Not A Poll: Does Motivation Affect Morality?

[robvalue]

Yes, animals prove my point about definitions. People do not at all agree as to how much "morality" should apply to their treatment. So "wellbeing" is not only vague, but who exactly it applies to, and how much, is a subject of debate. It gives rise to phrases I find laughably absurd like "humane slaughter".

@ Rob

I agree the idea of moral ontology is an abstract concept, but what about moral epistemology?

I think "objective" as in "absolute" does absolutely NOT 'exist' for morality. But what about "objective" as in "free from bias"? I wouldn't call that "existent" but I don't see why it's something that I would call untrue: Can't we make an unbiased study about what does and does not harm people under the label of "morality" just as we can make an unbiased study about what is or isn't bad for us under the label of "health"?

-Hammy

I'd say not entirely, because they aren't well defined things. What exactly constitutes harm, and to what degree, will need exactly defining; although in many cases agreement will be fairly universal. From society to society, what kind of harm "matters", and to whom will differ. Assuming we ignore this, we're again simply studying harm/health. That is already studied in a lot of detail. My objection is that also calling this "morality" is redundant. Instead, I would consider this outcome of objective harm as part of my morality evaluation, not just to replicate the results and call them "immoral" as well.

To be clear, I'm not ignoring the fact that harm is caused, I already have that information as it's extremely obvious. But "morality" needs to take many more factors into account, in my estimation, to be worthwhile as a useful concept.

I am assessing the whole package of the action, the history leading up to the action, the beliefs of the person, what attempts they have made to check their beliefs are valid, how responsible they are being, how much societal pressure is a factor, their mental competency... I'm producing an overall estimation of how much I think their action and the intent behind it was concerned with furthering the goals of morality or going against them. This is useful to me, and may be useful to others if I can explain why I have come to such a decision. I also have to accept that their goals for morality may be different to mine. This makes it even more complex. Saying "their goals are wrong" doesn't help. I need to make a case.

Just pointing fingers at people / societies and declaring them "immoral" doesn't achieve anything except making yourself feel better. If that's all we end up doing, we're just mentally masturbating. To me, the goal of even talking about morality is to try and encourage progress towards what we consider to be desirable goals. This will be through self-improvement, being a positive influence to others, careful discussion and finding middle ground. This is especially the case when dealing with a society hugely removed from our own. If we ever want to influence them in what we consider to be a positive way, just labelling everything they do immoral doesn't achieve anything. We need to understand why they do what they do, and try to influence general attitudes. This can't be done by simply repeating obvious facts about outcomes.