I classed social morality in as just another part of social control but you didn't see it that way. — T Clark

I hope it's clear that I do see morality as involving social control, as I have stated in the past and in this OP. I differentiated morality from other forms of social control because morality involves interpretation and characterisation, while other forms of social control tend to focus on only one's actions. That difference was relevant in my previous thread, but we can ignore it in this one, or not, up to you.

Are you saying my approach is less binary. I would have thought you saw it as moreso. — T Clark

That wasn't my intention, your approach seems binary, but it could work as a spectrum too. Spectrums can be simpler, as we can avoid issues with categorisation, but it doesn't matter.

That might involve attempts to influence or coerce, but there are many instances where it wouldn't — T Clark

I agree with that.

"Personal morality" was meant to refer to an approach to the whole of morality, as a code that one follows, without any intent to influence other people or the systems they live in. My argument isn't that every moral feeling necessarily aims to influence others. For example, one might aim to help the unfortunate because they feel it's unfair and wrong for them to be abandoned. That might occur in the case of a natural disaster, where no perpetator or wrongdoer exists. So, I think we agree here, it was just a misunderstanding.

I acknowledge that my response to you definitely did not make it clear that I felt this way, my apologies.

All you need to do is protect the victims and potential victims. Protection of real and potential victims might also include physically stopping the wrongdoer and putting them in jail. — T Clark

I see. I interpreted your point as being one against my OP, and thus misunderstood you. I agree with your overall point, and I have a very strong preference for your approach. Much of my distaste for morality comes from the hatred it can inspire, and it was reasonable for you to criticise what was an unbalanced presentation, that lacked the kinds of examples that you've brought up. I acknowledge this.

Do I ever try to influence others. Sure. I don't see that as a reflection of my personal morality. It's more of a way of trying to live my life in social situations. How I go about doing that is a matter of personal and social morality, especially if it comes to coercion. — T Clark

My intention was for "personal morality" to be characterised by possessing no attempts to influence others. I believe our understandings on this topic are similar, if not the same. You did reveal some of the biased aspects of my laying out of the facts, and I'll have to spend some time considering whether it's really in my best interests to present things in that way.

How can your moral code just be to act morally and ignore the world around you, save for "leading by example"? How is that possible. — Judaka

I think one ought to be careful in meddling in the worlds' affairs, and be critical of one's own ability to change things for the better. Carelessness in this regard leads to more harm than good.

'Ignore' isn't the word I would use - 'accept' seems better.

Accepting that the world is and will remain a flawed place, and accepting that one's ability to have a positive influence is exceedingly limited, and one's ability to do harm through forceful meddling is much greater.

It is limited largely because of one's own flaws. Recognizing one's flaws and limitations is what humility is, and humility should awaken one to the fact that if they wish to change the world for the better, they needn't look beyond themselves - 'put one's own house in order first.'

When you ask, "how is that possible?", I'm inclined to reply: how could there be any other way?

I have no idea what "true" morality means, so I just clarified my views on the subject. If we're going to talk past each other, may as well be honest about it. — Judaka

I don't think that there is such a thing as "moral thoughts." You can think about morality. But ultimately only one's actions can be classed as moral. As such, morality is always a specific response to a specific request for support being made either by a specific person or persons or (as society enlarges) made by groups who are suffering under some known systemic burden, an implicit request.

Interesting read, I had fun!

You may feel discouraged by the moral criticism, advice, and the arguments of others, but the feelings you feel are your own. Do you feel that way because you fear the consequences? Or is it because your conscience is telling you something?

Yes, collective moralities tend to create an environment hostile to certain behaviors. I don’t think a personal morality does. My neighbor hates dogs, for example, so naturally she doesn’t like mine. I don’t feel discouraged owning a dog. To each their own. If everyone in town hated dogs, I would feel discouraged, and probably wouldn’t own a dog.

I differentiated morality from other forms of social control because morality involves interpretation and characterisation, while other forms of social control tend to focus on only one's actions. — Judaka

I guess I don't see that difference, or at least it's not one I pay attention to. For me, social morality is a method of social control, although it's source, e.g. religion, and impact, e.g. emotional response, might be different than others.

I think we agree here, — Judaka

Yes, I think you're right.

My intention was for "personal morality" to be characterised by possessing no attempts to influence others. I believe our understandings on this topic are similar, if not the same. — Judaka

Yes, I think you're right. Seems like we are just looking from different perspectives.

So right & wrong, fair & unfair, and concepts of justice aren't part of morality?

Must this "specific request" for help be answered with a fair & just solution? If so, then inevitably there will be a deliberation on what is right/wrong, fair/unfair, just/unjust, reasonable/unreasonable. The path you took to get there isn't important, they are infinite, where it took you is what matters.


Great!

You may feel discouraged by the moral criticism, advice, and the arguments of others, but the feelings you feel are your own. Do you feel that way because you fear the consequences? Or is it because your conscience is telling you something? — NOS4A2

Huh? How intellectually dishonest. Why wouldn't people fear the consequences, if the consequences are scary? Many people are embarrassed by just saying please or thank you at the wrong time, and other things of far less significance than "moral criticism". It's not just fear. People want to be liked, they want to please others, they want to be respected and cared for, and so much more, and all of that is threatened by acting in a way deemed immoral by one's society.

Instead of using your own moral ideas as the basis, and thus creating an incredibly biased perspective, use another culture instead. Morality informs laws, it can be used as a basis for firing people, ending a friendship, or becoming estranged from family members. You aren't approaching morality properly unless you're taking into account the aggregate impact of it across society, or at least in a group setting.

A personal morality plays a role in that, does it not? Why can't you just own it? As I said, it doesn't make what you're doing wrong, there are no negative consequences for agreeing with this.

So right & wrong, fair & unfair, and concepts of justice aren't part of morality? — Judaka

Right and wrong are evaluations made of actions that are judged to take place in the context of morality. So you can heed a legitimate cry for help and do right, or ignore the plight of your fellow man and do wrong.

Justice is the interpretation of morality at the social level. One human being doesn't get to be just (unless he is a judge). Also, I think some of what you are discussing might be more ethical - a formal presentation and codification - than moral. For me, morality speaks loudest in actions.

Are you yourself controlled by someone else’s personal morality? I ask because all this talk of consequences and aggregate impacts and people’s feelings leads me to believe you’re approaching morality from the perspective of consequentialism. I think it is the consequentialism that leads you to believe, cynically, that personal moralities tend to (and intend to) control others socially.

I cannot agree and find your analysis specious because there are people who do not approach morality from the perspective of consequentialism. They wish to act right no matter the fee-fees of some person, with no care for the consequences or social costs, and with no desire or goal of controlling others.

If you want to obsequiously serve another’s personal morality, be my guest, but at some point you might have to live according to your own moral code or you won’t be able to live with yourself.

I think it is the consequentialism that leads you to believe, cynically, that personal moralities tend to (and intend to) control others socially.

I cannot agree and find your analysis specious because there are people who do not approach morality from the perspective of consequentialism. They wish to act right no matter the fee-fees of some person, with no care for the consequences or social costs, and with no desire or goal of controlling others. — NOS4A2

:up:

Are you yourself controlled by someone else’s personal morality? — NOS4A2

If you want to obsequiously serve another’s personal morality, be my guest, but at some point you might have to live according to your own moral code or you won’t be able to live with yourself. — NOS4A2

As I said, personal morality is just morality, and we all live in a society. You're so interested in framing this as my personal failure, but none of my arguments have been based on myself. I'm an outlier, and analysing through oneself, as you do, and as you show it does, leads to very biased conclusions.

Look through what I write, I'm evidently unafraid to make highly controversial arguments. I think for myself. I'm disagreeable and individualistic, I don't mince my words or avoid conflict. You've read enough of me that you should know that, but, it's a convenient ad hominem, so off you go, speculating about something ridiculous.

I ask because all this talk of consequences and aggregate impacts and people’s feelings leads me to believe you’re approaching morality from the perspective of consequentialism. — NOS4A2

I am approaching morality as a thing, detached from my own moral views. Ironically, it was you who told me that only actions mattered in your thread about ethics and thoughts, and I argued against that. Now that it's convenient, it's being framed as though it were the opposite.

Morality is inherently social. When you say "X thing is wrong", are you saying it for just yourself, or in general? If you're being honest, then you'll admit it's the latter. It's even harder to argue against this when you view morality as partially or entirely objective.

We can agree on this, the intention to "socially control" may not be there, or it may, as it does with me since I do seek to impose my moral views on others. Though rarely would anyone ever actually phrase it as "socially control" because of the negative connotations, people describe things they like using positive language. @Pantagruel will call it "motivating" or "guidance" and so on, referring to the same thing, but making every effort to make it look as good as possible.

It's just amusing to me, I'm saying something so absolutely basic here, that morality isn't just a personal code. The entire premise of the OP is that "personal morality" means, an explicitly stated lack of intent to influence or coerce others. Do people explicitly and emphatically state their lack of intention to influence or coerce others? Of course, they do. That you've decided to give this a 100% weighting in how we characterise "personal morality" is silly, we need to look at what's actually being done. You've done everything you can to avoid that and just point to my supposed moral failings, I've no wonder why, my claims are irrefutable otherwise.

Morality is inherently social. When you say "X thing is wrong", are you saying it for just yourself, or in general? If you're being honest, then you'll admit it's the latter. — Judaka

As I've tried to point out in my earlier replies to you, this is not necessarily true.

That the ignorant masses subconsciously use morality as a guise to fulfill a base desire for power while maintaining a good conscience, is not necessarily relevant to philosophical discussions.

If we look at the views of history's sages, wisemen and philosophers we find that many of them view morality as first and foremost a personal endeavor marked by the cultivation of virtue.


For example, Plato describes in the Republic how it is better to be a just man who is seen by society as unjust, than an unjust man who is seen by society as just.

The implication here is quite a fundamental one; to be just is its own reward, and to be unjust its own punishment.

In the eyes of Plato, the Good (capital 'G') is what all men desire. Therefore the unjust man is only sabotaging himself in his quest for Goodness, despite his reputation among other men which ultimately counts for nothing.

The just man in turn would best serve his own interest by maintaining his virtuous conduct, regardless of the punishments society seeks to enact upon him.

In my view, ideas about morality make little sense without this understanding. We find similar views in Buddhism, Taoism and Chinese philosophy, Christianity, etc.

The central message: worry first and foremost about one's own virtue, and let others worry about theirs.


If one doesn't embody moral virtue, it is hypocritical to lecture others. Once one does, it is superfluous.

Right and wrong are evaluations made of actions that are judged to take place in the context of morality. So you can heed a legitimate cry for help and do right, or ignore the plight of your fellow man and do wrong. — Pantagruel

You're saying that right & wrong don't define morality, and the terms just describe whether you heed or ignore a legitimate cry for help? Do you acknowledge conceptualising morality to fit your ideals, or not?

Also, I think some of what you are discussing might be more ethical - a formal presentation and codification - than moral. For me, morality speaks loudest in actions — Pantagruel

I've defined morality as the ability to perceive right/wrong, unfair/fair, just/unjust, it doesn't get less formal than that.


I agree that moral views apply inwardly, and must do so. I'm also not arguing that morality entails subjugating oneself to their society, and the many or the powerful to dictate to them how they should think.

To be honest, unlike the others, you've made the right sacrifices, to allow for a case against my OP while being intellectually honest. Notably, in your argument of detachment from politics, and your strong emphasis on not trying to influence anyone. Your refusal to engage in moral wordplay goes a long way with me, you're clearly very comfortable with yourself. I feel confident that you're genuine and your argument holds, I'm not sure yet how I want to fit what you're saying into the grand scheme of things.

Monks have been known to seclude themselves from society for decades, to live in isolation and yet continue to aspire to and live by their philosophical ideals. Not so that one day they can influence someone else to do so, but just for its own sake. They did so both in intention and result, and so are good examples of how it is possible.

Most moral ideals entail an emphasis that calls or obliges them to act. To stand by, to focus only ever inwardly, it's unusual.

Do you think your approach would be possible for one in a position of power? Or do you see power as inherently incompatible with your approach?

Most moral ideals entail an emphasis that calls or obliges them to act. To stand by, to focus only ever inwardly, it's unusual. — Judaka

Wanting to do good is easy. Doing harm is easy. But doing Good is difficult.

The inward focus is an acknowledgement of that. It's an act of humility.

Do you think your approach would be possible for one in a position of power? Or do you see power as inherently incompatible with your approach? — Judaka

Excellent question.

I don't have a definitive view on this. My sense is that wielding power over others inherently implies non-consensuality and forcefulness (to impose one's will upon another), and therefore implies harm.

Further, I share the common belief that power corrupts, and that the dynamics of power have an innate tendency to bring out the worst in people. So any person walking the spiritual path should tread carefully.


Perhaps it is possible to hold public office or a position of leadership, assuming the ties one has to one's followers are ones of genuine voluntariness. Needless to say, one must also be prepared to give up such a position as soon as it is no longer compatible with one's principles.


I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but the question you pose is central to the character Liu Bei from the Chinese classic Romance of the Three Kingdoms.

To make a long story short, Liu Bei is an imperial scion, who for a large portion of the book wanders ancient China with a handful of retainers and troops, as everywhere he manages to establish himself he is eventually forced to choose between holding onto power and holding onto his principles.

Although your thoughts are almost the opposite of how I think about morality, I do respect your stance.

The coercive aspects of morality are integral to its function as a correcting influence, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Concepts of fairness, right or wrong, justice, and what is deserved, play their social role, and will inevitably result in consequences for actions that will unavoidably result in a coercive environment.

I understand morality differently than you do. Moral ideas are dynamic and flexible, due to the role interpretation plays, again, for better and for worse. It's capable of brutality and oppression, such as in the case of Nazi Germany. Although you might see in such cases, pretenders who invoke moral concepts for their own gain, I instead think morality capable of incorporating interpretations that are quite shitty, and so people can be shitty while motivated by genuinely moral ideas.

The relationship between power and morality can be unsettlingly for many. The two are inextricably linked, but the use of power can contradict our principles. The truth is that most of us do not want to have others impose their views on us, but we do want to impose our views on others. Though rarely articulated so plainly, it's implicit in all moral systems, though perhaps you and others like you are exceptions.

It's not that "might is right", but rather, that when a group's majority holds the same moral view, that itself manifests as power, just agreement alone within a moral context.

We have reservations about the attempts of others to do good though for different reasons. A notable difference is that when you use the term "morality", you are generally referring to what is moral, whereas I am referring to it as a generic concept. So, while we may see the same problems, where you might conclude people are failing to be moral, and that moral behaviour could be a solution, I see issues with morality. That's a stark contrast between how we interpret this issue.

Power corrupts in part by exemption. We understand the need for compromise and for order, the need for rules that benefit the group as a whole. While it might make sense that if I steal someone's stuff, that's good for me, it wouldn't be good for me if unchecked theft destroyed my community. Even someone who would personally love an opportunity to get rich from theft will likely play a role as an enforcer against it.

In the same way as racism, classism, sexism, or religion corrupt, they provide exemptions. We might agree to horrifically harsh measures as necessary and fine, but whoever implements them must be assured of their own safety. Rulers pursue lofty goals, that justify all sorts of cruelties, to accomplish something great, but importantly, know that they'll not be paying the price for it.

For me, the issue isn't that morality is coercive or social, it's about what we're enforcing, and sometimes it can be good. If people feel like there are no consequences for being rude, for hurting and exploiting people, then they'll be more likely to do it. I have no faith in self-regulated moral behaviour as an overarching theme. There must be enforcement of conduct, we ideally make moral behaviour logical and rewarding, and immoral behaviour illogical and punishing, and let people rationally decide to do good.

Even if the people enforcing the good behaviour are hypocrites, even if they're being dishonest, it's fine. We can't wait for moral paragons to guide us, in a world where politicians are consistently corrupt and religious institutions abuse children & cover it up. Accountability & enforcement are critical, and although I often don't agree with what's actually being enforced, and my position is more nuanced than I laid out.

This response was too long and covered too much ground, but hopefully, the gist of my perspective got through. What's your opinion on the need for accountability & enforcement? What compromises are you willing to make for them and how do they violate your moral principles?

Although your thoughts are almost the opposite of how I think about morality, I do respect your stance. — Judaka

Likewise, and I appreciate the discussion.

As you said, our views seem to be contrary, so I will not spend too much time pointing out differences, so instead a question:

We can't wait for moral paragons to guide us, ... — Judaka

Why not?

History is full of moral paragons, and a lot of them have written things that are quite consistent with one another. The problem is that most have no real desire to follow their example!

What's your opinion on the need for accountability & enforcement? — Judaka

As flawed as I am, I do not feel like it is my place to hold others accountable, or to enforce my views of morality on others.

What purpose would it serve?

What compromises are you willing to make for them and how do they violate your moral principles? — Judaka

The short answer is 'none'.

Why not?

History is full of moral paragons, and a lot of them have written things that are quite consistent with one another. The problem is that most have no real desire to follow their example! — Tzeentch

A few reasons, firstly, we cannot read someone's moral compass. Even if there were such moral paragons, we wouldn't be able to sort them from the charlatans.

My "Morality is Coercive" OP covered that moral deliberation necessarily excludes and takes priority over personal factors. It's a domain of thought that is necessarily unrealistic. Moral conclusions are supposed to take priority, which theoretically solves this problem, but in reality, that solution has proven itself heavily flawed.

Morality as overriding only makes sense in terms of enforcement, and those who would actually sacrifice their personal ambitions, their goals, their livelihoods, and their freedom, for moral purposes, are a rare breed. Enforcement brings moral behaviour and rational calculus into alignment. Give a person unchecked power and ask them to be moral, and it'll bring misfortune upon us, give a person power, but introduce accountability for misuse of power, and they may choose to act morally.

I am concerned about conflicts of interest. When acting morally is by far the best choice, due to being incentivised, and a lack of benefit in alternatives, then you get moral behaviour. Giving someone the ability to benefit from acting immorally, and then trusting them to avoid that temptation, it's dangerous.

As flawed as I am, I do not feel like it is my place to hold others accountable, or to enforce my views of morality on others.

What purpose would it serve? — Tzeentch

It helps others to act morally because it influences their decision-making. If ignoring immoral behaviour was the norm, it would encourage it.

Though, I'm approaching this from a theoretical perspective, as is fit for moral discussion. I don't actually like morality that much, enforcement can be heavy-handed and malicious, and morality is a weak logic, unrealistic and filled with double standards and flaws. I am describing my own views, but I feel uncomfortable advocating them to others since as I said, I'm interested in imposing my views, not having others impose on me. That's where the politics begin, as is inevitable.

Even if there were such moral paragons, we wouldn't be able to sort them from the charlatans. — Judaka

Oh, come on! That's easy!

Are you telling me you are afraid that in your quest for wisdom you'd fall for some charlatan's trap? I think you're selling yourself short.

[...] those who would actually sacrifice their personal ambitions, their goals, their livelihoods, and their freedom, for moral purposes, are a rare breed. — Judaka

If doing Good were easy, we'd all be doing it. We look up to people with a virtuous character precisely because of those things you mentioned. And it's up to us whether we follow their example.

When acting morally is by far the best choice, due to being incentivised, and a lack of benefit in alternatives, then you get moral behaviour. — Judaka

No, you get a facade of moral behavior. The immoral behavior will then take place in the shadows, or on a level where accountability no longer exists.

The question here is whether it's possible to coerce a society into behavior morally. I would say that it isn't, simply because someone has to do the coercing, and that happens at a level where there is no (real) accountability. And it's at that level the new immorality will manifest, while the rest of the people are simply oppressed into said facade.

For example, someone might erroneously believe that nation states manage to successfully coerce their societies into behaving morally. However, since there is no one to coerce nation states, the immorality is simply elevated to that level, and nation states get up to all kinds of immoral behavior!

Giving someone the ability to benefit from acting immorally, and then trusting them to avoid that temptation, it's dangerous. — Judaka

Certainly, which kind of begs the question why we put our lot in the hands of politicians. But that's really beyond my ability and desire to change.

It helps others to act morally because it influences their decision-making. — Judaka

Would it? If I were indeed 'enforcing', then I would simply be coercing them into a facade of morality. They wouldn't reap any benefits, because they act 'morally' out of fear, and not as a result of actual virtue they possess.

In addition, I think coercion is immoral to begin with, so I'll just have to respectfully disagree.

If ignoring immoral behaviour was the norm, it would encourage it. — Judaka

On the contrary, I think 'turning the other cheek' is a very powerful message. And most importantly, a message that doesn't require immoral behavior on one's own part.

I am describing my own views, but I feel uncomfortable advocating them to others since as I said, I'm interested in imposing my views, not having others impose on me. That's where the politics begin, as is inevitable. — Judaka

Is it inevitable? You seem aware of your own somewhat contradictory stance with regards to imposing, so what's stopping you from simply resolving the contradiction?

Oh, come on! That's easy!

Are you telling me you are afraid that in your quest for wisdom you'd fall for some charlatan's trap? I think you're selling yourself short. — Tzeentch

All I can say is that charlatans are praised the world over. I generally find bias to be healthy, it is good to think of oneself well. But in terms of understanding the world, it's ideal to exclude oneself from the analysis. I'd like to think I can do it, but I can see that neither intelligence nor wisdom makes one immune to being fooled, and so I know that in all probability, I'm not immune either.

If doing Good were easy, we'd all be doing it. We look up to people with a virtuous character precisely because of those things you mentioned. And it's up to us whether we follow their example. — Tzeentch

You're right, but I have no faith in "us", I only have faith in systems of incentives and punishments, that which manifest as environmental factors to influence decision-making. Though I appreciate the idea of "Be the change you want to see in the world", it's a noble approach.

No, you get a facade of moral behavior. The immoral behavior will then take place in the shadows, or on a level where accountability no longer exists. — Tzeentch

Moral behaviour is behaviour that is moral, no? So long as that behaviour is occurring, then it is real. Though, I don't think it's a facade. It represents the environment one grows up in, and that influences how one thinks. Basically, if one is surrounded by opportunities to do evil, they'll be corrupted by it.

The question here is whether it's possible to coerce a society into behavior morally. — Tzeentch

I think the law already does it. Look at lawless states, where corruption is ripe and crime goes unpunished. The moral facade, as you put it, significantly disappears.

I would say that it isn't, simply because someone has to do the coercing, and that happens at a level where there is no (real) accountability. — Tzeentch

Ideal governance involves anti-corruption bodies, and legal agencies, who do not have the same incentives as the officials they're monitoring. Accountability is circular, not top-down, and this is crucial.
Nobody should be trusted to act morally, we should never rely on self-accountability.

It's important also to remember, while within the moral context, we could "agree" to do away with power, that's never going to happen in reality. The existence of power must be assumed, and so, besides circular accountability, there is only self-accountability, and I have no faith in that.

Even if we could know the moral paragons, the selection bias for who has power isn't based on that. It'd be easy to, within the moral context, say "Well, we shouldn't allow that", but this is again, overreaching. Morality doesn't govern the world, those with influence, wealth, and power, aren't selected by their goodness, and that should also be an assumption we have to make. Thus, self-accountability can't be relied upon, you know those with power will not be moral paragons, and often, those with power are the ones you least want to have it. Those without moral scruples, choose the optimal route to power and thus outperform the ones with a strong moral conscience.

The ideas of "we" and "us" in moral terms shouldn't be taken literally, there is 100% no "we" or "us", it's just the language of moral thought. So while "we" are technically the most powerful, capable of doing anything, that hardly matters when we're so disunified. This underpins my realism and highlights how unrealistic moral thought can be. It's also this misunderstanding of "we" that leads to moral ideas against politics, because if we're a unified body, who all agree and work together, then politics is unnecessary. This "we" contains my enemies, it contains incompatible views, incompatible ideals, and a disunified, unlinked mass of people, whom I'll never be working with, and who won't be working with me. One must be realistic, and not rely on solutions that can't possibly be implemented, in my view.

On the contrary, I think 'turning the other cheek' is a very powerful message. And most importantly, a message that doesn't require immoral behavior on one's own part. — Tzeentch

Fair enough. I do appreciate this approach in most cases, and dislike heavy-handed responses.

Is it inevitable? You seem aware of your own somewhat contradictory stance with regards to imposing, so what's stopping you from simply resolving the contradiction? — Tzeentch

Yes, it's inevitable.

Within moral systems, or most of them, we condemn concepts such as "coercion", but then just label acts something else when we agree with them. Most would never call what they're doing coercion or imposing, but that's exactly what they're doing, they just replace it with flowery language to make it seem better.

Moral systems benefit from this intellectual dishonesty but would struggle to function without it. What's moral is what's right or what's fair, and deciding that will often involve choosing the lesser evil. If something is necessary, because it is superior to the alternatives, then for most, it will be the moral choice. Whether it relies on supposedly immoral acts or not is irrelevant.

I too choose moral outcomes over moral acts and I prioritise accountability over morality. Clearly, this is a stark contrast between us. There are merits to your approach, and I can promise there will be cases where my approach produces worse results, but in the long run, I can't trust self-accountability.

All I can say is that charlatans are praised the world over. I generally find bias to be healthy, it is good to think of oneself well. But in terms of understanding the world, it's ideal to exclude oneself from the analysis. I'd like to think I can do it, but I can see that neither intelligence nor wisdom makes one immune to being fooled, and so I know that in all probability, I'm not immune either. — Judaka

Not starting on such a worthwhile endeavor as the search for wisdom and moral virtue, on the off chance one may fall for a charlatan, seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, no?

I think in general charlatans prey on the fickle of mind. A modicum of scrutiny is enough to sniff such characters out.

You're right, but I have no faith in "us", ... — Judaka

A bit grim, but ok.

Systems that put no faith in people's ability to discern right from wrong tend to gravitate towards total control. Just something to think about.

Moral behaviour is behaviour that is moral, no? — Judaka

In my view, a moral act must consist of both a good action and a good intention.

How does coercing someone into behaving morally not create a facade? Whenever the coercion stops, or wherever it isn't present, the person will inevitably fall back into their immoral ways.

Ideal governance involves anti-corruption bodies, and legal agencies, who do not have the same incentives as the officials they're monitoring. Accountability is circular, not top-down, and this is crucial.
Nobody should be trusted to act morally, we should never rely on self-accountability.

It's important also to remember, while within the moral context, we could "agree" to do away with power, that's never going to happen in reality. The existence of power must be assumed, and so, besides circular accountability, there is only self-accountability, and I have no faith in that.

Even if we could know the moral paragons, the selection bias for who has power isn't based on that. It'd be easy to, within the moral context, say "Well, we shouldn't allow that", but this is again, overreaching. Morality doesn't govern the world, those with influence, wealth, and power, aren't selected by their goodness, and that should also be an assumption we have to make. Thus, self-accountability can't be relied upon, you know those with power will not be moral paragons, and often, those with power are the ones you least want to have it. Those without moral scruples, choose the optimal route to power and thus outperform the ones with a strong moral conscience. — Judaka

This is essentially my message, with which I intended to show that coercing people into behaving 'morally' doesn't really solve anything.

It puts power in the hands of people who by any means shouldn't be wielding it, and puts those same people in a position where they're above the coercion.

Ideally there should be 'checks & balances', but one glance at the world we live in will show you what that looks like in practice. That's no surprise - the people in power don't want to be checked and balanced, and they will find ways of avoiding it. They have the power, after all.

You're quite right that this is a situation we cannot change. All the more reason to focus on oneself!

The concepts involved in moral thinking have universal applicability... — Judaka

Good OP. Although I myself wouldn't follow you towards emotivism, I think your general point is true and much needed. For me the question is whether "personal morality" is coherent.

I should think that this proposition holds true: <If something is moral/immoral for me, then it is also moral/immoral for others>. There are minor exceptions such as oaths and whatnot, but in general it seems to hold. This is the sort of thing that apparently underlies the Golden Rule.

The separation seems most useful to someone who resents the attempts of others to influence their behaviour — Judaka

Yes, but also and increasingly because there is a strong strand of secular morality which attempts to eschew traditional forms of morality, and even goes so far as to try to undermine normative behavior claims altogether. From this flows the idea that to call something immoral or wrong is passé. Surely this is rooted in the resentment you speak of, but it has become a force unto itself which shapes moral inclinations. Many now deem it mildly immoral to accuse someone of having done something wrong, and in some cases even the private judgment of wrongness is censured. In consequence we see the attempt to have it both ways: to have personal moral standards while at the same time professing that these standards are in no way applied to others.

Not starting on such a worthwhile endeavor as the search for wisdom and moral virtue, on the off chance one may fall for a charlatan, seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, no? — Tzeentch

Even if I was immune, I've spent thousands of hours thinking about philosophy, we don't represent the average person, and I am certain that they are unable to tell, based on the results that make our world.

Systems that put no faith in people's ability to discern right from wrong tend to gravitate towards total control. Just something to think about. — Tzeentch

There is a lot of freedom within the domain of acceptable behaviour, but it is why we have the law. If an act is immoral but should be legal, then it will be socially enforced, but in cases, one doesn't fear such consequences, or they're inapplicable, it'll be up to them. Though, we can still educate people and attempt to sell people on the merits of acting morally, and if that succeeds, then great, but it'll never replace law.

In my view, a moral act must consist of both a good action and a good intention. — Tzeentch

True, I agree, I had just meant in terms of creating a society of people who acted well.

How does coercing someone into behaving morally not create a facade? Whenever the coercion stops, or wherever it isn't present, the person will inevitably fall back into their immoral ways — Tzeentch

The coercion becomes part of a person's environment, which nurtures their way of thinking. Within this environment, they learn that by being aggressive and acting with malice and disregard for others, they will be disliked or punished. They themselves will learn to compromise, share, and act kindly towards others.

In fact, this very thing happens during early childhood, when children must learn socially acceptable behaviour, to respect other people's things, and the feelings of others, so that they are liked and can form relationships. Failure in this process can have devastating effects later on, as one will continue their socially unacceptable behaviour, and will thus struggle to form relationships.

Those who would steal, bully, cheat, lie and hurt others will often end up a victim of their own behaviour, consistently getting themselves into trouble. If one exists in an environment where they can exploit others, and are rewarded for it, then they will not cease that behaviour. Joffery from GoT is a good example of it.

That's no surprise - the people in power don't want to be checked and balanced, and they will find ways of avoiding it. They have the power, after all. — Tzeentch

It's important to remember that the "state" is not a monolith, it is possible to have a government with independent anti-corruption agencies that have the power to prosecute those in power. I know from a US perspective it might be hard to believe, but many democracies around the world are showing it possible. Government institutions that uphold the law, and hold elected officials accountable, are the most crucial parts of a government. It's within these institutions, that I hope our "moral paragons" are situated, but we live in an imperfect world, and there are no easy answers.

You're quite right that this is a situation we cannot change. All the more reason to focus on oneself! — Tzeentch

Fair enough, I have no desire for you to conclude any differently.

Good OP. Although I myself wouldn't follow you towards emotivism, I think your general point is true and much needed. — Leontiskos

Thanks.

I should think that this proposition holds true: <If something is moral/immoral for me, then it is also moral/immoral for others>. — Leontiskos

Yes. Moral views should also manifest in what kind of system one would advocate for or oppose, and how they treat others, in ways that constitute as going beyond the personal.

Surely this is rooted in the resentment you speak of, but it has become a force unto itself which shapes moral inclinations. Many now deem it mildly immoral to accuse someone of having done something wrong, and in some cases even the private judgment of wrongness is censured. In consequence we see the attempt to have it both ways: to have personal moral standards while at the same time professing that these standards are in no way applied to others. — Leontiskos

That's a fantastic insight, I've underplayed these elements. To lessen the blow of one's views on others, for whichever reasons, could motivate the "personal" characterisation. One's moral view might be deemed inappropriate, and mightn't be tolerated by others, and the personal characterisation makes sense there too. I've seen some very passive-aggressive cases of it as well now that I think about it.

:pray:

______________________________

Yes, but also and increasingly because there is a strong strand of secular morality which attempts to eschew traditional forms of morality, and even goes so far as to try to undermine normative behavior claims altogether. From this flows the idea that to call something immoral or wrong is passé. Surely this is rooted in the resentment you speak of, but it has become a force unto itself which shapes moral inclinations. Many now deem it mildly immoral to accuse someone of having done something wrong, and in some cases even the private judgment of wrongness is censured. In consequence we see the attempt to have it both ways: to have personal moral standards while at the same time professing that these standards are in no way applied to others. — Leontiskos

This is a rather uncharitable representation of those who follow a personal moral code, and one which I cannot agree with.

The focus of the sage on self-cultivation is as old as philosophy itself, and perhaps older. We can judge by the nature of their behavior (asceticism, isolation, etc.) and writings that these were in fact genuine motivations towards self-cultivation, and not attempts to 'have it both ways.'

What may make this disposition appear threatening to some, is that it avoids the common pitfall of using notions of morality as a means to meddle in the affairs of others, and it disarms those who would.

it avoids the common pitfall of using notions of morality as a means to meddle in the affairs of others — Tzeentch

I'm not seeing how morality alone 'meddles' in the affairs of others in this way.

I can see a way in which strong social approbation might 'meddle', but that doesn't seem any different to what you're attempting here (trying to 'meddle' in other people's affairs in getting them to stop 'meddling' in other people's affairs).

If your arguments are persuasive, then you have undeniably 'meddled'. If I'm persuaded, I will stop the meddling I would have otherwise done, you have meddled with how my affairs would otherwise have progressed.

How is that any different to my attempting to get you to, for example, give more to charity, by cranking up the guilt and trying to persuade you that way?

It seems either way we're attempting to get someone to do something they wouldn't have done were it not for our intervention. You want them to stop their meddling, I want them to give more to charity.

I'm not seeing how morality alone 'meddles' in the affairs of others in this way. — Isaac

I didn't mean to imply that it did. I believe it's a common pitfall, but not an inherent one.

I can see a way in which strong social approbation might 'meddle', but that doesn't seem any different to what you're attempting here (trying to 'meddle' in other people's affairs in getting them to stop 'meddling' in other people's affairs).

If your arguments are persuasive, then you have undeniably 'meddled'. If I'm persuaded, I will stop the meddling I would have otherwise done, you have meddled with how my affairs would otherwise have progressed. — Isaac

I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing anything, nor am I attempting to persuade.

This is a discussion forum. People come here voluntarily to discuss their ideas, so there is no meddling, only voluntary interaction.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing anything, nor am I attempting to persuade. — Tzeentch

But you've previously argued that morality is not solely about intent. If the result of your posting here is that I'm persuaded to act other than I would have, then you've meddled in my affairs. You might not have intended to, but you've previously denied that as a credible excuse.

But you've previously argued that morality is not solely about intent. If the result of your posting here is that I'm persuaded to act other than I would have, then you've meddled in my affairs. You might not have intended to, but you've previously denied that as a credible excuse. — Isaac

Nor is it solely about effect.

But since you are here, interacting and reading my messages voluntarily, there's no meddling taking place. Meddling has an unwelcome quality to it, do you agree?

If by some fluke you are on this forum against your will, and find my arguments most compelling for reasons that have nothing to do with their merit, then that would be tragic.

One does well to avoid tragedy, but such is the nature of tragedy. Sometimes one does ill unintentionally.

since you are here, interacting and reading my messages voluntarily, there's no meddling taking place. — Tzeentch

Wouldn't the same be true for almost all moralising? Very rarely do the would-be moralisers herd people at gunpoint into rooms before speaking.

Moral approbation is done on people willingly in the vicinity, people willingly putting themselves in the position to be morally appraised. I can't think of many examples where people are forced to listen to moral arguments.

Morality is many things, but for me, primarily, it is the ability to perceive things as right/wrong, fair/unfair and just/unjust. — Judaka

I would define morality as the active process of evaluating things and assigning them a value of either right or wrong, rather than passively perceiving them as such.