What Determines the Morality of an Action?

[FZ+]

Maybe I didn't phrase things correctly. My examples do not prove the existence of God. I just wanted to take the two positions as I saw them to their logical conclusion, and look at the results. If you hold to either, you must also accept that mutually exclusive beliefs are true at the same time, even so far as to say that the Holocaust was right for some people and wrong for others.

Exactly. That is the essence of it. Morality, if prescriptive, is relative. And because through history, morality has been based on the relative views of each population, your examples suggest that this sort of morality is most used in the world, and hence perhaps most likely to be correct.

I would say that people kill each other, and depending on the side they are perceived as heroes or villains. I can believe as much as I want to that I'm on vacation in the Bahamas, but that doesn't change anything.

I hold that there is nothing beyond the limits of perception, for such concepts would be useless - how would you judge, for example, if a certain individual's perception is true, or just a false perception, but to use your own flawed perception? IMHO, all consistent moral systems are equally valid, and equally invalid. But you still reserve the right to your individual sense, and the right to act on it.

Where do you draw the line between 'religion' and other truth?

I draw the line here by putting religion as that which is neccessarily a priori, and impossible to prove or disprove. If Jesus did rise from the dead - (though many apologetics seek to make this an essentially unprovable claim), it tells us Jesus can rise from the dead as a matter of fact. The interpretation of it as a possibility of divine forgiveness is one that is dependent on perception, and irrational feeling. As an example, even if Jesus was to offer you eternal paradise in return for obedience, there is always the moral choice of whether it is worth it.

 

[Another God]

I still finding it a little shocking how much trouble people have grasping the issue of 'right and wrong'. It seems so glaringly obvious to me now that I feel like everyone should get it. but the fact seems to be that the vast majority really don't.

This is comforting in at least one regard though: It gives me scope for writting that book one day.

 

[jammieg]

An action is right if it is the action that leads to the greater good compared to all other actions designed to solve a problem, of course finding the most right action is a big headache so it's easier to go along with whatever everyone else does and there is no clear right or wrong in that there is various wrong in everything and degrees of right in everything. Or if you don't want that confusion follow the golden rule, but this is all my own personal dilemma with it.

And the "greater good" I agree with Dan that it's probably a genetic hardwiring saying that getting killed is bad and probably killing others for no good reason is bad, and having lots of pleasure and stimulation is good.
...and well basically if we all thoroughly enjoyed killing each other no one would be around to argue about it.

What is right is better for me:
Society's majority typically determine what is moral or not and it doesn't really seem to matter what is really right or wrong but depends on which side of the fence one is on and so a lot of mistakes are made here, I agree with that, and the reason is because this is what has happened over and over throughout history, everyone is out for what they can get although most of us learn early to have empathy, and all that's needed to justify taking from others is for enough people to be convinced that they take unfairly from us in some way as the Jews were dominating the business industry of Germany, and when enough people think something is true then for practical purposes it is. Hate arises out of a perceived vulnerability, wether real or imagined, and anything can be viewed as a possible enemy out of one's control, or likewise as a challenge to circumvent.

Hitler's rage:
All the noble people under Hitler's rule would stand up for what is right and be put down by a bullet to be replaced by someone who didn't care but for themselves, or someone too smart or too afraid to do anything about it under a large pyramid of power in which the misinformed soldier at the bottom was told only what they needed to know to pull the trigger and be a hero or be executed and be a traitor or sympathizer and never ever remembered for anything but disgrace. If Nazi Germany had won then they would all be remembered as heroes with many statues and there would be little doubt that they did the necessary more moral thing for the time by uniting the world under one rule, we would probably even have a pledge of allegiance to Nazism. What would happen if a soldier could leave their army at any time without penalty if they didn't believe in what they were fighting for? Would they have stayed under Hitler's army or in Vietnam?


Where it may start:
"recognizing problem children instead of processing them through the system over and over again until they do something really horrible."

I agree with that as the likely source of the problem and guess that typically it's problem children raised by troubled adults or one adult or less intensely by ordinary adults and they seem to have to carry throughout their lives a kind of deep rebelliousness and looking for something to attack like a fearless and ferocious good hunter they are, yet there is little left to hunt in this modern day world on any base level but they can't be told what to do also.
Given they have no fear of the negative, less stimulation is a better deterent, but there is a million year old child raising handbook working against that understanding...actually positive stimulation and explaining things would probably be better.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Pseudonym
Dan, would it be OK for me to hurt someone, then, as long as it makes me feel good? If nothing I do has lasting consequences, is my own pleasure all that I am living for?

Many people have misunderstood my using feelings as the basis for morality. I do not mean that following your feelings is the right course of action. I never said any such thing. All I'm saying is that the existence of feelings it the basis. If all was rocks, then the idea of morality would not apply. There could be no harm done.

Who said that nothing you do has lasting consequences? Certainly not I. Everything has consequences that last as long as there are different things to interact in the same system as your action took place.

You seem to be arguing for a system of morals that is based on emotions. Pleasure and displeasure are not unchanging or even objective, as you say. They are the results of various competing emotions, and vary from person to person and change over time. A masochist might take a kind of pleasure in physically hurting himself.

The fact that different people feel pleasure and displeasure it response to different stimuli does not refute my argument. If you wanted to take that "refutation" to its logical extension, then nothing could ever be wrong. For example, take killing: What could kill one person would not kill another person. Therefore killing can't be wrong because it depends on the person (you might call it subjective).

But that argument does not stand. The fact that different stimuli cause pleasure or displeasure in different people just add to the conditions of the situation and change the criteria for what is right and wrong.

In the case of maschism, it seems the the person gains more pleasure than displeasure out of the action. All the incident really points to is that one action can cause both pleasure and displeasure (or prevent pleasure or displeasure). That fact is really the one fact that causes moral dilemmas. But just because things can be hard to figure out does not mean that there are not wrong or right actions.

 

[p-brane]

If an action is wrong it is made right by the mechanics of the physics of this universe. Judging every action is tedious. The police and the lawmakers have a tough job with that. There are tons of records of what consitutes right and wrong among people but I have a feeling they only scratch the surface of the physics involved.

I'm not saying anything new or religious or spiritual. Its just the way things are observed to work. If you take the time to notice. We tend to mimic the actions in the universe. Life, for instance, is a process of growth and abundance. This is deemed correct and "right" because it is nature's process. Sure there is death and destruction in life but the overall outcome is a forward motion that promotes life as a growth phenomenon. When actions and events fly in the face of that particular process of the universe, it just gets better at growth and the evolutionary process.

As Newton said, each action creates an equal and opposite reaction. As the Wiccan say, each action is reflected x 10 in response to the actor. There are many such wisdoms that pertain to right and wrong. However, left in the hands of all creation, minus all the judgements -its all good, conclusively speaking.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane

As Newton said, each action creates an equal and opposite reaction. As the Wiccan say, each action is reflected x 10 in response to the actor. There are many such wisdoms that pertain to right and wrong. However, left in the hands of all creation, minus all the judgements -its all good, conclusively speaking.

Those two things--Newton's statement and the Wiccan one--contradict each other.

Also, who ever said that "nature" is right or something to idolize?
I don't think that "it's all good". There's so much suffering in the world...suffering that you and I cannot even beging to imagine.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Those two things--Newton's statement and the Wiccan one--contradict each other.

Also, who ever said that "nature" is right or something to idolize?
I don't think that "it's all good". There's so much suffering in the world...suffering that you and I cannot even beging to imagine.

Nature is right in that it has offered the means by which we are able to suffer, not suffer or/and experience a billion other conditions aside from suffering.

The reason I use Newton and the Wiccan's statements is to show the variations of views involved when it comes to judging and studying actions in general.

What makes nature right? My own decision on the matter. How you veiw nature is your business. However, like I said, you wouldn't have an opinion on the matter without relying on Nature. In my opinion, she deserves some credit in this regard.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Hopefully you won't take this as being abrasive, but nature isn't a she. Nature isn't really anything other than our description of what has happened--it is a set of observations of the way things have been going on for a long time. Nature is not an entity to revere or hate. It is just a human description. Let us not be blinded out of reverence for it. Let us be impartial observers of specific occurences that we are dealing with at the time.

It is true that I would not be hear if it wasn't for nature (i.e., what has happened up to this point), but it is also true that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened either. One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering.

My point is not to say that nature is bad, but rather that the idea of nature is irrelevant.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Hopefully you won't take this as being abrasive, but nature isn't a she. Nature isn't really anything other than our description of what has happened--it is a set of observations of the way things have been going on for a long time. Nature is not an entity to revere or hate. It is just a human description. Let us not be blinded out of reverence for it. Let us be impartial observers of specific occurences that we are dealing with at the time.

It is true that I would not be hear if it wasn't for nature (i.e., what has happened up to this point), but it is also true that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened either. One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering.

My point is not to say that nature is bad, but rather that the idea of nature is irrelevant.

Your "prejudice" concerning nature is duely noted and just as duely discarded. Not because it is abrasive but because it doesn't jive, in any way whatsoever, with my own conclusions on the subject.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Maybe if you explain to me what my prejudice is and why it's wrong, I will discard it.

BTW, I used to sometimes use "natural" as a basis for declaring something wrong, for example, I used to vehemently hate homosexuality, I declared that it was "sickening" because it wasn't "natural". However, I've been enlightened since then.

 

[MacTech]

what makes an action "right"?

Simple answer is.. of course.. if Say it is right.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Maybe if you explain to me what my prejudice is and why it's wrong, I will discard it.

BTW, I used to sometimes use "natural" as a basis for declaring something wrong, for example, I used to vehemently hate homosexuality, I declared that it was "sickening" because it wasn't "natural". However, I've been enlightened since then.

I didn't say your prejudice is wrong. I said it doesn't jibe with my own.

A Philips screwdriver is no more wrong than a Robertson screwdriver, 'til you happen upon a screw that requires a flathead screwdriver. Then both the philips and the robertson are wrong.

Someone could say its wrong to have so many different types of screws and screwdrivers. But its right for the makers of this variety because they are able to sell their different screws and their different screwdrivers that match, much to the mechanics shigrin. Then, there are mechanics and carpenters who prefer one over another. That's when one persons preference is right for that person and so on.

One's gender-specific sexual orientation is a similar kettle of fish.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Maybe if you explain to me what my prejudice is

"One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering."

(Dissident Dan)

One could say its human nature to throw rice at a wedding.

Thanks to nature, one could say or do anything "one" feels like saying or doing.

But, as nature would have it, what one does or says will inevitably bring about a consequence that is equal to, or greater than, one's initial and/or repeated action.

That's just the way it is. There's no escaping it. So watch your step. The last one's a doozy.

 

[Dissident Dan]

One could say that. My point was not to say that nature is bad, but that the idea of nature really can apply to anything and therefore be used to justify anything, which makes the idea of nature irrelevant.

How does my thought make me prejudiced? Maybe you need to be a little more explicit in explaining to me.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
One could say that. My point was not to say that nature is bad, but that the idea of nature really can apply to anything and therefore be used to justify anything, which makes the idea of nature irrelevant.

In what way is nature irrelevant if it can be used to justify everything? My prejudice is to find nature relevant in both relativistic and quantum settings. It could be viewed as a major component of the unification theory. It supercedes quantum gravity in that respect. But I'm off topci.

Originally posted by Dissident Dan How does my thought make me prejudiced? Maybe you need to be a little more explicit in explaining to me. [/B]

"One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering." (DD)

You have focused on suffering. Your prejudice = misery, depression, the negative.

"One could say its human nature to throw rice at a wedding." (PB)


I have focused on rice. My prejudice: Saki, plentitude, food, weddings and so on.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane
"One could say that it is "human nature" to cause suffering." (DD)

You have focused on suffering. Your prejudice = misery, depression, the negative.

"One could say its human nature to throw rice at a wedding." (PB)


I have focused on rice. My prejudice: Saki, plentitude, food, weddings and so on.

Ah, it appears that we have a misunderstanding. As I stated, I am not trying to say that nature is bad, I was just trying to point out that you have both sides of the coin. People can have a tendency to put an ideal of "nature" up on a pedastal. You have the good (green, florwering things, families caring for each other, etc.), but, also, many horrible things are a part of nature. My point in focusing on suffering was to say point that out in the hopes that people would take a more objective view of whatever it is that they consider "nature".

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Ah, it appears that we have a misunderstanding. As I stated, I am not trying to say that nature is bad, I was just trying to point out that you have both sides of the coin. People can have a tendency to put an ideal of "nature" up on a pedastal. You have the good (green, florwering things, families caring for each other, etc.), but, also, many horrible things are a part of nature. My point in focusing on suffering was to say point that out in the hopes that people would take a more objective view of whatever it is that they consider "nature".

Right, misunderstanding. Objectively, and in accordance with this thread, there is no right or wrong.

By my own prejudicial determination, its alright.

 

[MushinMunen]

I think that the reason that this question may be difficult is because every individual and every state, nation, and continent on which they live has a different definition of what is "right", when there really is no definition for "right" or "correct" or "moral". That will never be accepted as true but it is a fact. Only in this world could a question like that emerge. If you didn't think "right & wrong" (which is difficult to imagine for some because that's the way the world works) there would never be any second guessing and there would never be any accidents. There would also be no testing It is my opinion that "right & wrong" is uneccessary and everything would be much better without it. An entire race of philosophers...sounds lovely doesn't it? Hehe.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane
Right, misunderstanding. Objectively, and in accordance with this thread, there is no right or wrong.

By my own prejudicial determination, its alright.

Now, that's where I completely disagree with you. There are objectively unethical actions. The mere existence of experience mandates this.

I must confess that I am confounded by the argument that because people disagree on what is right and what is wrong, that they must not exist. According to that reasoning, nothing can exist, because there is always someone to disagree with you on any issue. According that reasoning, there can be no origin of man, because people disagree on that. etc. ad inifinitum

 

[FZ+]

I must confess that I am confounded by the argument that because people disagree on what is right and what is wrong, that they must not exist.

This needs a correction - they must not exist, AND be apparent. History suggests that moral principles are essentially inherited from ones society, and as each member of the society can declare their own to be natural absolute, it does not make sense that there is a single, distinguishible concept of good out there. And if there has been found no way to choose between true morals and false morals, then the idea of absolute morality is useless. Things can exist, and theories can be classified as good or not because we have axiomatically assumed methods for discriminating between them. In morality, we lack that.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Doesn't any respectable moral theory provide axioms?

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Now, that's where I completely disagree with you. There are objectively unethical actions. The mere existence of experience mandates this.

So, are you suggesting that the existence of experience is unethical?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, the idea of ethicality applies to the actions of a conscious creature. I would say that if a conscious creature created our world, then that creature's action of creating the world was unethical.

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, the idea of ethicality applies to the actions of a conscious creature. I would say that if a conscious creature created our world, then that creature's action of creating the world was unethical.

Why would you would say that, Dissident Dan, or is your name a clue the answer here?

(Just in case you use the word in an essay; its "ethicacy" not "ethicality".)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, I appreciate any help, but actually, both webster.com and dictionary.com list "ethicality" as a word, but not "ethicacy".

You can take my name as an indication not of dissidence for dissidence's sake, but a complete willingness to discard anything conventional or sacred if a reason arises.
------------------------------------------------

FZ+,

I have proposed a basis for morality. How that actually plays out can get complicated. The basic axiom is "suffering is bad", and "peasure is good". (Which does not contradict the fact that sometimes suffering can cause pleasure, and vice-versa.) Apply that how you will.

 

[FZ+]

Sounds somewhat utilitarian. The whole difficulty then is to classify pleasure and suffering - how much pleasure is acceptable for how much suffering? How can we test a theory of such classification? This, I think, is where the subjective fuzziness comes in.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I agree. I suppose that you could make the rule of "cause no displeasure to others that is obviously beyond what they would otherwise experience." <- just something I came up with on the spur of the moment

 

[p-brane]

Ethical Universe (copyright 2004/2005)

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, I appreciate any help, but actually, both webster.com and dictionary.com list "ethicality" as a word, but not "ethicacy".

You can take my name as an indication not of dissidence for dissidence's sake, but a complete willingness to discard anything conventional or sacred if a reason arises.

[/i]

Conversely, I appreciate your dissidence concerning the matter revolving around of the words "ethicacy" and "ethicality" as they do appear to be unrelated.

I am inquiring primarily with regards to your relative disidence against the idea of one "living creature" deciding the ethics that govern the universe.

If that sort of order were to be a proven a truth that determined one's life, would you maintain a dissonance relative to its will?

 

[p-brane]

Originally posted by FZ+
Sounds somewhat utilitarian. The whole difficulty then is to classify pleasure and suffering - how much pleasure is acceptable for how much suffering? How can we test a theory of such classification? This, I think, is where the subjective fuzziness comes in.

Its all purely subjective. To each their own and all that. Many many people know nothing but suffering. It has become a way of life that is passed on to suicide bombers and militants alike.

If they didn't suffer in some way every day they'd think something was wrong.

Similarily, there are those who would think things were amiss if they didn't get to have a warm bath or eat a chocolate bar every day.

For those who are conditioned to suffering, the bath and the bar would signify suffering.

The terror of a tank in the neighborhood would be welcome since it suggests they're getting their daily dose of suffering.

Go figure.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by p-brane
Its all purely subjective. To each their own and all that. Many many people know nothing but suffering.
Go figure.

Well, if you believe in "to each their own", what if someone getting his "own" interferes with another someone getting his "own"?