Moral investigation no1

[Denny Crane!]

Two questions, please avoid god and keep it ontopic.




1. Do you believe that humans are inherently moral or that morality must be imposed?



2. Do you believe that teleological morality (consequentalism) is more or less valid than deontological morality (intention thoughts and will) if you are a compatibilist between both positions which position between the two hold more value for you?



Enjoy!

[Garrigan]

1. I would say most humans are inherently moral to a degree. Some things must be "forced" onto a child. But mostly they are lesser morals. However, I think it can be quite easy to "break" someones inherent morals (as a child).

2. So which is more important, fear of punishment or your own morals? Has to be your own for me. I dont imagine most people would feel the need to kill and torture even if they had no fear of punishment. But I think it can "re-inforce" someone's ingrained morals. If you know throughout your life that action A will produce a punishment, you are less likely to do it than if you just felt that action A was wrong.

[Denny Crane!]

1. I would say most humans are inherently moral to a degree. Some things must be "forced" onto a child. But mostly they are lesser morals. However, I think it can be quite easy to "break" someones inherent morals (as a child).

The abuse and corruption of a human is somewhat irrelevant to the question though undoubtedly it is easy to corrupt someone.

2. So which is more important, fear of punishment or your own morals? Has to be your own for me. I dont imagine most people would feel the need to kill and torture even if they had no fear of punishment. But I think it can "re-inforce" someone's ingrained morals. If you know throughout your life that action A will produce a punishment, you are less likely to do it than if you just felt that action A was wrong.

Ah not quite I suspect you misunderstood -- my language no doubt, allow me to clarfiy.

Do you judge a moral action by the intent behind it or the consequence of the intention?

[Garrigan]

Hmm....the true version is much more intresting

I would have to see the consequence. Although the thought behind the action is important, the consequences often have a much further reaching affect. Thus must be judged more harshly. That is why "Attempted Murder" does not carry as heavy a sentance as "Murder".

Have you ever seen Minority Report? The Tom Cruise film? Basically the Police in the future can "see" into the future and predict a crime before it happens, and arrest the suspect before they have a chance to commit the offense. To me that is unreasonable, you cannot punish someone for what they might do, or what you think they will do. In my eyes, if you judge the intent as just as serious as they actual act and the consequence, then surely someone is eligible for the same punishment for action or intent?

[Denny Crane!]

Hmm....the true version is much more intresting

I would have to see the consequence. Although the thought behind the action is important, the consequences often have a much further reaching affect. Thus must be judged more harshly. That is why "Attempted Murder" does not carry as heavy a sentance as "Murder".

Your thinking justice not morality.

Consequential morality is giving someone a hand across the road the end result being that you helped someone across the road. The categorical moral imperitave of deontological morality is that you must desire to help that person across the road before it is moral.

That last setence might need some clarifying. Someone who is just naturally compassionate is not inherently moral in their actions in comparison to someone who is not inherently compassionate but acts so because he wills it.

Have you ever seen Minority Report? The Tom Cruise film? Basically the Police in the future can "see" into the future and predict a crime before it happens, and arrest the suspect before they have a chance to commit the offense. To me that is unreasonable, you cannot punish someone for what they might do, or what you think they will do. In my eyes, if you judge the intent as just as serious as they actual act and the consequence, then surely someone is eligible for the same punishment for action or intent?

Ah yes but again justice not morality. Forget crime, crime is basically irrelevant in moral investigations at a meta level as criminal law is subjective to whatever crazed religious moral code the judicial system is based on.

Just think morality independant of courts or justice.

[Dayman]

1. Do you believe that humans are inherently moral or that morality must be imposed?

I think that we have instincts inherent to our survival that in society translate to morals. Killing someone is a negative since it would be one less pair of hands to plow the fields or weave clothes. It evolved into something more substantial, as you see in the enlightenment which attempt to justify theoretically why people have rights to live besides the purely utilitarian.

2. Do you believe that teleological morality (consequentalism) is more or less valid than deontological morality (intention thoughts and will) if you are a compatibilist between both positions which position between the two hold more value for you?

I would consider myself on the ropes here, the long run counts for more IMO.

[Pontifex Maximus]

1. Do you believe that humans are inherently moral or that morality must be imposed?

I think basic emotions like compassion and love can be expressed by humans, but things like sharing and not acting out of impulse (killing a fellow human for stealing your TV for example) are taught by society as unacceptable and must be learned and enforced.

While some may be inherently good, others may need to be taught.

I think it varies by a great degree person to person as well. Some people might be more inclined to act morally than others.

[Justice and Mercy]

1. Do you believe that humans are inherently moral or that morality must be imposed?

Must be imposed.

2. Do you believe that teleological morality (consequentalism) is more or less valid than deontological morality (intention thoughts and will) if you are a compatibilist between both positions which position between the two hold more value for you?

Consequentalism only holds any validity if harm is done out of recklessness (speeding, for instance) or neglect (letting your child starve to death).

Otherwise only the other one (I don't wanna spell it) is viable.

[gambit]

1. Do you believe that humans are inherently moral or that morality must be imposed?

It is imposed. While we are more than capable of acts of kindness without society's hand in the mix, it's intent is usually more personal rather than selfless. I.E. an animal protecting it's mate. While it may love that mate, its probably more or less protecting it's "territory" rather than helping something cause it truly cares about it.

2. Do you believe that teleological morality (consequentalism) is more or less valid than deontological morality (intention thoughts and will) if you are a compatibilist between both positions which position between the two hold more value for you?

What exactly do you mean by valid? As in which defines why we choose our actions more? In that case, probably consequentalism. While many people have intention, thought and will; consequentalism is more apparent. Especially in evil actions. Some people dont have problems with killing someone, but they do have problems with the law hounding them at their heels.

[chriscase]

1. Do you believe that humans are inherently moral or that morality must be imposed?

I think you are creating a dubious framework when you use terms like "inherently moral". If you intend to separate genetics from socialization, it's an artificial boundary that violates the dynamic between socialization and biology. Harlow's experiments are the classic example, but I found the work done on the canic analogue and affiliative bonding much more compelling. It turns out that affiliative bonding - mother to child as well as father to mate and father to child - are associated with both social behaviors (like male provisioning) and physiological traits such as decreased sexual dimorphism. In other words, social and biological factors combine at a fundamental level to make us what we are as a species.

So to answer your question, if by "inherent morality," you mean certain bio-social interactions that tend to produce tightly knit groups bound by affiliative bonds backed by chemical processes, I would say this is a characteristic of our species. Of course we know the biochemical processes can fail to fire, for example when, to our horror, a mother murders her children.

2. Do you believe that teleological morality (consequentalism) is more or less valid than deontological morality (intention thoughts and will) if you are a compatibilist between both positions which position between the two hold more value for you?

I'll have to get back to you on that one.

[eventhorizen]

1. Do you believe that humans are inherently moral or that morality must be imposed?

In my view morality is the term that encompasses the communal ideas, education and lessons of the ideal human. Ideas and education that stem from an inherant requirement of the human species to co-exist to survive, and that are developed and refined by generations within those communities in response to their environment, successes, failures, needs etc.

Morality is therefore in my view a kind of "fundamental social lesson" that exists as a "fundamental social idea" that must be imprinted and taught to people, but that nonetheless addresses what is a fundamental and inherant need or requirement.

Humans are "inherantly moral" in that humans have an inherant requirement to survive and thrive, and must do so within a social, group context. Morality must be imposed in that each human must learn and develop the ideas of the "ideal human" within the context of their group if they are to succeed and thrive within that group.

I would take the view that human morality is not dissimilar in principle to the education of an individual in its function in society in any other social species. The major differences being that human society is vastly more introverted in an evolutionary context, and that human education and requirements are vastly more abstract and relevant to their particular physiology.

2. Do you believe that teleological morality (consequentalism) is more or less valid than deontological morality (intention thoughts and will) if you are a compatibilist between both positions which position between the two hold more value for you?

This question strikes right to the very heart of the problem in determining morality, for morality as I see it is both subjective and objective, while at the same time being thoroughly a construction of the human mind.

What I mean by this is that the idea of morality exists to serve a function, to influence behaviour and thought towards dealing with and addressing problems of social and contextual co-existence. Morality exists to educate an individual in idealistic human behaviour relevant to a particular group and context, to interperate the question of ideal human behaviour, but also to be aware of the question of ideal human behaviour in all human actions. Without the implications of the "good" and "ideal" human, the tool of morality would be blunt and ineffective in more complex social co-existence.

Morality, society and evolution in themselves hold consequentialism to the highest value. The consequences are of the ultimate concern in these contexts. However deontological morality is the necessary engine of morality and therefore consequence. To act according to social moral values one must understand social moral values and be concerned with personal moral investigation.

Without the idea of the "good" and "ideal" human, even as an abstract personal question, humanity would lack the tools to reinforce the education of social behaviour in the mind of the subject as a personal motivation.

It is therefore my view that morality is a solution developed in response to difficulties in successful social co-existence, that provides an education in successful social co-existence, and paves the way for the future development of further solutions to social co-existence. It does this by being a question of the ideal human, a solution to that question, and an intellectual "hook" that strikes right to the very heart of our own self evaluation.

[Nietzsche]

In my view morality is the term that encompasses the communal ideas, education and lessons of the ideal human. Ideas and education that stem from an inherant requirement of the human species to co-exist to survive, and that are developed and refined by generations within those communities in response to their environment, successes, failures, needs etc.

Morality is therefore in my view a kind of "fundamental social lesson" that exists as a "fundamental social idea" that must be imprinted and taught to people, but that nonetheless addresses what is a fundamental and inherant need or requirement.

Humans are "inherantly moral" in that humans have an inherant requirement to survive and thrive, and must do so within a social, group context. Morality must be imposed in that each human must learn and develop the ideas of the "ideal human" within the context of their group if they are to succeed and thrive within that group.

I would take the view that human morality is not dissimilar in principle to the education of an individual in its function in society in any other social species. The major differences being that human society is vastly more introverted in an evolutionary context, and that human education and requirements are vastly more abstract and relevant to their particular physiology.



This question strikes right to the very heart of the problem in determining morality, for morality as I see it is both subjective and objective, while at the same time being thoroughly a construction of the human mind.

What I mean by this is that the idea of morality exists to serve a function, to influence behaviour and thought towards dealing with and addressing problems of social and contextual co-existence. Morality exists to educate an individual in idealistic human behaviour relevant to a particular group and context, to interperate the question of ideal human behaviour, but also to be aware of the question of ideal human behaviour in all human actions. Without the implications of the "good" and "ideal" human, the tool of morality would be blunt and ineffective in more complex social co-existence.

Morality, society and evolution in themselves hold consequentialism to the highest value. The consequences are of the ultimate concern in these contexts. However deontological morality is the necessary engine of morality and therefore consequence. To act according to social moral values one must understand social moral values and be concerned with personal moral investigation.

Without the idea of the "good" and "ideal" human, even as an abstract personal question, humanity would lack the tools to reinforce the education of social behaviour in the mind of the subject as a personal motivation.

It is therefore my view that morality is a solution developed in response to difficulties in successful social co-existence, that provides an education in successful social co-existence, and paves the way for the future development of further solutions to social co-existence. It does this by being a question of the ideal human, a solution to that question, and an intellectual "hook" that strikes right to the very heart of our own self evaluation.

I'm impressed by this answer but believe it leaves a large empty space. It seems to take the community in a bubble without any force upon it. The real trouble with morality is not whether it's inherent (which it isn't) but whether it can be a consensus. While locally a culture or peer-group can co-exist with itself in relative peace with established mores, education, and social behavior, when a more global perspective is introduced the chemistry changes. Agreements aren't quite so neat. Compromises don't leave all feeling connected and important or accepted. Battlefields are drawn in the divides between communities and their conflicting cultural and social expectations.

As for the second question an action can only be judged by it's outcome. Our perception and judgment depends upon the ability to determine the right or wrong of an action or inaction based on it's perceived consequence. We have no other means of determination based on experience. Whether the subject intended something else is irrelevant because intentions are absent from the perspective of the observer. For the observed however it is not entirely black and white. The morality of an action is the sum of intention and consequence as well as the intangibles of a given situation whether they are known or can be known.

For example if I witness a youth stealing apples from the grocer I may be inclined to intervene because (to me) theft is wrong. However, if I had known the details of the event fully (which we rarely ever do) I may have known that his father just lost his job and has been gone for two weeks on a self-pity induced bender while the mother cried into the ashtray at home wondering how she was going to take care of three kids. With this in perspective the color of entire scene changes. We have moved in terms of consequence from unacceptable to justifiable. We have shifted from the observer to the observed.

The true intention may never be known. Humans are capable of great deception. In the case above perhaps the youth was starving, a thief, or merely enjoyed apples. The possibilities are endless, so we are best served judging an action by perception of consequence and proceeding to determination of causes later. It's the best type of judgment and by extension the most impartial form of justice.

[Bovril]

1. Do you believe that humans are inherently moral or that morality must be imposed?

For humans to be inherantly moral doesn't there need to be some universal moral standard? If so, then no, humans are not inherantly moral, since they can't agree what this standard is, and act in ways that contradict each other, and therefore, at least some of the time, it, all in the name of morality.

If there doesn't need to be a universal standard of morality, then morality is whatever a given person or community deems it to be. In this case, it is of course imposed.

Having said that, human societies all have ethical standards or codes, so we may safely say that ethics of some sort are a necessary feature of human societies, however, that does not say anything about the content of those codes.

For humans living outside a social context, it is impossible to say whether they have morality, since they don't have language.

So, in conclusion, humans do not have a single inherant morality, but human societies inherantly generate moralities.

The awkwardness of my answer may come from the fact that I don't think the question fits the facts of human existence very well.


As to question 2, the answer depends on your own system of morality, which, as I've said, is culturally constructed. In the modern west deontological morality is, for the puposes of philosophical discussion of individuals, seen as being the only valid approach, however for practical purposes this is not the case. The morality of things which don't have intentions can (economic systems for example) can only be assessed by results, so teleological morality is the modus operandi here. Being as I'm a modern westerner, I'm inclined to agree. However, this aproach, or at least the degree to which it has found favour is relatively recent. Its not that I think people who think otherwise are necessarily wrong, they are just people with different (irreducible) premises dealing with different problems in different ways. As long as they don't try and deal with my problems in their way, I'll return the favour.

[Justice and Mercy]

If there doesn't need to be a universal standard of morality, then morality is whatever a given person or community deems it to be. In this case, it is of course imposed.

If morality is subjective it is neither imposed or inherent, because it does not exist.

Moral subjectivism is amoralism.

[Denny Crane!]

think that we have instincts inherent to our survival that in society translate to morals. Killing someone is a negative since it would be one less pair of hands to plow the fields or weave clothes. It evolved into something more substantial, as you see in the enlightenment which attempt to justify theoretically why people have rights to live besides the purely utilitarian.

So we are inherently moral as far as you can apply morals past your sociological bias. To a given degree you say yes.

Quote:
2. Do you believe that teleological morality (consequentalism) is more or less valid than deontological morality (intention thoughts and will) if you are a compatibilist between both positions which position between the two hold more value for you?

I would consider myself on the ropes here, the long run counts for more IMO.

So if Hitler had brought about a better world it would have been right? You've got to delve a little deeper than that, a blasé statement about the ends justify the means doesn't wash without categorical definition of what ends and what means.

I think basic emotions like compassion and love can be expressed by humans, but things like sharing and not acting out of impulse (killing a fellow human for stealing your TV for example) are taught by society as unacceptable and must be learned and enforced.

They aren't taught or enforced they are punished. People either do murder or they don't, it is proven deterrents do not work at all, can you tell me where sharing is taught by society? A child is more willing to share his sweets with strangers before a man is willing to give a pound to a stranger.

Must be imposed.

Yet police can't be everywhere at every time and people still act honestly and yes commit crimes. Detterents don't work so what does?

Justify your statements rather than your typical one sentence posts. If you can.

I think you are creating a dubious framework when you use terms like "inherently moral". If you intend to separate genetics from socialization, it's an artificial boundary that violates the dynamic between socialization and biology. Harlow's experiments are the classic example, but I found the work done on the canic analogue and affiliative bonding much more compelling. It turns out that affiliative bonding - mother to child as well as father to mate and father to child - are associated with both social behaviors (like male provisioning) and physiological traits such as decreased sexual dimorphism. In other words, social and biological factors combine at a fundamental level to make us what we are as a species.

The thing that you cannot ignore beyond all that is that beyond a severe abnormality that a person will not grow up and randomly kill 80 people. It is due to some severe abnormality it is not preferred behaviour in an evolutionary species therefore it is aberrant behaviour and not considered normal.

Inherently moral does not actually reference biological studies or contrasts of nature vs nurture, it asks for a rational and logical analysis of behaviour that can be studied in many cultures dependant on various types of social influences and various genetic influences. Is there a correlation? It doesn't equal causation but can the empirical evidence tell us anything when compared to other statistical evidence.

So to answer your question, if by "inherent morality," you mean certain bio-social interactions that tend to produce tightly knit groups bound by affiliative bonds backed by chemical processes, I would say this is a characteristic of our species. Of course we know the biochemical processes can fail to fire, for example when, to our horror, a mother murders her children.

Which is pretty similar to what I was saying above, but to bring up a statistical anomaly is pretty irrelevant in terms of the arguement or any arguement that doesn't reference what brings up that specific illness whether it is post natal depression or schizophrenia they are statistical anomalies that hold little impact in discussions on human interactions.

In my view morality is the term that encompasses the communal ideas, education and lessons of the ideal human. Ideas and education that stem from an inherant requirement of the human species to co-exist to survive, and that are developed and refined by generations within those communities in response to their environment, successes, failures, needs etc.

Morality is therefore in my view a kind of "fundamental social lesson" that exists as a "fundamental social idea" that must be imprinted and taught to people, but that nonetheless addresses what is a fundamental and inherant need or requirement.

Humans are "inherantly moral" in that humans have an inherant requirement to survive and thrive, and must do so within a social, group context. Morality must be imposed in that each human must learn and develop the ideas of the "ideal human" within the context of their group if they are to succeed and thrive within that group.

I would take the view that human morality is not dissimilar in principle to the education of an individual in its function in society in any other social species. The major differences being that human society is vastly more introverted in an evolutionary context, and that human education and requirements are vastly more abstract and relevant to their particular physiology.

Quite concurrent to what my particular thoughts on the matter were though more eloquently put. A response I'm going to further on my next moral question in the next topic, thanks for that. An amazing post.

[Justice and Mercy]

Yet police can't be everywhere at every time and people still act honestly and yes commit crimes.

Right...

Detterents don't work so what does?

Detterents do work.

Justify your statements rather than your typical one sentence posts. If you can.

You asked a question, and I answered it properly.

You want more? Ask more.

[Denny Crane!]

Detterents do work.

I'm sorry I thought we were working in the world of facts and evidence.

Like most of your posts though you don't like to extend beyond one line you prefer one liners that you think are clever but lack supporting evidence and quite often logic or evidence.

When you debate properly I will consider debating with you in the meantime I will confine my answers to the likes of event horizon and ChrisCase.

In the meantime you are free to reply to my posts but shall find no replies forthcoming while the debate moves on around you.

[chriscase]

The thing that you cannot ignore beyond all that is that beyond a severe abnormality that a person will not grow up and randomly kill 80 people. It is due to some severe abnormality it is not preferred behaviour in an evolutionary species therefore it is aberrant behaviour and not considered normal.

Inherently moral does not actually reference biological studies or contrasts of nature vs nurture, it asks for a rational and logical analysis of behaviour that can be studied in many cultures Dependant on various types of social influences and various genetic influences. Is there a correlation? It doesn't equal causation but can the empirical evidence tell us anything when compared to other statistical evidence.

Which is pretty similar to what I was saying above, but to bring up a statistical anomaly is pretty irrelevant in terms of the argument or any argument that doesn't reference what brings up that specific illness whether it is post natal depression or schizophrenia they are statistical anomalies that hold little impact in discussions on human interactions.

I still think the argument you make suffers from a lack of rigor.

The term inherent has a strong tautological implication: a circle is inherently circular. To say man is inherently moral means that yes, one statistical anomaly contradicts you. It's a much weaker statement to say that the majority of humans are moral.

But I don't think this is exactly what you are saying anyway. The way I read your post, you are more interested in the societal genesis of morality - its cultural etiology, if you will. This is where I go back to my original example.

Primitive morality is the morality of the clan. It certainly seems reasonable to surmise its genesis is directly related to affiliative bonds. No one can harm my mate. No one can harm my kids. In order to move past that, we must have abstraction, which requires symbolic capability and language.

And now we get to the Platonic core of the argument. Just because we have the capability to make the abstraction, does it mean the abstraction is real? Or important? What I think you want to say is that, because morality - the abstraction - exists in our minds in its perfect form, it must have some existential priority, it must have some quality beyond its mundane utility. I think it's a lovely idea, but not necessarily true.

This is why I keep bringing up the deeply physical, biological nature of affiliative bonds and thus, by lineage, the entire functional structure of social obligation that underlies the abstraction of morality. By focusing on the abstraction as if it exists independently, we ignore the underlying reality that gives the abstraction its relevance, utility, and intuitive appeal.

[Ummon]

And now we get to the Platonic core of the argument. Just because we have the capability to make the abstraction, does it mean the abstraction is real? Or important? What I think you want to say is that, because morality - the abstraction - exists in our minds in its perfect form, it must have some existential priority, it must have some quality beyond its mundane utility. I think it's a lovely idea, but not necessarily true.

Let's think about it. If you have the form in your mind, it went there from some place. This place must be reality (the sample of your experiences in reality) therefore you have extrapolated such form from reality. If we take a different sample, the form obviously changes, and thus each man has his own vision of morals.

But they all have some kind of model inside of what reality is and what actions are required to negociate with it.

Therefore, in a way, human beings are inherently moral.

Psychopaths, which would be the exception (people with antisocial personality disorder) have problems because of their lack of morals (in the conventional sense). And this lack can be imputed to organic deficiencies or psychological difficulties during developement.

Besides, more could be said about how the different "visions of morals" interconnect and how the dynamics of reality may be analyzed to find persistent recurrencies.

It was nonetheless an excellent post, I must say.

[Nietzsche]

Let's think about it. If you have the form in your mind, it went there from some place. This place must be reality (the sample of your experiences in reality) therefore you have extrapolated such form from reality. If we take a different sample, the form obviously changes, and thus each man has his own vision of morals.

But they all have some kind of model inside of what reality is and what actions are required to negociate with it.

Therefore, in a way, human beings are inherently moral.

I'd never thought of it like that. Well said.