Why do we need morals?

[ideologue08]

Neither of those two reasons are adequate though, they do not sufficiently explain why stealing is wrong, it's not very convincing at all.

Adequate to whom? You? You're certainly free to disagree. Certainly convincing enough for me. If stealing is okay then I don't get to bitch when my things are stolen. Same goes for my kids. If you don;t want your things stolen then I'd say that's a pretty compelling explanation as to why it's wrong".

Did you expect me to provide you with an "objective" morality? I've never seen one. Nevertheless, they're adequate to a great many of us, and as a person that does not require morality to be objective and uniformly true for every conceivable person and every conceivable scenario - this doesn't bother me much.

Why do you think that stealing is wrong (if you think that stealing is wrong)?

@Apo, not sure if that was for me, I'm guessing not..since I did mention why we needed them, in my estimation. Just in case, post 12.

For me, stealing feels wrong therefore it is wrong. You can't use logic to conclude that stealing is wrong because it isn't wrong from a rational point of view, neither is cheating or lying etc. I know of a person who doctored his Oxford 1st class degree and then he took in a job in IB in Cyprus. Is he a scam artist? Sure. But why is that immoral, why is that wrong? Logically, that is a rational thing to do. If you want money, and you successfully scam others to get it, that is not "wrong". But it might feel wrong yes. My innate conscious tells me it's wrong, and that's all that matters. Sometimes using the brain does not payoff. Arguing logically doesn't work.

[The Grand Nudger]

For me, stealing feels wrong therefore it is wrong. You can't use logic to conclude that stealing is wrong because it isn't wrong from a rational point of view, neither is cheating or lying etc.

It's coming from a fairly rational point of view when goals and consequences are leveraged - as I did. Nevertheless, I don't require that morality be confined to reason myself. I'd only insist that reason be applied, even if we applied it to an irrational premise. Such as a desire or a goal (not always irrational, but often enough to mention).

I know of a person who doctored his Oxford 1st class degree and then he took in a job in IB in Cyprus. Is he a scam artist? Sure. But why is that immoral, why is that wrong? Logically, that is a rational thing to do.

Who said you couldn't do the rational thing and be "in the wrong" or the irrational thing and be "in the right". Further, something may be right wrong, rational, or irrational (and many combinations thereof) simultaneously. The terms are not interchangeable.

If you want money, and you successfully scam others to get it, that is not "wrong".

Yeah, it probably is, if by "scam" you mean "defraud". Doesn't mean it's illegal though, or that there aren't ameliorating circumstances. Everybody's gotta eat.

But it might feel wrong yes. My innate conscious tells me it's wrong, and that's all that matters. Sometimes using the brain does not payoff. Arguing logically doesn't work.

If it feels that way, then by your own definition - it's wrong. Speaking of things that don;t pay off "it feels that way" is pretty high on the list. Don't get me wrong. I run with "it feels that way" most of the time myself. I couldn't explain to you why I don't, personally, murder people. I just don't. I could explain why I wouldn't - but I'm not actively thinking of that each and every second of the day, thus preventing me from murdering people (though I;d accept that what I've been taught about the subject has affected my "feelings" on the same). Simultaneously I found it very easy to pull the trigger on people. Who'd have thunk it eh, human beings being paradoxical creatures with conflicting moral imperatives.



To elaborate upon why I don't like your definition (in truth, ours, because I use it too-and ignoring that it may "feel that way" to you because all that you have been taught about it.....)...There are people who do not wish to have their things stolen, but do not feel that it is wrong to steal your things. We call those people thieves. So perhaps it;s clear that you and I aren't even approaching it from the same angle - as one can hold any combination of both opinions simultaneously? You're working from (and honestly terminating at) "feelings". I'm going for a goal, which has the advantage of being quantifiable. If we had some disagreement, you would only be able to repeat "I feel, I feel, I feel" - whereas I would be able to say "Here's the goal - this gets us there, this does not". Even if you "felt differently" so long as we were working towards the same goal then my approach is workable. Yours is terminal to discussion. You feel that way. Either I believe you or I don't. Since when did what we feel become synonymous with what was right or wrong though?

Considering the theif above, who doesn't "feel" that it;s wrong to steal from you. Are you content with that? Gonna let him thieve from you at will because you have a difference of opinion and his is as valid as your own? No, you aren't (though because our system is goal based and not absolute based you do actually have that choice- the choice not to press charges). Are you going to do something to him (some punitive action) and when he asks why say "Because I feel that way".

Doubt it. I won't, in any case.

[Darkstar]

We need morals because there would be utter chaos without them.

As to determining good morals, it isn't really a matter of feeling (although you could try to say that the suffering of being wronged is a feeling). Inevitably, there will be moral disagreement, and very few people are just going to let it slide and say all moral views are equal.

The reason why the "logical" thing to do and the moral thing to do don't always match up is because logic and morality are different domains. Logic, in and of itself, cannot be used. In order for logic to be used, it must be applied to something. There is nothing inherently logical about doing anything unless doing that things aids some goal. What is logical about eating if you are trying to starve yourself? Likewise, what is logical about stealing if you are trying to be a good person and keep society in order? The golden rule and empathy seem to be some of the strongest motivators for morality (in the case of the golden rule, one would of course have to take into account the differences between you and the other, i.e. a masochist who wants to be hurt doesn't have to right to hurt others).

Of course, some might still question whether the preservation of humanity and being kind to others has any real basis. Kant's categorical imperative states what we ought to do, as some sort of objective morality. However, it is difficult to demonstrate the validity of such a thing. You ought to follow the rules of logic, otherwise logic won't work and you will like in ignorance. But what if that is what you want? Well, then there is no way to convince you.

A better way to put this would be to use a hypothetical imperative summed up as the following:

If you value human life at all, then you should strive to be a good person.

If you do not place any value whatsoever in human life (and not because you are suicidal but because you have no conscience) then you should not value your own life either, and might as well:

---

rather than become a serial killer. (If you still value yourself because you are selfish, then you are setting an unfair double standard).
Many mass killers (e.g. school shootings) seem to kill themselves when the police arrive. If only they started with themselves...

---

[The Grand Nudger]

See, I wouldn't go so far as to say "utter chaos". I think that most people would do exactly what they already do (or don't). Now some of that is probably conditioning, don't get me wrong, but I'm willing to accept that most folks just don't "do wrong". I think that morals, and morality as a system offer a sort of reliability and uniformity that we find useful - but I don't think that if we woke up with no system of morality, no morals, we would all start eating each other (and hey...cannibals had a highly developed morality of their own btw).

[Darkstar]

See, I wouldn't go so far as to say "utter chaos". I think that most people would do exactly what they already do (or don't). Now some of that is probably conditioning, don't get me wrong, but I'm willing to accept that most folks just don't "do wrong".

Well, okay. I would agree with you in that respect. I don't mean that any morals need to be laid out as a code (i.e. if there were no laws most people would not suddenly become mass murderers).

Even without an established set of agreed upon morals, people would still be distinguishing right from wrong, and in that sense would still have morals of a sort. I suppose you could argue that even if, for example, stealing were not seen as immoral, people still wouldn't want to steal, but I'm not sure how far that would go. Still though, I guess amoral people wouldn't necessarily automatically devolve into serial killers or anything.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, presumably, if stealing were not seen as immoral there would be no reason that people would assign a negative value to the act. We do have examples o this between cultures with the varying and counter-running taboos...as well as things that are considered amoral.

The man from the land of neat sock drawers asks the native of disorganizia their opinion as to whether or not mismatching socks is immoral. The Native stares at them blankly, wondering what could possibly be moral or immoral about mismatching socks.

[Darkstar]

Well, presumably, if stealing were not seen as immoral there would be no reason that people would assign a negative value to the act.

Well, this almost sounds like "people wouldn't think stealing was immoral if they didn't see it as immoral" unless I misunderstood you. One would think that any person, aside from a communist, would assign a negative connotation to stealing without being told to.

We do have examples o this between cultures with the varying and counter-running taboos...as well as things that are considered amoral.

The man from the land of neat sock drawers asks the native of disorganizia their opinion as to whether or not mismatching socks is immoral. The Native stares at them blankly, wondering what could possibly be moral or immoral about mismatching socks.

Yeah, I would see organization of socks as amoral. Is the sock organization/disorganization hurting anyone? Is it infringing on basic human rights? Though, I suppose there could be an extremely unusual society that thinks organized socks are a basic human right...but I don't think sock organization is a self-evident/innate right (i.e. any normal person would find a right to life to be self evident, sans culture. At least I think they wouldn't kill somebody without thinking twice...).

[The Grand Nudger]

More like, if it wasn't considered immoral, it would be surprising to find someone who thought that it was wrong, or assigned some negative value to it. I was responding to the notion that if theft wasn't considered immoral people "still wouldn't want to steal". Laying aside that even though it is considered immoral here people -still want to steal- it's a very strange way of thinking about the subject. Assuming our morality wasn't in consideration -some other conception (or lack thereof) -we essentially assume that people would just naturally comport themselves in a way that conforms with our morality. We assume this sort of shit all the time, it's common, but very, very strange.

Why wouldn't they, and what sort of negative value would be associated with stealing or wanting to steal? Would there even be a word for it? To them, what you call theft could be like mismatching socks. To use a simple example, a culture or society which has a very loose or ill defined conception of property or possession would likely regard the shuffling around of objects to be amoral. There's nothing to "steal", there is no such thing as "theft". Amusingly, they may still exhibit some sort of consideration in the timing of the shuffling. For example, help yourself to my bowl, but not while I'm using it. lol. Then again, they may not. Another great example surrounds nudity, and what level of clothing is or is not appropriate. Ever seen those tribesmen that wear strings around their wastes, or masks to cover their face - while their balls swing proudly beneath them. Bet the thought of whether or not ball-swinging is immoral or moral never corses their mind....or perhaps they might even imagine that a glimpse of their glorious sack is the highest compliment that one can give to another.







Hopefully I expressed that better this time around, as re-reading it it did look a little bare.

[Darkstar]

Okay, I think I understand. My point was more along the lines that if all morals rules were wiped clean, people would be able to rationally conclude that stealing was wrong a second time (unless they were communists), whereas they would be hard pressed to conclude disorganized socks were immoral a second time, because there is no real reason to think that. If no one thought there was anything wrong with theft, then yes, there would be lots of theft.

[Angrboda]

If no one thought there was anything wrong with theft, then yes, there would be lots of theft.

If no one thought of theft as wrong then it would no longer properly be theft. Whether patterns of exercise of control over property would change, perhaps somewhat, but probably not as much as we in our theft-defined-societies would expect, where doing such gains you an unfair advantage.