I classed social morality in as just another part of social control but you didn't see it that way. — T Clark
Are you saying my approach is less binary. I would have thought you saw it as moreso. — T Clark
That might involve attempts to influence or coerce, but there are many instances where it wouldn't — T Clark
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
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
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 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 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 think we agree here, — Judaka
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
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
So right & wrong, fair & unfair, and concepts of justice aren't part of morality? — Judaka
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Although your thoughts are almost the opposite of how I think about morality, I do respect your stance. — Judaka
We can't wait for moral paragons to guide us, ... — Judaka
What's your opinion on the need for accountability & enforcement? — Judaka
What compromises are you willing to make for them and how do they violate your moral principles? — 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! — Tzeentch
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
Even if there were such moral paragons, we wouldn't be able to sort them from the charlatans. — Judaka
[...] those who would actually sacrifice their personal ambitions, their goals, their livelihoods, and their freedom, for moral purposes, are a rare breed. — Judaka
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
Giving someone the ability to benefit from acting immorally, and then trusting them to avoid that temptation, it's dangerous. — Judaka
It helps others to act morally because it influences their decision-making. — Judaka
If ignoring immoral behaviour was the norm, it would encourage it. — Judaka
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
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
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
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
The question here is whether it's possible to coerce a society into behavior morally. — Tzeentch
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
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
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
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
You're right, but I have no faith in "us", ... — Judaka
Moral behaviour is behaviour that is moral, no? — Judaka
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
The concepts involved in moral thinking have universal applicability... — Judaka
The separation seems most useful to someone who resents the attempts of others to influence their behaviour — 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? — Tzeentch
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
In my view, a moral act must consist of both a good action and a good intention. — Tzeentch
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
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
You're quite right that this is a situation we cannot change. All the more reason to focus on oneself! — Tzeentch
Good OP. Although I myself wouldn't follow you towards emotivism, I think your general point is true and much needed. — Leontiskos
I should think that this proposition holds true: <If something is moral/immoral for me, then it is also moral/immoral for others>. — Leontiskos
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
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
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. — Isaac
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. — 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. — Isaac
since you are here, interacting and reading my messages voluntarily, there's no meddling taking place. — Tzeentch
Morality is many things, but for me, primarily, it is the ability to perceive things as right/wrong, fair/unfair and just/unjust. — Judaka
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.