Morality Is problematic

Andrew4Handel

I think people are complacent about morality and appear to apply moral platitudes over moral commitments.

A primary problem is moral nihilism and the lack of moral truths. It is not clear there are any moral obligations or moral ought's or moral facts. And when debating things like abortion and assisted suicide you cannot resort to moral facts tor resolve the issue.

Then there is the problem of morality being too demanding. You could spend every moment of every day being more moral such as giving all your nonessential wealth to charity, protesting against injustice. There is the lying problem with the "axe murderer at your door" scenario making never lying untenable.

Then there is the ramifications of utilitarianism which has been shown to lead to absurd conclusions. For example say there are five people waiting for life saving organ donations. One of them is a Doctor on the verge of curing cancer. Should you sacrifice one innocent healthy life to maximize overall well being and save thousands of lives?

Another issue is the unworkability of morality where there too many complex moral dilemmas also framed in an amoral nature. Nature is exploitative and arbitrary and it is somewhat fantastical to try and make nature into some kind of moral paragon. This can tie with utilitarian dilemmas were nature is seen as too harmful.

And finally there is the ubiquitous moral hypocrisy and lack of moral commitment. Not many people are like William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano fighting to end slavery.

I like sushi

Sorry, the title got me! If it wasn’t ‘problematic’ they’d be no such thing as morality.

Seriously though, ‘morality’ to me is about me. It is a deeply personal thing that tends to become diluted when explicated in public sphere. The true heart of my ‘morals’ lies in the darkest parts of myself and keeps me wishing to ‘adhere with rules’ rather than be ‘moral’.

For me the ‘purest’ moral act comes down to committing a hideous act knowingly for what you believe to be implicitly an overarching good - and this is done knowing you’ll become ‘lesser’ and suffer as a consequence. Of course this is merely hypothetical as there is no ‘implicit good’ we can see or a ‘pure’ moral act imaginable in the sense I outline. Basically I just mean to do good whilst expecting to suffer indefinitely. When the chips are down it appears enough of us humans do step up, but I don’t assume for a second I would but I know I wouldn’t like to - who would other than those with a desire to suffer?

Andrew4Handel

Sorry, the title got me! If it wasn’t ‘problematic’ they’d be no such thing as morality. — I like sushi

I feel that morality is the main thing preventing nihilism. The idea of value and moral order. I think that the failure a moral system leads to nihilism.

I think moral values inform action and actions are problematic if there is a failure to justify them.

deletedmemberMD

My response is going to be short here; Morality is Challenging, Challenges are always problematic. That is why they are Challenges.

deletedmemberMD

Not many people are like William Wilberforce and Olaudah Equiano fighting to end slavery. — Andrew4Handel

Also you are awesome for having brought these two up! I love Wilberforce and now you must tell me about Equiano as I'm unfamilliar but already fascinated :)

deletedmemberMD

Another issue is the unworkability of morality where there too many complex moral dilemmas also framed in an amoral nature. Nature is exploitative and arbitrary and it is somewhat fantastical to try and make nature into some kind of moral paragon. This can tie with utilitarian dilemmas were nature is seen as too harmful. — Andrew4Handel

This is one of the most important points to raise in metaethics and ethics; Its called the Demandingness problem. It's a key question to ask of any moral philosophy, claim, prescription or argument "Is this possible? How demanding is carrying out the objective or goal here?".

My answer is; contributing to symbiotic and stable moral ecology and progress for all life.

Pantagruel

This is one of the most important points to raise in metaethics and ethics; Its called the Demandingness problem. It's a key question to ask of any moral philosophy, claim, prescription or argument "Is this possible? How demanding is carrying out the objective or goal here?". — Mark Dennis

Ok. But should demandingness be a positive or a negative criterion? Aristotle says "he who can learn things that are difficult, and not easy for man to know, is wise." I tend to view morality in a similar light. If morality was easy, everyone would already be moral.

deletedmemberMD

↪Pantagruel

Neutral criterion. Knowing how demanding something is useful for positive or negative endeavours.

What say you to a principle of challenge? I definitely agree with the sentiment behind your contribution that being moral is a challenging undertaking. Life is challenging.

Pantagruel

I think as soon as you ask yourself the moral question "what should I do" you have challenged yourself. I'd suggest that, most of the time, morality involves putting someone else's needs ahead of your wants. Or fulfilling an obligation even though it may not be convenient. Things we "ought" to do.

deletedmemberMD

morality involves putting someone else's needs ahead of your wants. Or fulfilling an obligation even though it may not be convenient. Things we "ought" to do. — Pantagruel

What about those amazing individuals we all know who seem to not only want but need to put other peoples wants ahead of their own? Friends, family etc.. Certainly parents.

Pantagruel

↪Mark Dennis

Yes, but you have to believe that can't be easy. I suspect some people are just morally more evolved than others.
Edit: you can practice morality, then it seems to get easier, as with anything.

deletedmemberMD

↪Pantagruel

I do believe it isn't easy. Nothing is ever easy and there is no such thing as a 'simple' wish.

If we start broaching into thinking that some people are just morally evolved then we are treading into dangerous waters. There was nothing morally evolved about me as a child nor any other child I've ever met. I personally believe environment is the most contributing factor always. Sure genes plays its part, but only in that your genes will probably define how you react to certain environments. Human functional design is geographically relative.

deletedmemberMD

↪Pantagruel

What do you think Wisdom is? I feel I've still not come up with a satisfying answer for myself yet.

Pantagruel

↪Mark Dennis

For me the critical factor was social awareness. I do believe that fundamentally, both in terms of our humanity and our consciousness, we are part of a larger collective entity. As soon as I began to understand, then appreciate not only personal but social obligations, that's when I feel I really began to grow. And it was difficult, still is. But at least now I feel like I am part of the way up the hill, versus starting from the very bottom!

deletedmemberMD

↪Pantagruel

Social awareness is very important. Educating is the supreme importance though. Diverse education.

Pantagruel

↪Mark Dennis

:up:

Andrew4Handel

Challenges are always problematic. — Mark Dennis

I do not think that this is true. There are numerous challenges that we overcome.

This is a semantic problem anyway. There is a difference between something being a challenge and something being impossible.

I am moral nihilist and I don't think any moral claims are valid. But even If I was not I cannot see any workable moral claims.

Andrew4Handel

If morality was easy, everyone would already be moral. — Pantagruel

This is exactly why morality is untenable. It is absurd to only expect a tiny proportion of society to be morally enlightened.

If people want to be moral they should do their own research.

I think the problem is that people have been offered poor and unreflective moral ideas to follow.

But I do not think ignorance is a sufficient moral excuse.

deletedmemberMD

I do not think that this is true. There are numerous challenges that we overcome. — Andrew4Handel

Does my use of the word problematic mean something that is impossible? That's not what I mean. I mean that all challenges inherently have problems as all challenges have a problem which requires solved. Problematic here merely means something which contains problems. Problematic is the nature of reality for us life forms... Or awareness of problems at least.

deletedmemberMD

↪Andrew4Handel

Your form of Nihilism sounds more like moral defeatism.

Is this due to a lack of justice in the world? Your belief I mean? Why do you really think morality is impossible? What is functioning morality to you? Really curious. Nihilism is a step in the right direction in my eyes so long as its only once and not a backstep.

frank

Then there is the problem of morality being too demanding. — Andrew4Handel

I'm a nihilist, but I see the benefits to society of rules and punishments. Some people naturally color inside the lines and they need lines (to be super condescending about it) and some need to be defiant and so need something to defy.

Morality is a drama that unfolds between those who need to lay down rules and those who need rules. The fact that this drama has been working for thousands of years tells us that its benefits outweigh its burdensomeness.

Andrew4Handel

↪Mark Dennis

My nihilism is the default until someone can provide me with moral facts.

I think if you took any of the current moral stances seriously they would undermine peoples actions. The problem I think is that people are exploiting moral concepts to justify action but not examining the validity of these concepts.

I don't think society should function on invalid values.

Andrew4Handel

I'm a nihilist, but I see the benefits to society of rules and punishments — frank

I don't think you can be a real nihilist and talk about benefits to society.

I am an antinatalist nihilist I do not see the point of continuing to propagate the human race.

I think that creating a society based on half truths, fantasies and a lack of rational justification is problematic. A bit like creating a delusion/illusion.

frank

I don't think you can be a real nihilist and talk about benefits to society. — Andrew4Handel

Why not? I'm not suggesting that society should be benefited, just that it is.

am an antinatalist nihilist I do not see the point of continuing to propagate the human race. — Andrew4Handel

There is no point. There wouldn't be any point to ending human life either. You're a misanthrope, which I'm guessing means you're fixated on the ugly part of humanity. Aesthetics and Ethics are joined at the hip.

think that creating a society based on half truths, fantasies and a lack of rational justification is problematic. A bit like creating a delusion/illusion. — Andrew4Handel

What's wrong with that? What's so great about the truth?

Andrew4Handel

Why not? I'm not suggesting that society should be benefited, just that it is. — frank

I think the problem is of defining society, whose society and how it is being benefited and what flourishing is.

What constitutes a thriving flourishing person and society and who decides? I think our societies are highly exploitative and parasitic etc including environmental damage which is to some extent for short term gain.

I am an agnostic nihilist so I don't rule out meaning but I think we can critique our current meaning systems and values for rationality.

Irrationality is dangerous because it is the equivalent of walking around near a cliff wearing a blindfold.

frank

Irrationality is dangerous because it is the equivalent of walking around near a cliff wearing a blindfold. — Andrew4Handel

Beautiful dreamer, waken to me.

Gus Lamarch

I think people are complacent about morality and appear to apply moral platitudes over moral commitments. — Andrew4Handel

Morality, is nothing more than reins that society putted over the individual to control and command the way that the "own" thinks, lives, and exists. Without morality, with the "ego" in its full potential, humanity would develop at its maximum.

Andrew4Handel

Without morality, with the "ego" in its full potential, humanity would develop at its maximum. — Gus Lamarch

I like that.

deletedmemberMD

↪Andrew4Handel

Have you done any research into ethical pragmatism? I can't offer you objective moral truth by your definition as I cannot claim to know it. I just have my best guesses in the end.

Pragmatic moral truth is the best you can get in my opinion. Human truths or things that are true for life if not all of reality.

Maybe Moral Ecology is where you should focus some research.

Give me a DM if you want to discuss things in a more informal and friendly manner but I hope my suggestions might find you some measure of peace.

The reason I call Nihilism is a step is that the state of mind is showing of ones awareness of the great problems. Only you can decide how you will personally answer them in the way the helps you sleep at night and die knowing you tried your best in life. Good luck :) digging the journey you're on.

Andrew4Handel

I thought it was accepted that morality was about goodness?

So if you want to be good or do good you have to perform certain actions or refrain from certain actions.

If there is no agreement on the definition of morality then that in itself undermines it.

I had a lot of involvement in the care of severely ill relative for many years (he died last week). I do not feel a glow of moral accomplishment for doing that. But it would be nice to know whether or not you did the right thing.

So I suppose that is the key issue. If people do not know whether there behavior is moral or not then what's the point?

Lots of dubious groups of people give praise to each other for behaviour deemed by many is bad. So anyone or any group can simply assert they are good or moral with no known boundaries.

Andrew4Handel

Morality, is nothing more than reins that society putted over the individual to control and command the way that the "own" thinks, lives, and exists. Without morality, with the "ego" in its full potential, humanity would develop at its maximum. — Gus Lamarch

I have wondered whether not making moral claims would benefit society. No one group could claim to be morally superior over another or more or less worthy.

I think the problem is that a lot of power and ideas are fueled by dubious moral claims including the notion of survival of the fittest which has been abused as a mark of worth. So I wouldn't advocate any kind of natural or unnatural hierarchy.

At best I think we need to constantly challenge assertions and ideologies and abandon failed ones.

For example imagine if someone had said thousands of years ago that slavery is indefensible and convinced other people then we could have maybe had thousands of years free of slavery.

I use the term indefensible as opposed to immoral because I am just talking about an argument challenging someone or societies behaviour not a condemnation.

Morality Is problematic

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions