Define morality?

Post Reply New Topic

Write some more true things, then.

This is the PPR forum, discussing morality and the philosophy of morality, it suits and it is as interesting as entertaining and as 'productive', in the case of learning more about the issue for the interested. I believe, IMHO that eogism makes sense, but, I wouldn't take that as an absolute, I believe there could be some degree of altruism, but not absolute either. I tend to see this in a greys, but then, I could be wrong.

Why is redefining morality questionable? The OP's original question was about defining morality, which I have tried to answer. When the traditional definitions of morality are lacking (and they clearly are, as there is still constant argument about this point), then it seems sensible to try and redefine them - this applies to anything, not just morality. Otherwise we get stuck with the same old dogma and never move anywhere.

Maybe I have misunderstood the 'abstraction' you are talking about. I don't think the notion of morality is an abstraction at all, for the reasons I have stated. The notion though that what we think is moral is somehow 'right' is more of one.

Altruism itself can be explained on many evolutionary levels - group selection, kin selection, reciprocity and even sexual selection (altruism acting in this sense equivalent to the tail of the peacock - a burden for survival which marks out its carrier as genetically superior than a less altruistic person). When you help a total stranger on the street, it may not be for any benefit to yourself whatsoever (although there are possible benefits as have already been stated). However, the benefit arises in you being predisposed towards altruism for anyone - your kin, friends, sexual partners, and this is extended non-intentionally and non-consciously towards everyone else simply because, if you are altruistic towards some, you will generally be altruistic (although perhaps in a lesser sense) towards other humans too.

Because redefining terms is questionable, you were redefining the term "morality" as far as I could tell. The OP's original question was about specifying a measure of morality. When traditional definitions of a term fail, you recognize that the term is failed, but changing the meaning is changing the scope and nature of the debate, and even then a term without real referent may still have imaginary reference, such as with gods or unicorns.


Well, moral and right are one and the same, the equality of right and wrong to good and evil shows that much. I do not see how you can say that morality is equal to right and wrong or good and evil without saying that morality is an abstraction.

Yes.... I understand parts of that about altruism. The major issue with some of these definitions is that they may encompass behavior that isn't fully altruistic. In any case, given that man chooses(in a compatibilist sense at least) his actions by his own metrics, he is an egoist, as he is beholden only to his desire.

Well then, I am an egoist, and yet another hyphenation is added to my identity.

Now the question becomes, "Can an egoist act morally?"

What's religion for? God gives super-terrible threats and awesome rewards for a reason.

What about an egoist who believes that religion is a waste of time, money, and effort? Can such a person act morally?

Of course. For example, let's say I'm an individual ethical egoist (i.e. the moral action for everyone is to act in my best interests). There's no reason in principle that it couldn't happen that you acting in your best interest could act in my best interest.

I think the only kind of situation where you could argue that egoists can't act morally in principle is if you're taking a perspective whereby a person is judged on their intentions rather than their actions.

It's the results that count, not the intent, except in certain legal judgments.

Hmm ... pragmatic, egoistic, and irreligious ... That's me!

Possibly.

It's just as possible that a religious person can act immorally. I offer myself as an example. Here on WP, I argue and bicker with other members. I say some very un-Christian things all because my temper gets the better of me.

Can an egoist act morally?

Doesn't this question assume that acts are free choices? Neither the egoism, nor the moral decision that is taken are freely chosen. If acting morally is acting in a fixed way that benefits others, then one can say the egoist acts morally even though he is likely to also benefit himself. If you are meaning acting morally to mean acting purely and illogically altruistically, with no hope of any type of self-benefit, then an egoist probably cannot do this, although he might surprise himself, as morality is so deeply ingrained to be used in situations that benefit the self and people close to oneself, that the instinct to help an unrelated (in every way) individual is also there - perhaps a true egoist would be able to overcome this though.

Its almost a buzzword now used to get votes and appear better then someone elase. Isnt it possible to have two people with morals...but said morals conflict with each other?

What is immoral about that?

Have you ever shed blood? Have you ever stolen? Have you ever set another man's field ablaze? Have you cheated a widow or an orphan out of there moiety? Now THAT is immoral.

Getting snippy is normal.

And you act un-Christian to the extent that you are sane.

ruveyn

What's moeity?

Their small portion.

ruveyn

I have shed blood (but always my own), I have stolen (but only as a child). I have never set another man's field ablaze, but it sounds like a very quaint thing to do.

I have never cheated a widow or an orphan out of their moeity. How quaint!

Am I to assume that you have done all of these things?