• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Morality

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
Morality is beneficial to society, but harmful to the individual. Agree? Disagree? Think I'm just an ass?
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Whether I agree or disagree depends on how you're defining morality (though I think you're probably somewhat of an ass either way).

Morality, I'd argue, generally serves the people, but by serving the people, serves the individual. Moral rules are fashioned to protect and care for others, and caring for others brings piece of mind to the doer. If you're simply not running through stop signs, eh, the benefit to individual might be negligible, because the benefit to society is negligible. However, if you choose to give charity, or counsel a friend, or are mindful of your energy consumption, you'll feel better about yourself.

This of course rests on the assumption that "benefit" must be construed liberally. Giving charity might result in the giver having less money (seems to be a detriment) but the payoff is internal, in piece of mind.

Summary: disagree, think you're an ass
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I think the more simplified and generalized people try to make morality, the more harmful it becomes to individuals, and perhaps even the people themselves.

For example, when people argue that anything that causes harm to another person is immoral, with no exceptions, then you have a highly simplified version of morality. Simply because what you may percieve as harmful, may not actually be harmful in every single case. For example, it is usually harmful to inflict pain on others but what of consensual sadomasochists? Are they inherently immoral because the willfully inflict and receive pain? It is also harmful to kill yourself but what about euthanasia for those who choose to end their lives because they are in chronic pain? Are they inherently immoral because they no longer wish to live?

Morality is great because it allows people to establish standards and rules for behavior that coincide with their values, but when simplified to the point that it is "black and white" then I believe it can become inherently harmful.

Laws have always been based on arbitrary morality. If you saw a couple of 14 year olds drinking in the US then it would probably be a big deal because we have a drinking age set at 21. However, in Italy, where they have no drinking age, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. An American might argue that Italy is inherently immoral because it doesn't have a drinking age, but Italy boasts one of the lowest alcoholism rates in the world, far lower than America. One of the reasons for that is because it isn't taboo, since kids can easily do it if they want, and also because of the cultural influence which leads people there to look down upon those who overdrink. However, I don't think I would want to dissolve the drinking age here in America because we don't have that cultural influence.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Morality is beneficial to society, but harmful to the individual. Agree? Disagree? Think I'm just an ass?

Try to make your question even more general please. But hey what the hell do I know, its just details, who needs details?

In response to what you wrote, I think the end to morality is making the individual happy. It is strictly subjective because happiness could only be determined by your internal measurements that noone but the individual himself is aware of.

So what makes you happy is moral, what doesnt is immoral.

Obviously we all want to be left alone to conduct our pursuit of happiness, so we need a code of behavior to grant us all the peace to do so. This is where we come by the conventional behavioral prescriptions. Such a system shall have little to do with morality itself, its only tie to ethics is one in support of our value concerning personal peace.

So what this means is, there is a law concerning not running through a red light, I follow this not because my personal values tell me there is something good about not running a red light, but because my personal values tell me I like my peace. In order to have my peace, I need to ensure that others do so as well. Hence, I abide by laws that strive to create order in society.

Such laws are indespensable to morality as without order in society the individual's pursuit of peace shall be difficult if not impossible. However, when such stipulations are connected to personal values peace by peace, namely when we say that we have a rule that eating meat or killing dear is moral or immoral in itself, conventional 'morality' becomes tyrannous and imposing. This is because we all have different ideas of what makes us happy and what does not. Since our inner beings are more archetypal than ectypal, or in other words, there is more to who we are based on our inner unconscious tendencies than our external influences. In other words, it is difficult to shape the individual into what the external protocol may wish for him to be without expecting the protestation from his inner life. Hence, since there are so many kinds of inner beings, the chances are if we try to make an external code of ethic which is fitting for all, this shall be detrimental to most. Our code of ethic may apply to one set of individuals, yet shall be thoroughly disagreeable to many others. Secondly, even to that aforementioned group it is unlikely to be favorable as the inner life cannot be translated externally with exactitude. In other words, externally we can lay down but a few rigid maxims in regards to how we should behave, however, this is much too impoverished to depict the many elements of the inner life which are essential to soundness of one's inner being.

So, as for conventional 'morals' whatever conduces to maximization of maximization of autonomy of the individual is desirable.

As for the subjective essence of morality, I shall not comment on, as only the examination of the individual's inner being could put us in the position to start an inquiry into the matter. I only have access to my own, very little of which we could talk about meaningfully in definite terms of communication, as for that of others, the less said the better.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Try to make your question even more general please. But hey what the hell do I know, its just details, who needs details?

:rofl1: Yes, I agree that it is far too general. But you took it so badly. Some people's minds just can't cope with any level of complexity or detail, as hard as that can be to accept.
In response to what you wrote, I think the end to morality is making the individual happy. It is strictly subjective because happiness could only be determined by your internal measurements that noone but the individual himself is aware of.

So what makes you happy is moral, what doesnt is immoral.

Obviously we all want to be left alone to conduct our pursuit of happiness, so we need a code of behavior to grant us all the peace to do so. This is where we come by the conventional behavioral prescriptions. Such a system shall have little to do with morality itself, its only tie to ethics is one in support of our value concerning personal peace.

So what this means is, there is a law concerning not running through a red light, I follow this not because my personal values tell me there is something good about not running a red light, but because my personal values tell me I like my peace. In order to have my peace, I need to ensure that others do so as well. Hence, I abide by laws that strive to create order in society.

Such laws are indespensable to morality as without order in society the individual's pursuit of peace shall be difficult if not impossible. However, when such stipulations are connected to personal values peace by peace, namely when we say that we have a rule that eating meat or killing dear is moral or immoral in itself, conventional 'morality' becomes tyrannous and imposing. This is because we all have different ideas of what makes us happy and what does not. Since our inner beings are more archetypal than ectypal, or in other words, there is more to who we are based on our inner unconscious tendencies than our external influences. In other words, it is difficult to shape the individual into what the external protocol may wish for him to be without expecting the protestation from his inner life. Hence, since there are so many kinds of inner beings, the chances are if we try to make an external code of ethic which is fitting for all, this shall be detrimental to most. Our code of ethic may apply to one set of individuals, yet shall be thoroughly disagreeable to many others. Secondly, even to that aforementioned group it is unlikely to be favorable as the inner life cannot be translated externally with exactitude. In other words, externally we can lay down but a few rigid maxims in regards to how we should behave, however, this is much too impoverished to depict the many elements of the inner life which are essential to soundness of one's inner being.

So, as for conventional 'morals' whatever conduces to maximization of maximization of autonomy of the individual is desirable.

As for the subjective essence of morality, I shall not comment on, as only the examination of the individual's inner being could put us in the position to start an inquiry into the matter.

That does seem like a fitting prescription for the proper place of enforced morals in society... use as many of them as you need to keep society together and communicate basic things, while avoiding infringing on other's moral choices as much as possible in this context. Very interesting.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
I was deliberately vague.

I'll post some more on the subject when I get around to it.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
So what makes you happy is moral, what doesnt is immoral.

The whole, "the ultimate end to every means is happiness" argument eh?

I suppose you are doomed to perpetual unhappiness if what makes you happy is what would violate the laws, because then you could never attain what would make you happy without it resulting in disturbing your peace.
 

SolitaryWalker

Tenured roisterer
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
3,504
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The whole, "the ultimate end to every means is happiness" argument eh?

I suppose you are doomed to perpetual unhappiness if what makes you happy is what would violate the laws, because then you could never attain what would make you happy without it resulting in disturbing your peace.

I follow the laws so society shall leave me alone and I may enjoy my solitary freedom. And of course, I like my peace, so I want other people to have it too, that is why I wish to do all I can to keep order in society. The best I can do is follow the laws, only propose to change or overthrow them if they do not give the individual the peace he requires.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Slavery, Sexism and Child Rape

Until 1833 slavery was moral.

And until the 20th Century, sexism was moral.

And until recently child rape was moral.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
Individuals benefit when others follow the unwritten rules of society (honesty, fidelity, etc). Individuals lose opportunities for personal gain by following those rules, themselves. The individual stands to gain the most when others live moral lives, but the individual doesn't.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
So what makes you happy is moral, what doesnt is immoral.

So if raping babies makes a child molestor happy, you would consider it moral? (assuming he could get away with it?)

Would you encourage him to do it if he wouldn't get caught?

Individuals benefit when others follow the unwritten rules of society (honesty, fidelity, etc). Individuals lose opportunities for personal gain by following those rules, themselves. The individual stands to gain the most when others live moral lives, but the individual doesn't.

I still think you're looking at "personal gain" much too narrowly. Money isn't always personal gain, and losing possessions isn't always a personal loss. The peace of mind you gain from giving charity (usually viewed as a moral act) can outweigh the benefit you lose from utilizing the money for your own end.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
I still think you're looking at "personal gain" much too narrowly. Money isn't always personal gain, and losing possessions isn't always a personal loss. The peace of mind you gain from giving charity (usually viewed as a moral act) can outweigh the benefit you lose from utilizing the money for your own end.
I'm looking at it from a material perspective. That's the only measure that affects everyone. Feelings cannot be quantified, and that 'peace of mind' varies between individuals. Some simply don't care.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I'm looking at it from a material perspective. That's the only measure that affects everyone.

From a material perspective, you're right, probably.

Not all individuals care about feeling 'good' by doing 'good'.

All individuals, I'd argue, are looking to feel good, and feeling good is the primary motivation behind all action. If peace of mind makes you feel good, it's beneficial.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
From a material perspective, you're right, probably.
Karma does not exist. From personal experience, I've been most successful when I've been an asshole. It's when I've tried to accommodate others that I've been burned the most.

All individuals, I'd argue, are looking to feel good, and feeling good is the primary motivation behind all action. If peace of mind makes you feel good, it's beneficial.
That doesn't contradict what I wrote.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Karma does not exist. From personal experience, I've been most successful when I've been an asshole.

You're making the same mistake as above. Karma doesn't mean you get material reward for "good actions," what is commonly associated with "success." It's better described as a law of cause and effect. When you act like an asshole, you will gain benefit, but you'll feel like an asshole does, and usually want more and more for yourself, neglecting others. That leads to more thirst and more unsettledness. It's a logical principle, not a magical force.

It's when I've tried to accommodate others that I've been burned the most.

When I first read that I was confused. It's a good point. But if you flush it out, I think it starts to make sense a bit more.

Accommodating others doesn't require that you get burned. You only get burned when people let you down in some way. If people let you down, it suggests that you formed expectations about what they would do for you. Those expectations can be thought of as attachments, in that you've internalized what that person is supposed to do. That karma dictates that you're liable to get burned. Cause and effect.

That doesn't contradict what I wrote.

You seemed to be saying that peace of mind doesn't qualify as a benefit because people don't care about it. If that's what you said, then I disagree. Benefit is measured by one's state of mind. How else do we know if something is beneficial or not? Maybe you remember that reclusive mathematician who won the Nobel Prize put rejected the million dollars, preferring to live simply.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
You're making the same mistake as above. Karma doesn't mean you get material reward for "good actions," what is commonly associated with "success." It's better described as a law of cause and effect. When you act like an asshole, you will gain benefit, but you'll feel like an asshole does, and usually want more and more for yourself, neglecting others. That leads to more thirst and more unsettledness. It's a logical principle, not a magical force.
I wasn't saying that good karma gives material rewards. Perhaps I should have left a blank line between that sentence and the next.

Accommodating others doesn't require that you get burned. You only get burned when people let you down in some way. If people let you down, it suggests that you formed expectations about what they would do for you. Those expectations can be thought of as attachments, in that you've internalized what that person is supposed to do. That karma dictates that you're liable to get burned. Cause and effect.
Of course you have expectations when you invest in others. The magnitude of expectations may vary between individuals, but everyone has some measure of expectation. Anyone who thinks they can truly have no expectations is in denial.

You seemed to be saying that peace of mind doesn't qualify as a benefit because people don't care about it. If that's what you said, then I disagree. Benefit is measured by one's state of mind. How else do we know if something is beneficial or not? Maybe you remember that reclusive mathematician who won the Nobel Prize put rejected the million dollars, preferring to live simply.
No, what gives someone peace of mind varies between individuals. Doing 'good' does not necessarily grant peace of mind.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I'm looking at it from a material perspective. That's the only measure that affects everyone. Feelings cannot be quantified, and that 'peace of mind' varies between individuals. Some simply don't care.

You are overlooking an emotional aspect of morality that does affect everyone. It's called shame. It is imprinted upon people from such a young age through socialization that it is almost universal. In fact, those who don't have shame are so rare that we have a name for them. They are called sociopaths and they seldom do prosper because society usually ends up imprisoning them or executing them to protect the welfare of society. So clearly it can be quantified, and in more ways than one. Shame is the fundamental component of the superego, and it is what allows us to socialize with each other without constantly violating each other's rights. Without it, only fear of repercussions would keep us from giving into the primitive impulses of our id and the rationalizations of our ego.

So, no, materialism is not the only measure that affects everyone. The social bonds and relationships that are made possible via nearly universal emotions like shame and love, and the benefits inherent in those to individuals, are a far greater measure of morality than materialism could ever be. In fact, would life even be worth living without social bonds? All the material wealth in the world would seem rather pointless if you didn't have someone to share it with.
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
You're missing the point. Many individuals have lied or cheated to get ahead, and that does not necessarily make them sociopaths. Individuals who use those tactics do so because they believe the reward outweighs the risk. Yes, many people miscalculate, but that does not change their perception at the time of the decision.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
You're missing the point. Many individuals have lied or cheated to get ahead, and that does not necessarily make them sociopaths.

Individuals who use those tactics do so because they believe the reward outweighs the risk. Yes, many people miscalculate, but that does not change their perception at the time of the decision.

Oh, you aren't talking about just morals, you are talking about character. And by character I mean, "the inherent complex of attributes that determine a person's moral and ethical actions and reactions." Obviously, the particular attribute you are debating here is integrity (as in honesty or virtue).

The fact of the matter is, that materially, people can get ahead by sacrificing their integrity. However, as I said in my earlier post, they face shame (a painful feeling of dishonor, disgrace, or condemnation) and if that doesn't deter them, then they will begin sacrificing their much more valuable opportunities for social bonds and relationships for the less valuable opportunities of material gain. People generally don't like being associated with liars and cheats because it is difficult to trust them.

So people who sacrifice their integrity for material gain may not be sociopaths, but they are certainly idiots.

If you need a perfect portrayal of what it means to sell out your integrity then just watch the movie Shattered Glass which is based on the story of a real life reporter who sold out his integrity to get ahead.

Of course, if people want to gamble with their lives by living a lie, then I suppose that is their choice. The payout will never be worth it if they got caught in the process of doing so. And they aren't just cheating themselves, but anyone who trusts or believes in them.
 
Top