Seems naturalist to me.

Sounds like you really bought in to the Garden of Eden stuff. — Banno

I get the feeling you don't know what innocence and guilt are. All you know is that you ought to because you ought to? Hmm.

We only try the criminal for what she did, not what she will do. — frank

But the other 99% looked forward and didn't ever commit the crime because they knew it immoral.

@Michael

I'm not entirely sure what we discussed in this thread. I'm willing to admit it might be me in that my assumptions are so strong I can't see where the issue lies.

I may not have a full grasp of what non- naturalism is. The article I cited earlier offered so many objections and distinctions between the various forms, it's hard to say what it is generically.

What is an example of non-naturalist ethical theory?

But the other 99% looked forward and didn't ever commit the crime because they knew it immoral. — Hanover

Well, you're a monster. What's your excuse?

I've been thinking... if morality can be defined as doing the good or right thing, I believe it means ultimately doing the good and right thing for yourself—although it may appear that you are doing it for the benefit of someone else. As a private teacher/tutor, I get immense satisfaction when I know that I have helped someone to pass their exams, and hence, possibly made their chances of a better future more likely. I have often thought that this is rather selfish, although that seems contradictory in itself. So, I am selfish because I am helping others for selfish reasons, but in the process, others get helped. Everyone is a winner. But it doesn’t work the other way around. If I knew I could help, and I didn’t, then I wouldn’t feel happy, and they wouldn’t get the help. Everyone is a loser.

Now, you may say that I am just being,

pragmatic to behave in ways that society believes is moral. — Michael

and that this is what gives me a good feeling when I help others. However, I benefit in a whole lot of other ways too. The more I help others, the more I get recommended, and the more my business grows. This means I can earn more money (although, I am terrible at increasing my fees. I have actually been asked before by a parent if I would please put my prices up. Oops, did I just shoot down my own argument? Hmm, not necessarily, by keeping my fees low, I get more customers, or customers believe that I am not only concerned with money, so they trust me more to have the best interests at heart for their children. Oooh, I am more cunning than I thought!)

Okay, of course, there are always exceptions too, such as, people don’t always see the long-term benefits, or else, they act on impulsive emotions; we have all at once probably been guilty of ‘cutting our noses off to spite our faces.” Or, there could be a whole lot of other reasons why people do not act morally, but I believe that, while they may appear to benefit in the short term, in the long run, they do not. Therefore, those who are wise, level-headed and do not have self-destructive tendencies, lean towards behaving morally. The moral facts are that we survive better, in the long run, by behaving morally.

In addition, I believe that morality is not so much to do with rules set out by society (although these do exist), it comes from within us, as a way of maximizing our chances of survival. Therefore, the ‘rules’ tend to be set and followed by the individual, depending on the circumstances, and the rules set out generally by society are simply to strengthen all of our chances of survival. These rules manifest in both laws and expected/accepted forms of behaviour.

This becomes problematic, however, because it is so difficult for societies to speak for every individual situation, and this is most probably when the individual makes up their own mind what is moral or not. For example, many people would think it not immoral to kill a baby that was suffering horrifically and had no chance of survival, to sit back and watch it suffer, be torn apart, tortured etc. But many societies cannot condone baby killing because of the ‘grey’ areas, and the times when people could abuse such rules/laws etc.

Gosh, I appear to have rabbited on an awful lot! I hope this makes at least some sense, isn’t just repeating what someone else has already said, and does refer to the original post to some extent… but I have a streaming cold, and my brain is a little fuzzy. I cannot sleep though, not at all, hence all the ‘rabbiting’ I’m doing.

Either eating meat is immoral or it isn't. — Michael

True.

Some people believe that eating meat is immoral and some people believe that eating meat is not immoral. — Michael

True.

One of these groups is right and one of these groups is wrong. — Michael

True (although not everyone on each side agrees with one another about the nature of the moral proposition).

What are the practical implications if the former are right? What are the practical implications if the latter are right? — Michael

The practical implications have to do with eating, harvesting, and producing animals, as I already noted.

I can't see that there are any in either case.

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, those who believe that eating meat is immoral probably won't eat meat and those who believe that eating meat is not immoral probably will eat meat. — Michael

Your word here, "regardless," is the source of the fallacy you are working with. Disagreement does not mean that no one on either side is acting in good faith. In fact the empirical data disproves your thesis, for there are those on both sides who become convinced that they were wrong and change their minds, and this obviously has "practical" (moral) implications. Your sentence here is simply false.

It would be as intelligent to say, "Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, those who are epistemological coherentists will act like epistemological coherentists, and those who are epistemological foundationalists will act like epistemological foundationalists." This is sophistry. People act on the basis of beliefs that they hold to be true. People act not regardless of who is right, but rather because of who is right.* This is so in all fields of knowledge. Stipulating by fiat that there are no real convictions about what is true, whether in the realm of morality or epistemology, is sophistical. You are stipulating that all moral reasoning is post hoc rationalization.

(Although we should again note that by "moral reasoning" you mean "Kantian reasoning," and you think any non-Kantian moral reasoning is "pragmatic" reasoning.)

* You will say, "They act on the basis of who they believe to be right, not on the basis of who is right." Yes, of course. Truth is always filtered through belief. There is no simple fact of the matter about who is right. Here below there is no Gods-eye view that is able to sidestep beliefs. We access truth through our minds and through our beliefs.

I get the feeling you don't know what innocence and guilt are. All you know is that you ought to because you ought to? Hmm. — frank

I do think @Banno correctly noted your allusion to the original sin myth. Not that the religious story can't be correct metaphor, but you do have to pause if you find yourself reciting the mythology of your culture to ask it's valid of or if its just bias.

It's not the case that we stumble about making countless serious ethical violations until we right ourselves. Most make missteps now and again, but we're mostly morally abiding folks.

I can't get into the whole we're damaged goods in need of salvation or some such. That's someone else's myth. I've got my plate full figuring out my own.

I'm asking why there is a motivation to be moral if moral facts have no practical implications. — Michael

Why would there be a motivation to believe empirical facts that are of no practical consequence?

I do think Banno correctly noted your allusion to the original sin myth. Not that the religious story can't be correct metaphor, but you do have to pause if you find yourself reciting the mythology of your culture to ask it's valid of or if its just bias. — Hanover

I was talking about babies. They're innocent. They learn about morality through experiences of all sorts. It's a life long progression.

It's not the case that we stumble about making countless serious ethical violations until we right ourselves. Most make missteps now and again, but we're mostly morally abiding folks. — Hanover

When you first described to me what you do for a living, I was a little shocked because you seemed kind of nonchalant about it. To me, it sounded horrible, though. You stand with a large company against people who are struggling. I didn't wonder: how does Hanover not see that what he's doing is against some objective moral code? I wondered how you sleep at night. To me, morality is visceral. What is it to you?

You're pointing to the practical outcome of believing in moral realism, not the practical outcome of the existence of objective moral rules. — frank

Truths have an effect on the world by being known by minds, and this is especially true with moral truths. You and @Michael are attempting to speak about the effects of truths independent of belief, which is an especially odd approach when it comes to morality. Morality is about how humans should act, and humans act in light of their beliefs. Therefore a moral truth is brought to bear on reality via belief.

Of course I grant that it is easier to speak about the truth, say, of gravity in a manner that circumvents human knowledge of that truth. But moral truths can also have an effect in the absence of human appropriation of those truths in the form of knowledge. For example, if we cannot get along with one another, then the human race will end as a consequence of nuclear war. Those who believe it is morally important to provide for the continuation of the human race will take this (hypothetical) moral truth into account.

@Michael sees moral disagreements and he seeks a way to overcome them, to stand over them with a quasi-infallible method of moral adjudication (including a faux confidence about which claims are moral claims and which are not). But such an approach is like chasing the horizon or searching for the edge of the Earth. All knowledge is, in a certain sense, non-infallible, including moral knowledge. There is no Gods-eye moral position, at least in this life.

You and Michael are attempting to speak about the effects of truths independent of belief, which is an especially odd approach when it comes to morality. Morality is about how humans should act, and humans act in light of their beliefs. Therefore a moral truth is brought to bear on reality via belief. — Leontiskos

What you're saying is in line with moral antirealism. Michael was asking about moral realism, specifically whether it makes any difference if it obtains. I think we all pretty much agree that it doesn't.

What you're saying is in line with moral antirealism. — frank

Nope. Banno and I are moral realists who recognize that moral truths have an effect via belief. Actually I would say that all moral realists believe this. I have no idea where you guys are getting your strange ideas about the different categories of moral theory. @Michael's claim that only ethical naturalism can have "practical" effects is another of the strange ideas.

Banno and I are moral realists who recognize that moral truths have an effect via belief. — Leontiskos

That's not a thing.

When you first described to me what you do for a living, I was a little shocked because you seemed kind of nonchalant about it. To me, it sounded horrible, though. You stand with a large company against people who are struggling. I didn't wonder: how does Hanover not see that what he's doing is against some objective moral code? I wondered how you sleep at night. To me, morality is visceral. What is it to you? — frank

What would be immoral would be not to represent someone's interests in an adversarial system and to think yourself the judge when you're an advocate and allow your client to go unprotected.

I suppose you might think every criminal guilty and so the prosecutor is the only moral person in the courtroom or perhaps you think they're all innocent, so the defense attorney is the only moral person. Or maybe you've thought deeper than that. Or maybe not.

I'm not a civil defense attorney just by coincidence. It's a passion of mine. That I don't hold to your naive view that every person who comes before the court asking for compensation fully deserves whatever they want doesn't make me immoral. It makes me realize the crazy racket the American civil justice can be if left unguarded.

We buy and sell pain and suffering like it's a commodity. I always like having the recent immigrant on my jury who is still ignorant to the nonsense we accept as normal.

It's a conversation for another day, but not one where I'd have to search very hard for examples of individuals obtaining benefits undeserved. Whatever limited view you have of the courtrooms I see every day doubtfully will add much to my opinion.

That's not a thing. — frank

Feel free to attempt to address the argument:

Morality is about how humans should act, and humans act in light of their beliefs. Therefore a moral truth is brought to bear on reality via belief. — Leontiskos

Yep.

In so far as there is much of interest in this thread, it's about how not to talk about morality and ethics. It's all a bit of a mess.

Sure, there are people who want to play the system. You're there to stop them. That's great. And everyone you direct your skills against is a rascal. Is that what you're saying?

Either eating meat is immoral or it isn't.
— Michael

True. — Leontiskos

I've been thinking... What if you were stranded—with your sibling— on a desert island, which has limited meat sources, and the only other source of edible food is eggs, and your sibling is allergic to eggs. Now you hate eggs, but are not allergic to them, but really want that meat. Yes, I know this is a rather convoluted example, but it is all I can come up with at the moment with my streaming cold. I’m sure I could come up with lots of other better examples without my ‘cold head’. (Anyone is welcome to join in with a better example! )

Okay, so with this example, the practical consequences of you eating meat are that your sibling will eventually die, either of starvation or anaphylactic shock.

But, I hear you say, eventually all the meat, and eggs, will run out anyway, so both of you will die of starvation. And anyway, why does any of this even matter at all if people were, for example, all generally immoral? Because, from my view, being immoral doesn’t seem to benefit me, or the person being immorally wrong, in the long run. If the person ate the eggs and saved the meat for their sibling, then they may both survive long enough to get off the island. The meat eater could use their raft building skills, and the egg eater could deploy their knowledge of distress signalling, using the mirror they found in their pocket. Lol

Okay, so, say one of those people believed it was immoral to eat the meat or the eggs, but they could save their sibling with their raft building skills, which their sibling was useless at, and, the other sibling knew without a shadow of a doubt that their sibling would drown if they even tried to build a raft to get out of there. Then, to my mind, it would be immoral NOT to eat the meat, survive and help the sibling. You may say it is my 'belief' that it is immoral not to eat the meat, or to eat it, but, if morality is linked to survival, then eating the meat means that both myself and my sibling survive, and hence, are moral.

The point is though, there are soooo many grey areas. This is just one, admittedly very specific, and quite unlikely, example. Give me time—and take away my cold— and I’m pretty sure I could come up with more.

It's all a bit of a mess. — Banno

Yes. Once the thin film of the thread is peeled away all that remains are utterly strange moral assumptions that are continually reasserted. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

You may say it is my 'belief' that it is immoral not to eat the meat, or to eat it, but, if morality is linked to survival, then eating the meat means that both myself and my sibling survive, and hence, are moral. — Beverley

In the same post you quoted from I also said, "(although not everyone on each side agrees with one another about the nature of the moral proposition)."

The point here is that "moral" and "immoral" are not univocal terms. They mean different things on different moral theories. This is actually one of the big problems with @Michael's approach: he presumes that "moral" is a straightforwardly univocal term while simultaneously refusing to give his definition or account of what it means.

So depending on one's reasons for abstaining from meat, exceptions may or may not be allowed. My hunch is that for many vegetarians such a moral rule is not exceptionless. It is possible for moral rules to come into conflict, and the robust moral theories are able to account for and deal with these conflicts. The conflict you raise is an especially strong one (survival, or the limit of "in extremis").

But Michael is concerned with the Kantian form of morality, which tends to be exceptionless (cf. ).

And yet we each must act, and hence each must choose what to do. — Banno

Yes, and the (foreseeable) consequence of every action (or inaction) either

• helps more than harns,
• harms more than helps,
• harms and helps more or less equally
or
• (mostly it seems) neither harms nor helps

by which habits of judgment (i.e. virtues, vices) are reflectively cultivated. Maybe I've taken your point further than you intend, Banno, but I think my point is consistent with the ethical truth you've raised: "What ought I/we to do now?"

Being moral for the sake of being moral seems pointless. — Michael

Okay then don't "be moral for the sake of being moral" – be moral because it's usually far less maladaptive than being immoral.

Yes, so as the OP asks, why consider morality when choosing what to do? — Michael

I don't know what it means to "consider morality when choosing what to do" any more than what it means to "consider" seeing "when choosing" to look or "consider" empathy "when choosing" to feel. In situ we do, look or feel and then reflect on how we can improve on doing, looking or feeling; thus, we can gradually cultivate habits of judgments (for "choosing") which are either (A) more adaptive than maladaptive (i.e. virtuous) or (B) more maladaptive than adaptive (i.e. vicious). Ethics is not calculus but concerns seeking optimal ways of living with others.

Why not just consider our desires and pragmatism?

Who says these do not also factor into moral conduct? However, they are not the only considerations. Read moral psychology and some of Confucius, Epicurus, Epictetus, Aristotle ... Spinoza, Nietzsche, Peirce, Dewey ... Parfit, Foot, Nussbaum et al).

Is that what you're saying? — frank

Is that what you're saying I said?

Is that what you're saying I said? — Hanover

My impression is that sometimes you hurt people who don't deserve to be hurt, and these people you've hurt don't have the resources your clients do. Do I have it all wrong? Are the people you defend against all rascals?

Maybe I've taken your point further than you intend, Banno — 180 Proof

Not too far, perhaps. Talk of virtues and vices, dealing with here and now, ad hoc rather than programatic decision making, allowing for review of the outcomes, heuristics over algorithms; sounds about right.

Nothing detrimental will happen if I disobey an obligation and nothing beneficial will happen if I obey an obligation. So why should I care about such an obligation? — Michael

The question of whether all 'oughts' pertain to punishment and reward is interesting (), but the more fundamental question at play is whether there are 'oughts' which are not driven by inclination or even motivation. This is a more universal question, as it affects non-consequentialists, and your line of reasoning occasionally and imperceptibly dips into this deeper probing. The more superficial line assumes a modern view, where human action is inherently selfish. Kant is influenced by this modern view but he is always attempting to surpass it, and so the problem with Kant (and our modern inheritance) goes deeper than this superficial line.

The existence of the obligation has no practical implication. — Michael

Not all morality is consequentialist. The deeper problem of Kantian morality is not related to implications, but to grounds or reasons. Here is how I put it to J privately:

We always act because we are inclined to act, and this holds even of our highest acts. So for Kant to divorce the moral part of life—or any part of life—from inclination looks to be a non-starter. I think this is a large part of what Simpson has in mind, and the first few sentences of his article reflect this. — Leontiskos

Here is how Simpson puts a similar point:

Kant only secures the nobility and freedom associated with morality at the cost of shifting both into a sphere that lies completely beyond human grasp. The free acts of the will that constitute moral goodness and moral choice are beyond human explanation and comprehension. — Peter L. P. Simpson, Autonomous Morality and the Idea of the Noble, p. 16

So you are latching onto something legitimately problematic in Kant. But the ascendancy of Kant and of his morality comes late in history. For an Aristotelian like myself it is a strange aberration. Yet you refuse to conceive of morality in a non-Kantian manner, and so instead of identifying a flaw in one very localized moral theory, you falsely conclude that all of morality is inherently flawed. Whenever someone tries to draw you out of the Kantian whirlpool, you respond, "You're speaking about pragmatic matters, not moral matters," where "pragmatic" means non-Kantian and "moral" means Kantian.

(Or else you can't see past consequentialism and a selfish psychology and I am giving you too much credit.)

My impression is that sometimes you hurt people who don't deserve to be hurt, and these people you've hurt don't have the resources your clients do. Do I have it all wrong? Are the people you defend against all rascals? — frank

Yes, you have it exactly wrong.

The Plaintiff's bar is well funded, and you don't pay if you don't recover. People aren't wanting for representation. You live in the US right?

And no, my clients aren't always in the right. Was that a real question? You were wondering if I ever had a case with bad facts?

This conversation is pretty stupid btw. It started with a provocation along the lines of "how can anyone defend a company?" and now you're asking how broke people hire lawyers and if I ever had a bad case.

Type in "I've been hurt and need a lawyer" in Google and you can live chat with someone 24/7 and they can fill you in on everything you need to know.

If someone sues you though and you need representation, don't call your insurance company and don't have someone like me represent you. You should just roll over and die because you're above all that and that injured person has the right to everything you have.

The point here is that "moral" and "immoral" are not univocal terms. They mean different things on different moral theories — Leontiskos

I'm just trying to figure out if there is such a thing as immorality. If being moral means doing what is good and best for you, and by extension, that is good for others, then being immoral would mean not doing what is best for you. I'm not sure I'm convinced that this exists or is possible.

BTW, sorry if I made a mistake with the quoting thing on my last comment. It was unintentional; I'm just getting used to the site.

Granny was in a car accident. She hasn't been able to turn her head side to side since then. She hires a lawyer to sue because the other driver's insurance company doesn't want to pay for any of her medical bills. She won, by the way. This is a true story.

There's a lot of litigation in the US. Companies need to be able to defend themselves. Of course. And at the end of the day, the insurance company's lawyer was trying to screw over the little old lady. He was trying to keep his client from having to pay out what they owed. This lawyer does this everyday. It's what he does for a living. He tries to screw people over.

If that's not you, then great. I misunderstood.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is such a thing as immorality. If being moral means doing what is good and best for you, and by extension, that is good for others, then being immoral would mean not doing what is best for you. I'm not sure I'm convinced that this exists or is possible. — Beverley

Right. There is an interesting exchange on this very topic between two groups of philosophers. See my post on a different forum for links to the three papers in question (link).

The idea is essentially that even on a strict consequentialism moral error is possible, but perhaps only in retrospect or else in an especially subtle way. But there are a lot of different ways to answer such an argument... Most theories would say that ignorance plays a role, where one believes they are doing what is best but in fact they are not, and ignorance of what is truly best is a significant moral culprit in the immoral act. For Socrates in the early dialogues ignorance would have been the sole culprit.

If you are new to moral philosophy I would not recommend this thread, as it is excessively complicated and will probably only confuse you!

BTW, sorry if I made a mistake with the quoting thing on my last comment. It was unintentional; I'm just getting used to the site. — Beverley

No worries. A helpful thread may be, "Forum Tips and Tricks - How to Quote." In general when you use the text selection quote shortcut, it is often better to separate outer quotes from inner quotes, especially if you want a link automatically added to each quote. When you quoted me and Michael simultaneously in a single text selection, it only linked to my quote and his quote got subsumed into mine. But some of this is personal preference. :smile:

Welcome to the forum. See also: "Welcome to The Philosophy Forum - an introduction thread."

This lawyer does this everyday. It's what he does for a living. He tries to screw people over. — frank

I'd say, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." The U.S. legal system is inherently agonistic, where the judge plays a more passive role than would have been the case in older English common law, and lawyers tend to take center stage (@Hanover can correct me if I'm off). But this is also why representation is provided if necessary. It has its pros and cons.

Thing is, it's pretty hard to craft a perfect legal system. What is your solution? Don't allow companies representation? Make lawyers pass a morality test? See if Plato's Form of the Good would be interested in coming down to Earth to decide all cases personally?

This conversation is pretty stupid btw. — Hanover