Not A Poll: Does Motivation Affect Morality?

[robvalue]

They are a set of rules agreed by society, with punishments. That's all they are. It's not a statement of what is moral or immoral. If you think morality is dictated to everyone by the people making the laws, then your idea of morality is far removed from mine that were not talking about the same thing.

How could laws enforce what is moral, exactly? It doesn't distinguish between neutral and moral in any way. So at best you could say it's a way of punishing "immorality". If you're just saying what is immoral is what the law says is punishable then the word is redundant and useless. It's just another way of saying "punishable by society". But a society has many things which are generally consider immoral but which are not punished, or even moral things that are punished.

[Excited Penguin]

They are a set of rules agreed by society, with punishments. That's all they are. It's not a statement of what is moral or immoral. If you think morality is dictated to everyone by the people making the laws, then your idea of morality is far removed from mine that were not talking about the same thing.

How could laws enforce what is moral, exactly? It doesn't distinguish between neutral and moral in any way. So at best you could say it's a way of punishing "immorality". If you're just saying what is immoral is what the law says is punishable then the word is redundant and useless. It's just another way of saying "punishable by society". But a society has many things which are generally consider immoral but which are not punished, or even moral things that are punished.

There are different moralities out there. It just so happens that the laws of our countries happen to reign supreme over us as our ultimate moral systems, whether we agree with them or like them or not. And that's because governments enforce them. And that's generally a good thing.

rob, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but why are you being obtuse?

[robvalue]

I'm not being anything, we're disagreeing. If that is unpleasant to you, I shall stop debating you.

[Excited Penguin]

I'm not being anything, we're disagreeing. If that is unpleasant to you, I shall stop debating you.

I didn't mean to upset you, but I really can't understand what is your problem with me defining a set of laws as enforced morality upon the people it's meant for. I'm sorry if my style of debating is unpleasant or whatever, don't take it personal. I'm not trying to be a jackass, I'm just trying to reach a middle ground.

[Edwardo Piet]

Who produces the best long term consequences has done the most moral good through moral acts, but who has the best intentions is a better person and is almost certainly more likely to actually be the person who does the most moral good through moral acts in the long run -- most of the time good people do good things and bad people do bad things, not always but intentions matter.

John is a better person than James, but in the short term caused less ethically good consequences, but still ethically good.

Susan and Brenda both caused clearly good consequences, but there is also evidence of Brenda's selflessness, whereas I would say there is no evidence either way for Susan.

-Hammy

[Excited Penguin]

Who produces the best long term consequences has done the most moral good through moral acts, but who has the best intentions is a better person and is almost certainly more likely to actually be the person who does the most moral good through moral acts in the long run -- most of the time good people do good things and bad people do bad things, not always but intentions matter.

John is a better person than James, but in the short term caused less ethically good consequences, but still ethically good.

Susan and Brenda both caused clearly good consequences, but there is also evidence of Brenda's selflessness, whereas I would say there is no evidene either way for Susan.

-Hammy

There's absolutely no data to prove the claims made in your first paragraph, so stop trying so hard and don't be afraid to sound banal, it's better than posing in order to sound righteous.


Omg, you're gonna be on my ass about this, aren't you. I almost regret replying.

-Theguywhojustlovesdebatingyou

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Rob

I think an interesting debate for you to watch would be this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm2wShHJ2iA

I watched it for the first time last night. Whilst I already disagree with William Lane Craig in all debates I have never seen him so utterly destroyed in a debate. He was reduced to a bumbling little schoolboy sounding very confused...

I think it's also interesting because my guess is you will agree with Shelly Kagan that God isn't necessary for morality, but you will agree with WLC that Shelly Kagan's arguments for objective morality fail and don't prove any objective morality. But regardless of whether you agree with Kagan's arguments for objective morality, you have to admit, wow, Shelly Kagan absolutely destroyed WLC.

I think my own views are more along the lines of Sam Harris', but although I think Sam Harris defeated WLC in debate as well as being correct, even though I don't particularly agree with Kagan a lot -- this debate was the first time I had even heard of Shelly Kagan or seen anything by him, and I have to admit he is an amazing debater and absolutely destroyed WLC, I've never seen anything like it.

-Hammy

[Edwardo Piet]

There's absolutely no data to prove the claims made in your first paragraph, so stop trying so hard and don't be afraid to sound banal, it's better than posing in order to sound righteous.

I'm not trying to prove anything or sound righteous I'm giving my opinions on the matter on a thread where we're supposed to give our opinions on the matter

Omg, you're gonna be on my ass about this, aren't you.

I'm rarely an ass. Am I being one now?

I almost regret replying.

Almost is good

-Theguywhojustlovesdebatingyou

That's nice

-Hammy

[brewer]

Yes. One of my motivations is to type as little as possible.

I think that's laziness.

Thanks for your judgement based on little or no understanding of me. You'd make a great theist!

[Mr.wizard]

Laws are not meant to be morality.

Nothing objectively means anything, yes. Subjectively, things mean plenty.

What does it even mean to say a moral system is "correct"? It can be internally consistent, and it can be very persuasive, and it can be "natural", but I don't see how "correct" comes into it anywhere. Before the goals of morality have been agreed, how can any judgement be made?

If you're just assuming what the goals are, then you've just declared your own version of morality to be morality itself.

We can already easily examine the outcomes of actions in objective ways. Why also measure this as "morality"? That seems redundant, and it's why my morality is much more complex.

The goals are eliminating harm and maximizing happiness. Pretty straightforward and obvious.

Can you think of any situation in which the word "correct" could be applied?

Laws are meant to enforce morality, not to be it. I never said that.

Laws do not enforce morality, they are simply rules in place to try and optimize social benefits. In America its the law that you drive on the right side of the road, this is not based on any sort of moral decision. There are also Laws that at times produce outcomes that people would consider immoral, such as, laws that create loopholes or technicalities that allow a murderer to go free.