We only try the criminal for what she did, not what she will do. — frank
pragmatic to behave in ways that society believes is moral. — Michael
Either eating meat is immoral or it isn't. — Michael
Some people believe that eating meat is immoral and some people believe that eating meat is not immoral. — Michael
One of these groups is right and one of these groups is wrong. — Michael
What are the practical implications if the former are right? What are the practical implications if the latter are right? — Michael
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
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. — Hanover
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
You're pointing to the practical outcome of believing in moral realism, not the practical outcome of the existence of objective moral rules. — frank
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. — frank
Banno and I are moral realists who recognize that moral truths have an effect via belief. — Leontiskos
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
That's not a thing. — frank
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
Either eating meat is immoral or it isn't.
— Michael
True. — Leontiskos
It's all a bit of a mess. — Banno
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
Yes, and the (foreseeable) consequence of every action (or inaction) eitherAnd yet we each must act, and hence each must choose what to do. — Banno
Okay then don't "be moral for the sake of being moral" – be moral because it's usually far less maladaptive than being immoral.Being moral for the sake of being moral seems pointless. — 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.Yes, so as the OP asks, why consider morality when choosing what to do? — Michael
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).Why not just consider our desires and pragmatism?
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 existence of the obligation has no practical implication. — Michael
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
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
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
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. — Beverley
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
This lawyer does this everyday. It's what he does for a living. He tries to screw people over. — frank
This conversation is pretty stupid btw. — Hanover
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.