Boru, what do you think about my responses so far?

Moral codes are not enforced by mandate or fear of punishment, moral codes are beliefs about right and wrong that individuals hold. Laws are mandates that are enforced by fear of punishment, this is why laws are not dictating morals they are only setting rules in order regulate a society.

The fact that laws can be immoral or that certain immoral behaviors are legal, tells us that laws are not dictating morality.

(May 9, 2016 at 6:17 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Boru, what do you think about my responses so far?

I think that you and robvalue have the best handle on what I was getting at. And anyone who quotes Robert Heinlein can't be too far off the mark.

Boru

(May 9, 2016 at 6:15 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I think I see the trouble, EP:  You're conflating (and perhaps confusing) ethics and morality.

Boru

Morality: a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

Sorry, Brian, I know my English. You apparently don't.

(May 9, 2016 at 6:33 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Moral codes are not enforced by mandate or fear of punishment, moral codes are beliefs about right and wrong that individuals hold. Laws are mandates that are enforced by fear of punishment, this is why laws are not dictating morals they are only setting rules in order regulate a society.

The fact that laws can be immoral or that certain immoral behaviors are legal, tells us that laws are not dictating morality.

I think you're mistaking society's morality for an utopic one that doesn't exist. I never described the latter, only the former.

(May 9, 2016 at 6:53 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: Even if you where able to look at each moral dilemma objectively, testing the amount of harm each decision causes doesn't tell the whole story.

I don't think it has to. I mean, I am talking about objective in the sense of unbiased and using health as an analogy. We don't know the whole story about health either, does that make sense? Do you see where I am going with this?

Quote:Also, Even if you came to the conclusion that one thing causes more harm, how does that change anyone else's morality?

I don't think it has to... Um, I mean look at health again. You know, like with health some things are objectively healthy without convincing people right?

Quote:I think of the old hypothetical, would you kill one child to save a million people? This is very easy to test for objectively, obviously killing the child is less harm so we could easily deem that the moral choice. The problem is, it doesn't make it so, the people who believe it is immoral to kill that child are still going to believe that it is immoral.

Yeah but that's about universal morality. We don't need that for objectivity, I think. Like ummm.. Do we need it for health?

(May 9, 2016 at 6:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 9, 2016 at 6:17 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Boru, what do you think about my responses so far?

I think that you and robvalue have the best handle on what I was getting at.  And anyone who quotes Robert Heinlein can't be too far off the mark.  

Boru

Hey, I really appreciate your response Boru, you know? Cheers for that matey.

@ Rob, yeah... But I'm wondering if my health analogy works perhaps... I do think there's far too much of the darn speciesism lark. No but seriously, yeah it's disgusting. The treatment to animals and bias against them sickens me.

But anyhoo, about the health thing. Animal health can be studied and we merely label physical and mental well being as health yeah? Why not same for morality, like, when it comes to suffering and stuff?

I find morality very vexing as a topic. In the initial two scenarios I think the guy who donates twice as much but without being motivated to benefit the charity's cause is morally less praiseworthy. Likewise I don't think the woman who steals to feed her child is a bad person. In fact I endorse her action.

But I don't like comparing moral acts. I don't actually think anyone should strive to always do the best thing morally. Only when the moral parameters of a situation are significantly important should one let moral considerations intrude upon his choices.

So neither man in the first example need donate to the charity unless it is one whose goals are ones they wish to further. I don't think donating to a charity whose mission one finds indifferent is as "praise worthy" as it is irrational.

Christianity promotes the maximization of praiseworthy acts while minimizing immoral ones. If one is only living to get into the good place after death and/or avoid the bad place, maybe that makes sense. But it shouldn't for the rest of us. Life is short. One should strive to accomplish that which one finds most meaningful in their life. That could very well entail some form of service to others. But perhaps the aesthetic potential of a situation will be what motivates someone else, or the opportunity for self discovery, adventure or some other challenge. Without religion, there is no reason to live ones life just to accrue brownie points.

Sorry this is half baked but I've started to write something here several times and it constantly eludes me. I hardly think I nailed it this time but I did want to respond before the thread disappears.

I think it's pretty obvious that intent matters, since morality (at least to me) means acting in accordance with feelings and ideas about a more perfect social world.

For example, let's say I donate money to a woman's shelter because I'm hoping to impress a woman into having sex with me. While donating to help people in need is generally moral, it's moral because I'm acting on a principle of goodwiill. If I'm doing it to take advantage of someone's psychological state (feeling men are cruel and uncaring and being grateful when a man seems to show compassion) is clearly immoral.