(June 20, 2021 at 6:28 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(June 20, 2021 at 5:48 pm)JohnJubinsky Wrote: I don't agree that one can be happy and innocent without being moral.
I guess this depends on some definitions.
If happiness is an overall condition, like Aristotle's eudaemonia, then we might argue that one must be moral to be happy. On the other hand, we can't say that babies have eudaemonia, so that's something that would have to be worked out.
If happiness is a mood, then I think immoral people can be happy. They feel cheerful and good, despite doing bad things. it's easy for people to justify their bad acts and persuade themselves it's OK to be happy. I suspect a lot of people are this way.
As for small babies being innocent and moral, I would argue that they are innocent because they haven't done anything yet. They have few or no concepts in their minds with which to be guilty. But I wouldn't call them moral, because to me morality implies a way of thinking about what's good, and babies don't have that yet. They are pre-moral.
Or maybe you are defining morality differently? Do you have a view where someone who has taken no actions and has no views of right and wrong can be described as moral?
My point was that through natural selection (founded in genetics) most babies have an inborn sense of right and wrong. Additionally, I don't believe that an action has to be taken to become immoral because we are making moral decisions in our thoughts every minute of our lives. We can become immoral without doing anything except thinking. There is the problem of definitions. One can hide behind that. However, a famous answer to it that I know you have heard is that "I can't define it but I know it when I see it"
