Not A Poll: Does Motivation Affect Morality?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ OP, I read this book about morality in an ethics class, the author said that people adjust their morals to fit their actions and not the other way around. I think that's very true. Most people find ways to justify the way they choose to live. We base our morals on our own experiences. I do think human beings are biologically evolved to lean towards certain moral beliefs though.

Absolutely and I think that's something fundamental about human nature. Even more so after the book I have recently been reading on cognitive biases.

This quote describes it very concisely and eloquently I think:

Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal

Exactly right I think.

-Hammy

[Mr.wizard]

@ 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

But, if we are "humans" conducting a test for an objective morality, by measuring what is best for "humans", don't we start with a bias?

[Edwardo Piet]

But, if we are "humans" conducting a test for an objective morality, by measuring what is best for "humans", don't we start with a bias?

Doesn't the same apply to health? And can't we care for the health of animals and if so what about the same for morality?

-Hammy

[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.

[robvalue]

It's so complex I find it a bit hard to explain at times. There's many ways of approaching the subject, and it's easy to be talking at cross purposes. Are we talking about an individual? An individual action? A society? Societal norms?

What I was drivelling on about above highlights the difference between morality and law. We can objectively see that certain things cause (what we consider to be) harm to individuals or to society, and as such we often implement laws to prevent people causing too much harm that way. Job done. We have no need to also say any such harm is "immoral", partly because it's redundant (we've already made our decision) and partly because it doesn't help further understanding.

If we want to try and prevent (what we consider to be) harm happening in the first place, we need to convince people that such harm is real and relevant (I can point out "animals are killed" all day, yet if someone doesn't see this as a problem, what am I achieving?). We need to understand why they did it. We hopefully want to change their attitude, and that of society in general, so that such harm is reduced in the future.

If a person gets locked up for what they consider to be something harmless, they haven't "learnt" anything. Only by trying to reach a middle ground and discussing morality from both points of view can we ever make progress.

If instead we exclude from the discussion anyone who doesn't agree with our preconceptions about what exactly morality is, we're in an echo chamber and holding our subjective morality as golden.

[Mr.wizard]

But, if we are "humans" conducting a test for an objective morality, by measuring what is best for "humans", don't we start with a bias?

Doesn't the same apply to health? And can't we care for the health of animals and if so what about the same for morality?

-Hammy

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

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.

[Excited Penguin]

And then it throws you in jail for it if you are. Society condemns murder, herein lies the enforced morality.

Laws are made to protect rights and enforce responsibilities. It's not about morality.

And what do you think rights and responsibilities are about?

[Losty]

Laws are made to protect rights and enforce responsibilities. It's not about morality.

And what do you think rights and responsibilities are about?

Rights are about having rights. Responsibilities are about being responsible for not infringing on other people's rights. It's really that simple. It's not immoral to drive really fast but it does infringe on someone else's right to be reasonably safe while driving.

[Excited Penguin]

And what do you think rights and responsibilities are about?

Rights are about having rights. Responsibilities are about being responsible for not infringing on other people's rights. It's really that simple. It's not immoral to drive really fast but it does infringe on someone else's right to be reasonably safe while driving.

Rights are about having rights.

That's tautological.

 Responsibilities are about being responsible for not infringing on other people's rights. 

That's tautological as well.

There's a reason a dictionary doesn't define an idiot as someone who's being an idiot.

Rights and responsabilities are of the moral sphere. Now, excuse me if I don't build a philosophy around something so obvious just to explain it to a bunch of rebellious internet users who want to win an unwinnable argument.

It's really that simple.

It is when you're a simpleton.

It's not immoral to drive really fast but it does infringe on someone else's right to be reasonably safe while driving.

If you don't cause a fatal accident it's not, but if you do, it is.

Every society has a moral code. If you break that code and you get caught, you're punished. That fact doesn't change regardless of whether you deny it or embrace it. That doesn't mean it's a perfect code or even a good one, all it means is it's what we've got, and we've got to either help improve it, do nothing, or simply deny it's existence while at the same time living under its influence and presumably also abiding by it most of the time.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think I see the trouble, EP: You're conflating (and perhaps confusing) ethics and morality.

Boru