moral system(s)

[Tiburon]

Ah! I think I understand now, thanks for the clarification.

In my view conforming to a moral system and supporting the goal(s) of a moral system are the same. With respect to moral systems, there is no process; there is only the moral system's goal(s) and how well actions achieve those goal(s).

Following the system is the process.
It's like the goal is the top of a mountain and a particular moral system is one way to climb it.
Someone may have a different way of reaching the top.
They would still get there but they would be deemed immoral for choosing a different path.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I think I understand your perspective. Your moral system has a goal of well-being and that makes sense to you (in fact it's the only moral system that makes sense to you). It may not make sense to other people, but in that case, you don't think they're really talking about morals anymore. Is that correct?

At this point I think we've both acknowledged that there are many moral systems, some which make sense to you, some don't. Some make sense to me and some don't. Now we can continue working on which moral system makes the most sense and why, which I believe is an everlasting discussion. Still worth having though!

No. But before we continue with that, can you answer my question I’ve asked a couple of times now? What else could morality be about besides the well being of conscious creatures?

 

[tor]

Following the system is the process.
It's like the goal is the top of a mountain and a particular moral system is one way to climb it.
Someone may have a different way of reaching the top.
They would still get there but they would be deemed immoral for choosing a different path.

If you create a moral system with the goal of reaching the top of a mountain, than any action that gets you closer to reaching the top is categorized as good and any action that gets you further from reaching the top is categorized as bad. A moral system only categorizes actions as good or bad, that's it.

You could create moral systems with more well-defined goals such as reaching the top of the mountain in the quickest amount of time. Or reaching the top of the mountain while using the least calories, etc. Then you could have the case where an action (taking a very slow step up) is considered good in our broad moral system (goal to reach the top), but bad in our more well-defined moral system (goal to reach to top in the quickest amount of time).

I may be missing your point here, let me know if I've talked past you.

 

[tor]

No. But before we continue with that, can you answer my question I’ve asked a couple of times now? What else could morality be about besides the well being of conscious creatures?

Ack! Did not mean to leave that question for so long. Short answer first: any goal can be the goal of a moral system. Example possible goals for moral systems: provide for my immediate family (possibly to the detriment of others); survive (possibly to the detriment of others); get a net worth of $2m (possibly to the detriment of others), etc.

I don't think we can make a judgement on what could be the goal of a moral system based on our own prejudices. Why should the set of goals we see as being possible goals for a moral system be the full list? What about another person who has a different set of goals? Why can't their goals be possible goals for a moral system?

Christians believe in a moral system with the goal of following their god's will. Is that a valid goal? I'm not convinced there is a god, but I think that goal should still be in the set of possible goals for moral systems. Some people still believe in Greek mythology and base their moral system's goals on that mythology. Should that goal be in the set of possible goals for moral systems? If not, why not?

If you're on board with the existence of many different possible goals for moral systems, I think the follow-up question is: which moral system should humans use? I think the moral system with the goal of well-being is definitely in the running! Not because it's the only moral system, but because it accomplishes things that I like. In the end, it's only my opinion which moral system is better, there's no objectively true or objectively best moral system.

 

[tor]

That’s just a personal decision. There are no moral implications to that. Morality is completely transactional.

Because in them we find the potential of personal and real violations of the self that are beyond mere agreements and social contracts.

No, there are not. Those are simply amoral agreements or social contracts.

Because the others are not attached to violations of the self. They are only attached to violations of indifferent contractual fictions.

O.K. Try that. Practice a moral system that violates another’s sense of self. Make sure the person is smaller than you, because if he’s bigger than you, then you will feel the reality of the objective moral violation of the other's self in spades.

Who is in charge of determining which actions have moral implications and which actions don't have moral implications?

Suppose there is a religion whose god requires hairless-ness. Followers of that religion have a moral system with the goal of following their god's will, so they consider shaving to be a holy act of goodness. Seems silly to me, but why can't those people consider shaving to have moral implications? People determine which actions have moral implications based on their own moral systems. You are absolutely justified to say, "shaving has no moral implication for my moral system", but you aren't justified to say, "shaving has no moral implication for any moral system".

It's your opinion that moral systems without certain goals are not moral systems. This is a fully justified opinion. The issue is when you impose that opinion on others as though it were an objective truth. Why can't I create a moral system without your goals? The whole point I'm making is that there is no authority. Each person creates their own moral system with its own goals. The goals of each moral system determine which actions have moral implications with respect to that moral system.

 

[Tiburon]

If you create a moral system with the goal of reaching the top of a mountain, than any action that gets you closer to reaching the top is categorized as good and any action that gets you further from reaching the top is categorized as bad. A moral system only categorizes actions as good or bad, that's it.

You could create moral systems with more well-defined goals such as reaching the top of the mountain in the quickest amount of time. Or reaching the top of the mountain while using the least calories, etc. Then you could have the case where an action (taking a very slow step up) is considered good in our broad moral system (goal to reach the top), but bad in our more well-defined moral system (goal to reach to top in the quickest amount of time).

I may be missing your point here, let me know if I've talked past you.

The issue I'm raising, is that once we create the moral system, many times the original goal is forgotten and replaced with maintaining the moral system.

 

[tor]

The issue I'm raising, is that once we create the moral system, many times the original goal is forgotten and replaced with maintaining the moral system.

Very true, reminds me of the Adeptus Mechanicus if you're a Warhammer 40k fan.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I think it's up for discussion to determine which one of us has false beliefs (if either), but that's for a different thread.

"Discussion" will get you nowhere at all. opinions are like noses - everybody's got one.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Ack! Did not mean to leave that question for so long. Short answer first: any goal can be the goal of a moral system. Example possible goals for moral systems: provide for my immediate family (possibly to the detriment of others); survive (possibly to the detriment of others); get a net worth of $2m (possibly to the detriment of others), etc.

Except all the things you mention involve the well-being of conscious creatures, and my question was what ELSE could be part of a moral system. Now, I see that you’ve said that any goal could be, but do you really mean *any*? See below.

I don't think we can make a judgement on what could be the goal of a moral system based on our own prejudices. Why should the set of goals we see as being possible goals for a moral system be the full list? What about another person who has a different set of goals? Why can't their goals be possible goals for a moral system?

Just like anyone can define what the word table means doesn’t mean that it makes sense. See below.

Christians believe in a moral system with the goal of following their god's will. Is that a valid goal?

It’s not a question of valid, it’s a question of whether that makes sense. See below.

I'm not convinced there is a god, but I think that goal should still be in the set of possible goals for moral systems. Some people still believe in Greek mythology and base their moral system's goals on that mythology. Should that goal be in the set of possible goals for moral systems? If not, why not?

Anything is possible, but does it make sense? See below.

If you're on board with the existence of many different possible goals for moral systems, I think the follow-up question is: which moral system should humans use? I think the moral system with the goal of well-being is definitely in the running! Not because it's the only moral system, but because it accomplishes things that I like. In the end, it's only my opinion which moral system is better, there's no objectively true or objectively best moral system.

You’re imaging that we get to imagine anything we want to for a moral system, and, on one level, that’s true (only because every person has the agency and sovereignty to make moral decisions), but here’s an analogy to show you how I think about that?

I’m analogizing morality and food in this sense: what do we get to say is food? Nothing is stopping some person from saying ground glass is food (and people have actually deliberately eaten glass), but that is not what we actually mean when we say the word food. What I’m saying is that what we (actually) mean when we say something is moral is that it enhances well being.

This analogy encapsulates my other replies.

 

[tor]

"Discussion" will get you nowhere at all. opinions are like noses - everybody's got one.

Not quite like noses, some people have more than one opinion : )

Discussion can sometimes take you places. For example, we discovered that you and I have some agreement when it comes to morals! If no moral authority exists, then objective morals also don't exist.

 

[tor]

Except all the things you mention involve the well-being of conscious creatures, and my question was what ELSE could be part of a moral system. Now, I see that you’ve said that any goal could be, but do you really mean *any*? See below.


Just like anyone can define what the word table means doesn’t mean that it makes sense. See below.


It’s not a question of valid, it’s a question of whether that makes sense. See below.


Anything is possible, but does it make sense? See below.


You’re imaging that we get to imagine anything we want to for a moral system, and, on one level, that’s true (only because every person has the agency and sovereignty to make moral decisions), but here’s an analogy to show you how I think about that?

I’m analogizing morality and food in this sense: what do we get to say is food? Nothing is stopping some person from saying ground glass is food (and people have actually deliberately eaten glass), but that is not what we actually mean when we say the word food. What I’m saying is that what we (actually) mean when we say something is moral is that it enhances well being.

This analogy encapsulates my other replies.

I think I understand your perspective now, thanks for the analogy.

It looks like the core of our disagreement is definition, so let's focus on that. I think humans are still arguing about morality because we don't have a solid, agreed upon definition yet. Defining morality and how to categorize actions as good or evil is the entire purpose (for me) of this discussion. Humans have a much more solid definition of tables and eating, though I still think there's some gray area. For example, is a flat piece of wood on the floor with no legs still a table? Is chewing gum considered eating? Is chewing a sandwich, then spitting it out before swallowing considered eating? I bet you'd get different answers from people.

You say that any moral system is possible and valid, then ask, "But, do they make sense?" It feels like you are acknowledging that there are many valid moral systems that are possible, but only one makes sense to you. I think this means we're on the same page! I also think there are many moral systems possible, and many of them don't make sense to me either.

The important thing for me is the recognition that all of those moral systems are equally valid and possible. Determining which moral system we should follow is fully opinion. There is no moral authority, no objective moral truth, no particular moral system that is objectively better than others. Once we're both to that point, we can then move the discussion to determining which moral system makes the most sense for humans to follow.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I think I understand your perspective now, thanks for the analogy.

It looks like the core of our disagreement is definition, so let's focus on that. I think humans are still arguing about morality because we don't have a solid, agreed upon definition yet.

We have a definition of the word, just like for any word.

Defining morality and how to categorize actions as good or evil is the entire purpose (for me) of this discussion.

I think that is the wrong way to frame it, as it just sets up a tautology, empty of content, through the synonym "good" for "moral" and "evil" for "immoral." It says nothing. It frames the issue as this horribly abstract, metaphysical conundrum, whereas, in the real world, if you don't care where you're walking and you bump into me, that's immoral (perhaps that the lowest level).

In the real, concrete world, what is the actual content of morality? The best answer I've heard, that makes sense, is the well-being of conscious creatures.

Thinking that any goal can be moral (and I meant something different when I said "Anything is possible," see below) is like thinking you can eat anything you want, including glass, cars, etc. (even while some people have). It's nonsensical philosophizing. I recommend we get real, instead.

Humans have a much more solid definition of tables and eating, though I still think there's some gray area. For example, is a flat piece of wood on the floor with no legs still a table? Is chewing gum considered eating? Is chewing a sandwich, then spitting it out before swallowing considered eating? I bet you'd get different answers from people.

You say that any moral system is possible

I didn't mean that in the way that you took it. I wasn't trying to include anything into morality, I was only saying that people can conclude anything about morality (sensical or not).

and valid, then ask, "But, do they make sense?" It feels like you are acknowledging that there are many valid moral systems that are possible, but only one makes sense to you. I think this means we're on the same page! I also think there are many moral systems possible, and many of them don't make sense to me either.

The important thing for me is the recognition that all of those moral systems are equally valid and possible.

But they're not equally valid if we take morality to be something actual, and has great significance in the real world, and not some abstract philosophical essence. It's not like it makes sense to decide that anything can be food, and all food is equally valid/nutritious.

Determining which moral system we should follow is fully opinion. There is no moral authority, no objective moral truth, no particular moral system that is objectively better than others. Once we're both to that point, we can then move the discussion to determining which moral system makes the most sense for humans to follow.

 

[tor]

We have a definition of the word, just like for any word.


I think that is the wrong way to frame it, as it just sets up a tautology, empty of content, through the synonym "good" for "moral" and "evil" for "immoral." It says nothing. It frames the issue as this horribly abstract, metaphysical conundrum, whereas, in the real world, if you don't care where you're walking and you bump into me, that's immoral (perhaps that the lowest level).

In the real, concrete world, what is the actual content of morality? The best answer I've heard, that makes sense, is the well-being of conscious creatures.

Thinking that any goal can be moral (and I meant something different when I said "Anything is possible," see below) is like thinking you can eat anything you want, including glass, cars, etc. (even while some people have). It's nonsensical philosophizing. I recommend we get real, instead.


I didn't mean that in the way that you took it. I wasn't trying to include anything into morality, I was only saying that people can conclude anything about morality (sensical or not).


But they're not equally valid if we take morality to be something actual, and has great significance in the real world, and not some abstract philosophical essence. It's not like it makes sense to decide that anything can be food, and all food is equally valid/nutritious.

In your example, why is it immoral for someone to bump into you? Because they didn't care where they were walking? Who decided that it's immoral to not care where you're walking? You? I think it's moral to not care where I'm walking as it helps with my care-free attitude. Why am I wrong? Who/what is the authority to make these moral proclamations?

I propose that in the real, concrete world, the content of morality is fully an opinion, and no opinion is objectively correct. How is it helpful to have this framework? If people recognize that no moral position is objectively correct, then it clears the way for an open discussion of why one moral system is better for humans than another. It allows for comparison based on merit rather than claiming objective truths.

 

[Gus Bovona]

In your example, why is it immoral for someone to bump into you?

Because it disregards the well-being of conscious creatures. Specifically, it fails to take the well-being (not being bumped into) of pedestrians into a system of trade-offs (I won't bump into you if you don't bump into me) and only focuses only one's own well-being (I can walk anywhere I want to).

ETA: You might as well have asked, "why is glass not as much food as an apple is?"

Because they didn't care where they were walking? Who decided that it's immoral to not care where you're walking? You? I think it's moral to not care where I'm walking as it helps with my care-free attitude. Why am I wrong? Who/what is the authority to make these moral proclamations?

ETA: Asked (previously) and answered.

I propose that in the real, concrete world, the content of morality is fully an opinion, and no opinion is objectively correct. How is it helpful to have this framework? If people recognize that no moral position is objectively correct, then it clears the way for an open discussion of why one moral system is better for humans than another. It allows for comparison based on merit rather than claiming objective truths.

 

[tor]

Because it disregards the well-being of conscious creatures. Specifically, it fails to take the well-being (not being bumped into) of pedestrians into a system of trade-offs (I won't bump into you if you don't bump into me) and only focuses only one's own well-being (I can walk anywhere I want to).

ETA: You might as well have asked, "why is glass not as much food as an apple is?"



ETA: Asked (previously) and answered.

Let's try a different approach on this.

You believe morals are defined by the moral system with a goal of the well-being of conscious creatures. Why is that the definition? Do you think this definition is the objective truth of morality? Or is this the only definition that makes sense to you? Or do you think this is the definition because a majority of humans also believe it? (or some combination?)

 

[Gus Bovona]

Let's try a different approach on this.

You believe morals are defined by the moral system with a goal of the well-being of conscious creatures. Why is that the definition?

It covers what people actually consider to be moral issues. As I've asked you repeatedly, what else is there, in real, practical terms? Would you suggest that morality might be about whether you win a video game? Does morality concern dreaming about your parents? Is it a moral issue if someone drops their car keys on the ground?

What else could we be talking about under the concept of morality besides well-being?

I think we're having a polite discussion, which doesn't happen here often, so I'm really happy about that. On the other hand, and I don't mean any ill will towards you, I'm not going any further until you either answer that question, or acknowledge that it has no answer, or address the challenge to concepts about morality beyond well-being that that question presents.

Do you think this definition is the objective truth of morality? Or is this the only definition that makes sense to you? Or do you think this is the definition because a majority of humans also believe it? (or some combination?)

 

[5wize]

Let's try a different approach on this.

You believe morals are defined by the moral system with a goal of the well-being of conscious creatures. Why is that the definition? Do you think this definition is the objective truth of morality? Or is this the only definition that makes sense to you? Or do you think this is the definition because a majority of humans also believe it? (or some combination?)

It is the only definition of morality that converges and includes everybody at an objective and ubiquitous level of the self. Therefor it is not relegated to mere opinion. That ground level of self common in all of us is the authority you are looking for.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Not quite like noses, some people have more than one opinion : )

Discussion can sometimes take you places. For example, we discovered that you and I have some agreement when it comes to morals! If no moral authority exists, then objective morals also don't exist.

True. Morals are man's majority opinion in the specific society they exist in. The CHristian, on the other hand has an absolute reference concerning righteousness and SIN, Sometimes the Biblical absolute, and the Human moral coincide. and sometimes they don't in which case the "Moral" is wrong.

 

[tor]

It covers what people actually consider to be moral issues. As I've asked you repeatedly, what else is there, in real, practical terms? Would you suggest that morality might be about whether you win a video game? Does morality concern dreaming about your parents? Is it a moral issue if someone drops their car keys on the ground?

What else could we be talking about under the concept of morality besides well-being?

I think we're having a polite discussion, which doesn't happen here often, so I'm really happy about that. On the other hand, and I don't mean any ill will towards you, I'm not going any further until you either answer that question, or acknowledge that it has no answer, or address the challenge to concepts about morality beyond well-being that that question presents.

I similarly appreciate the conversation, thanks!

Answer to your question: moral systems can have any set of goals because morality is purely based on opinion.

Example moral systems:
Yes, a moral system with the goal of winning a video game is valid. Yes, a moral system with a goal of dreaming about your parents is valid. Yes, a moral system involving key location is valid. A moral system with the goal of the opposite of well-being (sorrow?) of all conscious creatures is valid.

I'm making the argument that there is no moral authority, so all goals for moral systems are valid. Without a moral authority, no one opinion is objectively correct.

 

[5wize]

I similarly appreciate the conversation, thanks!

Answer to your question: moral systems can have any set of goals because morality is purely based on opinion.

Example moral systems:
Yes, a moral system with the goal of winning a video game is valid. Yes, a moral system with a goal of dreaming about your parents is valid. Yes, a moral system involving key location is valid. A moral system with the goal of the opposite of well-being (sorrow?) of all conscious creatures is valid.

I'm making the argument that there is no moral authority, so all goals for moral systems are valid. Without a moral authority, no one opinion is objectively correct.

No, no, no, no, no.... You have just absconded another word that has its own meaning and applied it to another word that has its own meaning. Morality is not equal to, nor does it mean, opinion. If that were the case, opinion would show up as a synonym of morality and vis-versa.