Does Education Teach Morality?

  • Thread starter Philocrat
  • Start date
In summary, the question of whether morality can be taught has been debated for centuries, with Socrates being one of the first to explore it. In today's world, where confusion and conflicts are prevalent, the value of human education and indoctrination is being questioned. Some argue that morality can be taught through conditioning, as evidenced by individuals who can control themselves and do good throughout their lives. However, there are also those who fluctuate between good and bad, as well as those who persistently struggle with morality. This suggests that morality itself may not only be taught, but also created. While some believe that communities create morality over time and successfully teach it to their children, others argue that it is inherited and evolves through memetic evolution. Ultimately

Can Morality be taught or created? (select one of the following options explain why)

  • It can be taught and not created

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • It can be created and not taught

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • It can be taught while being created

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • It can neither be taught nor created

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Total voters
    17
  • #1
Philocrat
612
0
The question as to whether morality can be taught is as old as anyone is prepared to go back in time. Infact, Socrates in some of Plato's Dialogues is often quoted as the first philosopher to conduct a clinical examination of this question. This question is now becoming very important as our current world societies are still filled with all sorts of confusions, misunderstandings, physical conflicts and disasters after disasters.

As these problems manifest and grow there is now a BIG question mark being placed upon the exact 'VALUE OF THE HUMAN EDUCATION' and INDUCTRINATIONS OF ALL KINDS? If you want to start this as a separate thread, you can...but this is the main question:

Does Education sanitise? Can education really improve the human state of mind? Or simply, can morality be taught?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I voted 'It can be taught while being created' because there is a clear evidence that there are at least some people that can exercise full control of themselves throughout their llives without ever harming neither themselves nor anyone else. Through being morally conditioned from youths to do good, they stay harmless both to themselves and others throughout! Equally, there are many of those who fluctuate between being good and being bad, and stay somewhat confused throughout their lives. And finally, there are those who stay persistently morally problematic, the so-called 'repeated offenders', some of which are often misconstrued as possessing evil demons.

That we have these last two classses of morally inadequate beings seems to me to suggest that morality itself may not only be taught but also created. That is, if everyone is to stay morally the same (harmless both to themsleves and others), then the entire human system may have to be returned back to the drawing board. But that this is the case does not automatically imply that we should stop teaching morality of any kind altogether. I know that Mutant creatures would combine both (teaching and creation) and action them in a holistic but fully beneficial or positive way. So, why couldn't the humans do the same? Are we pretending not to be mutants?
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I say communities make up morality over time, so no individual is aware of the creation, and they successfully teach that received morality to their kids, over a short time period. So short period teach yes, long period create, yes, but long period teach, no, short period create, no.
 
  • #4
Can be taught but not created (my sig has the details).
 
  • #5
PerennialII said:
Can be taught but not created (my sig has the details).

You still have to explain why some people can be taught to be moral and some cannot. How do you explain repeated offenders both at the socio-political level and at the indvidual family level. We still have many people at the family level that still repeatedly offend and go in and out of prisons, and we also have countless political elements in our societies that succesfully engineer us into destructives wars after wars, even long after we have instructed ourselves not to commit all these evil acts? How many times have we said 'NEVER AGAIN!' about going to wars? How many NEVERS IS NEVER? Why is one set of rules good for one group and a different set of rules for another? Why can't all groups in our world cocieties adhere to one set of rules, especially those we claim to be moral?

These are hard-headed questions that demand coherent and logically consistent answers. Well, I respect your opinon, but I am sceptical as to whether teaching alone can produce all the answers. And I know that many philosophers, from Socrates to the present day, are also sceptical about this.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
selfAdjoint said:
I say communities make up morality over time, so no individual is aware of the creation, and they successfully teach that received morality to their kids, over a short time period.

Are you talking about 'POLIMORPHOBIA' (Collective Unconscious Self-programming)? Well, I have heard some people believing in this sort of thing. I am not a Psychologist, so I am not quite sure about that. Anyway, whatever the means by which people learn about morals, the fact that some people can successfullly learn and hold on to them and there are some who cannot do so is the fundamental issue at stake here. And I suspect you must have voted for both teaching and creation.

So short period teach yes, long period create, yes, but long period teach, no, short period create, no.

I am not very clear what you are implying here. Could you enlighten me further?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Philocrat said:
.



I am not very clear what you are implying here. Could you enlighten me further?

The essence of a community's approach to morality is that it is NOT made up but inherited from of old. The attempt to make up morality is resisted where it is detected. Nevertheless small differences in personal characteristics cause the taught morality to be received by the children in different ways, and this causes the community stock of morality to vary over time. Doctrines that are best at crossing the parent-child barrier without distortion will outlast others. In short, memetic evolution.
 
  • #8
Philocrat said:
Anyway, whatever the means by which people learn about morals, the fact that some people can successfullly learn and hold on to them and there are some who cannot do so is the fundamental issue at stake here.
I really see it as a triviality: I learned Differential Equations with some difficulty, some learn it with ease, and some are incapable of learning it. Why can't the same be true of morality?

And more than just whether or not someone can learn it - to follow it, people also must accept it. Some do, some don't.
 
  • #9
Philocrat said:
You still have to explain why some people can be taught to be moral and some cannot. How do you explain repeated offenders both at the socio-political level and at the indvidual family level. We still have many people at the family level that still repeatedly offend and go in and out of prisons, and we also have countless political elements in our societies that succesfully engineer us into destructives wars after wars, even long after we have instructed ourselves not to commit all these evil acts? How many times have we said 'NEVER AGAIN!' about going to wars? How many NEVERS IS NEVER? Why is one set of rules good for one group and a different set of rules for another? Why can't all groups in our world cocieties adhere to one set of rules, especially those we claim to be moral?

These are hard-headed questions that demand coherent and logically consistent answers. Well, I respect your opinon, but I am sceptical as to whether teaching alone can produce all the answers. And I know that many philosophers, from Socrates to the present day, are also sceptical about this.

I'm one of those who believe essentially that metaethically it is possible to discover an ethical system, a single universal one, which exists as a "premise" and the task of normative ethics is to unveil it, but not create it (nor it is possible). Teaching is just teaching and as far as I'm concerned and doesn't itself produce anything new to the content, it is just a process. The results of the process can then take many routes as far as an individual/group etc. are concerned, the problem in teaching morality is the diversity of moral concepts overall, don't see a way around it in a non-deterministic world.
 
  • #10
selfAdjoint said:
The essence of a community's approach to morality is that it is NOT made up but inherited from of old. The attempt to make up morality is resisted where it is detected. Nevertheless small differences in personal characteristics cause the taught morality to be received by the children in different ways, and this causes the community stock of morality to vary over time. Doctrines that are best at crossing the parent-child barrier without distortion will outlast others. In short, memetic evolution.

Could you expand upon the notion of 'memetic evolution'? What does it entail? Is it scientifically viable?
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
I really see it as a triviality: I learned Differential Equations with some difficulty, some learn it with ease, and some are incapable of learning it. Why can't the same be true of morality?

And more than just whether or not someone can learn it - to follow it, people also must accept it. Some do, some don't.

Your view is consistent with Untilitarianism. Utilitarians would agree with you that if a greater number of people can learn Differential Equations or Moral Rules, then it is morally ok. Democracy, for example, promises 'Full Employment' to citizens of a democratic society, yet there is no single instance in the human history where any society on this planet has ever been fully employed. Utiliterians would spring to defend this and claim that as long as a higher percentage of people is emplyed in a given democratic society, that is morally Ok.

But Universalists would not accept this. They would counter argue that it is morally ok if and only if everyone can learn and retain Differential Euquations. They will equally argue that a democratic society is morally ok if and only if everyone in that society is fully employed. Neither half nor higher measures would surfice. Only full measures would!

I can appreciate your argument, but philosophically (perhaps, even scientifically as well), there is more to morality than loosely claiming that just because A and B and C can be taught X, what happens to the rest of the world is their fault. Early in the human development, it used to be thought and believed that if you put people through a formal education, or moral education of some sort, they will turn out to be good people, this would continue to grow until eventually they stop inflicting harms upon each other. But as we all know this is not actually the case. Instead, at any point of enumeration of the behavioural state of any society you cannot do this without encountering a percentage of evil acts and atrocities committed by citizens against each other. The question that confronts us now is whether Education of any kind serves any purpose with regards to the moral well being of any society of any time.

NOTE: When it comes to education, most Universalist Philosophers always distinguish between (1) 'ABILITY TO LEARN' and (2) 'OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN'. And according to this class of philosophers, (1) is a scientific problem and (2) is a social-political problem and that both need to be examined and accounted for in a holistic way. Consequently, they argue that if (1) is posing a problem, then the society concerned must physically create, either sicentifically or otherwise, condusive life conditions that enable everyone to learn. Coversely, if it is (2) that is posing the problem, then the society concerned must create sufficient economic, social and political opportunities for mass education to flourish. Hence, a society that does not quantify these two aspects of the matter is self-deluding its citizens.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
PerennialII said:
I'm one of those who believe essentially that metaethically it is possible to discover an ethical system, a single universal one, which exists as a "premise" and the task of normative ethics is to unveil it, but not create it (nor it is possible). Teaching is just teaching and as far as I'm concerned and doesn't itself produce anything new to the content, it is just a process. The results of the process can then take many routes as far as an individual/group etc. are concerned, the problem in teaching morality is the diversity of moral concepts overall, don't see a way around it in a non-deterministic world.

Yes, you do have a point here. Diversity of moral opinions is undisputedly unversally problematic. Throughout the entire human history, it is by far the BIGGEST single cause all sorts of barbaric wars and destructions. The scale at which the humans can go to defend their moral opinions, often riddled with ignorance and falshood, is deeply puzzling. And when some of these opinions are converted into actionable beliefs and naively declared sacred, the underlying brewing implications become more potent and lethal.

On the issue of teaching, I still insist that it is very important, despite the very clear fact that it is not a 100% perfect means of moralising the citizens of a given society. That some people can be morally conditioned and this stays with them for life does indicate that education does work to a certain point. That there are equally those that cannot be morally conditioned, is also an indication that something is not quite right with the notion of eduction. So the question still remains:

What should be done to make every citizen of a given society fully moralisable? What should be done to make any democratic society (so-called) fully employable or fully employed?

These are the sort of questions that we cannot afford to give flimpsy answers to. We need fully deduced and logically consistent answers for them. Or, don't we?
 
  • #13
Philocrat said:
Yes, you do have a point here. Diversity of moral opinions is undisputedly unversally problematic. Throughout the entire human history, it is by far the BIGGEST single cause all sorts of barbaric wars and destructions. The scale at which the humans can go to defend their moral opinions, often riddled with ignorance and falshood, is deeply puzzling. And when some of these opinions are converted into actionable beliefs and naively declared sacred, the underlying brewing implications become more potent and lethal.

On the issue of teaching, I still insist that it is very important, despite the very clear fact that it is not a 100% perfect means of moralising the citizens of a given society. That some people can be morally conditioned and this stays with them for life does indicate that education does work to a certain point. That there are equally those that cannot be morally conditioned, is also an indication that something is not quite right with the notion of eduction. So the question still remains:

What should be done to make every citizen of a given society fully moralisable? What should be done to make any democratic society (so-called) fully employable or fully employed?

These are the sort of questions that we cannot afford to give flimpsy answers to. We need fully deduced and logically consistent answers for them. Or, don't we?

... and your insistance in teaching morality is as valid of a point as anything, without moral education we're a society of savages, even more than in nowadays world. If we for a moment set aside the fact that there are differing ethical norms, the failure of moral conditioning (meaning that we still have all the problems you mentioned) as I see it is that many of the building blocks of our society are inherently against several of the moral concepts we hold high in moral philosophical terms. We have lots of "pseudo" - norms in our lives, and the rotation of the world (for a lack of a better expression) is not governed by the morality of an action (as it is supposed to be), but rather the means and methods individuals, communities and nations apply for ... in the end, survival. One could argue that applied ethics fails miserably (or is ignored or twisted altogether) what comes to our society on a daily basis and practical level of operation (which I see as a real tragedy). In the end are we as a society very uneducated ?
 
  • #14
Philocrat said:
Your view is consistent with Untilitarianism. Utilitarians would agree with you that if a greater number of people can learn Differential Equations or Moral Rules, then it is morally ok.
I said nothing about a relationship between how difficult something is to learn and how moral it is. I don't buy that relationship at all. Most of the principles are so simple a 4 year old understands them just fine (then consciously chooses not to follow them).
Democracy, for example, promises 'Full Employment' to citizens of a democratic society, yet there is no single instance in the human history where any society on this planet has ever been fully employed.
Democracy most certainly does not promise "full employment." Quite the contrary, democracy (capitalism) requires about 3-4% unemployment for the law of supply and demand to function. And that has nothing at all to do with learning morality.
I can appreciate your argument, but philosophically (perhaps, even scientifically as well), there is more to morality than loosely claiming that just because A and B and C can be taught X, what happens to the rest of the world is their fault.
That bears no relationship whatsoever to what I said.

I'm sensing perhaps a wording issue: you asked "Can morality be taught?" Did you really mean "Can people be taught to be moral?" Those are two entirely different questions.

I have a fairly significant education in morality. My point is that based on my experience, morality, like differential equations, is not something people will necessarily explore and learn on their own. Most of the issues we discussed, most people (including myself) had never considered before. Moral Relativism vs Absolutism is a biggie that I discuss here a lot. Most people instinctively believe in Relativism and have never even explored its validity (the discussion may have even begun with a show of hands). Yet most people who discuss and explore it will eventually become Absolutists.

Being taught any subject in a structured way will improve people's understanding of it. And then knowing and following morality are still two separate questions.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
russ_watters said:
I said nothing about a relationship between how difficult something is to learn and how moral it is. I don't buy that relationship at all. Most of the principles are so simple a 4 year old understands them just fine (then consciously chooses not to follow them). Democracy most certainly does not promise "full employment." Quite the contrary, democracy (capitalism) requires about 3-4% unemployment for the law of supply and demand to function. And that has nothing at all to do with learning morality. That bears no relationship whatsoever to what I said.

Are you suggesting that if you are given every Tom, Dick and Hary on this planet, you can succesfully teach them moral good to stick. I do not know where on this planet that you live. I have many kids in my locality that run around that you tell them not carry Guns and knives on the street, let alone not to use them on others, that still disobey this simple instruction. Most American cities are known today as the guns capital of the world. Here is a homework for you: go and instruct all the guns carriers in those American cities not to ever carry guns again, and see if you will succeed in a twinckle of an eye. Good luck to you! Yet, on the other side of the argument, of course you are right that most 4 year olds would absorb successfully the information content of moral and quantitative propositions. Yes, both of us are in concert on this one.


I'm sensing perhaps a wording issue: you asked "Can morality be taught?" Did you really mean "Can people be taught to be moral?" Those are two entirely different questions.

Yes, I accept this distinction. Being able to teach is one thing, and being able to absorb and permanently retain the information vlaue of what is taught is a completely different matter. It is now up to science to coherently and precisely decide whether the natural ability to absorb and permanently retain information content of what is taught is evenly or universally distributed. I keep my own position on this and I think it's only fair to say that you should keep your own position on it as well, whatever that may be!

I have a fairly significant education in morality. My point is that based on my experience, morality, like differential equations, is not something people will necessarily explore and learn on their own. Most of the issues we discussed, most people (including myself) had never considered before. Moral Relativism vs Absolutism is a biggie that I discuss here a lot. Most people instinctively believe in Relativism and have never even explored its validity (the discussion may have even begun with a show of hands). Yet most people who discuss and explore it will eventually become Absolutists.

Only if you think of absolutism in a negative way. Moderation is the dividing line between opposite extremes. This is one issue that I have been battling with for years. Many people I know today naively assume that moderation is equivalent to perfection. Well, as I have indicated elsewhere on this PF, we all have our own different definitions for this term. For me Moderation is as important and valuable (at least ephemerally) as the best of opposite extremes, and as I have argued time and time again, if there is any moral code that can be found in Moderation, it is because it has the capacity to ephemerally preserve in the face of chaos! In my school of thought PERFECTION IS EVERYTHING OVER AND ABOVE MODERATION, and given the right human frame of mind and deepest insight we may subsequently derive at this position and harness the best of opposite extremes to the human advantage. In the end, it all depends on your own method of deduction/reduction, for we all have a few tricks up our sleeves that do not necessarily land us on the type of absolutism that you are thinking about.

Being taught any subject in a structured way will improve people's understanding of it. And then knowing and following morality are still two separate questions.

No dispute on this.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Philocrat said:
Yes, I accept this distinction. Being able to teach is one thing, and being able to absorb and permanently retain the information vlaue of what is taught is a completely different matter.
No, those are just degrees of the same thing: learning or learning well. The distinction I'm making is that IMO, being moral is a choice that has nothing whatsoever to do with learning. By teaching morality, you can help people make better decisions when the dilemas are tough, but you cannot teach someone to choose to make moral decisions. I learned about morality mostly at the Naval Academy, where they go to great lengths to ensure that the people they accept are of high moral character. The ethics classes and seminars aren't designed to make the students moral, but rather to assist them in making tough moral choices.

My point about the 4-year-old was that something like stealing or hitting is a simple moral concept that doesn't even require teaching (people instinctively know they are wrong), but knowing something is wrong and choosing whether or not to do it are two different things entirely.

Is that what you were going for? (can you teach people to choose to be moral?)
 
Last edited:
  • #17
russ_watters said:
No, those are just degrees of the same thing: learning or learning well. The distinction I'm making is that IMO, being moral is a choice that has nothing whatsoever to do with learning. By teaching morality, you can help people make better decisions when the dilemas are tough, but you cannot teach someone to choose to make moral decisions. I learned about morality mostly at the Naval Academy, where they go to great lengths to ensure that the people they accept are of high moral character. The ethics classes and seminars aren't designed to make the students moral, but rather to assist them in making tough moral choices.

My point about the 4-year-old was that something like stealing or hitting is a simple moral concept that doesn't even require teaching (people instinctively know they are wrong), but knowing something is wrong and choosing whether or not to do it are two different things entirely.

Is that what you were going for? (can you teach people to choose to be moral?)

CHOICE

Well, philosophers have different ways of thinking about all this. With regards to the notion of CHOICE (ability to freely choose from existing alternatives), philosophers are still trying to reconcile it with another spooky logical structure called 'DETERMINISM'. They argue that if everything is predetermined, then you have no choice because regardless of what choice you make its subsequent and final outcome may not necessary turn out the way you expected. According to this class of philosophers, it appears as if you are just self-deceiving yourself and aimlessly floating about in a choiceless world. Well, this remains till this day controversial among philosophers. At the moment, it seems as if you are looking at things only at the human level without perhaps any intention to reflect deeper into the subject matter. Well, philosophically, you will have a marathon task in your hand convincing this class of philosophers that I am talking about.


KNOWLEDGE COMES IN DEGREES

Your text also seems to suggest that the 'ABILITY TO LEARN' comes in degrees of measure, and also tends to suggest that once any morals are learned, then it's just a matter of choosing or making tough choices. Well, most philosophers that I personally know are thinking more than this, especially the Universalist philosophers. They will elevate this to a scale where they want you and me to start thinking of a world where:

(a) ABILITY TO LEARN is universal or evenly distributed

(b) OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN is available to everyone, where they do not have to be morally caught up in the utilitarian web of moral dilemmas. They do not want to be placed in the naval position of making tough choices. I am very glad for you admitting that most of the tough decisions that you had to make in the navy are not necessarily moral. At least you are honest about this one. Universalist philosophers would count your tough decisions as utilitarian in substance and in scope. They would argue that your tough naval decisions were tough because you were trying to choose between 'LESS EVIL' and 'GREATER EVIL'. They would argue that your naval choices, though may be good by degree of measures, are not Universal neither in scope nor in substance, for a decision is universally moral if its consequence by meausre preserves or benefits everyone. This permits universalist philosophers to trace the consequences of your tough decisions beyond you the maker of them up to the natural causes that placed you in this tough-decision making position in the first place. So, as you can see, the universalist philosophers would not look your tough naval decisions and your ability to make them alone. They will track everything epistemologically to the very natural causes that placed you in this position in first place. And, according to the universalist philosophers, once you do this, it will automatically trigger not only educational thoughts and actions in you to at least keep things going the way they are currently are at the human decision-making level, but also creative thoughts and actions in you to correct and improve things structurally, or should I say scientifically, at the level of nature.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Hi,

It can be learned through experience.

juju
 
  • #19
juju said:
Hi,

It can be learned through experience.

juju

True, but the issue is wider than this.
 
  • #20
Philocrat said:
Well, philosophers have different ways of thinking about all this. With regards to the notion of CHOICE (ability to freely choose from existing alternatives), philosophers are still trying to reconcile it with another spooky logical structure called 'DETERMINISM'. They argue that if everything is predetermined, then you have no choice because regardless of what choice you make its subsequent and final outcome may not necessary turn out the way you expected.
Are there many non-religious philosophers who believe in determinism (other than, perhaps, scientific determinism)?

And, in any case, if determinism renders choice moot, it also renders learning moot. Luke Skywalker didn't need his targeting computer because he was pre-determined to hit his target. And if I'm a puppet on a string, there is no need to teach me morality - whether I'm moral or not depends on the whim of the guy pulling the strings.

I don't see how this line of discussion is useful.
Your text also seems to suggest that the 'ABILITY TO LEARN' comes in degrees of measure, and also tends to suggest that once any morals are learned, then it's just a matter of choosing or making tough choices.
It should be no surprise that crimes are predominantly comitted by those with lower intelligence/education.
Well, most philosophers that I personally know are thinking more than this, especially the Universalist philosophers. They will elevate this to a scale where they want you and me to start thinking of a world where:

(a) ABILITY TO LEARN is universal or evenly distributed

(b) OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN is available to everyone...
I'm not sure I understand: are you suggesting that there is a school of thought where people believe that all humans are utterly equal in ability to learn and opportunity to learn?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Universalism is a school of thought that counterbalances Utilitarianism. The former deals with the notion of 'The world as it ought to be' and the latter with 'The world as it is'. The standard philosophical argument is that the latter is reducible to the former, not only through educational processes but also through creative processes, perhaps of a scientific nature. Simply, the Universalist School is not saying that things as they currently stand in the world are universal, rather they are suggesting that we ought to invest all the human intellectual and material resources to make it so. We ought to turn a utilitarian world into a universal world that benefits everyone. If the ABILITY TO LEARN is not even we ought to make it even. If the OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN is not even, we ought to make it even.

NOTE: I have extensively dealt with the distinction between these two schools of thought in many of my postings elsewhere on this PF. If you have enough time, I think you should go through them if that would help. Here, I am only interested in the wider and very ancient issue of whether people could be morally improved via teaching, or via creative processes or a combination of both?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Can Morality be learned?

Can Morality be taught?

The more appropriate question is can morality be learned?

Can an individual adopt the values necessary to maintain a level of morality?

And what values? Selflessness, respect, love, thoughtfulness, kindness, generosity, . . . .
 
  • #23
russ_watters said:
My point about the 4-year-old was that something like stealing or hitting is a simple moral concept that doesn't even require teaching (people instinctively know they are wrong), but knowing something is wrong and choosing whether or not to do it are two different things entirely.

Um, don't we have to teach kids how to behave in a "civilized" society?
 
  • #24
Astronuc said:
Can Morality be taught?

The more appropriate question is can morality be learned?

Can an individual adopt the values necessary to maintain a level of morality?

Yes, I do agree with you on the inverse of the question. Maybe, that's how I should have asked the qiestion. But, equally, as soon as someone asks the question the way you have suggested, people tend to always ask 'Does the ability to teach affect the ability to learn? If you answer 'yes' to this question, then the 'Epistemological Pointer' ought to shift from the learner to the teacher. On the other side of the argument, if the answer were to be 'No', the 'E-Pointer' (as I sometimes call it) reverses back to your question. In this case, ABILITY TO LEARN with regards to your question becomes the fundamental issue at stake here. However, I am not in anyway suggesting that the E-Pointer could not, like a pendulum, swing either way. Of course, it can if the ability to teach probalisitically interplays with the ability to learn!

And what values? Selflessness, respect, love, thoughtfulness, kindness, generosity, . . . .

I would call them 'PHILOCRATIC VALUES' (any term that contributes by whatever scale of measure to the overall well being and improvement of the human conditions). This, unfortunately, only works if the terms themselves are given appropriate but wider interpretations or definitions. So, for example, if I were to ask you; 'is selfishness a moral term or philocratic in value?' How far would you go to proof or disprove this?

-------------------------------------
Save our Planet...Stay Green! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is Good!
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Philocrat said:
Universalism is a school of thought that counterbalances Utilitarianism. The former deals with the notion of 'The world as it ought to be' and the latter with 'The world as it is'.
What 2 schools of thought are you talking about? Are there so many people that seem to have no clue what Utilitarianism is actually defined as?

Utilitarianism *util* is simply a teleological moral theory that says that rightness is a function of promoting a standard of goodness. It says nothing about describing life "as it is", it only attempts to say what we "ought to do".

Universalism deals with things that are in effect, or is a characteristic/feature of the universe (or of all known reality). This theory deals with what life "as it is". Also, if you meant to say "Universal Morality", then Utilitarianism is in that category, since it is a theory that suggests that utilitarianism is a universal morality. But universalism tells us nothing about what we "ought to do".

Philocrat said:
Your view is consistent with Untilitarianism. Utilitarians would agree with you that if a greater number of people can learn Differential Equations or Moral Rules, then it is morally ok.
I read this earlier post. Utilitarians would ONLY say that it is morally ok to increase the number of people learning differential equations or moral rules IF it increases the overall happiness or good in the world. Utilitarians would not agree to increasing the number of people learning differential equations or moral rules UNLESS it promotes goodness.

Philocrat said:
Democracy, for example, promises 'Full Employment' to citizens of a democratic society, yet there is no single instance in the human history where any society on this planet has ever been fully employed. Utiliterians would spring to defend this and claim that as long as a higher percentage of people is emplyed in a given democratic society, that is morally Ok.
Under those "facts", utilitarians would defend democracy as a system to use, because it brings more employment. It would NOT defend its false promises.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Answers to some questions
-Can morality be taught AND learned? YES. Everyone here has learned some sort of morality or some way of action or duty. Let's not have 20 more paragraphs on this.
-Can we keep or adopt values that will maintain a morality? Yes, values are usually coerced or modified to fit moralities - so this is possible.
-Can we follow a morality? Yes, it is obvious that since we have hardcore moralists, conformists, and people with herd mentalities to blindly follow other people's ideas.
-Therefore, even if we can find a single, UNIVERSAL morality that we can agree on, we still have the question...Do moral phenomena actually exist? Or are there only moral interpretations of phenomena? None of the previous answers confirms the existence of moral phenomena.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
GeD said:
What 2 schools of thought are you talking about? Are there so many people that seem to have no clue what Utilitarianism is actually defined as?

I am not in anyway denying you or anyone esle the opportunity to know and understand any of the two moral concepts, Utilitarianism or Universalism, in the ways that you were taught or you do. Ofcourse, you may very well know and understand them the way you do. I am merely explaining them in my own way, at least as I understand them.

Utilitarianism *util* is simply a teleological moral theory that says that rightness is a function of promoting a standard of goodness. It says nothing about describing life "as it is", it only attempts to say what we "ought to do".

Well, I am suggesting that it lies within the scope of 'the world as it is' because, as I have personally observed, people tend to apply the concept in real life situations in a manner that falls short of being fully universal in scope. As I have pointed it out in many of my postings elsewhere, we are all guilty of applying this utilitarian principle in our everyday lives in a non-universal way. Even if you knew this any better than I do, you would have a marathon task convincing me otherwise. Infact, before you even start any debate with me on this, I would suggest you spend a little time and read around my postings and see how I personsonally applied the two concepts in different instances. I deliberately avoided the apparent distinction between ACT UTILITARIANISM and RULE UTILITARIANISM because of some spooky logico-metaphysical discrepances that I have personally identified.

Universalism deals with things that are in effect, or is a characteristic/feature of the universe (or of all known reality). This theory deals with what life "as it is". Also, if you meant to say "Universal Morality", then Utilitarianism is in that category, since it is a theory that suggests that utilitarianism is a universal morality. But universalism tells us nothing about what we "ought to do".

Yes, something equivalent to how an Existential Quantifier in predicate calculus behaves when it quantifies up to the limit of the universe of discourse. For example, the variable x remains true even when x is true up to the maximum value. At least one thing in the universe of discourse is the case remains true even when everything in the universe of discourse is actually the case. Yes, Utilitarianism does behave in a similar way. Universalism (ignoring their Act or Rule modes) behave like a Universal Quantifier in predicate calculus; this is also true even when there is only one thing in the Universal set or the universe of discourse. The only different is that the greater good must be such that everyone in a given population ALWAYS benefits from any action deemed universal. With Universalim, the standard assumption (at least as far as I am concerned) is that there should never be any remainder. Hence, quantitatively and logically, I am suggesting that:

HOW THE UTIILITARIAN PRINCIPLE BEHAVES IS MORE REFLECTIVE OF HOW THE WORLD REALLY IS.

Universalism, as I persoanlly understand it is as I have numerously defined it -- an action or rule that benefits everyone every of the time. There is no variant of any sort. Even if we thought universalism to be difficult to achieve, I am suggesting (and think most true universalists do) that we ought to work towards achieving it. This has nothing to do with how much you, me, or anyone esle know about utilitarianism. It just my own view.

I read this earlier post. Utilitarians would ONLY say that it is morally ok to increase the number of people learning differential equations or moral rules IF it increases the overall happiness or good in the world. Utilitarians would not agree to increasing the number of people learning differential equations or moral rules UNLESS it promotes goodness.

Well, they ought to agree instead of trying to sell Utilitarianism as Universalism.

Under those "facts", utilitarians would defend democracy as a system to use, because it brings more employment. It would NOT defend its false promises.

Universalists like myself want Full employment and full employment alone. I have asked this before: since when in the entire human history or since the advent of democracy has the human race experienced a single moment of full employment? Well, with regards to unemployment and democratic/capitalist society, this is what Russ said above:

russ_watters said:
I said nothing about a relationship between how difficult something is to learn and how moral it is. I don't buy that relationship at all. Most of the principles are so simple a 4 year old understands them just fine (then consciously chooses not to follow them). Democracy most certainly does not promise "full employment." Quite the contrary, democracy (capitalism) requires about 3-4% unemployment for the law of supply and demand to function. And that has nothing at all to do with learning morality. That bears no relationship whatsoever to what I said.

If Russ is right that you need '3-4% unemployment for the law of supply and demand to function' in a democratic/capitalist system, this raises a very fundamental question as to the exact moral worth of such a system. The person who invented the system should bear fully the moral conscience of that society. This is because the universalists would argue that a system that permits 3-4% unmployment from outset to operate at any given time of enumeration is neither honest nor universal in scope. Well, I leave that for others to judge for themselves.
-----------------------
THINK NATURE...STAY GREEN! ABOVE ALL, NEVER HARM OR DESTROY THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT CREATE! MAY THE BOOK OF NATURE SERVE YOU WELL AND BRING YOU ALL THAT IS GOOD!
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Philocrat said:
I am not in anyway denying you or anyone esle the opportunity not to know and understand any of the two moral concepts, Utilitarianism or Universalism, in the ways that you were taught or you do. Ofcourse, you may very well know and understand them the way you do. I am merely explaining them in my own way, at least as I understand them.
Then you are merely stating a theory that has no relation to Utilitarianism. If you cannot even speak of Utilitarianism as it was defined as, then you are simply misinterpreting the word, and deceiving the people around you.


Well, I am suggesting that it lies within the scope of 'the world as it is' because, as I have personally observed, people tend to apply the concept in real life situations in a manner that falls short of being fully universal in scope. As I have pointed it out in many of my postings elsewhere, we are all guilty of applying this utilitarian principle in our everyday lives in a non-universal way. Even if you knew this any better than I do, you would have a marathon task convincing me otherwise.
What kind of thinking is that? Just because there is a tendency to use utilitarian principles, does not validate its truthfulness. Because people tend to use many principles from other systems as well! Some of them contradictory to utilitarianism!

Infact, before you even start any debate with me on this, I would suggest you spend a little time and read around my postings and see how I personsonally applied the two concepts in different instances. I deliberately avoided the apparent distinction between ACT UTILITARIANISM and RULE UTILITARIANISM because of some spooky logico-metaphysical discrepances that I have personally identified.
If you don't want to be constantly misinterpreted, use a different name for your definitions of YOUR system.

HOW THE UTIILITARIAN PRINCIPLE BEHAVES IS MORE REFLECTIVE OF HOW THE WORLD REALLY IS.
Principles don't "behave" in anyway. It is a principle, it does not act.

Universalism, as I persoanlly understand it is as I have numerously defined it -- an action or rule that benefits everyone every of the time. There is no variant of any sort. Even if we thought universalism to be difficult to achieve, I am suggesting (and think most true universalists do) that we ought to work towards achieving it. This has nothing to do with how much you, me, or anyone esle know about utilitarianism. It just my own view.
Then either you have a wrong understanding of Universalism OR if you don't want to be misinterpreted and people to be deceived by your self-chosen definitions, use your own name for YOUR system. Universalists are those that believe that certain things exist or is a feature of the entire universe. Universalism as the real english word, has nothing to do with what you just said!


Universalists like myself want Full employment and full employment alone. I have asked this before: since when in the entire human history or since the advent of democracy has the human race experienced a single moment of full employment?
1. Universalists, as they are actually defined, would not be solely aimed at getting full employment.
2. No organization, I have heard of, has ever wanted specifically to have full employment.
3. Democracies have NEVER had full employment.
4. In fact, the system that would have been closest to full employment was COMMUNISM.
 
  • #29
THINK NATURE...STAY GREEN! ABOVE ALL, NEVER HARM OR DESTROY THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT CREATE! MAY THE BOOK OF NATURE SERVE YOU WELL AND BRING YOU ALL THAT IS GOOD!

Can you create viruses and bacteria?I highly doubt it. Because your body is destroying them at the moment...

I personally can't create vegetables (only grow them, just like growing animals). Does that mean that I shouldn't eat vegetables?
 
Last edited:
  • #30
GeD said:
THINK NATURE...STAY GREEN! ABOVE ALL, NEVER HARM OR DESTROY THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT CREATE! MAY THE BOOK OF NATURE SERVE YOU WELL AND BRING YOU ALL THAT IS GOOD!

Can you create viruses and bacteria?I highly doubt it. Because your body is destroying them at the moment...

I personally can't create vegetables (only grow them, just like growing animals). Does that mean that I shouldn't eat vegetables?

Yes, admittedly, the message "ABOVE ALL, NEVER HARM OR DESTROY THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT CREATE!" is somewhat vague. But that you respond to my motto suggests that you do undertand what I am talking about...perhaps most people who care very much about our natural environment and life in general probably do understand it too.

On the issue of my trying to confuse people with those moral terms, since when have you suddenly become their spokeperson? I have responded to many people's comments and applied those terms in the clearest possible way, and none of them came back crying to me about being confused. You respond as if you are trying to push your own baggage down other people's throats. Just give them a chance to make their cases and I will respond as I always do. If you want to define Utitilitarianism and Universalism as you claim to have been accademically defined, then start a different thread, and I will come on it and expose several metaphyical, logical and epistemological blunders that I have uncovererd. I guess that is fair enough.

Thanks for the clearing your throat, anyway!
 
Last edited:
  • #31
GeD said:
Can you create viruses and bacteria?I highly doubt it. Because your body is destroying them at the moment...

Well, on this, I think you should give scientists a chance (and there are hundreds of them on this PF) to make their cases and judgements about this. From the very little that I know about this I think science is still in the process of classifying them and stating which class of viruses and bactarias are good or bad. Even if we claim to have done this already, can we really say how many of these classes of bacterias are harmful to humans?

On the issue of our body destroying these viruses and bacterias, well, at least one scientific assumption is that by balance of probability, nature is selectively doing so (destroying only the bad ones, if any), and doing so pretty good well at its own pace. And also that when we use drugs and vacines, we are in some way assisting nature in the process. Whether these assumptions are correct or not, those are (and should be) the standard scientific assumptions, anyway.

On a whole, perhaps it is a good idea for us to suspend judgements until this scientific classification propcess is complete. Or if the process is complete already, then let the science community table their findings for public scrutiny.

And with regards to our natural environment, when we cut down trees, fish, hunt, and pump dangerous gases into the atmosphere, are we doing so SELECTIVELY? Or are we BLINDLY acting in all these ways? When we do all these things, do we ask such questions as:

1) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-FISHING?

2) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-HUNTING?

3) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-DEFORESTATION?

4) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-POLLUTION?


Ultimately, do we act in any of these ways in MODERATION?
 
Last edited:
  • #32
If you want to define Utitilitarianism and Universalism as you claim to have been accademically defined, then start a different thread, and I will come on it and expose several metaphyical, logical and epistemological blunders that I have uncovererd. I guess that is fair enough.

Thanks for the clearing your throat, anyway!
Definitions aren't the problem of universalism and utilitarianism. Your "finds" of metaphysical, logical and epistemological blunders in either universalism or utilitarianism doesn't change the definition of the systems or ideas that they represent. Also, stating that certain ideas are true without actually proving it is just foolish (those obvious blunders are also not popularly held, since most people can actually pick up a book and understand the definition of those terms without making their own definitions of the same word).

Well, on this, I think you should give scientists a chance (and there are hundreds of them on this PF) to make their cases and judgements about this. From the very little that I know about this I think science is still in the process of classifying them and stating which class of viruses and bactarias are good or bad. Even if we claim to have done this already, can we really say how many of these classes of bacterias are harmful to humans?
? I am amazed with your skill to rationalize, muddle up and ultimately circumvent the actual issue being presented against you. What does the classification of viruses or bacteria have to do with the fact that your doctrine is clearly flawed - just because we cannot create something, does not mean that WE SHOULD NOT harm or destroy them. Even vegetarians will complain against you - to them, you shouldn't destroy animals even if you can create them. However, you seem to have your own definitions of what is right, and exclude any sort of logical thought to permeate such created definitions.

So how about giving the scientists a chance to create animals. Then would it be ok to eat animals?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
And with regards to our natural environment, when we cut down trees, fish, hunt, and pump dangerous gases into the atmosphere, are we doing so SELECTIVELY? Or are we BLINDLY acting in all these ways? When we do all these things, do we ask such questions as:

1) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-FISHING?

2) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-HUNTING?

3) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-DEFORESTATION?

4) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-POLLUTION?

Ultimately, do we act in any of these ways in MODERATION?
Why is this completely different idea in the same post as the talks about the need for scientific study? What relevance do these questions even have to the ENTIRE THREAD??
 
Last edited:
  • #34
GeD said:
Definitions aren't the problem of universalism and utilitarianism. Your "finds" of metaphysical, logical and epistemological blunders in either universalism or utilitarianism doesn't change the definition of the systems or ideas that they represent. Also, stating that certain ideas are true without actually proving it is just foolish (those obvious blunders are also not popularly held, since most people can actually pick up a book and understand the definition of those terms without making their own definitions of the same word).

? I am amazed with your skill to rationalize, muddle up and ultimately circumvent the actual issue being presented against you. What does the classification of viruses or bacteria have to do with the fact that your doctrine is clearly flawed - just because we cannot create something, does not mean that WE SHOULD NOT harm or destroy them. Even vegetarians will complain against you - to them, you shouldn't destroy animals even if you can create them. However, you seem to have your own definitions of what is right, and exclude any sort of logical thought to permeate such created definitions.

So how about giving the scientists a chance to create animals. Then would it be ok to eat animals?

You came on this thread without making any attempt to answer the question that I asked which is whether morality can be taught (or even created if we found natural limitations in the human ability to learn). Instead you jump on my motto which I only used to promote my own belief. If you feel so worked up about my motto, just complain to the PF administrators. Let them be the judge and kick me out if they find it appropriate to do so. I have no problem with that. I am merely airing my opinion and I intend to use every avenue possible to promote what I believe about the safety of our natural environment. I think that what my motto means which I think most smart and clever people would very easily pick up and comprehend is:

KEEP OUR NATURAL WORLD SAFE BY THINKING AND ACTING WISELY AND, AS SOME PEOPLE USUALLY SAY, IN MODERATION WITHOUT GOING ON A RAMPAGE AND KILLING SPREE.

We do not have to agree for this to be what I meant or originally implied.

On the issue of classifying bacterias and viruses that you brought up, surely you would not be implying that all classes of viruses and bacterias that are known and unknown to man are bad ones such that you must go on a rampage and destruction of everyone of them. Are you? I know a few scientists on a personal level and I do not think every scientist there is would want to possesses your state of mind so as to want to wipe out every virus and bacteria without due care which he or she owes to the rest of humanity. The classification must therefore proceed on schedule. If it had not begun, it should start now as that is a very sensible thing to do to avoid mistakenly destroying bacterias or viruses that may be useful to the humans. Do we know if this is the case? My message is crsytal clear:

JUST BE CAREFULL ...THINK BEFORE YOU DESTROY ANYTHING(ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE THE POWER NEITHER TO CREATE NOR TO REPLACE IT), INCASE YOU ENDANGER THE REST OF HUMANITY IN THE PROCESS! IN OTHER WORDS, THINK OF HOW YOUR ACTION MAY AFFECT THE REST OF EVERYTHING ARROUND YOU. DON'T JUST NAIVELY AND BLINDLY ACT!

You questioned how good my reasoning is...how good is yours? Just stand in front of the mirror and check if you have a mountain in your eye before you ask someone else to remove a grain of sand from theirs!

The various interpretations that I have given the two moral terms or principles (Utilitarianism and Universalism) stand very firm as I have done in many places on this PF. You can deceive others as much as you like...you just can't deceive me, period. I will use them here on this PF or outside it...Just watch as the miracle unfolds!

If you want to stay on and contribute to this thread, here is the main question again:

Can morality be taught? Yes or no? Either way, explain!
 
Last edited:
  • #35
GeD said:
Why is this completely different idea in the same post as the talks about the need for scientific study? What relevance do these questions even have to the ENTIRE THREAD??

So you think...dream on!
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • STEM Educators and Teaching
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
10
Views
4K
Back
Top