Morals

[Heyo]

But it always comes down to well-being in the end.

And the liberty to decide what you need to feel well.

 

[Ponder This]

Well, let me ask you, how do you know whether something is moral or not?



IMO, feeling are feelings, we don't decide we should feel one way or the other. We just feel what we feel. So feeling are not something we've rationally thought out. So if we rely on our feeling to determine what is right and wrong they haven't been rationally justified. I think in most cases, people are simply relying on their feelings to determine right and wrong.
They say this is wrong or that is wrong but not why.
I am simply suggesting there is a better way to go about it.

I think mores are the essential or characteristic customs and conventions of a community (by definition).

I'm trying to understand how your view of morality differs from a lack of morality.
In your system, morality is irrational and justified by whim at an individual level.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the liberty to decide what you need to feel well.

I disagree that this is a matter of opinion, aside from the grey irrelevant things. Like for example for myself, the liberty to play the music which helps my mental health.
But in many other area's, this is not a matter of opinion.

An alcoholic might decide that drinking all day long is what that person needs to feel well, and he'ld be objectively incorrect.
He'll harm himself as well as his loved ones.

So it seems to me that there very much are right and wrong answers to moral questions.
And the standard by which those are evaluated, is well-being in the broadest sense.

If one is going to say that morality isn't connected to well-being, then I don't know what they are talking about.
To me, that is like talking about "wood that doesn't come from a tree".

 

[Heyo]

I disagree that this is a matter of opinion, aside from the grey irrelevant things. Like for example for myself, the liberty to play the music which helps my mental health.
But in many other area's, this is not a matter of opinion.

An alcoholic might decide that drinking all day long is what that person needs to feel well, and he'ld be objectively incorrect.
He'll harm himself as well as his loved ones.

So it seems to me that there very much are right and wrong answers to moral questions.
And the standard by which those are evaluated, is well-being in the broadest sense.

If one is going to say that morality isn't connected to well-being, then I don't know what they are talking about.
To me, that is like talking about "wood that doesn't come from a tree".

Well being is only possible in working eco system. We are destroying the eco system and seriously endanger the well being of future generations. Therefore all destruction of the eco system is immoral and any action against that destruction is permissible.
Do you agree?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well being is only possible in working eco system. We are destroying the eco system and seriously endanger the well being of future generations.

Yes. Which is why the workings of our current society is essentially immoral.

Therefore all destruction of the eco system is immoral and any action against that destruction is permissible.
Do you agree?

No. The "any action" covers anything. Including things which themselves would be immoral.

 

[Heyo]

No. The "any action" covers anything. Including things which themselves would be immoral.

How can they be immoral if the only principle is to maximize well being?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can they be immoral if the only principle is to maximize well being?

In it's "broadest sense".
For example, you could put a stop to pollution by killing all humans.

I've said early on that moral decision making is oftenly a tradeoff, where one has to sacrifice some well-being in corner 1 to raise it in corner 2.
Sometimes you have to increase suffering a bit in short term to go above and beyond in well-being in longer term.

I never said it is clear cut or black & white. There's a lot of grey in moral evaluation and such "tradeoffs" are the very essence and reason for moral dilemma's.

All I'm saying is that if well-being (in its broadest sense) isn't the ultimate standard against by which morality is "measured" (by lack of a better word), then I don't know what people mean when they talk about "morality". Especially in context of this thread.

In this OP, a "goal" of someone could be "having lots of money". And then anything that helps to accomplish that goal is "moral"?
So entering a village, murdering everybody and taking their valuables then is "moral"?

When you end up in a reasoning where such can be called "moral", then the word "morality" no longer has any meaning.
Morality has to deal with suffering and well-being one way or the other. It's literally what it is about.

 

[Heyo]

In it's "broadest sense".

Yep. By limiting yourself to just one primitive, you have to dilute the definition to near meaninglessness.

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

Morals are values. Values change as life changes and as we ourselves change. It might be viewed as the repenting nature of paradigms no longer applicable, such as the differences between the values associated with children, young adults, middle aged adults, and senior adults.

 

[dybmh]

rule out the more extreme examples from consideration

thank you

 

[Muffled]

Yes, Christianity and of society restricts what one can consider good and moral.
Now I'm not saying they are completely wrong about it but I'd rather hope that I am rational/smart enough to make these determinations for myself.

Instead of being dictated to, this action is good and this action is bad, I'd would want to understand why is it good and why is it bad and are there any exceptions?
And perhaps even disagree regardless of what was determined by the group.

I believe it is a rare person who sees through the lies of the devil because he tends to make those lies look beautiful. I believe one of the most poisonous mushrooms is also one of the most beautiful.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe it is a rare person who sees through the lies of the devil because he tends to make those lies look beautiful. I believe one of the most poisonous mushrooms is also one of the most beautiful.

Well, like with the mushroom, knowledge helps.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I believe one of the most poisonous mushrooms is also one of the most beautiful.

..but it seems to act as a danger signal to most creatures.
Humans are fickle.