Prescriptive Vs Descriptive and Morality

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive morality, exploring whether universal moral principles exist independently of cultural or religious contexts. Participants examine the implications of these concepts in relation to ethics, philosophy, and their applicability in real-world scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that morality is inherently prescriptive, contrasting it with the descriptive nature of physics, suggesting that moral rules cannot be universally observed.
  • Others propose that the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive morality may not be absolute, raising questions about the nature of moral statements and their interpretations.
  • One participant questions whether universal moral codes can exist without religious influence, suggesting that morality is a philosophical issue rather than a scientific one.
  • Definitions of prescriptive and descriptive morality are discussed, with some participants emphasizing the difference between how morals are applied in practice versus how they should be applied theoretically.
  • There is a suggestion that moral evaluations may be complex due to the subjective nature of values, which are necessary for assessing moral codes.
  • Some participants explore the idea that hypotheses in science may share similarities with prescriptive morality, as both involve predictions about how things should work.
  • One viewpoint suggests that a scientific approach to ethics could yield prescriptive rules based on historical evidence and inductive reasoning.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the nature of morality, with no consensus reached on whether prescriptive and descriptive morality can be clearly distinguished or if universal moral principles can exist independently of cultural contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining morality and the challenges in applying prescriptive rules in real-world scenarios. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about the nature of values and the role of subjective versus objective perspectives in moral reasoning.

  • #31
Originally posted by Royce
Your right, Dan. I did misread your post or misunderstood what you were saying. Having reread it, I still question it feeling good is enough to make something morally right. I can think of a number of experiences in our societythat are deemed morally right and do not feel good before during or after only necessary. I can also think of a number of experiences that may feel good but are morally bad in our society.

I think Dan's point is more that this pleasure/pain dichotomy can be viewed as the basis of morality. This does not entail that every moral action is accompanied by a good or bad feeling, only that its raison d'etre is ultimately grounded in the experience of pleasure and pain, and the associated good and bad. For instance, why is it moral to carry out a necessary action? Well, why is anything necessary in the first place? Because it helps perpetuate life. Why should we perpetuate life? Because life is good. Why is life good? And so we've come back to the association of goodness with pleasure. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of why we would view life as 'good' if we did not have some kind of emotional or aesthetic appreciation for it on some level.

The same line of reasoning goes for pleasurable experiences that are deemed morally bad; the only reason these activities are frowned upon is because they are also associated in some way with pain or badness, and society has decided that the bad components outweigh the good.

Stop and think about it. If we are morale people why should doing morally right make us feel anything at all. We would be doing only that which is natural or that which is part of our nature to do anyway.

This isn't a comment on your point as much as your logic. Isn't an artist just doing that which is natural to him or is part of his nature to do when he is engaged in the creative process? And isn't the creative process a very emotional one, indeed, isn't it driven by emotion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Whether my fault or yours, Royce, I still don't think that you're getting what I'm meaning to say. It's not that something making you feel good is the basis for calling it moral, but rather that the effects of actions on pain/pleasure for all involved are the criteria upon which to judge moral actions.

Hypnagogue basically got it, although I, myself, didn't say anything about life itself being good.
 

Similar threads

What Should Be the Nature and Scope of Human Morality?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
Roasted babies and fallacious moral arithmetics
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
Moral Realism preferable to both Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
Can Morality Exist Without Belief in God?
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
8K
Should we be equally tolerant of all ethical and moral precepts?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
Is mathematics invented or discovered?
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
Moral Observation Sentences: Can Ethics be Modeled on Science?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
High School Basic thermal energy transfer physics: Insulation value in open airways vs sealed airways
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
652
Views on morality and individuals versus group
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
7K