Your Source of Morality

[Nakosis]

For following your reasoning to the end, you have to start reasoning. @Nakosis thinks intellect is of not much relevance to morals but if you don't think, you just have your instincts - and they will probably kill you in our modern world.

Yes, all reasoning leads to some basic values (which rest on feelings). You can't reason without some axioms. But without reason you are no more than a stimulus - reaction machine. You need both. And since you are living in a society you also need the knowledge about common values.
That's what I said in my initial post: there are three equally relevant basis for morality, not just one.

Yes, except in rare cases, I think we are basically a stimulus - reaction machine. That we are otherwise is an illusion.
I don't see how any of these 3 relevant basis escape being dictated by feelings.

 

[Heyo]

I'd imagine the stronger feeling would dictate the choice. You are torn between two or more strong emotions. Not all choices impact survival.
What's the moral dilemma in choosing to pet or not pet the bear cub?

Aside from the bear cup example, I think the stronger value should dictate the choice. I.e. the decision should be rational. Weighing values against each other is an intellectual endeavour, even though the choice of values is emotional.

 

[Magical Wand]

So we can experience a multiplicity of feelings, often conflicting and contradictory? Which makes them a most untrustworthy guide…

Even if that is so, this doesn't refute the view that moral wrongness, for example, is just a feeling. It may not be desirable, but to argue based on some desirable end is to commit the appeal to consequences fallacy. It is like saying, "It would very bad if homeopathy didn't work since I would die of cancer. Therefore, homeopathy works." That's fallacious reasoning.

 

[Nakosis]

So we can experience a multiplicity of feelings, often conflicting and contradictory? Which makes them a most untrustworthy guide…

Yes, except they have been somewhat validate by the fact of their survival.
IOW, they are not the product of man's wisdom. More a product of happening to have made the right choice at the time to survive.
The problem is we don't have a lot of conscious awareness of the process of our feelings. We just feel what we feel. Other feelings which may be stronger could cause us to act against these other feelings.

Intellectually we might consciously rationalize/justify the decision but the decision was likely made prior to the rationalization. So we are consciously aware of the rationalization and see it as causal but not conscious of the actual decision.
Consciously we are playing catchup with decisions already made by a subconscious process.

 

[Kooky]

My source of morality is my class consciousness, as well as the values that I've been tought or which I have acquired over the course of my life so far. I do not contend that they are universal or even sensible to anybody but me, but it is what it is.

 

[Magical Wand]

So we can experience a multiplicity of feelings, often conflicting and contradictory? Which makes them a most untrustworthy guide…

In addition, I would ask what "guide" you're talking about. Guide to what is objectively moral? If so, you're begging the question since you're assuming there is objective morality, but that's exactly what is being disputed when it is argued moral wrongness and rightness are just feelings.

 

[Nakosis]

Aside from the bear cup example, I think the stronger value should dictate the choice. I.e. the decision should be rational. Weighing values against each other is an intellectual endeavour, even though the choice of values is emotional.

Ok, but how often does this actually happen? I see folks go through life giving little conscious thought to their choices.
When people are angry they make different choices than when they are happy. Rarely do they question why they are angry or why they are happy, and probably don't really know the answer if they do.

Me and you are of course the outliers, but for myself, I suspect I am not an outlier as often as I think.

Consciously, I am in control of my own destiny, aren't I? Obviously, not so much and maybe, hardly at all.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, except in rare cases, I think we are basically a stimulus - reaction machine. That we are otherwise is an illusion.

I agree that we run on automatic most of the time. But when we have to make moral decisions, we should think (not that most of us do). I just can't accept an instinctive reaction as moral (especially as instinctive reactions are often amoral or even immoral when we later think about them).

 

[Nakosis]

I agree that we run on automatic most of the time. But when we have to make moral decisions, we should think (not that most of us do). I just can't accept an instinctive reaction as moral (especially as instinctive reactions are often amoral or even immoral when we later think about them).

Normally I would agree.
I see our morals as a subconscious process. Something we can't actually control.
Like systemic racism. Consciously most everyone says it is immoral. You ask someone, they tell you they are not racist. Reality shows this is not the case for most people. Folks make prejudicial subconscious choices they are not aware of. Their intellectual conscious awareness is 100% certain they are not racist.

Even people who curb their racist inclination do so out of a subconscious fear of being ostracized.
I can't say there are no exception and like you, I think there are. I just wonder if I am not still fooling myself that those choices are a matter of rational intellect.

 

[sayak83]

See, I disagree with your premise, if you can understand.
But, the question is, what do you see as your source.

Obviously some see God as the source.
My view is our feelings are the source. I think rationalization comes after the fact.

It is quite possible that what we feel to be moral is in fact not moral. For example one may feel that one of his actions are moral when it is not.

 

[Heyo]

Normally I would agree.
I see our morals as a subconscious process.

I don't.
Unfortunately there is no definition that is consensus and settles this dispute. It comes down to our image of man. I think yours is too negative and depressing for my taste. I like to believe that we can rise above our instincts (and we only can be moral when we do). I like to think that we can teach people to be moral and that we can convince people of the immorality of some actions.

Something we can't actually control.
Like systemic racism. Consciously most everyone says it is immoral. You ask someone, they tell you they are not racist. Reality shows this is not the case for most people. Folks make prejudicial subconscious choices they are not aware of. Their intellectual conscious awareness is 100% certain they are not racist.

Even people who curb their racist inclination do so out of a subconscious fear of being ostracized.
I can't say there are no exception and like you, I think there are. I just wonder if I am not still fooling myself that those choices are a matter of rational intellect.

So, tell me, is racism moral, amoral or immoral?
If I feel intimidated by people not of my race and don't want them around me, am I not in accord with my feelings?
Is the husband who kills his wife and her lover in a fit of rage moral? (Or guilty? Societies have answered that question differently. Interestingly widely on a geographical divide. Northern countries, where people are more rational, call it murder, southern countries, where people are more emotional, let the husband off the hook.)

 

[RestlessSoul]

In addition, I would ask what "guide" you're talking about. Guide to what is objectively moral? If so, you're begging the question since you're assuming there is objective morality, but that's exactly what is being disputed when it is argued moral wrongness and rightness are just feelings.

I can only speak for myself, but there are times when I do need guidance. I have use both for reason and for intuition, but I trust neither my intellect nor my feelings enough to place total faith in either.

That’s precisely why I have faith in a loving God, because faith in my own human qualities is sometimes not enough.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't.
Unfortunately there is no definition that is consensus and settles this dispute. It comes down to our image of man. I think yours is too negative and depressing for my taste. I like to believe that we can rise above our instincts (and we only can be moral when we do). I like to think that we can teach people to be moral and that we can convince people of the immorality of some actions.

So, tell me, is racism moral, amoral or immoral?
If I feel intimidated by people not of my race and don't want them around me, am I not in accord with my feelings?
Is the husband who kills his wife and her lover in a fit of rage moral? (Or guilty? Societies have answered that question differently. Interestingly widely on a geographical divide. Northern countries, where people are more rational, call it murder, southern countries, where people are more emotional, let the husband off the hook.)

Fair enough. Obviously we have to treat people as if they have free will and could have made better choices.

 

[Nakosis]

It is quite possible that what we feel to be moral is in fact not moral. For example one may feel that one of his actions are moral when it is not.

Ok, but not moral according to what?
What are the dictates of morality?

 

[sayak83]

Ok, but not moral according to what?
What are the dictates of morality?

Decreasing suffering and increasing well being.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

What is the source of your morality?

The source of my morals is my philosophy of life.

When I viewed life differently to what I do nowadays, my morals were very different to those I live by today.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Nakosis]

Decreasing suffering and increasing well being.

For yourself or others?
Seems egotistical to me to assume what others need.

I'm fine with helping when asked.
Generally though I get annoyed when others try to help me. Unless it is very obvious.
Otherwise your implying they are not capable of helping themselves and or taking away the chance for them to actually learn what they are capable of.

 

[Nakosis]

The source of my morals is my philosophy of life.

When I viewed life differently to what I do nowadays, my morals were very different to those I live by today.


Humbly
Hermit

I feel similar. My morals depends on the circumstances I find myself in. I think it is bad, nonproductive to try to live up to a moral standard that is not your own.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I feel similar. My morals depends on the circumstances I find myself in. I think it is bad, nonproductive to try to live up to a moral standard that is not your own.

Do you mean as in trying to do what others say is correct but you feel is not? Yes, if so, I suppose those would be their morals.

But one’s own morals (what one does feel is correct) can change too over time and I believe that’s a sign that one’s view of life - it’s function, purpose and meaning - has altered.

As to morals that change from one context to another; that’s a little bit different, is it not…? A risk of hypocrisy seems then plausible. Hypocrisy is not great in my moral view.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Nakosis]

Do you mean as in trying to do what others say is correct but you feel is not? Yes, if so, I suppose those would be their morals.

But one’s own morals (what one does feel is correct) can change too over time and I believe that’s a sign that one’s view of life - it’s function, purpose and meaning - has altered.

As to morals that change from one context to another; that’s a little bit different, is it not…? A risk of hypocrisy seems then plausible. Hypocrisy is not great in my moral view.


Humbly
Hermit

Well, your morals.
I just don't make the claim of having a moral standard so there's no hypocrisy.