I don't know how you got that from what I said. — Bartricks

I didn't get it from your remark. You posed a question, I was only answering it facetiously.

My point was that it is one of the marks of a moral norm that it is grounded in the interests of others. If I have a reason to do x for your sake - so, the ground of the reason is your sake not mine - then it seems to qualify as a moral reason. More to it than that, no doubt. But it seems to be one of the hallmarks

It does qualify as a moral reason, but morality is not rooted in selfless altruism. It is rooted in the individual's obligation to adhere to moral reason or ethical principles. If a person's moral reasoning tells him that it is good to be a selfish bastard that gets over on others, then it is the moral thing to do, and nothing can tell against it.

Yep, I concur!

Well, you can't have an obligation to be selfish and the concept of selfishness incorporates wrongness - that is, to be selfish is to be self-interested when one ought not to be.

And when it comes to moral reasons, they are a subset of normative reasons. A reason to do something because it serves one's own ends - so a reason generated by one's own interests rather than those of another - is called an 'instrumental' reason, not a moral reason. They are both from Reason. But one is grounded in one's own ends - and so we call it 'instrumental' - and the other is not, and so we call it 'moral' (although there are other defining features).

Well, you can't have an obligation to be selfish — Bartricks

Why not? What if I were to make a vow (based on moral reasoning and ethical principles) to serve only myself in every interaction with others? To honor such a vow, I would be obligated to abide by its demands.

the concept of selfishness incorporates wrongness - that is, to be selfish is to be self-interested when one ought not to be. — Bartricks

You are treating the wrongness of selfishness as an absolute ethical principle. Perhaps, you are right, and there are abolute principles, althought it is exceedingly hard to prove. And I don't disagree.

Moving past all that, that which is universal to ethics is obeying the rules. So, regardless of whether ethical principles are relative or absolute, that which matters most to each and every ethical individual is loyalty, devotion, and absolute adherence to one's subscribed morality. This is because the primary, universal, ethical imperative is to be good. Each and every ethical individual seeks above all: to conform to the good and eschew evil...not to serve others (which is secondary at best).

And when it comes to moral reasons, they are a subset of normative reasons. A reason to do something because it serves one's own ends - so a reason generated by one's own interests rather than those of another - is called an 'instrumental' reason, not a moral reason. They are both from Reason. But one is grounded in one's own ends - and so we call it 'instrumental' - and the other is not, and so we call it 'moral' (although there are other defining features). — Bartricks

What kind of reasoning is it when an individual does something that serves his own ends because he thinks it is the good or morally right thing to do? For example, you steal food to eat because you think being hungry is wrong.

What kind of reasoning is it when an individual's selfless altruistism is generated by his own interests rather than those of another? For example, founding a charity that makes you rich.

And when it comes to moral reasons, they are a subset of normative reasons. A reason to do something because it serves one's own ends - so a reason generated by one's own interests rather than those of another - is called an 'instrumental' reason, not a moral reason. They are both from Reason. — Bartricks

:100:

Maybe you know:

What kind of reasoning is it when an individual does something that serves his own ends because he thinks it is the good or morally right thing to do? For example, you steal food to eat because you think being hungry is wrong.

What kind of reasoning is it when an individual's selfless altruistism is generated by his own interests rather than those of another? For example, founding a charity that makes you rich. — Merkwurdichliebe

What kind of reasoning is it when an individual does something that serves his own ends because [non sequitur]. — Merkwurdichliebe

Instrumental reasoning.

So then, it follows that moral reasoning can be instrumental reasoning, but instrumental reasoning cannot be moral reasoning.

What about when a person does the morally right thing because he thinks it serves his own intetests?

This does not follow

What about when a person does the right thing because he thinks it serves his inte[re]sts? — Merkwurdichliebe

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/721614

What kind of reasoning is it when an individual does something that serves his own ends because [non sequitur]. — Merkwurdichliebe

Instrumental reasoning. — 180 Proof

I get it

What about when a person does the morally right thing because [non sequitur] — Merkwurdichliebe

Moral reasoning

Apparently, you don't get it.

@180 Proof, @Bartricks

Are you saying it's instrumental reason if it is the morally right act, and instrumental reasoning if it is a selfish act?...that is just plain stupid reasoning.

Apparently, you don't get it. — 180 Proof

You haven't defended your position here, but you are right, it is hard for me to digest bullshit.

(Edit:)

What kind of reasoning is it when an individual's selfless altruistism is generated by his own interests rather than those of another? For example, founding a charity that makes you rich. — Merkwurdichliebe

You conviently ignored this inquiry btw.

Incorrigibles always call what they can't grasp "bullshit".

and, flatterers are always evading questions about their erroneous logic.

Again, to be selfish is to be being self interested when one OUGHT not to be. So, if or when it is right to be self interested, it will not be selfish.

I don't understand why you can't understand what I am saying. Is English not your first language? Or do you just enjoy being told off?
An instrumental reason is, by definition, a reason to do something due to it's being in one's interests to do it.
Moral reasons are not instrumental reasons. That's why we call them 'moral'and not 'instrumental'.

If you have moral reason to do what you have instrumental reason to do, then that does not make the instrumental reasons into moral reasons or vice versa.
For instance, if it is in the best interests of others that I do what is most in my interests, then the moral reason to do what I gave instrumental reason to do remains grounded in the interests of others, just as the instrumental reasons remain grounded in my interests.

If you have moral reason to do what you have instrumental reason to do, then that does not make the instrumental reasons into moral reasons or vice versa.
For instance, if it is in the best interests of others that I do what is most in my interests, then the moral reason to do what I gave instrumental reason to do remains grounded in the interests of others, just as the instrumental reasons remain grounded in my interests. — Bartricks

Exactly. Moral reasons, although normative like instrumental reasons, are of an entirely different qualitative nature. Moral reasoning can only relate to instrumental reasoning in assigning it an ethical value (viz. it is good/bad to serve one's interests). While instrumental reasoning can only relate to moral reason by assessing to what degree a moral/immoral act is instrumental in serving oneself. And although they overlap occasionally (e.g. if it is in the best interests of others that I do what is most in my interests), they represent discrete normative categories that are mostly incompatible.

Again, to be selfish is to be being self interested when one OUGHT not to be. So, if or when it is right to be self interested, it will not be selfish. — Bartricks

That is an example of moral reasoning assigning ethical value to self interest (which involves instrumental reason).

The normative (ought) in instrumental reason is about much more practical matters, it usually is concerned with doing things the correct way to achieve one's benign nonmoral interests. But, it can sometimes interfere with and contradict ethical reasoning, forcing a person to choose between the two. And this is precisely when moral reasoning invokes the notion of "being self interested when one OUGHT not to be - selfishness."

Why did you say 'exactly'? I was correcting you. You think moral reasons 'are' instrumental reasons. They're not.
You: we are in Paris
Me: no, we are clearly in Cairo.
You: Cairo is Paris. If you set off from Paris and arrive in Cairo, then Cairo is Paris
Me: no, they're quite different places. That you set off from Paris does not entail that where you arrive will be Paris
You: Exactly. They're different places.

When an agent seeks to help her own welfare by helping, harming or ignoring the welfare of another, the agent does so by instrumental reasoning.

Helping another is only a means to the end of helping oneself.

"Flatter" me, @Merkwurdichliebe, and show me where this conception goes wrong

When an agent seeks to help the welfare of another whether or not her own welfare is helped, the agent does so by moral reasoning.

Helping another is the end in itself.

Again, show me where this conception goes wrong

Why did you say 'exactly'? I was correcting you. You think moral reasons 'are' instrumental reasons. They're not. — Bartricks

Did I say that somewhere? If so, I was most likely being extemporaneous, an meant it rhetorically... If so, I retract the insinuation of any literal intent.

I was really wondering why you randomly brought up instrumental reason when the subject is on existential ethics. Weird. :chin: I suspect it was mere sophistry on your part, trying to prove that morality can be reduced to selfishness and altruism.

I was really wondering why you randomly brought up instrumental reason when the subject is on existential ethics. Weird. :chin: I suspect it was mere sophistry on your part, trying to prove that morality can be reduced to selfishness and altruism. — Merkwurdichliebe

If you'd taken the trouble to read what I said on the subject, then you'd know that I do not know what an 'existential ethics' is.

But anyway, my point - whether you're interested in it or not - is that one of the marks of a moral reason is that it is grounded in interests other than one's own.

Make of that what you will.

Here, for your convenience, is the initial exchange that led to the focus on the non-instrumental nature of moral reasons:

You will always have to live with yourself. That's merely a fact.

It's the fact that you should always consider in making a choice.

Hence, a real ethic -- you *should* consider that you'll always be with yourself.
8 days ago
Bartricks
5.3k
↪Moliere But surely morality is primarily about others, not oneself?

If i have reason to do something due to it serving some of my ends, then we describe that reason as an instrumental or practical reason, not a moral reason.

But if I have reason to do something due to it serving some other person's ends, or due to it bringing about a just state of affairs, or ameliorating an unjust state of affairs, or if I have a reason to do something because it will bring about something of intrinsic moral value, then we describe those reasons as 'moral' reasons.
8 days ago
Moliere
2.1k
But surely morality is primarily about others, not oneself?
— Bartricks

I agree.

And, after you mistreat someone, you will still live with yourself -- knowing what you did.
8 days ago
Bartricks
5.3k
↪Moliere But what work is the word 'existential' doing?

Moral obligations are had by persons. So, one needs to be a person in order to have any.

And a defining feature of moral obligations seems to be that they concern acts we have reason to perform for the sake of others, or for the sake of the promotion of something of moral value or the prevention or amelioration of something of moral disvalue.

But there's no 'ethic' here, inasmuch as it is left open exactly what we are morally obliged to do. The point is just that when the ground of the reason for action is some consideration that is not to do with one's self - not to do with promoting one's own interests - it can qualify as a moral reason. — Moliere

You then contributed a facetious remark and I then responded and here we are.

"Flatter" me, Merkwurdichliebe, and show me where this conception goes wrong — 180 Proof

I'll flatter you good like :kiss: .

When an agent seeks to help her own welfare by helping, harming or ignoring the welfare of another, the agent does so by instrumental reasoning.

That is probable, but not necessary. As I have previously said, the instrumental and moral are discrete categories. You are assigning no ethical value in this case, so it is a case of instrumental reason. If you are intending to assign ethical value, I only ask that you clarify.

When an agent seeks to help the welfare of another whether or not her own welfare is helped, the agent does so by moral reasoning.

I'll flatter you some more. This is an example of moral reasoning (as opposed to instrumental reasoning). You are not assessing the situation in terms of how its satisfies self interest, but in terms of how it conforms to your (hypothetically speaking) conception of good and evil. If I am off, I only ask that you clarify.

These are completely different ways of thinking, which everybody does all the time, every day.

now you owe me some incorrigiblility :blush:

If you'd taken the trouble to read what I said on the subject, then you'd know that I do not know what an 'existential ethics' is.

But anyway, my point - whether you're interested in it or not - is that one of the marks of a moral reason is that it is grounded in interests other than one's own.

Make of that what you will. — Bartricks

Firstly, you are a fine interlocutor. I hope we can have a passionate and edifying discourse.

I want to thank you for providing that summary. Let'ssee where this thought experiment takes us. "Standby while I reply.": (Trademark: @Merkwurdichliebe)

one of the marks of a moral reason is that it is grounded in interests other than one's own. — Bartricks

I have shown why I disagree. I'll continue to reinforce my position in this issue as long as this thread has life.

If i have reason to do something due to it serving some of my ends, then we describe that reason as an instrumental or practical reason, not a moral reason. — Moliere

That is indeed a case of instrumental (not moral) reason. But if we assign it an ethical value (such as the right/wrong, good/evil, &c. of serving one's interests) it is no longer instrumental, but moral reason.

The point is just that when the ground of the reason for action is some consideration that is not to do with one's self - not to do with promoting one's own interests - it can qualify as a moral reason. — Moliere

That is accepable to me because it is a possibility (that altruism can be counted as something moral in the proper context), but it is by no means a necessity. The problem you and @Moliere are not recognizing in this exchange is that you are reducing morality to selfishness/altruism. But these are only particular perspectives based on moral reasoning. And until we can demonstrate the existence of an universal and absolute moral code, morality as a matter of selfishness/altrusism has ground in nothing but baseless subjectivity.