I’m with you on this, for the most part.

If true morality is to exist, as you say, then the legal system would be unnecessary. What makes these laws appear necessary is the fear that ‘chaos would ensue’. Yes, humans tend to be ‘naturally’ selfish, but we are also capable of much more moral ‘good’ than we tend to give each other credit for.

We set a minimum standard for human behaviour barely above that of other social animals in many respects, and we continually appeal to evolutionary theory to excuse selfish, thoughtless and even destructive behaviour towards each other. ‘We’re social mammals’, we say, as if that makes exclusion, hatred and oppression acceptable, desirable or even ‘necessary’ in certain circumstances.

But it is our capacity to understand the value and meaning of the universe beyond our own needs and existence that enables us to achieve ‘good’ well beyond this minimum standard. This capacity has nothing to do with survival value, and even renders evolutionary theory and the extensions of naturalism woefully insufficient as an explanation of human behaviour.

Note that to know what to do requires some guiding principles. We may call these "norms" or "prescriptions" of moral standards but free will is one step before that - whether we should be good or not and not what we should do which I presume is the domain of the philosophy of ethics.

Good is Unnecessary. — TheMadFool

I have argued before that free will is the step prior to initiating action - and that in order to be positioned as such it must be an interaction that occurs ‘outside’ of time. I have also argued these guiding principles to be awareness, connection and collaboration, specifically.

I agree that ‘good’ is unnecessary. It exists because the universe chooses to be aware, to connect and collaborate - to a certain extent. And all elements of the universe define and confine themselves to the extent that they have chosen against these guiding principles somewhere between potential and actual interaction.

We set a minimum standard for human behaviour barely above that of other social animals in many respects, and we continually appeal to evolutionary theory to excuse selfish, thoughtless and even destructive behaviour towards each other. — Possibility

I guess, despite many members of the so-called intelligentsia disagreeing, we do know ourselves well enough to realize no one can be trusted with the treasure. This truth, if you want to call it that, is considered seriously whether it's a pact between friends or a deal between governments. Notice though that our nature, its evil side, causes us to make prohibitive laws - you can't do this, you can't do that, etc. Nowhere have I seen a law that enforces good which I infer to mean that goodness is a choice rather than a compulsion unless you happen to be like the OCD patient I met who couldn't pass a temple on the street without feeling an intense irresistible need to enter it.

When I started the discussion I was confused by the existence and wide-spread practice of normative morals which implies necessity but it seems these apply only after a choice has been made on whether to be good or not. They tell us what we should do based on some principles but this sits in contrast with the widely-held belief that goodness must be a choice rather than an enforced code of conduct.

There seems to be an implicit premise that choice comes first and that negates all moral philosophies which expound necessary moral actions. It's still hazy to me but moral philosophies and the moral norms derived thereof are about what to do and can never really tell us why we should be good. The choice is ours it seems.

"Why we should be good?" is a question akin to "Why should we believe the truth?" Baked into the concept of "truth" is "thing to be believed", and baked into the concept of "good" is "thing to be done". Asking "what is good?" just is asking "what to do?", just like asking "what is true?" just is asking "what to believe?"

To either question, answers can be handed down authoritatively without explanation, or they can be argued for from reasons. The exact process of how to justify anything, factual or normative, is a big can of worms to open, but it's a problem that applies just as much to descriptive questions as prescriptive ones. There's nothing special about prescriptive questions in that regard.

I contest the necessary nature of philosophized moral theories. Not long ago I opened a discussion on God being defined as omniscient AND omnibenevolent. Why is it that goodness must be part of the definition of God? Wouldn't omniscience cover that? Doesn't knowledge make a person good?

I now realize, perhaps erroneously, that goodness requires free will. God is omniscient and must know that given the right set of premises, moral laws necessarily follow. However God must, like us, possess free will which allows God to be evil. Therefore goodness is required as a God attribute to impress upon us that inspite of God having free will and is capable of evil, he is omnibenevolent and so can't will not do evil.

How about these questions to consider:

- If humans are essentially selfish and evil, then how do moral laws come into being?
- Denying ‘free-will’ can mean many things to many people. Could there be a problem with how people wish to interpret others when they say ‘free will’ doesn’t exist?
- If without law chaos would ensue, from where did law arise? Mustn’t then chaos necessitate law; and if so established norms of moral behaviour must therefore have substance.

I would say the those that frame ‘moral relativism’, as a means to excuse their actions, have been heavily steeped in an amoral pool. Nihilism cure some and drives others over the edge.

As there is a strong scent of Nietzsche to this thread I would highly recommend people take on his ‘The Birth of Tragedy’ in order to understand the broader context of ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ - a work that can only superficially be understood without exploring the ideas of Plato and Aristotle (but hey! I guess we live in an age of severe hyperbole backed by selected quotations plucked for some www. so it can be problematic to find such depth on forums like this).

Thanks. A probing thread that may lead to some interesting discussion if the vultures are harried away ;)

Goodness requires free will only inasmuch as free will is equivalent to the capacity for moral judgement to guide behavior, which NB does not require indeterminism. And God is irrelevant to anything that I said; I don't believe any gods exist, but their existence wouldn't make any difference to my earlier point.

That point again is that asking "what is good?" is just asking "what should I do?". Answering that (correctly or not, just deciding on what you think is the answer) is the process of willing, of intending to do something, where an intention is the moral analogue of a belief (since beliefs are properly speaking descriptive in attitude, not prescriptive; which is why omnibenevolence is not a subset of omniscience, one is prescriptive and the other is descriptive). And that will is free when it causes you to actually do the thing you intend, in contrast to when something else causes you to do otherwise despite that intention.

It may help to parcel up some terms for the sake of the discussion? I suggest TheMadFool frames his point more readily by distinguishing the differences between ‘correct’, ‘just’/‘right’ and ‘good’.

I don’t really believe there are rigid delineations between these terms but emphasizing the general differences should help establish a common ground from which to work the discussion from?

The obvious, and annoying things to consider would be the immediate over the prolonged and lasting effects. Immature thought/ideas are generally equated to short-term solutions, yet moral solutions are generally more tilted toward the immediate. I’d say the crux of the issue is in how we balance out these two items. Agree?

I don't really follow your point about short vs long term; I think both of those are important to moral considerations, and there's isn't some line between moral and non-moral drawn along that divide.

As for terminology, I do distinguish between goodness of character that we might call "virtue", goodness of action that we might call "justice", and goodness of situation where I would use the term "good" without qualifiers. But I don't see a need to invoke those distinctions in the point I was making above. Asking "what should I do?" involves consideration of all of them.

I said TheMadFool should do so. I was looking at the OP regarding that comment.

The difference in time is important (distinct line? Nope, just saying that the grayness is a problem). I’ve posted about this before in an extreme example about how to choose between killing a million people to save the human species. A more realistic example would be allowing a man to die in order to locate a cure for a disease. Morally, in the immediate, it is awful to allow a man to die when you could’ve saved his life BUT if there is a very good chance that by saving him millions of innocents will die then it can be argued that it is immoral not to let him die.

That is the kind of thing I meant about the relationship of time to morality.

Even more relatable, in terms of personal ‘good’, it is ‘good’ to socialise and enjoy a holiday, yet if you have an important paper to write for some job/school that could lead to you achieving something great, then the immediate ‘good’ will hurt the future you. I realise that ‘good’ is meant differently in the OP but you get the gist I hope :)

Notice though that our nature, its evil side, causes us to make prohibitive laws - you can't do this, you can't do that, etc. Nowhere have I seen a law that enforces good which I infer to mean that goodness is a choice rather than a compulsion unless you happen to be like the OCD patient I met who couldn't pass a temple on the street without feeling an intense irresistible need to enter it. — TheMadFool

It is our fears that cause us to make these prohibitive laws. It’s difficult to enforce action in general - interestingly, those laws that do seem to impose monetary fines as punishment for inaction within a timeframe.

When I started the discussion I was confused by the existence and wide-spread practice of normative morals which implies necessity but it seems these apply only after a choice has been made on whether to be good or not. They tell us what we should do based on some principles but this sits in contrast with the widely-held belief that goodness must be a choice rather than an enforced code of conduct. — TheMadFool

I have a problem with discussions on morality for this reason. Normative morals set a basic requirement of human behaviour as a necessity, and fail to take into account or inspire a much greater capacity for good that we possess as humans. But there also appears to be an implication that by declaring a particular behaviour to be ‘immoral’ we somehow strike it from the set of human behaviours altogether. Anyone found to commit this ‘immoral’ behaviour is then labelled ‘inhuman’ and so revokes their right to be treated with the dignity of a human being.

There seems to be an implicit premise that choice comes first and that negates all moral philosophies which expound necessary moral actions. It's still hazy to me but moral philosophies and the moral norms derived thereof are about what to do and can never really tell us why we should be good. The choice is ours it seems. — TheMadFool

The way I see it, most of the time we don’t ‘choose to be good’, as such. We choose to be aware, to connect and to collaborate - or we choose not to - with every interaction. And while it can be a conscious choice, it isn’t necessarily so. The thing is, though - it seems to me at least that our evolution in intelligence and capacity for ‘good’ as human beings stem precisely from those three choices. And that what we see as ‘evil’ - or at least harm - stems from our choosing not to be aware, connect or collaborate in potential interactions.

If humans are essentially selfish and evil, then how do moral laws come into being? — I like sushi

Well, the existence of moral laws can be explained by our rationality alone. Having no moral laws would severely hinder social cohesion, enough to the point of disaster. Therefore, we must have moral laws. There is no necessity for any goodness in us as you seem to be suggesting.

Of course I'm not claiming we're ALL evil. There is goodness in us but having moral laws doesn't mean that it's necessarily due to that. It could simply be prudence of creatures, humans, who requires a few set of rules to maintain harmony so that they, we, may co-exist.

Goodness requires free will only inasmuch as free will is equivalent to the capacity for moral judgement to guide behavior, which NB does not require indeterminism. — Pfhorrest

Free will can't/shouldn't be restrained in any way at all and that implies that no moral injunctions should force its hands to do something/anything.

If morality was binding then we would simply be machines running a particular kind of software - no choice ergo no free will. I think the essence of free will is to be completely unfettered and is central to the question of personal responsibility which itself lies at the heart of morality. There may be sound reasons to be good and eschew evil and these answer the question "what should I do?" and also "why should I do this and not something else?". However free will should allow a person to defy even the very best of reasons - choose any path even if just on whim and fancy.

Like I said, I think it would serve if you highlighted what you mean by ‘good’ and/or terms like ‘right’, ‘evil’ and ‘beneficial’. By the above I could easily construe what you’re saying as rational thought being separate from emotions/morals - there is little to no recent evidence to support this (to the contrary - see Damasio).

Morality also includes modalities such as "permissible," "recommendable," "optional," etc.

With respect to things that are morally obligatory or impermissible, free will is still relevant in that you can choose to take the morally obligatory action or not. If you do not, then you've chosen to not act morally.

If you assume good is unnecessary we must also link any relations to good also unnecessary.
You could also say that everything is unnecessary, really.

Like I said, I think it would serve if you highlighted what you mean by ‘good’ and/or terms like ‘right’, ‘evil’ and ‘beneficial’. By the above I could easily construe what you’re saying as rational thought being separate from emotions/morals - there is little to no recent evidence to support this (to the contrary - see Damasio).
21m — I like sushi

I don't understand how we got this far into the discussion without you knowing what I'm talking about. By the way, any definition for "good" is acceptable for I'm not concerned with the definition itself but simply with how these definitions invariably lead to a system with moral prescriptions - forcing us to choose a particular course of action. This isn't acceptable. Moral culpability rests on free will and being restricted in one's actions (by moral injunctions) violates this principle in such a way that we're no longer responsible for our actions and this devalues goodness and acquits the criminal.

With respect to things that are morally obligatory or impermissible, free will is still relevant in that you can choose to take the morally obligatory action or not. If you do not, then you've chosen to not act morally. — Terrapin Station

:up:

I think free will is very intimately linked to denial - to say no to anything that dictates a particular course of action and includes even the very best of arguments.

If you assume good is unnecessary we must also link any relations to good also unnecessary.
You could also say that everything is unnecessary, really. — Fruitless

Quite oddly, free will is necessary for morality.

define morality - because I argue we are all immoral. I don't think we can even definitely state whether someone is moral or immoral. Actually, I think free will is the daughter of wishful thinking.

define morality - because I argue we are all immoral. I don't think we can even definitely state whether someone is moral or immoral. Actually, I think free will is the daughter of wishful thinking. — Fruitless

There are grey areas but there are extremes that are recognizably good or bad. Perhaps if you look at these you'll get an idea of what I mean.

Wishful thinking isn't connected to free will directly although free will may manifest as wishful thinking.

If we consider layers to truth, than you are correct. Of course there is such thing as good or bad, depending on how you want to construct your own reality. Good exists if you believe everything you see or hear, but if you move beyond...you will find nothing matters

^Layers of truth.

I asked because whatever it is you’re saying seems to be overlooking something. You’re probably not stating something really obvious to you but not to me.

Maybe talk of game theory, irrational behavior, and/or some carefully thought out examples to get the gist across would help me?

People act as if they have free will. From a moral stance fatalism is an obvious no no when it comes to making moral choices. Laws, and/or moral codes, are extensions of what serves the human individual in a social group. Our social existence requires an agreed code of conduct based on emotional wants and needs - the group need conflicts with the individual need.

I’ve been through all this before on here I believe. I found it useful to return to a more delineated approach toward the terms ‘ethical’ and ‘moral’: the former being attuned to public agreement and the latter to the individual orientation toward what is deemed ‘good’ in spite of ‘ethical’ rules.

Generally societies sustain themselves by enough crossover between the societal and individual ‘ethical’/‘moral’ demands. I’m not suggesting they are mutually exclusive, just making a useful distinction.

I’ve been through all this before on here I believe. I found it useful to return to a more delineated approach toward the terms ‘ethical’ and ‘moral’: the former being attuned to public agreement and the latter to the individual orientation toward what is deemed ‘good’ in spite of ‘ethical’ rules — I like sushi

So there is a disharmony between individual morals and public ethics otherwise why make the distinction?

How do you explain that?

After all the public is nothing more than a group of indviduals. Perhaps you're talking about differences in ethics between groups. Nevertheless I think consistency exists within a specific group between public ethics and individual morals.

I just mean that we may all agree that it is unethical to kill someone, yet in some given situation our moral disposition can override this. It works both ways of course - hence honouring soldiers for killing people masked as ‘protection’ (which is certainly true to some degree).

I think we agree in general, if you’re saying that having the moral will to break the law and suffer (sacrifice) is above the groups view. The brave and moral individual stands up and surrenders themselves by going against the public law and knowingly ‘cutting off their own arm’ (so to speak).

Theft is regarded as a bad thing. If I have no money and wish to feed my children I will steal if every other option fails - and willing suffer the punishment for the sake of my children. To allow my children to starve, OR go to prison for several years, is an easy choice for most people.

I do think a lot of this gets more confusing when we regard the element of martyrdom.

The public certainly isn’t a group of individuals - at least not in the way I meant to distinguish between ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’. See above for the moral will to go against the ethical disposition in the public sphere.

I think I understand what you mean. There are exceptions for any and all moral theoretic injunctions. However these exceptions don't constitute a division between public ethics and individual morals. Rather such circumstance-based moral calculations are permissible and accommodated in what you refer to as public ethics. The individual has the liberty to fly against moral tenets precisely because it is allowed through public consent to do so.

However I appreciate what you wish to convey - there is a tension between individual and group interests.

I do look at these things based on some rather ‘clinical’ tools.

Entropy
Mapping
Efficiency
Neuroscience

We happen to call some events ‘good’, but there in no concrete good per se, but the good is how we navigate our life toward a more ‘efficient’ map. What is ‘good’ is what helps exploration. So what is fulfilling one moment is tiresome the next. Gauging where best to position ourselves to be stable and open to change is the basis of human activity - ‘ethics’ is a layer of this.

If your delving into the depths of the unknown then the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ become necessarily blurry because you don’t have that area of problems mapped out much. If you run in blind then that’s basically a form of nihilism/insanity - you may gain, but it’s foolhardy to say the least.

Without orientation we have no ... er ... orientation. Starting from scratch, stripping yourself as much as you can away from society, will allow a slight peek beyond the curtain. It won’t be pleasant though and it may put an end to you.

Have you every tried prolonged sensory deprivation? Imagine something like that but where your empathy towards others is muted. That will probably give a hint about the grounding of our moral disposition; but I’m not sure if it does or even if it does what possible use it could be.

Interesting thoughts! I see how this can easily be applied to debated in the philosophy of religion. Simply replace secular governmental laws with religious laws from God and jail/other punishments with Hell and such. I often hear of this argument referred to as something of an “offer no one could refuse.” If one truly believes in God and Heaven/Hell, then how is their moral behavior free will? Aren’t they just terrified of Hell (or annihilation, or whatever alternative) and enticed by Heaven? How could they possibly choose anything else? How is their choice to follow God’s laws meaningful/free? Since you kept your terminology in the secular realm, I will as well. I just wanted to point out how this applies regardless of where you believe your moral obligations (mandatory/prohibitory) come from.

Briefly, I think what you mean by “true” morality is meaningful morality, or morality for morality’s sake, morality good in itself. When I use the word “true” in the upcoming discussion, this is what I am taking it to mean. We aren’t in an epistemology forum here, haha.

It seems like your argument goes something along these lines:

1. If punishable moral obligations/prohibitions exist, then true morality does not exist. (a, b HS)
1.a. If punishable moral obligations/prohibitions exist, then choosing moral behavior is not really a choice of free will (it is an offer no one can refuse).
1.b. If choosing moral behavior is not a choice of free will, then true (meaningful) morality does not exist.
2. Punishable moral obligations/prohibitions exist.
3. True morality does not exist.

I think my best objection would be to premise 1a. I assert that 1a is false and that even if punishable moral obligations/prohibitions exist, then choosing moral behavior is still a choice of free will. One thing to quickly point out (as you mention in your post things like murder and rape) is that while there are strict punishments for violating the legal prohibitions against murder and rape, people still commit these crimes in spades. Some people seem to not be afraid of these laws, or at least not as afraid of them as they are attracted by the potential reward for their actions. However, I mainly want to discuss 1a in terms of the rest of us, those that generally live pretty banal moral lives (as you seem to be living as well). Are we only doing it out of fear?

I know I am not, but I think my intuition regarding this is directed differently than yours. You claim humans to be basically selfish, but I disagree. Altruism is found in nature and thus can be very natural. I feel good when I give to charity whether or not I give enough to get a tax incentive. Plenty of people do good without any sort of concept of reward besides making the world better. I would say that many people don’t commit crimes for similar reasons; wronging others just feels wrong.

In this way, it seems like laws regarding obligations/prohibitions simply encourage behaviors that are natural to making our relationships with each other better. The punishments for violating these laws are like any other punishment. Some people risk it or welcome it because they care more about their immediate desires than the wellbeing of others. We can still freely choose to steal or cheat or even murder, we just know there will be consequences. Those of us that don’t do not necessarily restrict ourselves from doing wrong out of fear. Many of us feel guilt, our own sort of internal punishment, when we harm others. Maybe in a way the religious moral laws of God guide humans to live lives of less guilt or internal strife, or at least try too.

I don’t steal from my local grocery store because I am afraid of jail; I don’t steal because I would feel bad for the manager held accountable for the missing stock. I don’t lie to my roommate because I am scared of Hell; I know that I would feel guilty after for betraying her trust. Perhaps these things are just a me personally thing. I don’t really understand the notion that I am an “upstanding citizen” out of fear, but perhaps I have just been trained positive/negative reinforcement style to feel as I do.

One thing to quickly point out (as you mention in your post things like murder and rape) is that while there are strict punishments for violating the legal prohibitions against murder and rape, people still commit these crimes in spades. Some people seem to not be afraid of these laws, or at least not as afraid of them as they are attracted by the potential reward for their actions — philrelstudent

Hello and thanks for the reply.

I think crimes are committed for a variety of reasons and range from fits of passion to meticulously considered reasons based off of money, power, etc.. Of the many possible reasons for them one that stands out to me is the possibility and attempt to escape detection. Fear of capture is real and always present but if one can prevent being detected by the law people will commit crimes. Not a great view of human nature but a fact is a fact.

Therefore it seems, if the law is truly as fearful as it's touted to be, ALL criminals must be mentally deranged for failing to seem the simple argument of an eye for an eye which I consider as the ultimate form of justice despite not subscribing to it in full.

Altruism is found in nature — philrelstudent

Yes, altruism is found in nature but it's noble appearance is shattered by the mere recognition of how all forms of goodness is ultimately self-fulfilling.

Many of us feel guilt — philrelstudent

This is a very important observation. Guilt applies to wrongdoing of any kind. Even if fear of the law were to be set aside for any reason every criminal will know what s/he has/had done and if it leads to guilt - feeling sorry for the wronged person - it indicates the presence of morality at some level. To those who don't feel guilt I think we can safely class them as mentally deranged.

Good is Unnecessary. — TheMadFool

What if the good is what goes against one's nature? If someone has a proclivity to doing evil things, is it not good that they abstain from doing them?

Could it be that good is an absence?