A morality discussion (Neutralmind, Crashfrog, and Chiroptera only)

This will be a great debate with me, crashfrog and Chiroptera (assuming he accepts)

I'd like to start from about nil, meaning that we assume we didn't yet arrive to many conclusion in the thread A personal morality but start fresh on here.

I'll go back and quote some of your replies I feel are important from the above link. I didn't include reference to the posts in any way because it would cause a lot of work, if it is against the forum guidelines or you want to know in which post you said what I quoted I can go back and find it.

All my replies and questions are intended for both so comment on everything you want.

Crashfrog Moral relativism is simply the recognition that morality depends on the situation

So, does it exclude the possibility that morality is also absolute?

Don't get hung up on "good" and "bad." Moral relativism doesn't mean that good and bad don't exist. It means that determining which actions are good and which are bad depends on the situation, and it's not something that you can make universal rules about.

Okay, so that answers my question above. Good and bad can exist even outside the rules of a society. Just leaves me asking, how?

Crashfrog You do what you feel is right. Almost everybody does what they feel is right. I don't see why that's something you would refuse to believe in.

But sometime's people do stuff that they think is only good or fun, not right. I would think taking drugs is "fun" but it's not "right".

Crashfrog I honestly don't see what you're confused about. Recognizing relative morality isn't going to make you do things you don't want to do

It's that I want to do them but feel that I shouldn't.

Crashfrog No. It just means you're wrong about what "good" and "bad" mean. Look at it this way. Is it bad to eat peanuts? I don't think most people would say so, in fact, they might point to the numerous nutrients and health benefits of peanuts to suggest that peanuts are good to eat. ----- Or don't we conclude that the morality of peanut-eating depends greatly on who's to do the eating? That it's relative, in other words? --------- If you were punished for not dotting your i's and crossing your t's, even though you thought you were doing what was right to the best of your knowledge, then is that objective moral code a code of Good or a code of Evil? The latter, I should think. And how could following a morally evil code be something that you would want to do?

Seriously though, I think this is only a baiting tactic to get me to say "But eating peanuts/ dotting i's is neutral when it comes to morality" to which you reply " Oh, so morality can also be neutral, so much for objective morality".
If those are sincere analogies and a questions I apologise.

Neutralmind But if stealing in certain situations is ultimately good and sometimes bad that would mean that there actually is an objective morality. Just a harder one to define. Stealing is only good in these situations blablabla , killing is only good in these situations blablabla.

Crashfrog But you could never list every single situation where stealing was OK; you could never identify a set of shared characteristics that encompassed every single situation where it was moral to steal. So clearly we're still not dealing with "objective morality" that's universally true for all people in all situations. We're still at the point where, ultimately, it comes down to your individual conscience.

(emphasis mine)
You could list every single situation where stealing was OK hypothetically. You could not write them down in a lifetime but in a thousand years or more, sure. Not grass root specifically but in general.

Crashfrog Nonetheless you've confused moral relativism with nihilism. They're not the same thing.

I don't think I've confused them. I don't think there's any "meaning" to life anyway, just that it matters to me that I'm alive and what I do with it.

Neutralmind That if I was to break these responsibilities or went outside my given freedoms I would have violated my "birth rights" and wouldn't no longer be considered worthy of living.

Crashfrog You were born. It happens. Get over it. You are the one that has to live your life. If you feel you have responsibilities, you're the one that has to meet them.

My mysticism doesn't straight concern the topic. So let's leave it aside if possible, though it might be necessary to bring it into discussion later on.

Crashfrog You're worried that, if you embrace a certain philosophical position on the nature of morality, you'll take actions that, currently, you consider immoral.

Yes, that's true to an extent. I'd never go as far as hurting anyone.

Neutralmind talking about one night stands But that's just one thing, I think there's something I'd want to do but won't because I think it's wrong in my view of morality.

Crashfrog But you don't know what it is? It sounds like you're worried about nothing.

Could be. But then again...

Crashfrog If you knew that morality was subjective, how would what you were doing be immoral?

If there's an absolute right and wrong I would be doing something immoral. Is that dodging the question? I don't know.

Chiroptera Now Neutralmind is claiming that if there is no objective standard for morality, he would do things that he would not want to do. As crashfrog points out, this makes no sense. What would he do things that he doesn't want to do depending on whether there is or is not an objective standard?

Pfft, whether you want it or not we're going to have to play a little semantics games (I don't like them either) before I can answer that. Is absolute morality the same as objective morality?

Chiroptera Again, this makes no sense. Neutralmind is asking whether he should continue "believing" in something that he knows is not true, just to avoid doing stuff he doesn't want to do.

Yeah well, that's the question. Sounds stupid, maybe is :p

Chiroptera But how does an objective standard help you? You still have to try and figure out just what it is, and so you end up "making it up" as you go along anyway. So you're still in the same boat.

I guess so. The difference is that... Well, I'll figure it out.
Just as a side note, why do I keep confusing relative morality with no morality?

Chiroptera If there are objective standards of morality, then there will be consequences for not obeying them.
If there are objective standards and I disobey them, then I will suffer consequences.
Therefore, there might be objective standards of morality. If this is what you are saying, then I hope that you see where it fails.

That is what I'm saying. Only to make clearer, that the consequences I would suffer would come back as me being a lesser human in terms of life (guess we'll have to deal with my mysticism as I said). Not like any disciplinary acts.
If you're saying that I'm presuming morality may be objective and that's where it fails it's just creating a loophole in my mind going like a broken record " If I disobeyed the...". Actually, it's the same thing you said.
So to answer the question. No, I have no idea where my logic fails me on that.

Chiroptera As you have already asked yourself, how would you know whether this would be against some alleged "absolute moral code" to begin with?

I wouldn't. This is getting too absurd to answer.

Chiroptera If morality is subjective and you wouldn't be any worse of a human for behaving in some manner, then what is the problem with behaving in that manner?

Again, I feel this is a bait. Just to get me to say " 'Cause I feel that way", to which you reply " How do you know what you feel is the same as the absolute moral code?", and I'm left to say " I have no idea". Hey, looks like I don't need you guys after all :d

Chiroptera Now this is getting confusing. I thought your problem in accepting that morality is subjective is that you would then behave immorally. Your answer in this posts assumes that there is an objective morality. We already know what the problem would be if you behaved immorally while there were an objective morality. I thought your original question was that you were on the verge of accepting that morality is not objective, and you were distressed about the implications if morality was subjective.

Yeah, but I'm shifting my goal posts as need be. Makes it a lot more fun right?
If I seem to contradict my opening post or my initial problem it may be just hasty thinking on my part, if so, just point it out. I might not always realise it :frazzled:

Chiroptera By the way, I think that I am going to reask a question that I asked before. Namely, you seem worried that if morality were subjective you would stop listening to you inner conscience and behave in a way that you would feel is immoral. But what about the implications of an absolute standard of morality? Why aren't you worried about the conflicts between your inner conscience and this absolute standard, that you might have to choose between behaving in a way that is absolutely immoral or behaving in a way that you feel is immoral?

Hmm... Never occured to me. That would be a bigger problem yeah.

Chiroptera If you truly are worried about violating your inner conscience, I would think that you would be relieved if morality were subjective.

I'm not sure about my take on that yet. It's confusing :eek:

I hope some great enlightening answers are on their way.

Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Neutralmind, Crashfrog, and Chiroptera only)" part to the topic title.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hope I didn't promote this before you were ready. :)

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : No reason given.

Seriously though, I think this is only a baiting tactic to get me to say "But eating peanuts/ dotting i's is neutral when it comes to morality" to which you reply " Oh, so morality can also be neutral, so much for objective morality".

You edited out the important part of the analogy, which makes me think you didn't understand it.

The part you excerpted was where I said:

quote:

---

But what if you have a peanut allergy? Then it would be very, very bad for you to eat peanuts, even if they're good for everybody else. Where's the "objective" morality of eating peanuts? Good or bad? Do we say that peanuts are objectively good, and force the guy with the allergy to eat them, or do we say that they're objectively bad, and prevent anyone from eating them?

---

Do you see how that makes all the difference? For people with peanut allergies, feeding them peanuts could rise to the level of murder. For people with no such allergy, feeding them peanuts (say, on an airplane) is a courtesy.

That's what morals are like. In the same way that it's impossible to develop a coherent "morality of peanuts" that doesn't have a hundred-page codicil of exceptions, and exceptions to the exceptions, etc.; it's impossible to develop a coherent, universal, absolute morality. It just can't be done! Which is why we observe that all morality is, in practice, flexible and relative.

You could list every single situation where stealing was OK hypothetically.

No, of course you couldn't. New, unknown situations are always happening. At the end of your thousand years you might have listed every possible situation that had every happened at the time that you started, but now there's a thousand years of new situations that you're behind on.

You could never, ever list every situation. Which means that we're always going to be developing our morality "on the fly", as it's necessary, as those new situations arise.

If there's an absolute right and wrong I would be doing something immoral. Is that dodging the question?

No, it's actually begging the question. If you think there's an absolute right and wrong, then why would you believe in a relative morality? And if you believe in a relative morality, what would possibly lead you to think there was an absolute morality?

You're all twisted up in circles about this, and I don't understand what the big deal is. It seems like you're worried that there's an objective absolute reality inherent in the universe that you simply can't perceive. But how could such a thing be worth worrying about? If the morality is "invisible", then what power does the universe have to hold you to it? Or punish you for infractions? (None whatsoever.)

If you don't believe in a judgmental God, sitting there waiting to pass sentence on you for breaking laws you didn't even know existed, then what the hell are you so worried about? After all these posts, I still don't understand.

I hope some great enlightening answers are on their way.

Look, they're not. The clouds aren't going to part after you read my posts. Light from Heaven isn't going to shroud you when you fully understand my words. You don't need enlightenment; you just need to stop twisting yourself up in word games and figure out what your mental block is. If you're having obsessive thoughts, or you feel like you're under compulsions, or you have an unshakable sense that you're being "judged" or watched at all times, then maybe you should seek professional counseling about that, because those are all signs of mental disorders.

No, it's actually begging the question. If you think there's an absolute right and wrong, then why would you believe in a relative morality? And if you believe in a relative morality, what would possibly lead you to think there was an absolute morality?

... I thought you said somewhere before (in the before thread) that a relative morality doesn't mean that right and wrong don't exist. So, can right and wrong exist in the view of relative morality?

You're all twisted up in circles about this, and I don't understand what the big deal is. It seems like you're worried that there's an objective absolute reality inherent in the universe that you simply can't perceive. But how could such a thing be worth worrying about? If the morality is "invisible", then what power does the universe have to hold you to it? Or punish you for infractions? (None whatsoever.)

I disagree. Even if something doesn't have consequences to you doesn't mean it's immoral.
I'll borrow an analogy I remember from another morality thread in this board.

If you'd get rich by just pushing a button, but some poor chap on the other side of the world would die because of that, would you push the button? If you were absolutely sure that it beared you no consequences for pushing the button, except you getting rich, would you push it?
Or, if you don't care about getting rich, switch it to being anything you desire.

You don't need enlightenment; you just need to stop twisting yourself up in word games and figure out what your mental block is. If you're having obsessive thoughts, or you feel like you're under compulsions, or you have an unshakable sense that you're being "judged" or watched at all times, then maybe you should seek professional counseling about that, because those are all signs of mental disorders.

You're always such a joy crash :d

Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

... I thought you said somewhere before (in the before thread) that a relative morality doesn't mean that right and wrong don't exist. So, can right and wrong exist in the view of relative morality?

Of course. They just depend.

Go back to the peanut example. An absolute morality would say that feeding peanuts to people was either wrong or right. But the relavtive morality recognizes that whether its right or wrong depends a lot on whether or not the person is allergic to peanuts.

I disagree. Even if something doesn't have consequences to you doesn't mean it's immoral.

Ok, look. Is this just going to be a "debate" where I make statements and you respond with complete non sequiters? Because if so I'm going to bow out right now. If there's no guarantee that you're actually going to respond to what I'm saying then I don't see the point.

No, I didn't say that "if it doesn't have consequences to you it's not immoral." I have no idea where you got that.

If you'd get rich by just pushing a button, but some poor chap on the other side of the world would die because of that, would you push the button? If you were absolutely sure that it beared you no consequences for pushing the button, except you getting rich, would you push it?

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The situations you seem to be concerned about have no discernable negative consequences to any persons at all. You're worried about them running contrary to some objective moral code - that you don't know about - even though they have no other consequence.

It's still not clear why you're twisted up about this. You're inventing a morality you don't even believe in so that you have something to be afraid of. How the hell does that make any sense? There's no dilemma here except the one you're twisting yourself into.

Go back to the peanut example. An absolute morality would say that feeding peanuts to people was either wrong or right. But the relavtive morality recognizes that whether its right or wrong depends a lot on whether or not the person is allergic to peanuts.

But how can we know what's good and what's not? Isn't it all personal? Someone might think differently and say it's good to give him/her one peanut if he really likes them as it won't kill him/her yet.
I guess that's the deal with absolute morality too, you can't know if what you're doing is actually good or bad. Or can you?

Ok, look. Is this just going to be a "debate" where I make statements and you respond with complete non sequiters? Because if so I'm going to bow out right now. If there's no guarantee that you're actually going to respond to what I'm saying then I don't see the point.

Don't get so hasty, this is how I read your statement.

Going to quote you again

You're all twisted up in circles about this, and I don't understand what the big deal is. It seems like you're worried that there's an objective absolute reality inherent in the universe that you simply can't perceive. But how could such a thing be worth worrying about? If the morality is "invisible", then what power does the universe have to hold you to it? Or punish you for infractions? (None whatsoever.)

So, how I read that statement is that you're saying because there is no force to hold me onto my actions it means I shouldn't worry about morality, just do as I see fit?

Then, how is it bad for me to push the button and get rich if the universe doesn't hold me to it? It has no consequences to me.

But how can we know what's good and what's not? Isn't it all personal?

It doesn't seem "all personal" to your buddy with the peanut allergy. The harm that would come to him if you served him peanuts against his will is pretty objective and real to him. Don't you think?

But how could such a thing be worth worrying about? If the morality is "invisible", then what power does the universe have to hold you to it? Or punish you for infractions? (None whatsoever.) So, how I read that statement is that you're saying because there is no force to hold me onto my actions it means I shouldn't worry about morality, just do as I see fit?

Wait, what? How do you get from that to:

Then, how is it bad for me to push the button and get rich if the universe doesn't hold me to it? It has no consequences to me.

It has consequences for that guy, though. Obviously.

I'm not following your thought process, I guess. It really seems like you're having a lot of trouble with simple statements in plain English, which is why I wondered if we're going to debate or just lob non-sequiters at each other.

Okay, we came off with the wrong foot. Let me try take another stab at this.

Assuming morality is relative, how could good and bad ever exist?

PS. I'd also like to point out that this is not supposed to be a debate in the formal sense of the word. I'm not holding a counter position to yours, I'm just trying to understand.

Assuming morality is relative, how could good and bad ever exist?

How can they not exist? Even under relative morality, we all recognize that there are consequences that we would prefer, and ones we would not prefer, and when we don't agree exactly, we develop means to come to some kind of compromise that pleases the most people.

Presumably, you don't want me to hit you in the foot with a hammer. Does there really need to be some absolute, unchanging, eternal universal law for you to not want me to do that?

Isn't the fact that it's going to hurt a lot sufficient for you to prefer an alternate outcome?

But then, when morality is relative. What keeps me from doing something "immoral"? Why would I want to be moral anyway?
Of course there are obvious circumstances where being moral has benefits, but say I meet a very rich, total stranger in the middle of nowhere. Why would I not just take his money and leave him to die?

Presumably, you don't want me to hit you in the foot with a hammer. Does there really need to be some absolute, unchanging, eternal universal law for you to not want me to do that?

Okay, I think we have different ideas about "absolute" or "objective" morality. To me, it means that some actions on certain circumstances are ultimately either good or bad.

Wow! I've been invited to a Great Debate! Cool. Thanks, Neut, I'm honored. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond. Now it looks like you and crash are into a conversation; if you want to focus on him you can ignore this post.

It's been a bit since we've discussed this topic, so let me sort of hit the reset button and see where it goes from there.

First, I'm just going to say that "absolute morality" and "objective morality" both basically mean the same thing, namely the opposite of "subjective morality". And "subjective morality" simply means that what is morally right and what is morally wrong depend on the culture, or maybe even on the individual.

So I am going to say that "morality" is subjective for precisely the same reason that "triangle" is a three-sided polygon, namely because that is the way it is defined. "Morality" simply means that some things are "right" and some things are "wrong". Things are "right" or "wrong" depending on how people feel about them. Something is "immoral" precisely because a large number of people who are not directly affected by it find it revolting or unpleasant. How else would one define "morality"?

I think that the problem here is that you are confusing "morality" with the idea of some sort of "karmic law". The principle of "karma" (note the quotes -- I'm not necessarily speaking of the principle in Buddhism and Hinduism) is that actions have consequences, and that this is the result of some law of nature, sort of like the laws of physics.

Now if I let go of a ball, it will fall to the ground do to the nature of the universe. There is nothing morally right or wrong with letting go of the ball, it is simply a statement of fact that if I let go of the ball, there are some definite consequences that will result from it.

In the same way, to take your example, it may very well be (for the sake of argument) that the nature of the universe is such that if you engage in a one-night-stand then you will eventually suffer some sort of punishment for it. That is, your actions will have consequences. This is not to say that a one-night-stand is right or wrong -- this would simply be the expression of the possible fact that if you engage in one then you will, someday, somewhere, find the consequences unpleasant.

The reason that these two ideas get conflated is that Christianity has traditionally conflated them. One the one hand, God the Judge will punish those who act against his commands. On the other hand, Christians are generally revolted (or feel that one should be revolted) when someone acts against his commands, thereby conflating their conception of morality with their conception of "karma". And of course those societies that had sense of karma also often conflated karma with their notions of right and wrong.

So, just to be clear on things, morality is not necessarily the same as some law that says that certain actions result in unpleasant consequences.

Also, the existence of a deity does not change the fact that morality is, by definition, subjective.

Also, the existence of a deity is independent of karmic law. After all, a deity may not herself particularly care enough to punish people who go against karmic law. Or, karmic law may exist, like physical law, even though there is no deity.

And, to bring up your original statement on this topic, all of this is independent of whether the theory of evolution is true of false.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

But then, when morality is relative. What keeps me from doing something "immoral"?

The same thing that keeps you from doing something immoral under absolute morality - nothing but your own volition.

Even the people who assert absolute morality don't claim that the universe stops you from doing bad things. I mean, it's pretty hard to escape the conclusion that people are free to do bad things if they want to, except for how the rest of us react (with laws and stuff.)

Why would I want to be moral anyway?

Self-interest. We know from game theory (a branch of mathematics) that egalitarian, moral behavior is advantageous in most situations.

And honestly? In most situations where it's against self-interest to be moral, people act immorally. They steal pens from work. They take a penny from the tray but never put one in. People don't always follow their self-interest, and there are situations where society conditions us to act against self-interest for the good of all. Some say that's even in our genetics.

but say I meet a very rich, total stranger in the middle of nowhere. Why would I not just take his money and leave him to die?

You tell me. Why wouldn't you? Maybe because you hope that others wouldn't do that to you? It's called "empathy." It's just the ability to imagine yourself in another person's situation. I don't want to get stolen from - so I help society develop and enforce rules against stealing, even though they mean that I can't steal things for myself.

Chiroptera Wow! I've been invited to a Great Debate! Cool. Thanks, Neut, I'm honored

Glad to have you. I've always had particular interest on your posts in other discussions as well.

crashfrog And honestly? In most situations where it's against self-interest to be moral, people act immorally. They steal pens from work. They take a penny from the tray but never put one in. People don't always follow their self-interest, and there are situations where society conditions us to act against self-interest for the good of all. Some say that's even in our genetics.

I can see this now. Thanks for a few good examples.

I knew it was always due to my bad logic but these two posts have really cleared things up. I think I understand now that I always thought I believed in absolute morality when in fact I believed in relative morality.
It sounds stupid but this relative morality thing had really kept bugging me, mostly because I had a faulty picture of it.

There's still one thing though

Chiroptera If there are objective standards of morality, then there will be consequences for not obeying them.
If there are objective standards and I disobey them, then I will suffer consequences.
Therefore, there might be objective standards of morality. If this is what you are saying, then I hope that you see where it fails.

I have no idea where this fails :(

Edited by Neutralmind, : No reason given.

Chiroptera If there are objective standards of morality, then there will be consequences for not obeying them.
If there are objective standards and I disobey them, then I will suffer consequences.
Therefore, there might be objective standards of morality. If this is what you are saying, then I hope that you see where it fails. I have no idea where this fails

Huh. It seems pretty obvious to me that the argument is not valid. Let me type a different argument using the same form; maybe it will be more clear why it is invalid.

If there are elves who hate coffee, then they will give coffee drinkers wedgies. If there are elves who hate coffee and I drink coffee, then they will give me a wedgie. Therefore, there are elves who hate coffee.

This argument has exactly the same form as the previous one. If this one is fallacious, then so is the previous one.

That is why I was asking whether you really were making the previous argument. Because that argument is clearly invalid. The conclusion does not automatically follow from the premises (and we haven't even really determined whether the premises are even true).

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine