

If you can act immorally and sometimes it is more moral or at a minimum "permissible" then you subscribe to consequentialism.

If you subscribe to consequentialism and you do not know for absolutely certain what the future holds, then you are blindly stabbing at hope.

Would you, personally rather be locked in a pitch-black basement full of people who "always act morally" (pacifists) or would you rather be locked in a pitch black basement full of people with knives who "try to predict which is the lesser of two or more potential evils"?
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
However, many people believe killing an enemy is morally superior to pure pacifism (hippies/Tibetan monks).
..'All I will do for death is to die for it'...is one of the most highest{?} places to make a decision from.

It may be the most courageous,  if not the most moral position of them all.

I.e. some would have us believe it is easier to kill, than it is to die.

mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL

Would you, personally rather be locked in a pitch-black basement full of people who "always act morally" (pacifists) or would you rather be locked in a pitch black basement full of people with knives who "try to predict which is the lesser of two or more potential evils"?
The one I usually use is, people who are concerned about the phrase ..' thew world is full of people with good intentions '...and I respond, duhh yeah, thank goonesss for that i.e,. as would you  rather live in a world of people with mostly bad intentions?

What I see happening over the years is that people feel like their getting the shaft ergo they pass on the shaft to others without reaonsable cause.

It is a snow-ball effect that is a degradation of humanities integrity.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
It is a snow-ball effect that is a degradation of humanities integrity. 
I believe it is due to a very poor common understanding/definition of the concept of morality itself.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@mustardness
...would you  rather live in a world of people with mostly bad intentions?
It is a false choice to force anyone to accept that the only two options are "good intentions" and "bad intentions".

The division seems to be better framed as "let everyone decide for themselves what they thing is best" versus "encourage compliance with (deontological) consensus principles".
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe it is due to a very poor common understanding/definition of the concept of morality itself.
Agree absolutely.

It is a false choice to force anyone to accept that the only two options are "good intentions" and "bad intentions".
It is a fair, diametric opposite statement, intended only for those who state the other. 

And we all known which is the rational, logical common sense choice between, only those two.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Murder has intent.  Unjustified killing is just a killing that hasn't been justified.  The illicit definition of murder is unjustifiable by nature.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@drafterman
Morality is simply a classification of behaviors into acceptable and unacceptable.
Whenever i write 'simply' , 'just' or 'only' I usually go back and delete it because things are seldom simple!

I am imagining a scale, or a line, with 'very immoral' over on the left and 'very moral' on the right.   Murder (or 'unjustified killing') is very near the left end, giving to charity somewhere on the right and telling 'white lies' near the middle.   But what is it that determines where they are on the scale? 

Surely 'morality' can't be a measure of 'morality'!  Velocity is a measure of change of position per unit time.  Mass is a measure of inertia/gravitational potential. But what is morality a measure of? 




3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Murder has intent.  Unjustified killing is just a killing that hasn't been justified.
Is a crime of passion still considered intentional?

Is "felony murder" necessarily intentional?

"The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder." - Wiki

Regardless,

Murder = killing + unjustified + intentional

Killing + unjustified + intentional = murder

Is still perfectly axiomatic.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@keithprosser
I am imagining a scale, or a line, with 'very immoral' over on the left and 'very moral' on the right.   Murder (or 'unjustified killing') is very near the left end, giving to charity somewhere on the right and telling 'white lies' near the middle.   But what is it that determines where they are on the scale?  
Based on your description above: your imagination.

Surely 'morality' can't be a measure of 'morality'!  Velocity is a measure of change of position per unit time.  Mass is a measure of inertia/gravitational potential. But what is morality a measure of?  
What is length a measure of?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@drafterman
Space.

The point being that we do assign things to points along a morality scale.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
You can drop "unjustified" entirely.  Murder is unjustifiable, so naturally it's not going to be justified.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
But people are always saying things like 'murder is immoral'.  That seems a natural and correct thing to say, but you appear to outlaw it.
The action itself is not moral or immoral.

The specific act of, I don't know, stabbing someone in the face with a screwdriver, is not automatically "murder".

And, as such, "stabbing someone in the face with a screwdriver" is not an intrinsically "moral" or "immoral" action in-and-of-itself.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
You can drop "unjustified" entirely
A soldier is not usually considered a "murderer".

Mostly because it is generally accepted that their killing, while perfectly intentional, is also justified.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
The point being that we do assign things to points along a morality scale.
Some people believe that even the slightest infraction dooms you to eternal hell fire.

Not much "scale" in that case.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
That's because the particular soldier has not been charged with murder, a crime that will likely be judged in a court of law, not because the homicide has been justified.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@keithprosser
Space.
How so?

The point being that we do assign things to points along a morality scale.
Some people do, yes. It is not universal that all moral systems comparatively rank the morality of actions.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
That's because the particular soldier has not been charged with murder, a crime that will likely be judged in a court of law, not because the homicide has been justified.
Are you kidding me?

Many people are accused of murder in a court of law and are exonerated specifically because their act of intentionally killing another human being was justified by something like "self defense" or some "stand your ground" legislation or "your right to defend your property with deadly force".
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Some people believe that even the slightest infraction dooms you to eternal hell fire.
Not much "scale" in that case.
Abortion is an interesting case - some people place it way over on the left, others much more towards the right.   I am sure you place abortion somewhere on the line.  

People must be making a judgement or estimate of something to determine where they place it on the morality scale - what I want to examine/uncover is what it is we are estimating when make a moral judgement.



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
People must be making a judgement or estimate of something to determine where they place their color of choice on the bestest colours evar scale - what I want to examine/uncover is what it is we are estimating when make a favorite colour judgement.

This seems like a flawed premise.

You, and I do mean you, yourself, need to rigorously define what you mean by "morality" before you have even the slightest hope of measuring it.

AND you absolutely must watch this 2 minute clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut0ai4s4mjU
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
You worship the government?  Someone charges you with a crime, the court presumes innocence, and you are proven guilty.  Proving justifiability might be practical way of defending yourself and getting the legal process over with.  That's why stand your ground laws exist, so under the right circumstances, you don't have to survive a legal battle after already surviving an imminent threat.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@drafterman
But they do rank them.   If X is ranked as more moral than Y then there must be something about X and Y that makes people rank them as they do.  It's fairly universal that murder is ranked as less moral than theft.  It won't really do in the philosophy forum to say that murder is ranked as less moral than theft because murder is less moral than theft...that's not getting us anywhere!

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@keithprosser
But they do rank them.   If X is ranked as more moral than Y then there must be something about X and Y that makes people rank them as they do.  It's fairly universal that murder is ranked as less moral than theft.  It won't really do in the philosophy forum to say that murder is ranked as less moral than theft because murder is less moral than theft...that's not getting us anywhere!
It's no more absurd than comparing the length of two objects. Why is a 2" object longer than a 1" object?

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
You worship the government?  Someone charges you with a crime, the court presumes innocence, and you are proven guilty.  Proving justifiability might be practical way of defending yourself and getting the trial over with.  That's why stand your ground laws exist, so you don't have to survive a legal battle after already surviving an imminent threat.
What is your point?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@drafterman
Because it occupies more space.

You may wish to consider the snarcity of an object as being the measure of its snarcity, snarcity being unrelated to any other property or quality of the object.   How would you rank a circle and a frog in order of snarcity?

Morality cannot be a measure of morality.


Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you see the word "unjustified" in that process being conflated with murder?  The point is that there is not an inherent reason to justify the killing, in order for the legislature, and the court to not have sufficient proof that it's justified in throwing you in the slammer.  Justification is a process.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@keithprosser
I think the issue here is you're treating it as a quantifiable and discrete measure of something. It's more like health or humor we can say something is healthier than something else or something is funnier than something else but they're not discrete measurements of anything.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@drafterman
I think the issue here is you're treating it as a quantifiable and discrete measure of something. It's more like health or humor we can say something is healthier than something else or something is funnier than something else but they're not discrete measurements of anything.
Well stated.