Because theorists in psychology and anthropology often need to design questionnaires and other sorts of probes of the attitudes of subjects, they might be expected to be more sensitive to the need for a reasonably clear means of separating moral judgments from other sorts of judgments.
After all, examining the specifically moral judgments of individuals is one of the most direct means of determining what the moral code of a person or group might be. The failure to offer an operational definition of morality or moral judgment may help explain the widespread but dubious assumption in contemporary anthropology, noted by James Laidlaw , that altruism is the essential and irreducible core of ethics.
This state of affairs leads Laidlaw to ask the crucial question:. This is, to a very close approximation, a request for the definition of morality in the descriptive sense. This is a move away from the Durkheimian paradigm, and includes the study of self-development, virtues, habits, and the role of explicit deliberation when moral breakdowns occur. Curry notes that rules related to kinship, mutualism, exchange, and various forms of conflict resolution appear in virtually all societies.
And he argues that many of them have precursors in animal behavior, and can be explained by appeal to his central hypothesis of morality as a solution to problems of cooperation and conflict resolution. He also notes that philosophers, from Aristotle through Hume, Russell, and Rawls, all took cooperation and conflict resolution to be central ideas in understanding morality.
Turning from anthropology to psychology, one significant topic of investigation is the existence and nature of a distinction between the moral and the conventional.
More specifically, the distinction at issue is between a acts that are judged wrong only because of a contingent convention or because they go against the dictates of some relevant authority, and b those that are judged to be wrong quite independently of these things, that have a seriousness to them, and that are justified by appeal to the notions of harm, rights, or justice.
Those who accept this distinction are implicitly offering a definition of morality in the descriptive sense. Not everyone does accept the distinction, however. Edouard Machery and Ron Mallon for example, are suspicious of the idea that authority-independence, universality, justification by appeal to harm, justice, or rights, and seriousness form a cluster found together with sufficient regularity to be used to set moral norms apart from other norms.
Kelly et al. The psychologist Kurt Gray might be seen as offering an account of moral judgment that would allow us to determine the morality of an individual or group. He and his co-authors suggest that. This claim, while quite strong, is nevertheless not as implausibly strong as it might seem, since the thesis is directly concerned with the template we use when thinking about moral matters; it is not directly concerned with the nature of morality itself.
But that does not mean that an animal must have these features to count as a dog, or even that we believe this. Given the way that Gray et al. Moreover, the link between immoral behavior and suffering to which they appeal in defending their general view is sometimes so indirect as to undermine its significance.
In a similar stretch, they account for judgments that promiscuity is wrong by gesturing at the suffering involved in sexually transmitted diseases Another position in cognitive psychology that has relevance for the definition of morality in the descriptive sense takes moral judgment to be a natural kind: the product of an innate moral grammar Mikhail One piece of evidence that there is such a grammar is to be found in the relative universality of certain moral concepts in human cultures: concepts such as obligation, permission, and prohibition.
In evolutionary biology, morality is sometimes simply equated with fairness Baumard et al. But it is also sometimes identified by reference to an evolved capacity to make a certain sort of judgment and perhaps also to signal that one has made it Hauser Many moral skeptics would reject the claim that there are any universal ethical truths, where the ethical is a broader category than the moral.
But another interesting class of moral skeptics includes those who think that we should only abandon the narrower category of the moral—partly because of the notion of a code that is central to that category. These moral skeptics hold that we should do our ethical theorizing in terms of the good life, or the virtues.
Elizabeth Anscombe gave expression to this kind of view, which also finds echoes in the work of Bernard Williams On the other hand, some virtue theorists might take perfect rationality to entail virtue, and might understand morality to be something like the code that such a person would implicitly endorse by acting in virtuous ways.
In that case, even a virtue theorist might count as a moral realist in the sense above. But this appearance is deceptive. Mill himself explicitly defines morality as. And the act-consequentialist J. Smart is also explicit that he is thinking of ethics as the study of how it is most rational to behave. His embrace of utilitarianism is the result of his belief that maximizing utility is always the rational thing to do.
On reflection it is not surprising that many moral theorists implicitly hold that the codes they offer would be endorsed by all rational people, at least under certain conditions. What is that to me? Definitions of morality in the normative sense—and, consequently, moral theories—differ in their accounts of rationality, and in their specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would necessarily endorse the code of conduct that therefore would count as morality.
These definitions and theories also differ in how they understand what it is to endorse a code in the relevant way. Some hold that morality applies only to those rational beings that have certain specific features of human beings: features that make it rational for them to endorse morality. These features might, for example, include fallibility and vulnerability. Other moral theories claim to put forward an account of morality that provides a guide to all rational beings, even if these beings do not have these human characteristics, e.
Among such theorists it is also common to hold that morality should never be overridden. That is, it is common to hold that no one should ever violate a moral prohibition or requirement for non-moral reasons. Though common, this view is by no means always taken as definitional.
Sidgwick despaired of showing that rationality required us to choose morality over egoism, though he certainly did not think rationality required egoism either. More explicitly, Gert held that though moral behavior is always rationally permissible , it is not always rationally required. Foot seems to have held that any reason—and therefore any rational requirement—to act morally would have to stem from a contingent commitment or an objective interest.
And she also seems to have held that sometimes neither of these sorts of reasons might be available, so that moral behavior might not be rationally required for some agents. Indeed, it is possible that morality, in the normative sense, has never been put forward by any particular society, by any group at all, or even by any individual. That is, one might claim that the guides to behavior of some societies lack so many of the essential features of morality in the normative sense, that it is incorrect to say that these societies even have a morality in a descriptive sense.
This is an extreme view, however. A more moderate position would hold that all societies have something that can be regarded as their morality, but that many of these moralities—perhaps, indeed, all of them—are defective. That is, a moral realist might hold that although these actual guides to behavior have enough of the features of normative morality to be classified as descriptive moralities, they would not be endorsed in their entirety by all moral agents.
In the theological version of natural law theories, such as that put forward by Aquinas, this is because God implanted this knowledge in the reason of all persons.
In the secular version of natural law theories, such as that put forward by Hobbes , natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. Natural law theorists also claim that morality applies to all rational persons, not only those now living, but also those who lived in the past.
In contrast to natural law theories, other moral theories do not hold quite so strong a view about the universality of knowledge of morality.
Still, many hold that morality is known to all who can legitimately be judged by it. Baier , Rawls and contractarians deny that there can be an esoteric morality: one that judges people even though they cannot know what it prohibits, requires, etc. For all of the above theorists, morality is what we can call a public system : a system of norms 1 that is knowable by all those to whom it applies and 2 that is not irrational for any of those to whom it applies to follow Gert Moral judgments of blame thus differ from legal or religious judgments of blame in that they cannot be made about persons who are legitimately ignorant of what they are required to do.
Act consequentialists seem to hold that everyone should know that they are morally required to act so as to bring about the best consequences, but even they do not seem to think judgments of moral blame are appropriate if a person is legitimately ignorant of what action would bring about the best consequences Singer Parallel views seem to be held by rule consequentialists Hooker The ideal situation for a legal system would be that it be a public system. But in any large society this is not possible.
Games are closer to being public systems and most adults playing a game know its rules, or they know that there are judges whose interpretation determines what behavior the game prohibits, requires, etc. Although a game is often a public system, its rules apply only to those playing the game.
If a person does not care enough about the game to abide by the rules, she can usually quit. Morality is the one public system that no rational person can quit. The fact that one cannot quit morality means that one can do nothing to escape being legitimately liable to sanction for violating its norms, except by ceasing to be a moral agent.
Morality applies to people simply by virtue of their being rational persons who know what morality prohibits, requires, etc. Public systems can be formal or informal. To say a public system is informal is to say that it has no authoritative judges and no decision procedure that provides a unique guide to action in all situations, or that resolves all disagreements. To say that a public system is formal is to say that it has one or both of these things Gert 9.
Professional basketball is a formal public system; all the players know that what the referees call a foul determines what is a foul. Pickup basketball is an informal public system. The existence of persistent moral disagreements shows that morality is most plausibly regarded as an informal public system.
When persistent moral disagreement is recognized, those who understand that morality is an informal public system admit that how one should act is morally unresolvable, and if some resolution is required, the political or legal system can be used to resolve it. These formal systems have the means to provide unique guides, but they do not provide the uniquely correct moral guide to the action that should be performed. An important example of a moral problem left unsettled by the informal public system of morality is whether fetuses are impartially protected by morality and so whether or under what conditions abortions are allowed.
There is continuing disagreement among fully informed moral agents about this moral question, even though the legal and political system in the United States has provided fairly clear guidelines about the conditions under which abortion is legally allowed. Despite this important and controversial issue, morality, like all informal public systems, presupposes agreement on how to act in most moral situations, e.
No one thinks it is morally justified to cheat, deceive, injure, or kill a moral agent simply in order to gain sufficient money to take a fantastic vacation. Moral philosophy also helps us question unhelpful assumptions and informs us about the ways our values connect to our descriptive beliefs, such as scientific hypotheses about human psychology. Notwithstanding all the endless debates — and some debates really have been going on for millennia — advances do occur.
Many would agree human rights constitute genuine moral progress. Moral philosophy stands as an enduring record of what we have learnt so far. Moral philosophy empowers us through its method and substance to reflect upon and talk about challenging moral issues. Studying ethics can even propel a personal journey, where we learn about ourselves and the way we think.
We might even learn that others think in different ways. Moral philosophy tends to focus on areas of disagreement. Applied ethics classes explore disputed issues such as abortion and euthanasia, rather than discussing the many issues on which we all agree. Furthermore, moral philosophy explores our reasons for being moral.
But often we can agree on the right thing to do even when we disagree on the underlying principles. The further we follow the trail of breadcrumbs into philosophical rabbit-warrens, the more morality threatens to become the domain of experts.
So, what has all of the foregoing to do with morality? Read the above comments again. I said a lot had happened since September 15, I suppose I should have said: September 11, that was the day the murderers struck in Libya.
To me, THAT has everything to do with morality. To others, I guess, not so much Friday, September 28, -- PM. Some people here are confusing failed states' politics, related to Middle Eastern politics, with a broad and objective definition and interpretation of Morality. Politics are essentially utilitarian- they are interchangeable and adaptable to the various situations they face and are faced with.
They may incorporate Moral like commandments, or theological theories that exhort Moral behavior, but the way they are being applied is terribly immoral.
Christianity's immorality is much more subtle than Islam's: that's all. And that's for two main reasons. Muslims are still in a phase where this frustration is yet to be "absorbed". And it is Unfortunately inevitable. The Second Reason is that some Islamic Koranic Concepts are controversial, within Islamic societies, and are subject to ambiguities, like the Concept of Jihad for example, some people insist on the idea that the Jihad is to kill off Western phraseology in order to get to Heaven- this is of course dangerous and the person subject to this terrible and frightening idea will be willing to commit the most terrible atrocities.
These "people" are being subject to propaganda from countries like Saudi Arabia and other Western Countries which support Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi movement-which is a terrifying proselyte fundamentalist tribe settled originally in Saudi Arabia.
Religions and Morals have nothing to do with each other- and I would even say that it is immoral to limit Morality on Religious premises, even less on political ones. Why be Moral? For these extremists, it is for them to gain Heaven, like for any other religious person who thinks Morality is based on how Religious one can be, but How to be Moral makes all the difference here..
Some people kill in the name of God-Christians and Muslims- Jews don't because they are subject to a Diaspora philosophy and rationale.
Some author once said, without God, everything will be permitted, I say, without God, nothing immoral can be legitimized. Note: I am not trying to criticize anyone in particular in this debate and I apologize in advance if my statements come off strong. It is just that I have led a life in Syria where in which I witnessed all this. And now I am living in the United States. Therefore I am trying to incorporate my personal experience as objectively and exhaustively as I can in this debate.
What if we are already in Heaven Karin, And the only reason to be moral or good Is because heaven is. Saturday, September 29, -- PM. It seems that the moral universe, like the physical one, has four dimensions: selfishness, lovingkindness, righteousness, and context.
The golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," derives its meaning from selfishness. In addition, the golden rule implies a second moral dimension, which I will call lovingkindness, though it could just as easily be called benevolence, compassion, charity, caring, or some such.
The first two dimensions create a plane on which, with the proper axioms, could be constructed a moral geometry. But, just as surveyors and cartographers encounter problems and fall into error is they assume a Euclidean plane, philosophers need a third dimension -- righteousness -- which implies empirical standards of right and wrong, and justice. Physical space would be lifeless, were it not for time. Similarly, the moral universe is meaningless without context.
What would be the moral implications of taking money from a bank vault if one were guaranteed getting away with it? Well, what is the context? My daughter once came upon wads of cash spilling out of a bag in the parking lot of a department store. Although bank bands were on the wads, she was hurrying to work, so she turned it money in at the department store.
Should she have done more? Would a slight change in the context have had any moral implications? Kudos to Karim. A voice of reason in a world of, sometimes, seeming chaos.
His musings and notions dealt with probabilities and chaos, but were written in language accessible to average, interested readers. NNT has since written at least one more book, I believe. In any case, we should all welcome clear thinkers to debates, dialogues, discussions and, yes, out-and-out arguments.
Alan, yes, I know him But, alas, this world is no longer perfect. I am not convinced that it ever was. But, as I stated: kudos to Karim. And if it does not offend too much: Allah'u'abha. I have been around some Sunday, September 30, -- PM. Michael this is your personal opinion, and I respect that. But I don't see any true relevance to the Topic Why be Moral? To me, the answer to that question should portray an authentic attitude.. Religion could, and that's just my opinion, give a certain person hope or a steady piece of mind, and that's ideally.
Unfortunately, Religion nowadays is a a tricky concepts: where in which, countries and new ideologies depend on them and legitimize their worst actions and philosophies through the Propaganda, portraying something which one cannot really object to Religion , since it is a taboo in Middle Eastern countries and other parts of the World plus it has always become a habit to commit atrocities in the name of God in these regions.
People nowadays tend to put forth Religion-driven actions regardless of their Moral value before questioning the true Morality within them. We owe our Morals to our Civism, not to our Gods.
Thank you Harold for your nice comments. I believe the book you are talking about is the Black Swan-the Unpredictable Swan. God is Mighty. When One finds One's true self One finds the true Universe.
And Once the truth is found, One can no more do wrong to any One or thing as is everything, Because it only harms One's own true self. Morality is universal self Onderfull goodness, Self preservation.
Be One. Interesting points, Karim and Harold. Of course much evil has been done in the name of religion - and in the name of science, and in the name of one or another philosophy, and in the name of nationalism, and in the name of almost anything one can imagine.
It would be a mistake to therefore say that all these things must be put aside to find morality. They are part of the history and discovery of morality, at the very least.
It all comes back to this - if our morality comes from within ourselves, however much we wish otherwise, it will always be relative, and therefore always be a matter of convenience in the end.
Now context is of course important - but given that we are rational creatures, with the ability to reason, context can very easily be used to help us rationalize. He declared this to be simply self-evident. He recognized, rightly I think, that to try to prove these things by philosophy and reason, beyond all rational objection, would be to spin around endlessly and get nowhere.
One has to have solid ground somewhere, and that ground cannot be merely the reason, philosophies, opinions, or popular will of a person or any number of people. Our democracy is ultimately founded on his insight. We may think it is "rotting," and that is possible, but then again people a hundred years ago thought the same I'll wager this "rotting" democracy will still be going on.
The bottom line remains the same: the answer to "why be moral" cannot lie simply within ourselves, either as individuals or as societies. If it does, we will drift with every passing wave. Monday, October 1, -- PM. Very interesting points Nathan, and I agree with you on certain things. Moving on to the question of Contexts- which I think is pertinent but lacks solid decisive arguments. Am I not a creature of God? Why would he want me to commit this crime".
Our moral duty is hence related to our own decisions to act morally- when I mentioned our Inner selves, I wasn't referring to the subjective perception of Morality by each person's belief - which would of course essentially annihilate Morality- since Morality has to remain objective- where in which people have to abide by it- and not vice versa, otherwise we would all be moral. Moving on to the concept of Context, I think that if we ought to consider the doxa, or the common opinion on morality a rule, and hence thinking of righteousness as the majority equating Majority to Morality , then again, we will be destroying Morality.
If I live in a world where everyone steals and I don't, I would see myself stealing in order to conform as humans tend to conform to each other and more importantly to the majority, but our context now forbids us from stealing at least as a current Moral rule and I would like to think ideally or not that stealing would always be wrong-no matter the context. It also depends on the gravity of the "felonies"- if I live in a world where everyone steals, I wouldn't do so-I wouldn't be pragmatic and abiding by the "common way of living" but I would be moral-at least vis-a-vis of myself.
Of course, if I live in a jungle where we have to kill in order to survive, I wouldn't hesitate to kill, it would be a reflex and I would just have to do it if I want to live paraphrasing Spinoza, the ultimate goal of a person is to persevere in his being.
In order to avoid living in a jungle, or in like some regions in the world currently, we have to let our Morality shine from within us-If of course we agree on the premise that human nature is kind. As for the concept of Democracy, it has been earned and fought for for centuries and still has in certain regions of this World - the French Revolution for example that brought Democracy came from an Intellectual Revolution, inspired and motivated by Reason, and if I want to give up my Intellect and Reason- I would be simply replacing a Democracy with a Theocracy.
I do not agree with Jefferson when it comes to the topic of Democracy- since he is basically putting forth a premise that could be either wrong if God turned out to be non-existent , dangerous since people are no longer questioning their moral behavior and only relying on something already given , or simply decadent since it no longer allows political reforms for the years to come.
When I was an atheist, I still thought of myself as a moral person - and I rationalized my immoral behavior, when I committed it, by use of context, much the way most people even "religious" people do. I think the elimination of a God-given standard simply makes the daily rationalization so much easier. That is my experience and my perception.
People can of course abuse any context to justify themselves, even God-context. Paul spoke to this argument in Romans 9 - if, for example, Pharoah was put on this earth to be the foil for Moses, should he not then be free of responsibility? The answer is no - because he made his own choices, in full knowledge of the word of God that was before him. Our freedom of choice exists, even if a higher being knows beforehand what those choices will be.
Religions differ on this, of course, as do philosophies - but Christianity at least does not allow the escape from responsibility. I haven't read Spinoza, but I'm not sure that the ultimate goal of a person is, or should be, to persevere in his own being.
Jesus said, "he who seeks to save his own life will lose it. In practice we place very high honor on those who give up their lives to preserve something or someone else - the opposite of self-preservation, or selfish genes. Would that not be morally superior? As for democracy, the basis on which it is founded is critical. Yes, the French Revolution attempted to found a democracy based on Reason and an Enlightenment view of humanity It was only sixty years of hard experience, and the defeat of Napoleon III by the Germans, that finally gave democracy a lasting foundation in France.
We did better, in part I think because we did not attempt to anchor our young republic solely on human reason. This is not a rejection of reason, but a recognition of what reason is This is why Jefferson's and many others' reasoning did not create a Theocracy, but the world's most successful democracy. If we assume that Reason is the highest standard, and of course our leaders are the most reasonable and rational of us, then it follows logically that they should have unlimited authority.
And if, as the Enlightenment suggests, people are basically moral and good, then the majority must always come to the right decision. In both cases, if finally follows just as logically that those who do not conform to the leadership, or to the majority, should and must be compelled to do so Government must therefore be limited - which requires a standard above the government, above the leaders, above the majority, that binds them all.
This was the key insight that made the whole experiment work. Tuesday, October 2, -- PM. Nathan, I would say. Moving on to the Vietnam War and the huge losses of American lives, the intervention in Afghanistan to counter the Soviet expansion which as you know vanished 23 years ago , the Israeli Lobby in the US that controls most of the Media and has an impressive control over presidential and other forms of political campaigns- wouldn't you say- and these statements were put forth by an American Political Thinker by the way- Noam Chomsky in his book "Failed States".
I may have drifted away from the debate but I think mentioning this is relevant since you consider that the American Democracy is successful. It may be successful domestically, but the ethnocentrism in American Foreign Policies makes it hard to believe that they want to spend Democracy and Civilization abroad- American Foreign Policies, are, in my opinion, imposed unequivocally, to the World. And that is a lack of Meta-Democracy, a Democracy which transcends and goes beyond the individual nations- even if this concept does not exist, it doesn't mean we can't cogitate about it.
About what Jesus said "he who seeks to save his own life will lose it. I believe that human instinct is far more selfish and dark than what Jesus believe. We are not what Jesus think we are. That is when I assumed my Atheism- and always will-until the day I die. I wouldn't want to be alienated into something I am not.
Christianity has created an anti-world not suitable for its main audience: Humans. The ones that die for a cause are faced with their life-fulfilling purpose slipping from their hands: Hitler died for his own purpose- he was the opposite of Moral. Descartes logically proves God's existence.
Therefore, to me, Reason is the Tool and the Master. In the question of the Governments, I would propose 4 to 5 instances that should hold our civism together and attempt to work our way through the Ideal Democratic Regime: and the Instances go from the most simple to the most philosophical: 1 Regulatory Economic and Social Policies to avoid the Deregulation that the World witnessed in the First Financial then Economic worldwide Turmoil.
Along with No military intervention but solely Humanitarian intervention and letting countries transit to Democracy at their own pace. I know this model never ought to happen and I know how Idealistic and Naive I am on this- but it doesn't really hurt to think that way, or does it? Foundations If your looking for the foundation of morality in Democracy look no further than freedom.
In philosophy, remove any uncertainty or doubt as was Decartes method. Once the truth or "I" is found, as he found, don't let any uncertainty as he did back in again. The equation that unites us all. Religion: God is One. Justice: Beyond fairness is absolute. To find it remove her blindfold, keep her equality or balance but throw away her scale. The truth shall set us free. Wednesday, October 3, -- PM.
This post has generated much discussion. From morality to democracy, as though they are joined at the hipSiamese twins, if you willor even if you won't. Morality remains an outgrowth of human experience. We make the rules, we have the gold, ergo, beginning and end of story.
Truth frees no oneit only sets us up to comply OR fail to comply. And, help us if we do not. That is why it holds no influence in places that have never known it.
Decay affects more than teeth. Friday, October 5, -- PM. Syndicated columnist, Cal Thomas, was holding forth today in our local "news"paper. He said that morality is a free-for-all. Using the Arnold Terminator meltdown as his example, he illustrated the futility of living a moral life in a world gone mad with indulgence. Thomas rightly illustrated that there are mistakes, which most of us make; and intentional indulgences, which we hope no one will find out.
The Terminator has written his incredible true life story, figuring to make some more money from his "mistakes". Thomasnot my fave thinkerdid make a good suggestion: don't buy the book.
I'll go him one better: don't bother reading it, unless life is insufferably boring for you. This post could go on, virtually forever, and never get to a solution acceptable to all who advocate a moral life. Here is a question to chew on: is morality based on theological; philosophical or cultural foundations? I am curious--though my curiosity is not profound.
I'd rather read your book than the one mentioned earlier. Best Regards, PDV. Saturday, October 6, -- PM. This has been the most interesting and provocative forum. Karim's views are so well-stated and thoughtful, and, best of all, provocative; I hope you will stay in touch in our blog.
Much about the sources of morality has been explored. But my first day query still sits unaddressed maybe no one is really interested -- and that is no complaint against any of you; more a complaint about me : 1. Sunday, October 7, -- PM. Hello, mirugai. In answer to your two-part query: 1 When you are certain you have either cause or standing. Consult Black's Law Dictionary if you are uncertain about the meanings of those terms.
One behaves out of a sense of purpose, justice and moral sensibility. The majority is easily swayed because they just know what they want. They are frequently wrong. We have both lived long enough to know this. But, don't kill your neighbor for being an assholestanding and cause will fail you here.
Hope you are well. I'm not doing badly myself. Monday, October 8, -- PM. Thank you for your nice comments Mirugai. I would say that the debate has diverted from the original statement into a more broad and more consistent evaluation of Morality in today's Politics-you shouldn't blame yourself, I think the implications of the present debate are more relevant and adequate, considering contemporary issues in Politic lack of decent governance, not just due to a lack of transparency in the Political Actors' policies, but other factors interfering leave little room for Morality- like the Persistence of Authoritarian regimes, having little left of their popular support, in committing crimes against humanity.
As for the question of Immoral Democracy- I would say that the phrase "immoral society" is more adequate since a Democracy cannot be moral or immoral- it can only be authentic or not, as for its traits of true Democracy Freedom of Speech, Association, Plurality in Political Representation, just to name a few.
A person can be moral or immoral. But for the sake of the argument, we will assume that fairness encourages moral behavior. I am making an allusion to the movie "Law Abiding Citizen" with Jamie Fox - which is poorly directed by the way but the idea behind that movie correlates well with the 1st issue proposed by Mirugai.
Which also helps me transit to the other issue-the one related to "Immoral" Democracy. I would say that in order to resolve the issue of majority, human nature should format and restore itself in a way not to consider the Majority the Norm.
Hence what I am saying is that, unfortunately, or not, Majorities will always have the last word on deciding what's right and what's wrong, sometimes wrongfully, but at other times rightfully. The only good thing we can hope for is the following: 1 The Sustainability and the Implementation of fair laws in the " Most Democratic countries", hopefully set as an example to follow or even to surpass. Friday, October 12, -- PM. Pundits of all stripes are weighing in on this timely issue.
I have noticed a cycle. Not many of us complain about lies and other forms of dishonestyuntil there is a presidential election on the brink. Local appointed and elected officials do their nefarious deeds and seldom are brought to accountunless the election cycle dictates.
Morality is so situational and seemingly meaningless to the masses, until an important political event is imminent. Come on now. Think about these remarks. Consider your own observations. You must have noticed something? If you did not forget to look Thursday, January 15, -- PM. With no time to read all that has been posted here: Time is the contrarian.
It is asymmetry, or sub-symmetry. By being, just a little, out of sync with what would dominate the universe with symmetry repetition and replication, it offers an opportunity for meaning more encompassing still. Not by intruding or imposing itself upon the world as just another paradigm or super-symmetry commanding obedience, but as a loss or departure that is only real in the world as a responsibility of its worth being recognized, even if only as an inadequacy to what otherwise seems to rule.
Below all the probabilities that physicists calculate as potential symmetry in the world of energy space and matter there is quite arguably an impossibility not super-symmetrical but sub-symmetrical to it.
If so, this would explain why the laws of physics cannot find a point in time beginning or ending it. It is because there is no one time there is begun or ended it. It is loss worthy of recognition as that uncompleted symmetry and responsibility of the worth of that loss being recognized as that incompleteness to the laws that would obligate things as they are if not so uncompleted.
The cruelty of the world should, I suppose, be reason enough to subscribe to a kinder moral regimen. But it is far more persuasive that each of us is most intrinsically the breach in the symmetry of law that supplies the term most deserving our recognition of the inadequacy of that law. And if that breach is only real in departure, if only in the smallest term of our being rigorously unconvinced of the completeness of the law, and if only articulate in the freedom this changing of our minds offers from the tyranny of its supposed symmetry completeness and perfection, then morality is that freedom and once begun cannot be less encompassing, real or articulate, than the supposed law.
But what else is reason if not such recognition? Monday, January 19, -- PM. Banks, pharmaceuticals and morality? No one gone to jail and no end in sight. As for medicine: what can we know about drug efficacy trial results: side-effects, participants, placebo, data manipulation, etc.
Oh, I get it You're being rhetorical Tuesday, January 20, -- PM. For a philosopher the moral motive is to understand and to be understood. Nothing could be less unilateral. The only thing unilateral in it is the critique each thinker must bring to the inevitable impediments consensus brings to it.
Similarly, we all critique moral consensus as a way of realizing our part in the community project it is. Language is not mine, and yet if I do not respond to perceived inaccuracies and collective censorship or distortions I am failing the language, letting it slide into an edifice of ignorance. Morally, consensus is at least as inept as egotism and selfishness.
And so I must have my own sense of what is as moral for others as for myself. The point is not that either it is unilateral or collective, but that it is only through individual responsibility that the community of speakers or moral agents, respectively, gets it right.
But this requires an act of critique and a responsiveness to critique as mutually competent and honest as either individually or collectively we tend to err. It is because I am not alone that I must act as if I were, and because I perceive error as if I were alone that I must act as if I were not.
And it is not that I know better, but because the world can only respond to what tries to know and do better. This does not mean that the world suddenly swings from one critique to another, but that it reveals its limitations as a context of meaning or moral sense in meeting the reasoning critical of it.
Consensus is no more the be-all and end-all of language or morality than is individual perspective prejudice or willfulness. It is the dynamic of betraying the rational competence, or lack of it, of each in the drama of the critical act and the response of adaptive consensus that gives us the context of rational and moral judgment. The final term is neither consensus nor individual fiat.
It is change, guided by a recognition of a need to learn. The context of that need is why be moral. Monday, January 26, -- PM. Usually, the 'former' means the first in a series of two, not the last, and so most proximal. But I do not suppose we are meant to think the poor, by any definition, have such things as yachts, private planes, and limousines, or are in need of them. I think what they are in need of is a square deal.
I think of the parable of the sedan chair. An ambitious man works very hard in youth, he does all the things others do, but on top of, and in great diligence, he builds a sedan chair. When he is done he takes up the seat and demands to be carried in it. As he is carried away he leans out of the window and pronounces, "I earned what I have! It is all too easy to confuse doing the right thing with doing good. Doing good requires a damn sight more of us than just doing the right thing. Doing the right thing is little more than not going out of our way to do the wrong thing.
Although committing this burglary is morally wrong, persuading a rational, self-interested individual to refrain from robbing the house is quite challenging.
What arguments might persuade this individual to act morally when doing so is against her self-interests? Thrasymachus and Socrates may have been the first individuals to discuss why one ought to be moral. Thrasymachus rephrases his main claims on a few occasions, but his essential argument is that individuals should act unjustly because acting unjustly confers greater benefits to an individual than acting justly.
According to Socrates, justice is a form of psychological harmony between the three parts of the soul—specifically, the rational part controls the appetitive part, and the spirited part assists the rational part in this task. Thus, the main benefit of being just is that it creates a beneficial state of the soul. A purely self-interested individual might not accept the notion that acting immorally necessarily leads to the psychology disharmony Socrates describes.
Moreover, such a person might be willing to accept those psychological disadvantages in exchange for the material advantages of immoral behavior.
Socrates does consider a different argument, one based on religion, which would provide alternative support for behaving morally. Although Socrates ultimately abandons this argument, modern variations of it exist and have some persuasive potential. Nearly all modern religions place an emphasis on acting morally.
Typically, moral behavior is mandated by God, and the deity provides guidance on what actions are moral and immoral. Moral individuals are rewarded in the afterlife or their reincarnations, and immoral individuals are punished. Unfortunately, any argument based on divine reward or punishment in the afterlife or a subsequent life encounters a variety of problems.
In order for such an argument to have any persuasive force, one must establish that the religious beliefs on which the argument is based are the correct set of religious beliefs.
However, contemporary debates concerning the existence of God, the nature of God, and the possibility of an afterlife are ongoing and remain essentially unresolved. A nonreligious individual will not be swayed by an appeal to a specific religious doctrine, and neither will a religious individual who adheres to a different doctrine. Some religious doctrines are also fairly unclear about what constitutes moral and immoral behavior.
In some cases, early passages in certain texts prohibit a behavior that is later endorsed or vice-versa. Additionally, acts which some religious texts condemn have become morally acceptable in mainstream society.
For example, the Old Testament book of Leviticus contains a myriad of laws e. The unclear ethical degrees of various deities raise a significant problem for those who wish to reconcile morality and self-interest through divine rewards or punishments. Even if one accepts the truth of a particular religion and wishes to act morally in order to avoid punishment in the afterlife, the lack of clarity on what constitutes moral behavior could cause the individual to behave immorally due to sheer confusion.
In his conversation with Euthyphro, Socrates asks one of the most famous questions in the history of philosophy: is an action pious because the gods command it, or do the gods command the action because it is pious?
Good may be used to refer to anything — it is a general term that expresses positive value about something or assigns positive value to something. Nevertheless, in philosophy the term takes on special meaning and that meaning is particularly related to ethics. Regardless of how one replies to the question, the answer reveals substantial concerns about Divine Command Theory. If an action is good because God commands it, then morality becomes an arbitrary doctrine.
On this view, telling the truth is considered morally good if God commands it, but telling lies is also considered morally good if God commands it. When an action and its opposite can both be considered morally good, morality becomes arbitrary: depending on what God commands, any action could be moral or immoral regardless of its nature or consequences. In order for the concept of goodness to be meaningful, God must have some reason for commanding certain actions and forbidding others.
Now we should consider what happens if we respond to the Euthyphro dilemma in the opposite way: suppose God commands certain actions because they are good. This answer avoids the undesirable outcomes of the other but has a fundamental problem of its own. If God commands certain actions because they are good, this implies that God has a meaningful rather than arbitrary reason for making these commands.
Hence, when we ask why God commands us to do something, there will underlying ethical principles that provide the basis for the command.
0コメント