The Definition of Morality

[oldbadger]

"Since good or bad manners at the dining table may draw a positive or negative judgment about the character of the guest, the rules of manners are rules of morality."

Thanks for that.
I still think that the word is a total impostor.

1. The very sentence in its entirety is junk, in as much as no reasonable person would give trust or mistrust to a stranger because of the way in which they eat their food. I expect that many bloody tyrants have had the most perfect and delicate manners at table.
2. The 'rules of manners are rules of morality' idea is a strange suggestion.
Table manners are Table manners!!



The word 'moral' is just a 'piece' of rhetoric.

 

[oldbadger]

Another spin on that is when I keep on pointing out that Christianity and the bible teaches nothing truly spiritual, and they always balk. Huh? What's "spiritual" mean?

For a religion with a book that claims to have ALL the spiritual answers, that kind of reply makes me laugh every time.

Ha ha! It's a 'throw-down' word for effect...... nothing more.
It's a sell....... mostly every time, imo.

When I try to perceive a 'spiritual' person I see a primitive person, subsisting off the migrations and sends of the seasons, at one with Nature and living in the moment. But that is just my feeling. That kind of person isn't spiritual really, they are simply 'native'.

This morning on RT News there was a presentation about American and Nigerian TV pastors who are worth hundreds of millions of pounds, and they spurt words like spiritual in to every paragraph. It is a Sell word imo.

 

[blü 2]

1. The very sentence in its entirety is junk, in as much as no reasonable person would give trust or mistrust to a stranger because of the way in which they eat their food.

I didn't say 'mistrust'. The judgment would be 'wrong', 'doesn't know what's correct'. And that's only a short busride from 'lower status to us', 'not our equal'.

2. The 'rules of manners are rules of morality' idea is a strange suggestion.

Not at all. Morality combines human interaction and the concepts of right action and wrong action ─ as with table manners, so with murder, deceit &c.

 

[oldbadger]

I didn't say 'mistrust'. The judgment would be 'wrong', 'doesn't know what's correct'. And that's only a short busride from 'lower status to us', 'not our equal'.

I think that your sentence did...... point to 'trust or mistrust'
What do you think that 'character of the guest' actually means?
What is 'Character?'
For me that is the guide to 'trust or mistrust' and nothing to do with status or equal.
Therefore I would find it hard to perceive the word 'moral' in that sentence as meaningful.

Here is that sentence again:-
"Since good or bad manners at the dining table may draw a positive or negative judgment about the character of the guest, the rules of manners are rules of morality."

Not at all. Morality combines human interaction and the concepts of right action and wrong action ─ as with table manners, so with murder, deceit &c.

Table manners connected to morality?
Murder is directly connected to the word 'criminal'. etc...

Concepts of right or wrong action, these are massively adjustable, depending upon which culture, country or people one might be discussing. Therefore 'Righteousness' for one people is 'Wrongfulness' to another. To use the word 'Moral' in connection with either group is just an indefinite, untrustworthy, inexact ...... impost.

I cannot trust the word at Moral, because it hides all manner of mindsets and actions.

But ....... table manners as a 'judgement of character' ..... of 'morality' I would definitely mistrust that whole concept.

But that's just me.
I hate the word........ maybe that's immoral of me?

 

[blü 2]

What is 'Character?'

Your perception of someone as an individual person.

For me that is the guide to 'trust or mistrust' and nothing to do with status or equal.

Every day you encounter people and react to each of them in accordance with the norms you've learnt from your upbringing, culture, education and environment. You have a sense of your place in society ─ some are your social superiors, some your peers, some your inferiors, all in your own judgment.

Likewise you have ways you've learnt that in many circumstances will be different for women, for authority figures (headmaster, police officer, team captain, doctor, employer, and so on), for strangers, and so on. (When I drove a cab in my student days, I found I knew in the very first instance of my glimpse of them whether I'd stop for them or not.)

And you're constantly judging people ─ the one who pushes ahead of you in the waiting line, the one who says 'You go first' in the supermarket queue, the one who spits on the pavement, the one who gives you a cheerful nod, the drunk who pees on the wall, on and on. And these are all examples of your interaction with others that evoke your sense of right and wrong.

That's what morality is.

 

[joe1776]

Your reaction to rat behavior is understandable but misguided. Rats are social animals. Their basic structures share much with humans. Why do you think we cannot learn from other animals to understand humans? Do you not think we are not animals. Are the studies of chimpanzees more palatable to you?.

This will be my third answer to the same question. The fact that rats and humans can be classified as animals is granted. We can also classify airplanes and vacuum cleaners as mechanical systems. And, if we studied vacuum cleaners to learn about airplanes, we could without doubt find many correlations between the two systems.

In fact, the more we believe that vacuum cleaners will provide clues to the understanding of airplanes, the more correlations we could find...because that's the way the human mind works.

But my skepticism about animal studies is based on logic. If I wanted to study airplanes, I wouldn't study vacuum cleaners. If I want to know what scientists are discovering about humans, I'm much less interested in what they are finding out about rats.

Because they breed so fast, and because we consider them expendable, rats are useful to science but that use is very limited.

 

[oldbadger]

Your perception of someone as an individual person.

First off........ Thankyou for the trouble that you are taking. I hope I'm not irritating you too much....!
My perception of a person does not use the word 'moral' in any descriptive. The person might be a polygamous, unemployed hippie in skinny jeans, with dyed hair........ no 'moral' thermostat that is true can help me. I discover that he is a student at the Slade Art College..... or working for a parcel delivery service, .... or a shop thief living on handouts.
The word 'moral' cannot be of use to me in any of these folks. I would use much more accurate and fitting adjectives for them.

Every day you encounter people and react to each of them in accordance with the norms you've learnt from your upbringing, culture, education and environment. You have a sense of your place in society ─ some are your social superiors, some your peers, some your inferiors, all in your own judgment.

OK....... so how is the word 'moral' going to be of use to me in connection with any of these types? On the side....The superiors, peers, inferiors thing is alien to me now because I see anybody who can do what I can't as 'community-able' (for want of a word) and that fits the dustman, vet, meter reader and doctor all because I'm sunk without any of 'em. etc. There isn't a true measurement of these folks with the word 'moral' in it. Try 'competent' or 'trusted'... etc.

When I worked I did look up to Judges, and followed their instructions exactly. But even this category of person could not be tagged with the word 'moral'..... 'Consistent', 'Empowered', 'Authoritative' ...... the word 'moral' is not as trustworthy as any of those mentioned..... it's valueless, imo.

Likewise you have ways you've learnt that in many circumstances will be different for women, for authority figures (headmaster, police officer, team captain, doctor, employer, and so on), for strangers, and so on. (When I drove a cab in my student days, I found I knew in the very first instance of my glimpse of them whether I'd stop for them or not.)

You drove a cab!! ?? So did I!! Colchester, Essex, England. Town Centre ranks only but pick up on demand anywhere but the Rail Station.

I am most familiar with your 'first-glimpse' decisions, not because of cabbing (We were committed to stop for anybody who signaled..... could not ignore any), but I trained commercial detectives and thief catchers for 25 years and my very first training instruction was to avoid first-sight judgements..... they caused prejudices that could lead to extreme legal and physical dangers (a long explanation, honestly). The 'I know 'em on sight' operatives never caught the legions of middle-class thieves..... never watched 'em!

And you're constantly judging people ─ the one who pushes ahead of you in the waiting line, the one who says 'You go first' in the supermarket queue, the one who spits on the pavement, the one who gives you a cheerful nod, the drunk who pees on the wall, on and on. And these are all examples of your interaction with others that evoke your sense of right and wrong.

Ah..... I know this world intimately.... I taught many hundreds of actions and conditions (about people) to retail thief catchers, each condition had a flexible value varying from 'slight interest' to 'intense observation', these 'tells' varying with place, season, temperature, retailer etc etc......

I can tell you that there was absolutely no thought-guide in the high efficiency thief catcher that ever considered any human characteristic such as 'moral'... the person-of-interest was simply 'what they were being and doing'. We stopped assessing people socially in every way possible, while dressing and moving ourselves to cause EVERYBODY to write us off.... dismiss us.

That's what morality is.

Look, I respect your opinion, and I acknowledge your belief in and use of the word, but to me it is not dissimilar, say, to a religion that .I cannot accept yet can acknowledge in another. (I know you have no religion..... I'm just stretching semantics here).

Moral? Immoral? I think that these are mostly 'IT' words for philosophers and religions to play with, and for some to hide behind. No offence meant towards you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi there!

So I am hoping there are posters out there who are chomping at the bit to get into a good old-fashioned RF scrap!

I have just started reading a book called "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them" authored by Joshua Greene.

It is a fascinating book with which I agree on much but also disagree with a bit too, especially with the idea of evolutionary morality since it is an idea that cannot really be examined, thus is unfalsifiable, and therefore the author is just throwing conjecture regarding how we evolved our morality.

But that is besides the point of this thread.

What I would really like to get everyone's thoughts on is his definition of morality below:

"Morality is a set of psychological adaptations that allow otherwise selfish individuals to reap the benefits of cooperation."

Do you agree or disagree with this definition? If not, then please explain your reasoning and what you think the actual definition is or should be?

Any one liner definition of a subject matter one could write entire books about, and then some, is going to fall short imo.

Having said that, imo, as a one-liner, I find it remarkably agreeable.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Ha ha! It's a 'throw-down' word for effect...... nothing more.
It's a sell....... mostly every time, imo.

When I try to perceive a 'spiritual' person I see a primitive person, subsisting off the migrations and sends of the seasons, at one with Nature and living in the moment. But that is just my feeling. That kind of person isn't spiritual really, they are simply 'native'.

This morning on RT News there was a presentation about American and Nigerian TV pastors who are worth hundreds of millions of pounds, and they spurt words like spiritual in to every paragraph. It is a Sell word imo.

True enough.

 

[blü 2]

First off........ Thankyou for the trouble that you are taking. I hope I'm not irritating you too much....!

No problemo.

My perception of a person does not use the word 'moral' in any descriptive. The person might be a polygamous, unemployed hippie in skinny jeans, with dyed hair........ no 'moral' thermostat that is true can help me. I discover that he is a student at the Slade Art College..... or working for a parcel delivery service, .... or a shop thief living on handouts.
The word 'moral' cannot be of use to me in any of these folks. I would use much more accurate and fitting adjectives for them.

Just the fact that you select those examples shows you know how your judgment works. You react to those people without censure (shop thieving draws a judgment of 'wrong' with me, and would color my face to face encounter with that person, but whether that affected any outcome of the encounter would depend on the situation).

OK....... so how is the word 'moral' going to be of use to me in connection with any of these types? On the side....The superiors, peers, inferiors thing is alien to me now because I see anybody who can do what I can't as 'community-able' (for want of a word) and that fits the dustman, vet, meter reader and doctor all because I'm sunk without any of 'em. etc. There isn't a true measurement of these folks with the word 'moral' in it. Try 'competent' or 'trusted'... etc.

No better? No worse? No right? No wrong? No prefer? No don't prefer? No be careful? No avoid?

Are you sure?

When I worked I did look up to Judges, and followed their instructions exactly. But even this category of person could not be tagged with the word 'moral'..... 'Consistent', 'Empowered', 'Authoritative' ...... the word 'moral' is not as trustworthy as any of those mentioned..... it's valueless, imo.

Every judgment about the character of another human is a moral judgment. That's the point.

You drove a cab!! ?? So did I!! Colchester, Essex, England. Town Centre ranks only but pick up on demand anywhere but the Rail Station.

Yup. I have the strong impression (including pre-Covid) that the game ain't what it used to be, with Uber and so on. But it was respectable bucks in those days (though the hours were a problem) and a valuable part of my education.

I am most familiar with your 'first-glimpse' decisions, not because of cabbing (We were committed to stop for anybody who signaled..... could not ignore any)

Sorry, I was changing the radio, must have missed him.

but I trained commercial detectives and thief catchers for 25 years and my very first training instruction was to avoid first-sight judgements..... they caused prejudices that could lead to extreme legal and physical dangers (a long explanation, honestly). The 'I know 'em on sight' operatives never caught the legions of middle-class thieves..... never watched 'em!

I don't think we're in disagreement. But instant judgments are a survival instinct, a basic part of the evolved form of the brain. You might enjoy reading Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.

I can tell you that there was absolutely no thought-guide in the high efficiency thief catcher that ever considered any human characteristic such as 'moral'...

I continue to suspect your idea of 'moral' is different to the one I'm using.

the person-of-interest was simply 'what they were being and doing'. We stopped assessing people socially in every way possible, while dressing and moving ourselves to cause EVERYBODY to write us off.... dismiss us.

In other words, to make the moral judgment of you that you desired.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Any one liner definition of a subject matter one could write entire books about, and then some, is going to fall short imo.

Having said that, imo, as a one-liner, I find it remarkably agreeable.

This line comes from page 23 of a 421 page book But it does provide the premise of the book.

 

[oldbadger]

No problemo.
Just the fact that you select those examples shows you know how your judgment works. You react to those people without censure (shop thieving draws a judgment of 'wrong' with me, and would color my face to face encounter with that person, but whether that affected any outcome of the encounter would depend on the situation).

Fair enough. But shop-theft draws no such judgement from me.
There were many reasons why people steal and these were part of our working lives.
One of them is 'need' thru poverty, and one Supermarket company required a store manager to fill in a question answer survey from detained thieves to focus upon the thief's motives. Where 'poverty-need-thru-disability-age' was established the police would not be called and the thief would not be banned, but would be asked (in future) to report to the services desk on arrival, and a member of staff would walk with the person and help them with their selections etc. That was Sainsburys back in 1990-1994 ..... sadly such policies were dropped as staff were reduced for various retail wars.

You see? Reversing taxis......... need-thru-poverty..... almost holy... (and there's another 'it word' right there.)

When interviewing applicants for such work we would seek to discover their attitudes and feelings about shop-thieves. We were looking for any kind of judgmental warmth or heat. Those that wanted thieves to be hanged on gibbets in store car-park, their bodies swaying in the breeze as an example, such folks were useless as thief catchers, and I rather suspect that they might have used such words as 'moral' and 'immoral' in their rants although I've long forgotten such conversations now.

No better? No worse? No right? No wrong? No prefer? No don't prefer? No be careful? No avoid?

I snatched those examples from mind..... Your sentence in italics which features basic descriptions didn't have the word 'moral' in it anywhere.... didn't need it.

Are you sure?
Every judgment about the character of another human is a moral judgment. That's the point.

Now........ if you would 'backspace' the word 'moral' out of that last sentence, above, and read it again.... it makes perfect sense. The word 'moral' was just not necessary, a non-paying passenger......

Yup. I have the strong impression (including pre-Covid) that the game ain't what it used to be, with Uber and so on. But it was respectable bucks in those days (though the hours were a problem) and a valuable part of my education.

I was 19yrs old, it was nearly half a century ago. The cab owner (Big Al) charged me 9d (about 3p) for every mile that I put on the odometer. I could keep everything else. Fortunately a Ford Consul's odometer would run backwards if driven in reverse, and I would often reverse back from Essex University (through country lanes) Wivenhoe for several miles before reaching the outskirts of Colchester. Even today I can reverse a car at phenomenal speeds. Now you can think up words like 'bloody dangerous', 'idiot', 'deception' but if you go anywhere near the word 'immoral' I think you've lost the plot. Leave such words to rich tv evangelists, is my suggestion.

Sorry, I was changing the radio, must have missed him.

How wicked! We taxi reversers were much more decent than you!
In the Colchester ring road I had to be on best manners..... not moral manners, you understand......

I don't think we're in disagreement.

Too true. I have so enjoyed conversing with you.

But instant judgments are a survival instinct, a basic part of the evolved form of the brain. You might enjoy reading Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow.
I continue to suspect your idea of 'moral' is different to the one I'm using.
In other words, to make the moral judgment of you that you desired.

The internet has much reduced my reading time, but I'll look the book up on ebay and get a copy.

Sure, I have no doubt that we just have different ideas.

 

[blü 2]

I was 19yrs old, it was nearly half a century ago. The cab owner (Big Al) charged me 9d (about 3p) for every mile that I put on the odometer. I could keep everything else. Fortunately a Ford Consul's odometer would run backwards if driven in reverse, and I would often reverse back from Essex University (through country lanes) Wivenhoe for several miles before reaching the outskirts of Colchester. Even today I can reverse a car at phenomenal speeds.

indeed! Great story!

The internet has much reduced my reading time, but I'll look the book up on ebay and get a copy.

The book itself is on that link, if you don't mind reading on screen.

Go well ─ forward and backward.