Oh no! not me!

[Morkonan]

There are several threads and many posts in various others dealing with the subject of "Morality." This one isn't about any of those or anything specific enough to justify slipping a post in them.

I've read a lot of posts on the subject from posters here and on other boards and there seems to be a major theme. It's not new, either.

If I do something, it isn't immoral.

(Well, that seems like an obvious dodge, doesn't it? Another one is-)

If what is being questioned is similar to something I do, it is not immoral.

(Again, yet another self-justified response, right?)

Well, how far does the bar move? How far is someone willing to substitute their own avoidance of the issue as a definition of "morality" to begin with?

To me, it seems that there is one overriding theme - Avoidance of guilt or consequences. For instance, let's take the subject of software piracy. (This is only illustrative, not a focus.) In my experience, the overwhelming majority supporters of software piracy are younger people who are actively pirating software, music, movies, etc. That certainly should not be news to anyone. I'm not claiming to be a mystic here. But, why support something obviously immoral in the first place? It all comes back to avoidance of guilt and consequences. If it is NOT immoral, there are no consequences from their point of view. They can feel confident that there isn't some higher human code of conduct they're violating.. it's just free stuff! YAYZ!

Unfortunately, I see this same attitude appearing in a wide variety of situations concerning "ethics" and morality. The issue gets confused. People claim "xx" is not immoral!" Yet mistakenly think that if nobody knows, if nobody is hurt that somehow, somewhere, some social code of conduct has not been breached and there is no need to feel guilty or worry about consequences because of it. Well, that is not a very mature way of looking at things, is it? Unfortunately, if someone wishes to apply a general standard of behavior that defines today's society, I see this as being it.

If you act immorally, is it wrong? Sure, it is. However, if you act immorally, you are not automatically cast out of the club of good human beings!

Everyone has, at some point in their lives, acted immorally. Everyone has violated some sort of socially reinforced ethic or personal standard of behavior. We are all human. We make mistakes. We often have bad judgment. We often do stupid things that we would rather not face. We often do all we can to refuse to judge ourselves because, if we did, we'd find ourselves lacking and that doesn't make us "feel good."

But, none of that is reason enough to move the bar on what is immoral; What is Right and what is Wrong. Doing that lowers the standards for everyone. Continuing to avoid one's own mortal faults simply reinforces those faults in oneself and others.

Do I do what I consider to be immoral things? You betcha. But, I try not to do them intentionally and, when I have a chance to think clearly, I do all that I can to correct or prevent them. That is simply part of being human. What matters most is how you end up handling your own immorality when it occurs. When you ignore it, when you make excuses for it, when you encourage it in others just to feel better about yourself, you're detrimental to the social health of mankind and personally destructive.

That I have committed immoral acts in the course of being human does not give me the right to redefine morality in order to fit into some personal view that absolves me of them. That path leads to madness..

Note: I inadvertently used all caps in the title. Can that be changed? Is that a violation of any forum rules? I really wasn't thinking about it.

PS - I reported myself in an effort to correct the error. I hope that doesn't get me blacklisted for life! ON NOES!

Edit - THANKS TO THE MOD THAT EDITED THE TITLE FOR ME!

Sorry for using all caps.

[Taiji]

Typically if I do something, I know that it is moral to me and immoral to someone else.

But that depends on how you want to use the word moral. If you have a particular moral in mind rather than human morality then that changes things.

For example if I decide to believe the moral 'practise makes perfect' then I am being immoral if I do not practise the things I want to make perfect.

[Morkonan]

Typically if I do something, I know that it is moral to me and immoral to someone else.

But, do you consider that what you have done which is immoral to someone else as actually being possibly immoral? Could they be right? Or, are all morals ultimately what you decide they are? If so, what is your opinion of others that do not follow the same morality? Does your morality change depending upon the situation?

But that depends on how you want to use the word moral. If you have a particular moral in mind rather than human morality then that changes things.

Human morality is the only one I know. Now, if you're talking about the foundations for it or the foundations for an individual's moral code, that is something I believe can have different sources.

For example if I decide to believe the moral 'practise makes perfect' then I am being immoral if I do not practise the things I want to make perfect.

Are you being immoral if you don't engage in that practice or just immoral when you actively avoid engaging in that practice?

[Taiji]

But, do you consider that what you have done which is immoral to someone else as actually being possibly immoral? Could they be right? Or, are all morals ultimately what you decide they are? If so, what is your opinion of others that do not follow the same morality? Does your morality change depending upon the situation?

Noone follows the same morality as me or anyone else. Also noone's morality is consistant through time. People like to believe the opposite to feel more comfortable, more trust, etc. but it's just a deception.

Human morality is the only one I know. Now, if you're talking about the foundations for it or the foundations for an individual's moral code, that is something I believe can have different sources.

To me a moral is written down or spoken. Human morality is not static or consistant in the same way, because humans are not static or consistant in most ways.

Are you being immoral if you don't engage in that practice or just immoral when you actively avoid engaging in that practice?

If I want to make perfect then according to the moral I have to practise, not doing so would be counter to the moral.

If I do not want to make perfect then the moral cannot make me immoral.

[Morkonan]

Noone follows the same morality as me or anyone else. Also noone's morality is consistant through time. People like to believe the opposite to feel more comfortable, more trust, etc. but it's just a deception.

Does your description have to apply to everyone? Sure, people gradually develop their own moral ideas. But, are they really as malleable as you say they are?

How so? Must they be this way or, are there people out there who have developed their own moral codes that have done their best to abide by them, unchanging? After all, a morality that malleable just seems like no morality at all.

To me moral is written down or spoken. Human morality is not static or consistant in the same way.

I can understand that. But, it doesn't necessarily have to be so. Would a person who did not communicate their own definitions of morality still have it? Or, are you saying that a "higher authority" is written or spoken?

If I want to make perfect then according to the moral I have to practise, not doing so would be counter to the moral.

If I do not want to make perfect then the moral cannot make me immoral.

The point was "Actively Avoiding" doing it. For instance, you believe that "Practice Makes Perfect." Yet, you are on an airplane, underwater, in a storm and you're asleep. You can not practice. Is that immoral? Conversely, let's say you have an opportunity to practice but, choose to do something else. That, I assume, would be immoral, correct?

(Post 500 for me, btw. Thanks!)

[Taiji]

Does your description have to apply to everyone? Sure, people gradually develop their own moral ideas. But, are they really as malleable as you say they are?

How so? Must they be this way or, are there people out there who have developed their own moral codes that have done their best to abide by them, unchanging? After all, a morality that malleable just seems like no morality at all.

Malleability seems the wrong word, I would go with difference. People are different from each other in such a way that no 2 people can have the same thought. No 2 people can share the same experience. No 2 people will record the same experience in the same way, etc. Morality has a lot to do with thinking.

On the same (extreme) level of detail malleability does come into it. People do learn. Senses and brains decay. Something understood one way becomes understood in another way over time, as a result of and also regardless of thinking on the matter.

I can understand that. But, it doesn't necessarily have to be so. Would a person who did not communicate their own definitions of morality still have it? Or, are you saying that a "higher authority" is written or spoken?

Good point. I'm not happy with the distinction I've made, and others make. The problem with knowledge of this kind is that when it is written or spoken it loses some of it's value. Human morality cannot be written down or spoken, it is lived. On the other hand societal morality (which may be what you mean) can only be guessed at and is probably interpretations of written or spoken messages which were popular at some point.

The point was "Actively Avoiding" doing it. For instance, you believe that "Practice Makes Perfect." Yet, you are on an airplane, underwater, in a storm and you're asleep. You can not practice. Is that immoral? Conversely, let's say you have an opportunity to practice but, choose to do something else. That, I assume, would be immoral, correct?

When you decide it is an appopriate time to use the moral either you are moral or immoral depending on what you do. So there must be a morality about morals, to decide when to use which morals.

The main problem I have with morality is the vagueness of the word. How do you want to define it?

[Arch-hereticK]

Morality is decided by society. So really it's not up to you, the collective is the only judge.

An equal and fair judicary system is mob rule.

[Morkonan]

Morality is decided what is moral. So really it's not up to you, the collective is the only judge.

An equal and fair judicary system is mob rule.

Imposing morality is impossible. Ultimately, the final arbiter of morality is the person themselves. But, that definition can be at odds with society's.

Laws do not always have to be moral for them to be perceived as just. It's unfortunate but true.

I see moral as a personal matter, it’s completely individually.

Society has norms and rules (Law) but I don't count that as "moral".
You have your moral borders, I have mine. Mutual respect should be applied from both parts.

AHH! But, evidently we both share some, right? For instance, you believe that mutual respect is a moral act, right?

Well, so do I!

Therefore, what if one of us questions the other's observance of that moral belief? What if you believe I am not acting according to that belief and I am not fostering mutual respect? Don't you have some real authority there since we share the same moral belief to call me out on that? Shouldn't I listen to your criticisms of my behavior, since we both share it? I think so.

Double posts merged. - Thanatos

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

An equal and fair judicary system is mob rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Ehhh.... No...

[Morkonan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Ehhh.... No...

Well done.

[Arch-hereticK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Ehhh.... No...

I was only exaggerating for empasis.

Maybe those mobs aren't big enough, I was reffering to the entire human race as being divided into massive mobs. The biggest mob imposes it's morals on the smaller ones, in salem the biggest mob didn't like witches too much (and they loved goats that eat plastic tickets out of Irish tourist's pockets, grrrrr, if you ever go to Salem hide your damn tickets, I didn't get to see the Ship building exhibit).

[dragonsign]

I see moral as a personal matter, it’s completely individually.

Society has norms and rules (Law) but I don't count that as "moral".
You have your moral borders, I have mine. Mutual respect should be applied from both parts.

[Musthavename]

Quite simply, we define something as moral or not as our personal belief. Some are shared, some are so widely shared that the vast majority of a scociety decrees it either moral or immoral. But essentially, you wouldn't view yourself to be moral, as if you viewed an act as immoral, chances are you wouldn't do it unless you had to.

There's only very few things, such as maybe piracy (by that, the internet, not the robbing people on boats one -_-), or lying, are acts that people commit that they generally view as being immoral.

[Morkonan]

...are acts that people commit that they generally view as being immoral.

I'm sort of going off on a tangent from your post. But, it's partially inspired by it hence, the quote. So, it's a ramble, not a direct line of questioning directed at you.


Is there some higher authority other than the individual that helps define someone's moral view?

By "higher authority" I don't mean an entity or being. I mean, is there a system of beliefs, a social "consciousness" that human beings share which help to define an individual's sense of moral value? Or, are all morals strictly a product of the individual and solely developed by them?

If there are some higher-authorities an individual appeals to in forming their own moral code, there surely must be some of them that have relevance in "judging" someone' behavior. If the person has used their society's expressed desires for acceptable behavior as a guide for their own "moral code" then isn't society fit to judge them?

What if two people share the same moral belief? If two people share the same moral outlook on a subject, isn't one of them a qualified authority on the subject when it comes to address the others apparent lack of observance? It would seem then that criticism or denouncement of another's behavior specifically relating to that moral code would be just.

Admittedly, it appears pretty obvious and nothing unique. But, the questions go to the credibility of criticizing another's actions within a supposedly shared system of beliefs.

[dragonsign]

AHH! But, evidently we both share some, right? For instance, you believe that mutual respect is a moral act, right?

Well, so do I!

Therefore, what if one of us questions the other's observance of that moral belief? What if you believe I am not acting according to that belief and I am not fostering mutual respect? Don't you have some real authority there since we share the same moral belief to call me out on that? Shouldn't I listen to your criticisms of my behavior, since we both share it? I think so.

You got me there pal, I think you are right


PS: Congrats with your 500th post

[Taiji]

I think it's more like people do not have a moral code in the simplistic sense that would make things easier for us to think about. We have a mutli-layer moral machinery, which probably uses the same parts as other rule systems. It can't reasonably be less than 3 layers or else it would not be possible to have understandings about why a rule applies in one situation and not another. Those understandings or justifications would be on the third level.

The system requires the flexibility to negate rules and attempt to achieve results opposite to that for which the rule is designed, because at different times different, and sometimes conflicting, objectives are sought.

For example, if I have exhausted all legal methods to feed myself then it is moral that I should steal. But at this point that alone is not enough, I have to find a 'deserving' target, one that would not miss what I stole. If I cannot find a deserving target then I have to discard that moral, dying to avoid negatively affecting someone else in a non-fatal way is not a sensible moral. Where it get's blurry is when starved for long enough the moral line preventing a fatal impact on someone else might be erased, self-preservation acting on a biological level will produce urges and perhaps I will eat you.

Many people don't like to think about eating their family and friends, of course, until they are hungry enough.

The same applies to many other moral areas, people don't like to think about the reality of being human. So they cover it up with lies about absolute morality, this of course takes away any control they had since they relinquish what they deny to unconscious control.

I hope I covered your questions

[Morkonan]

...I hope I covered your questions

You did. I came to the same conclusion yesterday after thinking about a multi-layered approach concerning morality.

"Morality" (or the exhibition thereof) is not a linear process. It's more like a decisions tree where, first, the person decides whether or not a decision requires a "moral" action to begin with. A flow-chart would probably be better as an analogy or a complex decision-tree. So, the same exact decision could eventually require a moral component, depending upon circumstances. How heavily an individual weighs the option of a moral component can drastically differ between people. Some go through life thinking constantly about it and some do not. Their actions and outcomes could be identical. Yet, one could say their entire life was ruled by moral issues and dilemmas while the other wouldn't view their experience in the same way even if they shared similar moral beliefs.

I don't think your example is that good since software piracy isn't really immoral. It might be illegal, but not really immoral*. Which just comes to show how morality changes between generations and time. No matter how hard you try you will never find a hard-coded moral code of truth.

*at least not for a large part of humanity

Note the "*" in your reasoning.

Aren't you making an assumption about the "large part of humanity?" It's common to console oneself in the idea that "everybody else does it so that must make it right." Well, does everyone "really" do it? Or, is it just a clouded perception? How many would really say they wouldn't do it if you asked? How many who haven't been exposed to "teh intrawebs" would say that they would engage in such activity if given the chance and would not see it as immoral? Everyone goes above the speed limit at times. That doesn't mean the speed limit should be removed or that fining someone for exceeding it is somehow unjust.

As far as "hard-coded" moral code, you can find some if you look hard enough at many different societies. They're social mores and some of them appear to be fairly Universal. Murder, Theft, Incest.. those are concepts shared by human societies with widely different backgrounds. They exist but, it's only the specific, culturally bound definitions that differ. Because of the way humans interact and generally form social and cultural groups, these concepts are constantly reinforced in human societies. In the case of piracy, it's our concept of "Theft" that is being defined and examined. It's not OK to steal something simply because it happens to be in an electronic form instead of a more physically substantial one.

Posts merged. Pleses do not make multiple consecutive posts. Use the edit button. VP

[Lovejoy]

I don't think your example is that good since software piracy isn't really immoral. It might be illegal, but not really immoral*. Which just comes to show how morality changes between generations and time. No matter how hard you try you will never find a hard-coded moral code of truth.

*at least not for a large part of humanity

[SigniferOne]

I don't think your example is that good since software piracy isn't really immoral. It might be illegal, but not really immoral*.

Of course it's immoral. Take a gander in the piracy threads in the Philosophy subforum.

No matter how hard you try you will never find a hard-coded moral code of truth.

Did you try very hard?

[Playfishpaste]

What is moral is irrelevant, it is what is helping others that matters.

I don't care about whether or not cheating on your wife by phone sex but sort of hanging up before you do it, but then calling your wife and getting angry then picking up the phone and dialing back and just having a conversation with the phone sex lady but not having phone sex with her is considered immoral or not in the state of iowa or the religion of zoroastrianism or whereever, it absolutely does not matter to me, and if it matters to you, well that's your life and how you choose to live it, I'd rather care about more important things.