The Relevance of Morality

Post Reply New Topic

This Adam Smith of yours must have been a psychotic himself.

Obviously you have yet to experience a seriouis time of need in your life.

No, I don't think so. Morality often more takes characteristics of group identification and thus is an upholder of status quos and similar things. Compassion and empathy are also different terms, compassion demands a desire to relieve suffering, empathy simply means an understanding of the desires of another being. Empathy can be a powerful bond that can bring pleasure, compassion does not necessitate that. I disagree with the concept of general morality. I also disagree with your assumptions on the nature of general morality, as there are groups that trumpet the importance of selfishness, ego and greed such as the Objectivists and some very notable existential philosophers. As well, hatred does not seem to be universally considered negative either, just read some bible history for example: God, the ultimate moral power in the Bible is known for his terrible wrath and his willing ability to destroy peoples, and as well, some of our legal theory is underpinned by the notion of retribution as the reason for action. Finally, as for murder, murder is just unlawful crime, so its universality could easily just be a cultural evolutionary element, but rape though has been done by most societies in times of war and given the fact that women didn't choose their husbands, probably in peace as well, I think that the Spartans had a tradition where men would sneak away from the military to rape their wives and then go back.

Not really.... If you look at human history, terror tactics, slavery, and killing folks you didn't like was the norm. Think back to the Romans and their methods of execution, or the Aztecs and their acts of sacrifice. I also don't see a lot in your line of thinking that is very useful. Everyone consciously wants to think that they are good, but the notions and nature of good are very variable. Perhaps our moral part of our mind is more abstract than the rest, but that does not prove any slavery or lack of consciousness.


Why would selfishness have to create any conflict? We have mechanisms to allow for selfishness and make it a societal benefactor. Not only that, but I consider the rest of your perspective to be nonsense created by your desire to see society as evil and yourself as the prophet or some such.

Umm.... hmm... how do I put this: Adam Smith is the father of modern economic theory and economists are the people who actually study the workings and functionings of society. I thought that stating his name would make things clear enough as he is one of the most noted intellectuals in history.

Um... I would just call that dismissal to be an ad hominem, as you don't know my background(not always the easiest time in life here) nor would it matter to the logical underpinnings of my beliefs.

Economic theory has nothing to do with morality. In a debate about the relevance of morality, why should I give damn about intellectuals? The fact that Adam Smith is an intellectual is irrelevant.

How does economic theory disprove the relevance of morality?

Economic theory is relevant in a morality discussion. Not only because certain moral/immoral acts for some people are directly related to economics (the person who says price gouging is immoral, which I would say is perfectly moral), but because economic theory teaches you to think differently about problems and pay attention to "seen and unseen effects". If you wish to analyze a "moral problem", it is important to look at the problem in an economic way of thinking so you can best guess the consequences of it.

The market itself is somewhat amoral; it does not necessarily care about what you think is right or wrong. Personal morality can be reflected in the market via prices, but the market and by extension the world will function perfectly fine without the need of defined "morality". Morality can be seen as irrelevant precisely because the market exists (as long as it is allowed to exist unhindered). Under the market, you know there will be greed, but greed is good because you can trust it always be there (and if it isn't, bonus for you). If you look at this from some morality approach, you might say greed is bad, so we should trust in the love or compassion of others. However, you can't always believe love will be there when you need it, but you can be assured greed will. If we all followed the rules of the market rather than morality, would we become bloodthirsty murders and thieves? The market encourages self-interest, so if anything, people would become more self-interested (which means you would not kill your roommate so you could loot his TV because at the very least his family would have vengeance on you, plus there would probably still be a government). You could say people might become less compassionate, but so what? Most compassion is really signaling anyway (which is inefficient and wasteful) or is misdirected.

As Sargon mentioned, economics gives perspective on society that should be recognized whenever moralizing. Not only that, but intellectuals do have some importance in a debate about relevance as intellectuals study things related to morality and society. Adam Smith is an intellectual who did work in morality and economics.

It does not disprove the relevance, but economic theories can well make morality less relevant by telling us how to influence any person to behave in a moral manner.

I know no morality. I would save no one out of enslavement to an ideal, out of compassion, or out of empathy.

I feel no empathy.

Leave morality to god and all his unattainable transcendence. We humans, in our infinite removal from our ideals - must we not grasp something more concrete and immediate? That in trying to be moral, there are infinite pretensions and idiocies which only willful - yet all too necessary - blindness could preclude one from seeing.

In positing a normative order there is intellectual hubris at the expense of all possible *could be* moral systems. In positing your ideal, you necessarily set yourself in incurable opposition to it. To do less is a mark of - baseness?

That which frees us from our finitude and absurdity, and enables us to act in spite of our unworthiness as the most tiny of things;

yet also I think something which permits a man his most certain evils,

none other than love.

"Morality" is silliness - where it isn't active idealogical manipulation.

We must not ever mistake morality and our highest values for utilitarian constructs - if morality produced nothing, would you be forced to admit it was really just so much waste of breath? Then you never deserved your ideal...

I tend to think that for most people morality is something you feel more than something you can rigorously define in terms of reason.

I think some aspects of it are actually hardwired into us as a species. Even without any culture or language to rely on, herd animals show altruism and seem to have moral codes of conduct within the herd. There’s definitely a biological cause behind a lot of behavior.

I think culture can act like an override to our innate sense of morality though. For instance, people can come to the belief that races of people are inferior by cultural conditioning even if they wouldn’t naturally come to that conclusion.

If you think of morality in terms of "Things I apparently have to do for other people," instead of "Things I want others to do for me," then morality is a very shaky concept ideed. You seem to be very lazy and self-absorbed, SP.

I certainly wouldn't go that far.

Well, yes.

Yes. One controlled by conservatives or radical clergy.

I have encountered a few sociopaths, and yes: these are people whose values are focused purely upon having a sense of domination over others. Their scruples are literally based upon the concept that "might makes right." They perceive themselves as predators and others as prey. There are a few examples of this personality on this very forum. For example, read some of the posts made here by Johnnie, who seems to have no purpose in being here other than to demean and ridicule others. Fortunately, he seems to be a complete failure at it, making him a harmless, old fart who has too much time on his hands.

No. We have become Earth's supreme monster because our system of values, laws, ideals, science and philosophy have made us overwhelmingly successful...to the point of putting us on the verge of making ourselves our own undoing, really. The only way to prevent catastrophe is to continually expand upon this system and extend it to, for example, a sense of concern over our natural environment. This wouldn't have been important four hundred years ago. It is today.

Now, now, don't put words in my mouth, slowmutant; you're making false assumptions. It almost looks like you feel you've been backed into a corner.

I'm just asking you what your concept of morality is. You obviously have one. Where does true morality end and false morality begin? To rephrase what I wrote; I think it's a too corruptible guideline that can easily be made into an excuse to do intrinsically amoral things.

And yes, I'm definitely lazy, but not as self-absorbed as I seem...and I'll be a better person and not make too many assumptions on your character.

I agree. I am compassionate because it feels right, it's not something I can rationally explain in a way that doesn't violate the Is-Ought fallacy.

My morality is basically Christian morality, the kernel of which is the Golden Rule. Doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. Reciprocity. Live & Let Live.

Freedom
Justice
Truth
Honour
Vigilance
Courage
Love
Faith
Patience
Mercy
Strength

The above words make the matrix of my morality. They are values which I hold dear, listed in no order. To form a matrix of my moral beliefs, each concept is of equal importance to every other and to the whole. They'd be joined in a nonlinear web instead of listed in series as a hierarchy.

If I misspoke I apologize. As far as debating goes, you are my worthy opponent. It is very good that this discussion is not entirely illogical.

In general the discussions seem to assume that people all have somewhat the same morality, which, according to what I see, doesn't really hold. To a large extent many people will tolerate a great deal of injustice as long as they personally are getting by. There are obviously small contingents of humanity who have little or no compassion for the majority and thereby do exceedingly well. Religions and even laws have little effect on these divisions of humanity as they seem to have existed all throughout history and are evident today in all political systems. Within the last few days the news has reported on the growing violence because large sections of people in less wealthy countries can no longer afford food because of the pressure on agriculture to supply grain for fuel which diverts supplies away from food supplies. Things are bad now and soon they will get a great deal worse and there seems little or no effect of so-called general morality on this arising catastrophe. I have strong doubts that Americans will give up their SUVs so that poor people in other countries will have enough to eat.

I agree. Big Oil in the US has become monolithic and invulnerable. Big Oil and Big Tobacco, talk about strongholds of greed.