|
Post by vertigo on Sept 22, 2005 7:53:23 GMT -5
(I hate sounding like I do in this post)
Morality in a social context is really what actions when done in general bring about the best consequences. In the game of life, an equilibrium exists (I watched A Beautiful Mind). Morality is those virtuous behaviours.
With a singular being there are still virtuous behaviours.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Sept 22, 2005 10:54:06 GMT -5
[quote author=vertigo board=AtheistvTheist thread=1126798235 post=1127393603 Morality in a social context is really what actions when done in general bring about the best consequences. [/quote]
The best consequences in whose eyes? What is great for some people is horrible for others. Everything is contingent on what a single persons preferences are. Hence why morality means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 22, 2005 11:34:56 GMT -5
The best consequences for everybody. Benelovence is a virtue. If you are interested, read this and this.
|
|
The Reservoir Dog
Seasoned Citizen
I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with em' later.
Posts: 136
|
Post by The Reservoir Dog on Sept 22, 2005 16:43:24 GMT -5
I appreciate the links but still the point remains that everything is contingent on what people think. A primary example of this is abortion. Half of everyone thinks that it being illegal is best for everyone, the other half thinks that it being legal is best for everyone. There is no such thing as universal truth (when looking at things that are pure opinion) only personal perception.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Sept 22, 2005 17:57:50 GMT -5
From solidsquid:
Humans are social animals. We live in groups and form societies. Those who are isolated do not live healthily. So I don't think you should discount morality just because it's a "social product," since living amongst others is generally the rule of human life, not the exception.
As loathe as I am to defend society or any of its functions, I felt I should bring up that point.
As for the question of whether life is to live or to live morally, I personally think that morality is a large part of the equation. One should live by their own personal values, deciding for themselves based on their experiences what is right and wrong, and striving to act accordingly and improve. I do not see how someone could spend their life acting in a way which they believed to be immoral, and still being satisfied with life.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Sept 22, 2005 18:44:01 GMT -5
(I hate sounding like I do in this post) Morality in a social context is really what actions when done in general bring about the best consequences. In the game of life, an equilibrium exists (I watched A Beautiful Mind). Morality is those virtuous behaviours. With a singular being there are still virtuous behaviours. How can any action be determined to be moral if there is only one person? Look at what is considered "morally" wrong across most moral systems - killing, stealing from another, rape et cetera. These all require interaction with others. So my question would be - how can a solo person have behaviors that are morally wrong if there is no other people?
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Sept 22, 2005 18:49:30 GMT -5
As for the question of whether life is to live or to live morally, I personally think that morality is a large part of the equation. One should live by their own personal values, deciding for themselves based on their experiences what is right and wrong, and striving to act accordingly and improve. I do not see how someone could spend their life acting in a way which they believed to be immoral, and still being satisfied with life. However, out of a social context, wouldn't everything tend toward a more hedonistic system? What good would utility be if there is no others to factor in? And would a person's actions in that situation be seen as moral or immoral, if so, how?
|
|
|
Post by Hilly on Sept 22, 2005 22:16:09 GMT -5
I don't understand, why debate a improbable scenario. Even given the possibility of a lone human, say as in the movie Cast Away, Tom Hanks still had to interact with animals, and ultimately, as Griffey suggested be accountable to ones self.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Sept 23, 2005 0:14:55 GMT -5
Perhaps I'm missing something, but why do you keep bringing up a "solo" situation? Life alone isn't the most common paradigm for human existance; life among others is. Not to be imprudent, but how is this situation relevant?
To answer your question: I agree with Hilly in that interactions with anything is governed by morality, or at least, it can be. If you were stranded on an island, with no other humans, would that make it moral to torture and kill all the animals? Would that make it moral to burn down tons of vegetation just for the hell of it? You can still apply morals to other aspects of the world.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 23, 2005 4:52:46 GMT -5
Reality is non-contradictory. Ever heard that? What you need do to survive is an objective fact. It's not something you can make up. You can't invent what you need to do. Doing what you must to survive is moral. What you think you must do and what you must do aren't necessarily the same thing. You might be mistaken about what is morally required.
Morality is objective.
So what? Either they are equally good, or one is better than the other, but which is best is an objective fact. Remember, the question is which is best when enforced by the state. It is not to say one and only one is best for every single person. Which is best for each individual also can't simply be decided, which is best for them is an objective fact.
Perhaps it would, but that wouldn't make harmful practices moral. If an organism had a mutation which made hunger not an anxiety anymore, that wouldn't make starvation moral for that organism.
Why do you define 'healthy' as 'in society'? Are you saying an individual can't live morally without society? We have a society because having a society is a moral choice, but that choice is only applicable where multiple humans interact. Given a lone individual, society is not applicable. That doesn't mean that suddenly morality goes out the window. What that individual must do to survive is contingent on reality, and doing what it must to survive is moral.
If to survive you needed to do that, then yes. If there was one animal and you needed to eat it, eating it is moral.
|
|
|
Post by Griffey on Sept 24, 2005 11:46:48 GMT -5
I define healty as in society because humans are a social animal. We don't form society because of morality, we form society because living in social groups is hardwired into our brains as a survivial mechanism. Humans isolated from human contact tend not to be mentally stable.
Yes, I agree with that. What I meant with my "killing all the animals" question was "killing them for no good reason," not for survival reasons. If you had to kill all the critters to live, that's one thing. But that wouldn't necessarily give you the moral right to slaughter them just because.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 24, 2005 12:38:31 GMT -5
Exactly, but that doesn't show killing all the animals is immoral. It is immoral if it harms you.
You do see the connection, right? Traits good for survival are favoured by evolution. That we are social animals is because it is moral because society is beneficial and the social trait is favoured by evolution.
If being social didn't benefit us, it wouldn't be moral and it wouldn't be favoured by evolution. Incidentally, this is how objectivism bridges the is-ought gap. It does so on SolidSquid's point, that the point of living is to live, therefore we ought to act morally.
At this point allow me to recommend reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
PS: Excuse me if that is-ought stuff is completely wrong, I don't really know. The rest is true though.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Sept 24, 2005 16:59:34 GMT -5
Maybe I should clarify. I bring up the "solo" situation as a demonstration of the social aspect of "morals". Morals being defined as - "Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong". From - dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moralsThis solo man chooses to "kill all the animals for no reason" - does that make it immoral or moral if he doesn't feel bad about it? To say yes would then get into the idea of an absolute morality existing. If this individual were in a group of others and did this and this "tribe" has a set of morals that included within it that killing of animals for other than usage of survival was "bad" or "wrong", then we have an established system to assess the person's actions by. Vertigo mentioned "if it harms you, it is immoral" - that could be a system in respect to the solo sitation but what about those who derive pleasure from pain? There is harm to the self, not life threatening but nonetheless, harm. Is this immoral in the "solo" situation? It is not advantageous in a survival/utility context. Or we could take the evolutionary psychology tangent on the matter which will lead us in a slightly different direction.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 24, 2005 18:24:32 GMT -5
If it is not life threatening (as in it won't shorten his lifespan), supposedly it isn't immoral. If it is not advantageous, it isn't moral. So it is amoral. It is something the person can choose to do at a whim. However supposedly one should identify where one's desires originate. Why does he or she feel this urge?
Allow me to use the male pronouns here. He would identify that this desire he has is an anomaly. It doesn't aid his survival. It is not something he should be doing, in that supposedly he could use the time more productively. It doesn't aid his life. If he wants to indulge in it, he should only do so when there are no moral courses of action to take.
Presumably he or she would reason that not all amoral actions are equal. Given that his or her life is seen to, the logical thing to do would be to help others. He or she would supposedly do this because one doesn't know what the future holds. By helping people who deserve to be helped, perhaps it brings other benefits in the future, like care in old age, or whatever.
Well, that's one route. I suppose the other is to inflict the self-harm to pass the time. Hedonistic pleasure has little payoff, because the gain only lasts while you indulge in it. I'm open to ideas about the relative value of amoral actions. I think sentient beings are different from animals, and wouldn't necessarily choose hedonism over other courses of action, such as helping others.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Sept 24, 2005 18:37:17 GMT -5
I will illustrate a point about hedonism. Think about sex. People value sexual experiences differently, depending on the context. Sex alone is no fun. Sex with a prostitute is certainly not desirable. The really good sex is supposedly with the super model or hunk. The sex is the same though, so why should people value any of these occasions more than any other?
The point is the sex itself is not what they value. They think they do, but they don't value it at all. It's actually a misnomer to say that sex gives pleasure. This applies to other things as well, such as smoking. They don't give pleasure, they give relief. These people have anxiety about their ability to attract an enviable mate. Smokers have anxiety induced by nicotine addiction. These acts are to relieve the anxiety.
If the value of sex is not in the experience itself, one should be able to reason that sentient beings might choose to avoid hedonistic pleasures as far as possible, or arbitrarily. Relief from anxiety doesn't remove the cause of the anxiety. One will just become anxious again, anxious that you can satisfy the supermodel or hunk, etc.
No, I tend to think that enlightened sentient beings would not choose hedonism, choosing instead to help deserving others while not otherwise engaged.
|
|