What IS morality, really?

[neilxt]

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  

(18-06-2016 07:25 AM)neilxt Wrote:  Again, though, you are only telling us how you prioritize between communities on a personal level. High praise, medals, citations, war widow benefits etc... etc... are ways of saying "this is a supreme moral sacrifice". The nation community benefits and it is the nation community that instills that personal morality on behalf of the nation community.

You're conflating issues. You said that dying for your country is a moral choice.

Not "moral" as opposed to "immoral"; moral meaning a decision made in consultation with your personal moral values.

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As I pointed out, dying during war while in service to your country, does not automatically make one's death a "moral choice."

moral meaning a decision made in consultation with your personal moral values, yes it does.

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  now you seem to be suggesting that all service from someone in the military is a moral choice.

moral meaning a decision made in consultation with your personal moral values. That is what I'm saying.

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I point this out because the religious think they have a monopoly on morality because they have a book with rules.

Religion is a community, and one of religion's moral values is that "thou shalt have no "moral code" before me. Also My moral code is absolute and unchanging.

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But following those rules doesn't make them moral, it makes them amoral. Because they aren't considering the moral issues of the world and community they live in, they're simply blindly following someone else's concepts of morality.

It makes them a decision made in consultation with ones internal code of moral values. It make that a oral decision in that sense. You are making a "moral choice" to say that other choices are not moral. I might disagree. That would be my "morl choice" to do so. That doesn't make eitherof us moral or immoral t mmeans we made a moral choice.

[TheBeardedDude]

(18-06-2016 08:47 AM)neilxt Wrote:  

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're conflating issues. You said that dying for your country is a moral choice.

Not "moral" as opposed to "immoral"; moral meaning a decision made in consultation with your personal moral values.

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  As I pointed out, dying during war while in service to your country, does not automatically make one's death a "moral choice."

moral meaning a decision made in consultation with your personal moral values, yes it does.

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  now you seem to be suggesting that all service from someone in the military is a moral choice.

moral meaning a decision made in consultation with your personal moral values. That is what I'm saying.

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I point this out because the religious think they have a monopoly on morality because they have a book with rules.

Religion is a community, and one of religion's moral values is that "thou shalt have no "moral code" before me. Also My moral code is absolute and unchanging.

(18-06-2016 07:55 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  But following those rules doesn't make them moral, it makes them amoral. Because they aren't considering the moral issues of the world and community they live in, they're simply blindly following someone else's concepts of morality.

It makes them a decision made in consultation with ones internal code of moral values. It make that a oral decision in that sense. You are making a "moral choice" to say that other choices are not moral. I might disagree. That would be my "morl choice" to do so. That doesn't make eitherof us moral or immoral t mmeans we made a moral choice.

You're not listening to what I'm saying. But if you believe that morality is an unchanging thing or that simply following rules makes you moral, then you're not on the same wavelength at all

[Reltzik]

(18-06-2016 07:46 AM)neilxt Wrote:  

(17-06-2016 10:56 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  So if I understand what you're saying, you're describing morality as a particular moral framework espoused by the community at large (not necessarily in its entirety, but at least in a rough cohesion), and observing that it lines up with things that were of utility (perceived or actual) to its survival, be it in the present or in the past?

I'm uncomfortable with the phrase "community at large" because it is both too specific and too amorphous. Everyone belongs to many communities of various sizes. Every one of those communities has its own "moral code" which in many instances defers the majority of that code upwards to a larger community. Like "you should always obey the law but if push comes to shove protect the family". Everyone has a moral code of some sort or another (except psychopaths) but every facet of that comes as something you should do to protect or promote some aspect of some community. Even gangs are communities. Many of their morals conflict with morals of a larger community that we are part of so we call them immoral but in the grand view I don't think there are any absolutes, just different communities, often at war.

Okay, then, multiple overlapping communities.

.... whelp, I'm not disagreeing with any of this, then, except to note that sometimes some communities adopt moralities that are important to other (overlapping) communities' survivals, rather than their own. (Witness, for example, what families sometimes do to themselves in the name of religion.)

[Matt Finney]

neilxt,

So if morality is subjective and everyone has their own ideas about it, what's the meaningful difference between morality and preference.

For example, if person "A" likes killing animals and eating them, and person "B" thinks it is wrong to kill animals for food, what does that tell us about morality? I would say nothing, it only tells us about the preferences of person "A" and "B". What say you?

[DLJ]

(18-06-2016 10:33 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  ...
what's the meaningful difference between morality and preference.
...

I'm glad you asked (although you didn't ask me).

Answer:
a) the spelling
b) the baggage.

[neilxt]

(18-06-2016 09:11 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not listening to what I'm saying. But if you believe that morality is an unchanging thing or that simply following rules makes you moral, then you're not on the same wavelength at all

We are not on the same wavelength, indeed. You are still trying to assign a value assessment to a moral choice and call that moral. I am not. In fact I am specifically avoiding that in order to determine where such value judgements come from. They are instilled by the culture of a community for the benefit (perceived) of that community of which the person whose morals are being considered is part and that is true whether the culture in question is the South Watford Pigeon Fanciers association whose only moral value is "Don't call a rock pigeon a dove"or the human race whose main moral imperative is "don't make the planet uninhabitable".

There is no absolute moral value. There are only moral values assigned by and for individual cultures.

[neilxt]

(18-06-2016 10:12 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Okay, then, multiple overlapping communities.

.... whelp, I'm not disagreeing with any of this, then, except to note that sometimes some communities adopt moralities that are important to other (overlapping) communities' survivals, rather than their own. (Witness, for example, what families sometimes do to themselves in the name of religion.)

Religion is a community and look how hard religion sometimes works to instill its own moral values ahead of others, including that of family. Just look at how Abraham is praised in the bible for being willing to sacrifice his son "for god". When those values come into conflict that is what can happen. Not just there, either. The same thing happened a lot in the civil war. Other civil wars, too.

[neilxt]

(18-06-2016 10:33 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  neilxt,

So if morality is subjective and everyone has their own ideas about it, what's the meaningful difference between morality and preference.

For example, if person "A" likes killing animals and eating them, and person "B" thinks it is wrong to kill animals for food, what does that tell us about morality? I would say nothing, it only tells us about the preferences of person "A" and "B". What say you?

It doesn't tell us anything about morals, but it does tell you something about which communities those two people see themselves as part of and how they prioritize those communities needs. The choice you gave me caused me to pause a little because that particular example is not quite so obvious. The vegetarian has absorbed the "don't kill people" moral from any number of sources and maybe even their own empathy and sees animals as close enough to being people to make him queezy.

[neilxt]

(18-06-2016 08:13 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  "I was just following orders." is not a sufficient defense for war crimes or any criminal activity.

By whom?

At some stage someone is saying that humanity is a community we all belong to and at some stage you should have absorbed and prioritized our moral values.

And isn't that also where the problem of "dehumanizing" comes in. Everyone is a part of the human culture so sometimes one group has to "dehumanize" another in order to suppress, deprioritize in others, moral values related to being part of the humanity culture.

[TheBeardedDude]

(18-06-2016 11:35 AM)neilxt Wrote:  

(18-06-2016 09:11 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not listening to what I'm saying. But if you believe that morality is an unchanging thing or that simply following rules makes you moral, then you're not on the same wavelength at all

We are not on the same wavelength, indeed. You are still trying to assign a value assessment to a moral choice and call that moral. I am not. In fact I am specifically avoiding that in order to determine where such value judgements come from. They are instilled by the culture of a community for the benefit (perceived) of that community of which the person whose morals are being considered is part and that is true whether the culture in question is the South Watford Pigeon Fanciers association whose only moral value is "Don't call a rock pigeon a dove"or the human race whose main moral imperative is "don't make the planet uninhabitable".

There is no absolute moral value. There are only moral values assigned by and for individual cultures.

I don't know what you think you're trying to teach, but assuming that you know what the person you're conversing with is saying instead of actually trying to understand it, is a critical error.


For instance:
At what point did I ever say or imply there are absolute moral values?

When did I ever say or imply that cultures don't generate moral values?

You need to read what I've written instead of coming prepared to disagree by default.