Morals

[Jayhawker Soule]

What would be a better philosophy for a non-rapist?

Given the OP, answering that question would be an obvious waste of time.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Is it your stance then that there is no circumstance we could agree is universally "bad"? Let's imagine a virus comes into being that infects every living being in the universe, and this virus puts every living being in non-stop, excruciating pain for an extended lifetime. Every being. Could we call that universe "bad", full stop?

Now a pure relativist can make the argument that there is no way to prove that such a universe is "bad". While I understand that stance from a pure logic perspective, it strikes me as a nonstarter from any useful perspective.

It seems to me that what almost all ethical and moral systems have in common is that they strive to improve the well being of conscious creatures. (So, for example, moral and ethical systems tend not to be concerned with the well being of rocks.)

Finally, to me, there is no point in interacting with pure moral / ethical relativists. Such discussions are pointless.

I like this. It expands morals beyond mere man into an understanding of the importance of morality taking actions that harm no living creature or ecosystems. We have to move beyond us and them in the human sense and into the thinking that all living things and non living things are vital to all of our survival as a whole and need to be considered in the moral realm.

Yes, the planet may eventually recover after homo sapiens, sapiens go extinct. But who the heck will be around to care then?

I think your added criteria to good morals v. bad morals is very warranted.

 

[Secret Chief]

"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.

Sorry to go all Godwin, but Hitler made great strides in fulfilling his goals - so good actions then.

No; in a word.

Bloody scientism.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I care about what causes tangible suffering to others, regardless of if it's mine or a complete stranger. If you can only contextualize good and bad based on how it impacts you personally, I would call that selfish, maybe even sociopathic. You can't force a sociopath to have empathy, but you can reject their goals when implied they should be adopted by myself or society at large.

 

[Curious George]

My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.

So, if your goal was to be “good?”

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.

You've over--thought this way, way too much. Morals are a social construct. There is nothing absolute about morals, nor anything even totally objective.

Morals are nothing more than those standards of behavior or beliefs, constructed within the social environment in which one exists, concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. They are the prevailing (thus local) standards of what behaviours are acceptable or not. Thus, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.

Some of my most 'moral' moments have been when I've actively worked against my own goals because I believed it the right action. Basically the complete opposite of what you're suggesting here.

 

[Ponder This]

My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.

This sounds a bit like ends justifies the means.
A goal is an end. Achieving that end is "good". Therefore anything done to achieve that end is good, whereas something done to impede that end is "bad".

If, for example, a goal is to make a million dollars, and you lie, cheat, and steal to obtain that million dollars that is "good".
If help other people and people return the help, resulting in you obtaining a million dollars, that is also "good".
But if you lie cheat or steal and end up in jail with no money, then it was "bad".
And if you help other people but end up giving away your money and remaining poor, then it was "bad".

Moreover, goals themselves can change, changing all the previous moral valuations of actions.

How can your system actually tell us what is "good" or "bad"?

 

[dybmh]

What would be a better philosophy for a non-rapist?

What's needed is to exclude the extreme big ticket items. A list of "don'ts". Rape, murder, kidnapping ( and by extension theft ), heinous disregard for public resources ( you can't have people torching the rain forest and poisoning the water supply to suit their fancy )... stuff like that. That's all that's needed for an individual basically roughing it on their own in the wild. Maybe they have a family. But there is no community. One family occasionally interacts with another family, but everyone is spread out into individual tribes. Interactions are naturally limited. At some point there will be a turf war, or struggle for resources, and then your goal-based morality might work.

Once people group together into communities / cities, another layer is needed, as you noted in another reply, a justice system is needed. This way, unless a person's goals are to end up in jail, it's good to conform to the consensus group morals.

So, add a list of don'ts, and differentiate between the needs of dispersed small tribes and urban city dwellers, and you can maybe let the rest be determined by goals.

 

[rational experiences]

Family is family.

Humans taught humans as we are all babies and our parents owned the same human DNA as first tribe family.

So we should act like family is meant to act In natural morality hierarchy self survival. Families.

Basic I don't need legal to advise me but then we used legal to advise lost morality.

So all nations legal interpret morality by their legal. Why legal needed to be one only. As national morality is lacking as we lost morality when DNA mind changed.

Science medical proved it real.

 

[Augustus]

It seems to me that what almost all ethical and moral systems have in common is that they strive to improve the well being of conscious creatures. (So, for example, moral and ethical systems tend not to be concerned with the well being of rocks

Some conscious creatures.

The well being of some conscious creatures often comes at the expense of others.

As such it does little more than rule out a system where everyone suffers. As soon as you have winners and losers we need to make further assumptions.

 

[blü 2]

My view on morals.

Morals are dependent on what your goals are.
"Good" actions are whatever furthers your goals.
"Bad" is whatever obstructs you from your goals.

If your actions get me closer to my goals, then your actions are good.
If your actions make my goals harder to reach, then your actions are bad.
To me, this makes it simple to judge good/bad actions.

We may share the same or similar goals so what we judge as moral can be the same.

However, we may have completely different goals. So while I may judge your morals as immoral/bad/evil, depending on your goals, your actions for yourself and folks who have common goals with you, your actions may be perfectly moral/good.

So while you may judge me or another as immoral as say it all depend on what my/their goals happened to be at the time.

In many cases, events happen in the world which have no bearing or affect on my goals. They are amoral, or I have no reason to pass a moral judgement on. They are just events which happened.

An argument against this would be whether there exits universally oriented goals. I don't believe such exists.
While human kind may have some goals in common. I don't see our, human, goals as universal.

There maybe other arguments against this view to. For example if you believe in a God then maybe you believe that God dictates universal morals. That's fine but not everyone believes in the same God so one God may dictate a different set of morals from another, so still not universal and dependent on the goals of that particular God.

That's true to a certain extent.

However, under it all are evolved human moral tendencies: child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. Add to the our evolved conscience and our capacity for empathy.

The rest of our morals we get from our upbringing, culture, education and experience ─ about how to dress, act, behave, when you meet others ─ family members, strangers, authority figures, people of the same or opposite sex, older, younger, higher or lower in the peck order and so on.

Our morality, both innate and acquired, competes with our needs, desires, pleasures, obedience, compulsion and so on.

So I don't think defining one's morals by what one's goals are quite covers it, though it's not irrelevant ─ it can be part of our needs and desires, for instance.

 

[Nakosis]

That's true to a certain extent.

However, under it all are evolved human moral tendencies: child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. Add to the our evolved conscience and our capacity for empathy.

The rest of our morals we get from our upbringing, culture, education and experience ─ about how to dress, act, behave, when you meet others ─ family members, strangers, authority figures, people of the same or opposite sex, older, younger, higher or lower in the peck order and so on.

Our morality, both innate and acquired, competes with our needs, desires, pleasures, obedience, compulsion and so on.

So I don't think defining one's morals by what one's goals are quite covers it, though it's not irrelevant ─ it can be part of our needs and desires, for instance.

While I agree, I'm not sure I'm happy with evolutionary control over my choice of right and wrong. This I think comes down to relying on biological feelings about what is right and wrong. Feelings are not usually a rational method to go about deciding what is right and wrong.

Most people I suspect do rely on their feelings to guide them. It's adequate in that we humans have survived this long but I think we could probably do better.

 

[Nakosis]

What's needed is to exclude the extreme big ticket items. A list of "don'ts". Rape, murder, kidnapping ( and by extension theft ), heinous disregard for public resources ( you can't have people torching the rain forest and poisoning the water supply to suit their fancy )... stuff like that. That's all that's needed for an individual basically roughing it on their own in the wild. Maybe they have a family. But there is no community. One family occasionally interacts with another family, but everyone is spread out into individual tribes. Interactions are naturally limited. At some point there will be a turf war, or struggle for resources, and then your goal-based morality might work.

Once people group together into communities / cities, another layer is needed, as you noted in another reply, a justice system is needed. This way, unless a person's goals are to end up in jail, it's good to conform to the consensus group morals.

So, add a list of don'ts, and differentiate between the needs of dispersed small tribes and urban city dwellers, and you can maybe let the rest be determined by goals.

It seems to me you just provided a list of goals, major goals right, to which you're willing to add a list of minor goals.

Perhaps it is that you don't trust people to come up with their own set of major goals on their own?
Or society needs to dictate the major goals before you are comfortable with allowing individuals their own goals?

 

[Nakosis]

This sounds a bit like ends justifies the means.
A goal is an end. Achieving that end is "good". Therefore anything done to achieve that end is good, whereas something done to impede that end is "bad".

If, for example, a goal is to make a million dollars, and you lie, cheat, and steal to obtain that million dollars that is "good".
If help other people and people return the help, resulting in you obtaining a million dollars, that is also "good".
But if you lie cheat or steal and end up in jail with no money, then it was "bad".
And if you help other people but end up giving away your money and remaining poor, then it was "bad".

Moreover, goals themselves can change, changing all the previous moral valuations of actions.

How can your system actually tell us what is "good" or "bad"?

Do you need some one to tell you what is good or bad for you?

Yes, IMO, morals do change. People do what they think or feel is right at the time . Then afterwards they feel guilty or people try to make them feel guilty for not living up to an approve set of morals.

For example at one time homosexuality was immoral for most people. They made homosexuals feel guilty for their desires. The homosexuals were made to feel their morals were not adequate for society. To me, not a rational choice but that is what made society feel comfortable at the time.

Goals are not usually set off by themselves. You specify a goal of making a million dollars but nothing else, then assume the "worst" will happen in the void of any other goals.

One is certainly capable of having other goals such as not causing harm to others in the process.

 

[Nakosis]

Some of my most 'moral' moments have been when I've actively worked against my own goals because I believed it the right action. Basically the complete opposite of what you're suggesting here.

So, what was wrong with your goals?
Is it that you can't trust yourself if you are left to your own goals?

 

[Nakosis]

You've over--thought this way, way too much. Morals are a social construct. There is nothing absolute about morals, nor anything even totally objective.

Morals are nothing more than those standards of behavior or beliefs, constructed within the social environment in which one exists, concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. They are the prevailing (thus local) standards of what behaviours are acceptable or not. Thus, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do."

So morals to you is living up to societies standards?

What about the standard when homosexuality was bad?
Do you think relying on society to set your moral standards is always adequate or for the best?

 

[Nakosis]

So, if your goal was to be “good?”

Well, you might have to define good.
Good for most are actions which trigger a specific biological feeling.
I mean vs rationally deciding what would be good and setting that as a goal.
However generally yes. One can decide what is "good", set it as a goal, then "good" and "bad" actions are relative to that goal.

 

[Nakosis]

Given the OP, answering that question would be an obvious waste of time.

Ok, if you feel your own perspective would be a waste of time.
Fortunately there are many others here willing to offer different views.

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry to go all Godwin, but Hitler made great strides in fulfilling his goals - so good actions then.

No; in a word.

Bloody scientism.

Yes, Hitler succeeded because many people agreed with his goals. He set societies morals for Germany at the time. He wasn't alone in his goals.

Would you have had different goals if your were a German is Germany at the time?
Certainly the goals of the German people at the time dictated for them what actions were good and what actions were bad.

Is this any different from your current goals and morals?
One goal you might have is to live up to a specific goal.
Or perhaps not let your society not repeat the actions of the German people.