Can one act morally without thinking morally?
— creativesoul
Yes. Just like how someone can make the correct move in a chess game without thinking strategically (it can be coincidence or the result of factors other than conscious understanding/thought). — VagabondSpectre
Acting X without thinking X. Let X be morally. There is no equivalent in your analogy. — creativesoul
What you're doing is attributing your label to another. You're attributing your own personal moral value system onto another creature's behaviour. You think it is moral to do X. You see a creature doing X. You claim that the creature acts morally.
All you've done is show that you can pass moral judgment. — creativesoul
If it is moral to do X, and a creature does X, then yes, regarding X the creature is behaving morally. — VagabondSpectre
One cannot move correctly without thinking correctly. Acting in a way that does not break the rules isn't equivalent to following them. Following the moral rules is behaving morally. — creativesoul
This is a meta-ethical distinction that I don't necessarily agree with because in practice we CAN move correctly without thinking correctly... — VagabondSpectre
Morals or “moral code” is simply what is agreed between two or more in any transaction, an agreement. — DPMartin
Could be a purchase could be a marriage could be a boarder, could be the use of the same property (public property), could be the ten commandments (which are called a covenant which is a agreement or contract) a certainly can be a contract or an agreement between a gov and its people. law is a part of if not the agreement.
Any party in said agreement must hold up his end of the bargain... — DPMartin
You're neglecting the facts of the matter. Morality is rule based. If one follows the rules, s/he is behaving morally. Behaving in a way that does not break the rules is not equivalent to following them. — creativesoul
I've read this thread with interest up until the last few pages where we get a lot of this type of thing..
You're neglecting the facts of the matter. Morality is rule based. If one follows the rules, s/he is behaving morally. Behaving in a way that does not break the rules is not equivalent to following them.
— creativesoul
I'm not sure how constantly restating your belief is of much use on a philosophy forum, could you explain why you think morality is this? If it's just a premise you happen to believe in, that's fine, but trying to debate with people who do not accept your premise from a position which nonetheless presumes it's the case is a bit pointless, no? — Inter Alia
Submitting or adopting is also voluntary... — DPMartin
You're neglecting the facts of the matter. Morality is rule based. If one follows the rules, s/he is behaving morally. Behaving in a way that does not break the rules is not equivalent to following them. — creativesoul
The dandelion... — creativesoul
Your position depends upon attributing moral behaviour to creatures who act in ways that you call moral, but those creatures do not know the rules. So, in order for your position to make sense, you must claim that one can follow the rules unknowingly and/or unintentionally. — creativesoul
The dandelion is an actual non sequitur. — VagabondSpectre
Since Virgil makes choices (lets not get into whether or not Virgils volition is one of "free will" because the results will color both our positions on Capuchin and Humans.) we can make the simple assessment of whether Virgil's choices are moral or immoral. We cannot attribute morality to the decisions and actions of dandelions because they don't make decisions of any kind or have sentience or complex range of possible actions.
It is possible to unknowingly act in a way congruent with the "rules". It's impossible to consciously follow the rules while being unaware of the rules (a direct contradiction), but yes, you can accidentally follow them.
Oh, but it's not. If Virgil can accidentally act morally then having sentience and/or decision making ability to do what's moral is unnecessary for acting morally. Virgil can accidentally act morally. Thus, since sentience is unnecessary for acting morally, it would follow that dandelions act morally. In fact, dandelions don't hit. So, if not hitting is acting morally, then dandelions act morally.
Special pleading... — creativesoul
Your position depends upon attributing moral behaviour to creatures who act in ways that you call moral, but those creatures do not know the rules. So, in order for your position to make sense, you must claim that one can follow the rules unknowingly and/or unintentionally. And now it requires special pleading on top of it all... — creativesoul
Didn't you just claim that one can accidentally act morally?
If you cannot see how that shows that sentience and choice making isn't required for acting morally, then I cannot help you... — creativesoul
I haven't argued my position here, by the way... I'm critiquing yours. — creativesoul
Morality has to do with human welfare - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and you ought to be morally engaged because it will serve your own life, liberty, and happiness. You should treat others as they want to be treated because then they will likely treat you as you want to be treated. — VagabondSpectre
At best your objection is semantic: whether "following the rules" means being aware of them and obeying them or merely not breaking them is trivial. — VagabondSpectre
...morals are simply an agreement, rules are a product of agreements. to come into an agreement with someone with the full intention of not keeping one's part agreed to, is unethical simple as that.
everything else associated to that is usually a peaceful coexistence between persons, or entitlement for restoration or vengeance for offence of the agreement. — DPMartin
If there is no agreement of any sort between two, then one can not sin against the other, or offend the other nor is morally obligated to each other. — DPMartin
If you accept that for an action to be moral it requires an understanding of the fact that although alternative actions are available this one has been determined by some unnamed rule-makers to be the one you should follow, then Virgil's actions could not possibly be moral (as there would seem to be no rule-makers in his society), but only if you accept that premise.
Personally I don't accept that premise, nor do I see any argument made as to why I should. — Inter Alia
Invoking Occam's razor is itself a straw-man. What a person considers to be the simplest explanation is entirely a result of their culture, upbringing and personal world-view. To me it is simplest to presume we're just like any other animal until proven otherwise. To me it's simplest to presume that if primate interactions can be explained by the results of algorithms carried out by complex intuition put there by evolution without deep consideration, then so can ours. If Virgil's apparent morality is just 'Game Theory' despite the fact that it looks like morality on the surface, then I think it's simplest to presume that our morality is just game theory too, dressed up by some fancy language to sound distinct and pamper our illusion that we're somehow special.
What we have is direct evidence of another primate carrying out the exact same behaviour which, if we saw it in a human, we would describe as moral. The simplest explanation is to presume they're the same thing. If you want to add anything more complex to it (like some magical attribute that humans have that we can neither see, nor detect in any way, but which we nonetheless somehow 'know' is absent in all other animals) then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate what this attribute is and how we know it exists only in humans.
"Nah. I cannot equate the two. Agreements can be immoral."
according to who's judgement? yours? — DPMartin
...morals, fulfilled or not, are measured by those who are in the agreement, or bound to the agreement. not by those outside of it. — DPMartin
Americans are not bound to Russian law unless an American steps on sovereign soil that is Russia's. then by default the American agrees to the morals explained in the laws of that land. — DPMartin
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.