What is morally good?

[wax]

I took an interesting class at South Central College in philosophy.

I saw a very real problem with the concept!

I like it, there is no doubt about the fact that I am a philosopher, but I experienced a great deal of disconnect when it came to the assumptions of standards.

Here are just two declarations made:

Rape is morally wrong.
Every culture loves children.

They would seem to be safe statements to make of course; odds are the observer will agree with them!
But they assume too much... and they deny factual observation.

So I will simply start this thread by asking:
If rape is morally wrong how could it occur?
Confused yet? So was my instructor until I pointed out an obvious that philosophy has overlooked.

Hitler did not know he was insane!
In fact he believed with all the moral conviction he had that he was absolutely right.
Likewise, a rapist does not believe that rape is morally wrong. In his mind it is absolutely correct and morally justified.
A rapist does not go home and wallow in remorse after raping... in fact he is likely to have enjoyed the activity and looks forward to being able to do it again.

A rapist will hide his behavior from the rest of us, but he does not consider himself evil.

Every culture loves children?
If so... then no parent would ever... in fact could ever... sell a child into slavery.
There would be no diamond mines in Africa.
There would be no suicide bombers coming from Palestine.

My instructor claimed that one can know they are doing "wrong" and yet still do it.
I deny that claim with prejudice!
Try it once: When no one is looking spit in the face of an infant!
You can't do it.
I declare no one can unless they have decided that the action is morally justified.

There is a very real danger in the assumption of universiality concerning morals.

Some of you have read "My story so far".
My brother Rodney was a career criminal.
I loved him but he was a very dangerous man to society.

One day I sat down and spoke with him about morality and I observed a simple fact: morality is not universal.
He could have made a fortune in the "real world".
He was an artist and a poet.
He chose to be a killer.

One day he said, "I really hope some stupid store owner doesn't make me kill him."

I was... well I thought about it for a long time!
What Rodney was saying was clear yet somehow morally... confusing.
If that man simply gives me everything he has because I have requested it then everything will be fine.
But if he hesitates... if he looks somewhere that implies I have something to fear... if he fails to place his hand where I think he should... then he will FORCE me to kill him and take what I require.
I sure hope he doesn't make me do that but if he does I will not question it for a moment.
I will be morally justified in blowing his head off because he has the choice!

Now you and I of course can look at that comment and see very real problems with it... to say the least!
But it is a clear example of the problem concerning philosophy and morality.

[333]

Peace,

I am so enjoying our discourse, thank you. Here is some textbook definitions you may or may not be aware of, I believe you are but others who stop in may not be aware.


Morality

The Declaration of Independence asserts that all human beings possess certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These rights are supposed to apply to all people no matter what society they live in. Many Americans today, however, would no longer agree that there are such universal rights.
In their view, morality is relative to individuals, to cultures, or to religions.

Subjective Absolutism

The view that what makes an action right is that one approves of it.

According to this view, morality is a matter of personal preference. When we say that an action is right, we are merely saying that we approve of it. Although this view may help explain the plethora of moral opinions, it can not possible be correct because it leads to a logical contradiction.

Subjective Relativism

The doctrine that what makes an action right for some one is that it is approved by that person-- claims that moral judgments are always relative to the individual.

When ever someone says an action is right, what she means is that it is right for her. Nothing is absolutely right or wrong, just as nothing is absolutely big or small. To understand a moral judgment, then, you have to know who made it.

Although subjective relativism may seem admirably egalitarian in that it considers everyone's moral judgments to be as good as everyone else's it has some rather bizarre consequences. For one thing, it implies that each of us is morally infallible.

Emotivism

The doctrine that moral utterances are expression of emotions.

In defense of the notion that morality is subjective some have gone as far as to claim that moral utterances are neither true or false. Some things we say do not have a truth value.
Consider these utterances, Hooray!, Bravo!, Boo!, Hiss!.
These are exclamations rather than statements. They serve to express emotions rather than to make claims. As a result, none of them is true or false.

According to Emotivism, all moral utterances (utterances that use the term "right" and "wrong") are expression of emotion. If we say, for example, that abortion is right, what we are saying, in effect, is "Abortion Hooray!" Moral discourse is more than just cheering and jeering, however. It follows, then that emotivism can not be correct. Words like "good" and "bad" do not stand for properties or features of anything.

Cultural Relativism

The doctrine that what makes an action right is that it is approved by one's culture.

Unlike subjective relativism, cultural relativism does not imply that individuals are morally infallible. But it does imply that cultures are morally infallible. Cultures make moral law, so cultures can do no wrong.
If cultures were morally infallible, however, it would be impossible to disagree with ones culture and be right.
If a society approves of slavery, for example, then slavery is right. These are some of the problems people face when determining what is the Moral Truth.


333

[wax]

Great definitions 333, and yes the average reader will be well served by them.

I am a Cutlural Relativist, and my instructor gave me an "A" because he claimed that I was the first one he had ever met who could explain how it could "work".

First however we must address "inalienable rights".

inalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another; "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights"... not subject to forfeiture; "an unforfeitable right"

I have posted some on the confusion (my perception of that confusion of course) that many have concerning so called "rights".

The founding fathers tried and the fact that they got one right is really quite amazing.

You have the right to pursue happiness... in fact you can pursue anything.
No one can stop you.
In order for a right to be inalienable or "natural" it must be something that can not be denied.
You don't have a right to life, you can be killed.
You don't have a right to liberty, it can be denied you.
But you can attempt to be happy no matter what anyone or anything does... that doesn't mean you have the right to be succesful, only that nothing can stop your pursuit of such a thing.

Other inalienable right would include: Freedom of religion, freedom of thought in general including freedom of belief, and the right to self defense.
Nothing can stop you from attempting to defend yourself, that doesn't mean you have a right to be succesful only that you have a right to attempt it.

But back to Cultural Relativism:

The thing I find funny with philosophy is that all of the textbook descriptions include a seemingly indefensible position concerning the practice.

You could be an Emotist but you would be wrong for reason A.
You could be a Subjective but you would be wrong for reason B.

The only one that could work is Cultural Relativism.
But the problem that an observer often makes is to assume that humans have one culture.
We do not, in fact we have layered cultures, and that is why CR works.

333- If cultures were morally infallible, however, it would be impossible to disagree with ones culture and be right.
If a society approves of slavery, for example, then slavery is right. These are some of the problems people face when determining what is the Moral Truth.

The mistake in that statement is replacing the word culture with "society".
A culture that supports slavery does make slavery morally "right".

How to explain...

Two men, both culturally close but with cultural differences.
One is an American, Virginian, plantation owner, slave owner, pro-slavery.
The other is an American, from New York, a factory worker, and anti-slavery.

Slavery is morally "right" for one and morally "wrong" for the other.

Again that is because cultures are layered.

One of the biggest assumed problems with Cultural Relativity is the claim that an adherent must support the claim that tolerance is universally morally "right".
But that is an unsupportable observation, many Cultural Relativists might personally feel that way but it does not belong as a claim concerning universiality.

A culture may very easily support intolerance, in fact at almost every stage in written history cultures have.
The Japanese became "Japs" at a very specific time for a very specific reason to the overlying American culture.
But remember the point that cultures are layered.
Though the majority of the American culture may have supported intolerance of everything Japanese during that specific period sub cultures within the overlying American culture did not.
An American, Iowan, farmer had a slightly different culture than an American, Californian, shop owner of Japanese heritage.

So yes, it is impossible to disagree with ones culture and be right... but... the layering of cultures insures that such disagreement could never take place.
During periods of change, like the switch from support of slavery by some to support of slavery by virtually none, the shift occurs because one or another sub culture becomes supportive of that change.
For whatever reason a sub culture becomes receptive, often this is through violent strife and involves a defeat which insures such an alteration in moral belief.

[333]

Peace,

Its a wonderful endeavor to find philosophical certainty, one thing is for certain, that the philosophical truths are our accumulated wisdom through out the eons, they are and should always be to promote harmony and resolve conflict, make life and the quality there of better, this is the essence of philosophy. Hence such things I believe to the rational mind are for certain, Life Liberty Sovereignty Brotherhood.

333

[wax]

333- they are and should always be to promote harmony and resolve conflict, make life and the quality there of better, this is the essence of philosophy

Wax- That is an extremely interesting claim!
But how do you reach it... much less support it?

If the other of philosophy is violence, philosophy must resent (and repress) violence in the name of philosophy.
Thus using violence to condemn violence.
It produces a circle which must become a tornado eventually.

That the essence of philosophy has such a noble intent is a boast at best, and somehow worse considering what the science claims to be!

Alexander the Great studied philosophy under Aristotle himself... the science worked very well for Alex in his conquests and allowed him to use cultures for his own purpose.

Philosophy is not even related to desires like those you suggest.
Would you make the same claim of religion?
Certainly not!
So how did the study of philosophy become so elevated in your opinion?

Philosophy is a tool at best, and like any tool may be used for both productive and destructive purpose.

It would seem to me that what you state is a personal belief in how this particular tool "ought" to be used... what it "should" represent.
And that is to me... well... very unphilosophical!

Please explain if you can.
And if you and I truly hold such a great divergence in understanding perhaps we both can learn from the exchange and meet somewhere in the middle.

I can not comprehend a "rational mind" claiming such a thing as "should always be to".
I might agree that it "should" but I also understand that my rational mind dictates that it not always "could".

BTW: The founders of philosophy had no problem supporting such a thing as slavery.
In fact the idea that slavery could not be supported within philosophy is a very recent one. *

[333]

Peace,

Philosophy is the source of expression, it ultimately defines oneself, even if the individual is unable to "text book" define their position. When one takes action or chooses not to act is directly expressed by their philosophy.

BTW: The founders of philosophy had no problem supporting such a thing as slavery.
In fact the idea that slavery could not be supported within philosophy is a very recent one.

Yes of course, thats why democracy fails or at least in Athens, the slaves out numbered the constituents.
There still is slavery in the world, personally it offends me but I would be swayed in criminal cases to allow it.

None the less the "buying and selling" of human beings, whether they are unaware or against their will is repugnant.

Philosophy is the ultimate tool and weapon against tyranny, despots, and rogue democracies.

Mine works well for me, as your philosophy serves you.

333

[CarolAnn]

One unspoken moral that seems to be universally accepted is that all of the group's rules apply only to the group. In other words, you have to tell the truth, don't hurt, kill, steal from or otherwise molest a member of your own group. But it's open season on "those other guys."

It's not admitted, and will be denied, but I've observed it in many groups. The other one is "If you don't get caught, it didn't happen."

If you happen to be a member of the US congress, it didn't happen if you can deny it vehemently enough even if you do get caught.

[333]

Peace,

What is the philosophy of the Constitution of the united States of America?

What is "the" philosophy for all humankind?

What "self evident truths" would everyone accept as "undeniable"?

How do you inform every human on the planet?

How do you insure implementation ?

333

[Rancher]

Why make it complicated?

"Morality" and "Rights" are not related.

Both are defined by individuals, society and situations.

Morality is defined only by individuals, restricted with only the force of societal beliefs.

Rights are defined and enforced by law. For example, our Constitution defines Rights but not Morality.

[WileyCoyote]

Morality - is defined by the current prevailing mentality and perceptions. This is not realistic, but it is unfortunately true.

My own perception of morality is "That which harms no one else". Unfortunately, with the Keynesians taking over philosophy, as well as welfare, medical care, and other handouts, they make society responsible for the errors of others - thereby making us all responsible for the morality of others. You can't smoke because we all pay for your emphysema; but you can murder or rape and be excused because it was society's fault or your parents' fault or those durned Twinkies that put you over the edge.

Morality whether anyone wants to believe it or not is being responsible for one's own actions, and taking that responsibility to heart.

[333]

Peace,

Why make it complicated?

I could not agree with you more, folks just make things way to complicated. Usually with their excuses to justify tainted behavior.

"Morality" and "Rights" are not related.

I beg to differ, self inherent rights defined are exactly based on moral imperatives, Life, Liberty, Property, Privacy and Happiness are virtues understood to be fundamentals of what is "morally" most valuable to a person. To violate any one of these with out just cause would be considered amoral. IMHO

"Both are defined by individuals, society and situations."

Morality is defined only by individuals, restricted with only the force of societal beliefs.

Yes, Philosophers call these attitudes Absolute Subjectivism, and Cultural Relativism.

Its true, when the political might wins out over that which is right we all will suffer.

Wiley Coyote may be on to something with the "sovereign responsibility clause", well educated, self reliant, free thinking folks do not need to be told how to behave well, they do it almost naturally from their toils of self liberation and the knowledge that brings.


333