[Original Post] — Judaka
Even if one does speak honestly in a moral context, we can never be sure, because it's a coercive environment that forces people to take an unrealistic and unnatural stance. A moral defence is a necessity, not a choice. — Judaka
Is that a fair assessment of your view? — Leontiskos
The word "morality", as with many other complex English words, is bloated, filled with concepts that are distinct from each other, but also applicable in the same contexts. I distinguish between three separate concepts labelled as "morality".
The first is the evolutionary basis, that we are concerned about fairness, justice, and rules and think in terms of loyalty, betrayal and revenge. Could throw in the aversion to incest, perhaps some gender norms, it's debatable. The key features here are the emotional and psychological responses.
Secondly, there is a discussion about morality, which deals with the interpretation of what should or can be considered fair, reasonable or just. The evolutionary basis of morality just seems to entail a hatred of unfairness, but how something is interpreted to be fair or not is quite flexible. It could range from stoning someone to death over a minor offence to viewing violent responses as universally unjustified.
Thirdly, there's the morality that I'd call "philosophies of morality", which are not purely based on emotion or psychology and don't have to be at all. They can be completely divorced, and even a critique of the evolutionary basis of morality, such as emphasising logical and unbiased thinking. This might overlap with the second in providing an outline for understanding moral concepts such as fairness and justice — Judaka
2. We are committed to our moral views.
3. Our moral views must therefore be defended. {Follows from premise 2} — Leontiskos
4. Therefore, a defense of our moral views is something we are forced to undertake, not something we choose to undertake — Leontiskos
5. Therefore, moral defense is no more than "mental gymnastics" or post-hoc rationalization. It is a rational defense of what is non-rational.* — Leontiskos
Self-interest or self-preservation are themes inherent to coercion in general. There are many coercive aspects of morality, and moral themes, such as retribution, duty, revenge and justice, can manifest as strongly coercive environments. This thread is far from an exhaustive analysis on the subject, though perhaps it should've been. — Judaka
My intent was that my previous post would've dispelled the notion that your summary had any validity to me... — Judaka
Having an acceptable moral defence for one's actions or stances is necessary and therefore coerced [...] One must retrospectively defend their position morally, even one that was formed outside of the moral context. — Judaka
Unfortunately, it isn't. I can understand your conclusion, but those four OPs don't give a good sense of my moral views. — Judaka
Morality is an incredibly complicated topic... I have given a brief summary already in this thread, so let me quote it. — Judaka
Your understanding of Aristotelian-Thomism falls into this third category, and I am sure that you found it appealing or true, and weren't forced to choose it. A-T would influence how you interpreted moral themes, and using this understanding, you could make rational arguments for your moral positions. — Judaka
It'd be absurd to let a judge rule on a case where they were the defendant, right? — Judaka
Sorry, I should have done that earlier, but I figured that reading a handful of your OP's and skimming this thread would give me enough to go on — Leontiskos
Why is having an acceptable moral defense necessary and coerced? — Leontiskos
"Morality is coercive" means that morality leads one person or group to force another person or group to do things. For example, a society which has a law against murder is thereby forcing its citizens to not murder. Is that the idea? Or at least a big part of it? — Leontiskos
Presumably you are using 'morality' in the first sense in your OP? — Leontiskos
Interesting. Usually when I use the word 'morality' I am pointing to the set of prescriptive principles and actions that a person (or group) binds themselves to. — Leontiskos
Thanks - Your clarifications have helped me understand what you are saying, and have quelled any objections I might have had. — Leontiskos
What is "necessary" and "coerced" relies on interpretation, but generally, morality functions much like truth, if you're proven incorrect, then it's unjustifiable to continue on with the falsehood. — Judaka
The difference between what's necessary and incentivised might be nothing, it depends. If one feels it's necessary to get a promotion to work or if the promotion acts as an incentive, it's the same thing.
The distinction reflects the level of need, and at some point, when the stakes are high enough that "incentivise" becomes obscene, we wouldn't use it. — Judaka
I'd use the word coercion without necessarily talking about imprisonment or violence. There are a vast array of consequences that one may desire to avoid, and can thus be a coercive influence. — Judaka
Even just for me, morality as a word goes beyond referring to just the three concepts I laid out, those are just the cases of describing the source. If you want clarification on something specific, you can quote it, and I'll take a look. — Judaka
Let's look at the definition of coercion. The traditional definition hinges on the internal/external division (or more properly, the distinction between my own actions and the things which act upon me). For example, if I push myself across the floor I am not being coerced, but if someone else pushes me across the floor I am being coerced. Only in the second case is there an external cause forcing me to do something. Does this seem right to you? — Leontiskos
I would want to say that everything that one feels to be necessary is incentivized, but not everything that is incentivized is necessary. — Leontiskos
Also, there is a tendency to only use words with negative connotations in contexts that one disagrees with, and this is something I advocate against. If something is coercive only when the intention is malicious, or effect undesirable and not, for example, motivated by morality, and the desire to do good, then the term merely becomes its connotation and loses most of its meaning. If something is disqualified as coercion when you like the effect it produces, well, that's quite insidious indeed. — Judaka
You can find things coercive without the negative consequence beyond physical threat. It could be financial damages, loss of respect, loss of friendship, social ostracisation, humiliation, shaming and any number of other things. — Judaka
That is generally held to be involuntary which is done under compulsion or through ignorance.
“Done under compulsion” means that the cause is external, the agent or patient contributing nothing towards it; as, for instance, if he were carried somewhere by a whirlwind or by men whom he could not resist.
But there is some question about acts done in order to avoid a greater evil, or to obtain some noble end; e.g. if a tyrant were to order you to do something disgraceful, having your parents or children in his power, who were to live if you did it, but to die if you did not—it is a matter of dispute whether such acts are involuntary or voluntary.
Throwing a cargo overboard in a storm is a somewhat analogous case. No one voluntarily throws away his property if nothing is to come of it, but any sensible person would do so to save the life of himself and the crew.
Acts of this kind, then, are of a mixed nature, but they more nearly resemble voluntary acts. For they are desired or chosen at the time when they are done, and the end or motive of an act is that which is in view at the time. In applying the terms voluntary and involuntary, therefore, we must consider the state of the agent’s mind at the time. — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book III.i (1110a)
It is difficult to see how one could abandon this traditional definition while at the same time holding that there are any acts which are not coerced. — Leontiskos
There are a vast array of consequences that one may desire to avoid, and can thus be a coercive influence. — Judaka
As I said earlier, where a reasonable person would conclude that their failure to act in a particular way would result in negative consequences, then there is a coercive element at play... — Judaka
When one's action was taken to avoid some negative consequence that has been established, then we can call that environment coercive. — Judaka
A moral defence is a necessity, not a choice. — Judaka
Having an acceptable moral defence for one's actions or stances is necessary and therefore coerced... — Judaka
Comparatively speaking, what normally causes social anxiety or fear pales to a display of moral outrage. People, probably many on this forum, may outright declare you to be worthless should you express the wrong opinion. Even someone fearless may decide it's better to not lose friends or stir trouble, and respect to be earned if you say the right things. — Judaka
Hypocrisy, inconsistency, intellectual dishonesty and so on, are just logical consequences of the coercive environment created. One is forced into taking an unnatural position and knows fully that the wrong answer could have serious negative repercussions. — Judaka
I agree wholeheartedly with this. I call it 'pejorification' (of a word). In fact, it seems to happen most frequently with the concept of morality, where one's own moral claims are considered 'moral', and the moral claims of others are considered 'moral meddling.' We saw it most recently, I aver, in your thread about "personal morality." — Leontiskos
A law against murder for me, would not be a good example, because I think even an amoral society would have such a law, merely for the sake of preserving order. — 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.