What is morality

Author: keithprosser ,

Posts

Total: 154
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
Is there any such thing as morality?  It is clear that if morality is a 'thing' it is not a thing made of atoms.  Nor is it made of 'energy' because if it was it would be possible to use morality to heat water.   Nor can morality be located anywhere in space.

We talk about morality a lot on DA... but what - if anything - are we talking about?
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,987
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
--> @keithprosser
We talk about morality a lot on DA... but what - if anything - are we talking about?
Integrity of the communitarian

Universe integrity > ecological  integrity > communitarian integrity > family integrity > fellowship integrity > individual integrity > biological integrity

All-for-one and one-for-all. Sacrifice for a greater good.

Omni-considerate

Wholistic considerations

Placing ego to the side to let in viewpoint from outside our individual perspective.

Morality is accessed or created via metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts of humans
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The proper way to conduct oneself.

The highest good is truth, but depending on what you use to relate truth to, you will have different moral standards.

I am a Christian, so I am to love God with my heart, soul, mind, and strength, love my neighbor as myself, and let God be the judge. This is simple way of describing what morality would be for me. 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,887
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @keithprosser
Is there any such thing as morality?  It is clear that if morality is a 'thing' it is not a thing made of atoms.  Nor is it made of 'energy' because if it was it would be possible to use morality to heat water.   Nor can morality be located anywhere in space.

We talk about morality a lot on DA... but what - if anything - are we talking about?
Temporal and geographic social norms.

A mostly unspoken social contract.

Purely qualitative.
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @keithprosser
Morality is an awareness of whether our thoughts and actions are affecting other living things in a loving or unloving way. Our conscience prompts us to do what is selflessly loving but this is at odds with our inherently selfish animal nature. We are aware of morality intuitively and our moral knowledge can be improved upon through rational introspection. 

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @3RU7AL @Fallaneze
A typical sentence is 'the morality of murder' which resembles 'the velocity of an electron' gramatically.   Velocity isn't made of atoms or energy either, but its not imaginary - so I don't want to say 'velocity' doesn't exist, but it clearly doesn't exist in the 'concrete' way a table or chair does.

I would say velocity and morality are 'properties'.   Unlike 'objects' such as tables and chairs, properties do not have independent 'concrete existence' - a property depends on being 'of' an object to 'exist' at all.  

That is objects and properties 'exist', but they 'exist' in different ways that probably should have different words.  I suggest that when there is ambiguity we use o-exist and p-exist as approrpriate.

My position is that morality has p-existence, not o-existence.

Further, properties relate to a quantity.   For example velocity relates to how far something moves in space per unit time.   Mass (another property) realates how much inertia an object has.

if the above makes sense then 'morality' relates to a quantity - but what of?  i'm not sure....
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @keithprosser
I agree that morality exists abstractly rather than concretely. Other things exist in the same manner, like information, math, logic, truth, etc.

When it comes down to it, I don't think that anything perceived is "real." Our perceptions of reality are a construct of information-processing. They're an assimilation of mental properties that don't have independent existence. What does a colorless, shapeless, textureless, object look like? Those features don't physically exist. 

What's more real is what doesn't depend on observer-relative perception. Morality, math, logic, etc.

keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
I agree that morality exists abstractly rather than concretely. Other things exist in the same manner, like information, math, logic, truth, etc.
Not quite because information, math, logic etc are not properties.   One can ask how much velocity an electron posesses but not how much math or logic it has.   That is to say that the 'way that' velocity exists is not the same way that, say, mathematics exists.   That probably needs its own thread, but for now I'd be happy to introduce a-existence (abstract existence).

I am developing the idea that morality p-exists but is often taken to a-exist (or may be even to c-exists by some people!)
 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,887
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @keithprosser
Velocity isn't made of atoms or energy either, but its not imaginary...
Velocity is well defined and quantifiable.

Morality is poorly defined and qualitative.

You are conflating quanta and qualia.  This is a category error.

It does not follow that 1 + 1 = 2 therefore, I love you.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @3RU7AL
Hopefully we can discover a well-defined and quantifiable interpretation of morality.   We can avoid category error by interpretting moraluty as a measure of something, just as velocity and mass are measures of something.   The question is 'What is morality a measure of?'

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,887
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @keithprosser
The question is 'What is morality a measure of?'
Morality is a measure of social compliance and desire to gain the respect of your peers.

It can be quantified with this - https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/712


Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 709
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
--> @3RU7AL
Do you think low social compliance is more moral, or less?  
Do you think a high desire to gain respect is more moral, or less?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,887
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Plisken
Morality (in this particular context) is only a concern when interacting with other people.

If you are better at interacting with people (more empathetic/more desiring of respect), you are more moral.

Low social compliance is considered "anti-social" which is generally frowned upon.

Desire to gain respect leads people to activities and actions that people actively praise and promote and award and reward.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @3RU7AL
I don't see how to use that to assign a measure of morality to, say murder or giving to charity.   The former is 'very immoral' (under usual circumstances), the latter is 'very moral' (unner usual circumstances) - but what are those estimates of the morality of murder and charity measures of?


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,887
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @keithprosser
I don't see how to use that to assign a measure of morality to, say murder or giving to charity.   The former is 'very immoral' (under usual circumstances), the latter is 'very moral' (unner usual circumstances) - but what are those estimates of the morality of murder and charity measures of?
You've made another category error.

You can't measure the "morality" of an event.

You can only measure the morality of a person.

Only people can be moral.

Events and actions cannot be moral.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @3RU7AL
But people are always saying things like 'murder is immoral'.  That seems a natural and correct thing to say, but you appear to outlaw it.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,887
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @keithprosser
But people are always saying things like 'murder is immoral'.  That seems a natural and correct thing to say, but you appear to outlaw it.
"Murder" as the go-to-perfect-example is AXIOMATICALLY IMMORAL.

"Self-Defense" may look exactly like "murder" in every single particular, but, if it is considered "justified" then it is automatically excluded from the label and social consequences of "murder".

The specific act of, I don't know, stabbing someone in the face with a screwdriver, is not automatically "murder".

And, as such, "stabbing someone in the face with a screwdriver" is not an intrinsically "moral" or "immoral" action in-and-of-itself.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 709
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
--> @keithprosser
I think if you want an empirically measurable way of viewing morality, it might be a system that observes your ability to go to Afghanistan, live there, and not have grandchildren, and their children's children supportive of murdering people for apostasy.  Another metric might be really tempting circumstances like taking on the role of a king and through all the influence being able to rule with grace, being able to learn from mistakes.  Being able to go from riches to rags and still support a healthy family, or contribute to those around you.
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
--> @3RU7AL
I'm not sure I like the phrase "Axiomatically" here, I think "tautological" is better since Murder is essentially defined as an immoral act.
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,966
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
--> @keithprosser
Tables and chairs don't exist "concretely" either. Nothing does.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,887
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @drafterman
I'm not sure I like the phrase "Axiomatically" here, I think "tautological" is better since Murder is essentially defined as an immoral act.
I consider the terms interchangeable.


drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
--> @keithprosser
Morality is simply a classification of behaviors into acceptable and unacceptable.

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
--> @3RU7AL
They have similarities, sure, specifically that they are true in all cases. But they differ in the sense that axioms are the beginning of a logical system while tautologies are the result of one. Necessarily, axioms are not derived from deeper principles whereas tautologies depend on them. They are the end result of the process that is started with axioms.

Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 709
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
--> @drafterman
Why do people say right and wrong, instead of acceptable and unacceptable?

drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
--> @Plisken
Because people are prone to the is-ought fallacy. Acceptable and unacceptable are descriptive terms. They describe how people respond to certain things. They are the genesis for defining right/wrong, moral/immoral behavior.

We accept this behavior because doing so is beneficial or not doing so is harmful. We reject that behavior because doing so is beneficial or not doing so is harmful. Then this becomes "right" and "wrong."

This isn't necessarily bad. It's much easier to teach someone that some behavior is "right" or "wrong" rather than lecture them on the history of why it is right or wrong (the reasons of which can sometimes be lost to time anyway). It is simply more efficient to have the positive or negative connotations encoded into the brain at an early age, especially when it's more important that the behavior be adhered to or avoided than having them understand the reasons why.