For me, personal morality includes the principle that guides me in my personal behavior and it’s very simple - to the extent possible, my actions will be in accordance with the guidance of my intrinsic nature, my heart if you will. — T Clark

I think it's probably the case that most of us just act and rarely think about morality. (But we might think about the law.) Morality is for academics and for conversations and for post-hoc justifications.

I think the intrinsic nature of many people leads them to harm others. They don't necessarily do this out of deliberate evil, it's the by-product of how they see the world.

Can you think of any moral discussion you've heard or participated in that was useful and if it was why was this?

They can never take for granted that they will avoid the need to morally blame and punish others if those values don’t include a means of understanding why other deviate from the normative expectations. — Joshs

But isn't there a great deal of pleasure and exhilaration derived from such judging and punishing? You might as well try to stop people from having sex.

What most think of as a moral structure is only needed to the extent that people fail to see eye to eye on the interpretation of each others motives. It doesnt matter how closely individuals try to keep in lockstep with the larger society’s expressed values. They can never take for granted that they will avoid the need to morally blame and punish others if those values don’t include a means of understanding why other deviate from the normative expectations. — Joshs

To understand all is to forgive all? I doubt it.
And I take exception to 'lockstep' applied to willing participation in a community, or adherence to a culture. All cultures have some leeway for individual variation - the more militaristic and authoritarian ones, less than the liberal, egalitarian ones, but always some.
Humans have never lacked the ability to understand one another's motives or tolerate one another's peculiarities. It's political leaders who attribute all opposition to enemies of the state, accuse dissenters of being unpatriotic. (Letting the terrists win) It's religious leaders who usually attribute 'wrong thinking' or sinful intent to those who do not conform to their strictures. (floods are caused by same sex marriage)

Individually and in communal groups, we're quite capable of listening to one another's point of view. We're quite aware of the differences in temperament, taste and modes of thought. We're quite capable of figuring out what's fair - and even how to reconcile after one person offends against another.

What goes wrong - horribly wrong, for the scapegoated individuals - in civilizations is that the requirements of the elite are counter to the requirements of the people. So an artificial version of the 'larger society's values' is imprinted on the citizens, through appeals to the need for approval (especially in childhood; this makes us receptive later on) faith, loyalty, fear, anger, conformity, material advantage, insecurity, prejudice and blame-casting.

Of course, propaganda is never uniformly successful; some always oppose the regime. They must be divided off from the herd, labelled as harmful to the rest, vilified, dehumanized. That's how people are divested of their ability to discern one another's motives.

I think what Emerson readily expresses, "Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this", Chuang Tzu was aware of. That all of the "things" ultimately constructing our morals, are just "things" arising from the evolution of difference. They are neither pre-existent nor absolute, but the contrary, constructed and projected to move our stories and project signifiers; things made-up and believed. — ENOAH

Agreed. This is from the Tao Te Ching, along with the Chuang Tzu the other foundational document of Taoism - Gia-Fu Feng's translation of Verse 2.

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast each other:
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no-talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
Creating, yet not possessing.
Working, yet not taking credit.
Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts forever. — Tao Te Ching

As for following your heart, if there's an iota of thought, let alone reasoning, harsh as it seems to say (for one, because it seems impossible to avoid), I think you are not following the Way that Chuang tzu presumably did. That Way would be to follow your organic feelings or drives (we, in the human world of make and believe only construct feelings and drives as being ravenous and aggressive; in nature, eons of evolutionhave ensured that they work appropriately). — ENOAH

There is truth in what you say, but Chuang Tzu is very easygoing when it comes to any kind of imperative. I can imagine him responding to your comment with a shrug and "Hey, just do the best you can."

As for the constructions and projections, I think Chuang would suggest, go along for the ride without any prejudice. Do that, and to the world, you might seem dimwitted and indifferent, even reckless in your lack of concern. But in your heart, you are always doing as your body naturally responds, so you are always doing right. While in the projected world, there is no right besides what has been constructed and projected from time to time. — ENOAH

I agree with this.

I like the way you've put this. Have you read Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu?

The second quote is a more accurate description of what morality is, and holds in the majority of the contexts in which the term is used. Morality is "rules for the group, imposed by the group, for the benefit of the group". Let's explore this through an example, if I want to live in a clean society, simply practising what I preach will not suffice, I need a majority of peoples within my society to follow suit. To convince others to be clean, to dissuade others from littering or destroying/defacing property and to apply pressure to my local council to pay for cleaning and repairs. All my attempts to persuade, intimidate, coerce, compel, incentivise or punish to this end are part of morality. My local area may look unkindly at those who act dirty the area, demonising these acts and those who commit them to discourage the behaviour. Attempts to justify acts or conditions that run counter to these goals may be pounced on and criticised. This should all be familiar to you as the kinds of things that happen around all moral issues. This group aspect of morality is, to me, the defining feature. — Judaka

I agree with this.

The first quote doesn't clearly delineate morality from any other personal motivation, not even greed or jealousy, which also come from our "intrinsic nature". — Judaka

Yes, good point. I was thinking about that after I posted the OP. The idea of acting in accordance with our intrinsic virtuosity can apply to everything we do - from treating people with kindness to deciding what to have for lunch. It has struck me that the proper question for philosophy is not "what is truth," but rather "what do I do now." For me, that is the question Chuang Tzu is trying to answer.

Those aren't mutually exclusive, most laws that exist for the functioning of society will have a moral element to them. — Judaka

I don't disagree, but I am trying to make a stronger statement - what we call "moral" isn't about good and bad, right and wrong, it's about greasing the social skids.

Have you read Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu? — T Clark

Ages ago. But the essence lingers. Like shit on a stick. :joke:

Moral principles are part of the roots of each civilisation. From Orthodox or Christian moral values to Taoism. All of them have some pillars that guide people on how to behave properly in society. You understand them as 'coercive rules' but I personally believe it goes deeper than that. Moral principles are part of our culture. — javi2541997

I don't necessarily disagree but... This is what Chuang Tzu has to say. This from Ziporyn's translation of Chapter 8.

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu

I believe one example of my argument is the 'sacred' standard of respect for family members. In general, children owe respect to their parents, and vice versa. When this essential moral principle is broken, members of this community experience despair, existentialism, and even nihilism, among other things, because one of these moral (Christian) principles (or 'codes', if you prefer) is no longer present. — javi2541997

I'll let Lao Tzu respond. This is from Stephen Mitchell's version of Verse 18 of the Tao Te Ching.

When the great Tao is forgotten,
goodness and piety appear.
When the body's intelligence declines,
cleverness and knowledge step forth.
When there is no peace in the family,
filial piety begins.
When the country falls into chaos,
patriotism is born. — Lao Tzu

We are born with value imbedded into our experiences. From the beauty of a desolate environment in rain to the misery of a sharp electric pain in ones spine, these experiences we live through do not require any justification to estimate their moral value, but that value exists via our very perception of them. — Ourora Aureis

I agree, although I don't want to get into an argument about exactly where our intrinsic virtuosity comes from. Well, maybe I do, but I didn't include that in my OP.

Moral philosophers make the mistake of attempting to intellectualise the concept of value, when in reality they merely create rationalisations which justify their own value judgements of certain experiences. In such a way, these intellectual creations exist purely to coerce others into joining their judgements, using the common psychological need of humans to have the approval of others.

A reaction to this would be ethical egoism, the ethical framework I follow. It declares that we ought to act according to our values, not the value judgements of others. In this way it seems similar to the idea of personal morality you hold. I think the most important part of using it as a framework is its declaration that morality concerns an individuals action and nothing else. Social contempt is nothing more than the natural inclination towards disgust. The Emerson quote works quite well with this framework. — Ourora Aureis

I agree.

However, these social forces fail when someone who does not care for such judgements of others comes along. Nietzsche might refer to the idealised version of this type of person as the Ubermensch, someone who creates their own values. It is abnormal psychology which creates this person. — Ourora Aureis

Perhaps calling it "abnormal psychology" is going to far, but I am in sympathy with this comment.

this seems very different to the idea of value presented in the 2nd quote, which seems to suggests an uncaring attitude towards "great" and "small", which seems to just be a description of the average human who has little ambition. — Ourora Aureis

I'm not sure about this. You say "the average human who has little ambition." Perhaps Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu would say "sage." Maybe that's going too far.

I think it is more or less about feeling your around how other apply value to certain judgements in certain contexts compared to others. It is then about unpicking the rational claims laid out or, often enough, revealing that there are none whatsoever. — I like sushi

I think the approach I have been describing is not rational at all. It's not irrational, it's non-rational. In a sense, that's the point.

Of course, this is further complicated when those espousing certain moral themes are so entrenched in them (or opposed to moral views) that they are effectively no longer doing anything I would call 'philosophical'. We can still attempt to point this out and find out where they took the wrong path and/or whether there is simply a misunderstanding in the concepts laid out. — I like sushi

The point I'm trying to make is stronger than that. I think Chuang Tzu and Emerson endorse not applying moral themes at all, entrenched or not.

The terminology in this area is just as obtuse (if not more so) as every other field of philosophical inspection. — I like sushi

Agreed.

And so we fall into self-improvement, social improvement, and global improvement, as though through our internal conflict we can outthink that nature from which we spring. Yet one does not really have to go all the way to China; in our own Christian tradition, the individual conscience also reigns supreme. If you follow that internal voice, you cannot go wrong. (But on the other hand, you might well get crucified.) — unenlightened

I think you've said it very well.

What can be concluded from Emerson and Thelema is that there's no distinction between a right life and one lived without worry. Thus successful rationalisation is the core moral principle. Forgetting the distinction between who you are and the lies you may make yourself believe.

Simply hope you are a good liar. And have others join in. — fdrake

Another quote from "Self-Reliance," one of my favorites.

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,--"But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. — Emerson - Self-Reliance

Particularly in relationships, I've had the opportunity to be on both sides: the asshole and the wronged party. I know what the crime feels like from both sides. That's helpful for understanding the golden rule. — frank

I'm glad you brought up the golden rule. I've spent some time thinking about how it fits into my formulation. I'm not sure of the answer.

Moral philsophy isn't just a means of social control, it is also a means of resisting social control.

When society attempts to impose upon us "You must do X, because X is good.", we may require some reply as to why we disagree. In these cases, we cannot refer to the Tao, because it is too esoteric for that. One requires earthly, conclusive arguments.

The two seem to serve different purposes, and personally that's how I've always treated them. Moral philosophy is perhaps more of a tool or a brain exercise. For wisdom I would rather defer to the likes of Lao Tzu or Plato.

What makes this "guidance of my intrinsic nature" moral? Suppose you are an antisocial psychopath: is acting "in accordance" with psychopathy also moral? — 180 Proof

Good point. Even if my actions according to Chuang Tzu's descriptions might be considered benign, they are not really moral, i.e. they don't deal with right and wrong. They apply as much to deciding whether to wash the dishes or clean the floor first as they do to robbing a bank.

As for antisocial psychopathy, I'll point you to the Emerson quote I just used in my previous response to fdrake.

That's a legal system, not a moral one. I doubt there are any societies left today in which the general population shares a belief system in which sins are perceived the same way by everyone, and the laws are made to prevent and/or rectify sins. Moral and legal are confused, sometimes deliberately. It's easy to impose rules if the populace shares the rulers' belief. — Vera Mont

As I see it, there is no fundamental difference between a legal system and a moral one.

Mighty nice OP, mighty nice response.

My own image - metaphor - is that morality/ethics comprise the warp and weft of the social fabric, whether a society of one or of many. And I think it is pretty clear that they grow from values and evolve and are refined. Some of which common to all, and some, being developed over time, not.

And it does not appear that any are absolute, unless in some reduced state that makes recognition problematic. I have in mind mother-love - what could be more basic and moral that that? Yet consider some examples of mothers from history, literature, and even in today's news. Most modern mother-love seems to be about caring, protecting, and nurturing, but underneath seems to be proprietorship.

An old joke - so to speak - from a philosophy class is that there is no such thing as a rope. Absurd on its face but also true. We might say that rope is the realization of purpose gathered together from many and different sources, but not in any sense pre-existing those. So with morality and ethics.

But there does seem an exception: while much moral theory seems to come from considerations of life itself and how to live it, these all seem made in the sense of the rope. Kant, on the other hand, looks for it in reason, and finding it there, finds something that can sometimes appear alien and strange. And as reason arguably pre-existing, in the sense of reason's being universal and necessary.

Willing, wanting, choosing, desiring don’t have to be thought of as volunteristic, as choosing in advance what we will. I would argue that we find ourselves choosing; we are compelled by the contextual circumstances we are thrown into to want and desire in specific directions prior to any reflection or consciousness. Self-conscious reflection occurs as a later and derivative mode of willing. This is the difference between unreflective mindful coping and abstract conceptual rationality. The latter is a derivative of the former, which is the fundamental way we engage with the world. — Joshs

I think you and I are getting wrapped up in a difference in our understanding of what "will" means. Or maybe not. What you call "compulsion by contextual circumstances" I would call acting in accordance with our intrinsic virtuosities, our nature. I would not call that "will" at all. I think it's more than a linguistic difference.

The determining factor is not an urge or a drive, driving and urging me from behind, but something standing before me, a task I am involved in, something I am charged with. This, in turn—this relation to something I am charged with—is possible only if I am "ahead" of myself. — Heidegger

I think what I mean by "will" is what Heidegger calls being ahead of myself. Not sure about that. It is possible to act without getting ahead of oneself.

I think it's probably the case that most of us just act and rarely think about morality. (But we might think about the law.) Morality is for academics and for conversations and for post-hoc justifications. — Tom Storm

I guess my dissatisfaction with this is the motive behind this attempt to undermine the idea of morality at all.

I think the intrinsic nature of many people leads them to harm others. They don't necessarily do this out of deliberate evil, it's the by-product of how they see the world. — Tom Storm

I think this is the standard response to the kind of approach to morals I am describing, and I admit it's a good one. I respond by quoting from "Self-Reliance" again as I did in an earlier post.

Can you think of any moral discussion you've heard or participated in that was useful and if it was why was this? — Tom Storm

I left my response to this out. Generally, no. I don't usually find moral discussions useful or satisfying. Again, that's what lead me to starting this discussion.

But isn't there a great deal of pleasure and exhilaration derived from such judging and punishing? You might as well try to stop people from having sex. — Tom Storm

Speaking of sex, one could raise the question of the motivation behind sadism and masochism. Where does the pleasure from causing others or oneself pain come from? Looking at self-harm, normally pain gets in the way of achieving goals. In itself, pain is the loss of personhood, a kind of confusion. But acts of self-harm like cutting involve using pain as a means to an end which is self-affirming. But what about pleasure from harming others? The more we relate to an other as being like ourselves , the more we care about them , the more likely we are to treat their pain as our pain. The pleasure from the desire to judge and punish is bound up with our feelings toward those who we do not relate to, or used to but not anymore, those we are alienated from. In such cases punishment protects us from their alienating influence. It reinforces our sense that we are on the ‘right track’, and perhaps reduces our urge to try those things we are punishing the other for, the very things
we have been tempted by but didn’t have the nerve to go through with.

I have said for a long time that ethics is unethical and morality immoral ... it is only recently that I have started to wade through the jargon to find what the accepted terminology is for outlining this better.

I am more inclined towards meta ethics. Emotivism is a useful term for part of how I see things - hence placing Moral Views effectively outside of direct philosophical scope.

I think what I mean by "will" is what Heidegger calls being ahead of myself. Not sure about that. It is possible to act without getting ahead of oneself — T Clark

I can go with that.

Simply, there is no virtue in being un-fallen - innocence is the natural condition, and virtue arises from the fall along with vice as "knowledge of good and evil" - What philosophers call "moral knowledge". If you don't know good from evil, there is no virtue in doing good and no vice in doing evil, you just do what you do.

(When I were a lad this stuff were taught in school; kids these days don't understand the language and tradition properly in the first place, and then get all superior and dogmatic in their ignorance, mistaking it for virtuous rationality and freedom from superstition.) — unenlightened

Guilty as parenthetically charged ;)

Virtuous rationality and freedom from superstition -- is this an innocent mistake? Or a guilty self-lie?

****

At the least I don't like superiority, dogmatism, and especially so when they are paired with ignorance.

But I also dislike guilt, generally speaking. I think it's not so much a feeling of moral knowledge but a conditioned response which is used to control people.

Now, deciding to not be controlled, by this thesis, does not make one virtuous. But neither is the guilty state virtuous.

I suppose I doubt those philosophers who claim to have "moral knowledge", and so -- by your notions -- no one is virtuous at all because we are all ignorant.

Moral philsophy isn't just a means of social control, it is also a means of resisting social control.

When society attempts to impose upon us "You must do X, because X is good.", we may require some reply as to why we disagree. In these cases, we cannot refer to the Tao, because it is too esoteric for that. One requires earthly, conclusive arguments. — Tzeentch

I agree, Lao Tzu is no help in preparing a rational response to a moral disagreement. Taoist principles are more guides to personal behavior. As I've proposed earlier in this thread, I see imposition of moral views as more a case of social control than of right versus wrong.

The two seem to serve different purposes, and personally that's how I've always treated them. Moral philosophy is perhaps more of a tool or a brain exercise. For wisdom I would rather defer to the likes of Lao Tzu or Plato. — Tzeentch

I think I agree with this. I guess I question the value of the "brain exercise" you describe, but I guess that's a matter of taste.

My own image - metaphor - is that morality/ethics comprise the warp and weft of the social fabric, whether a society of one or of many. And I think it is pretty clear that they grow from values and evolve and are refined. Some of which common to all, and some, being developed over time, not. — tim wood

I don't disagree with this, although I have made what I think is a fundamental distinction between a society of many and a "society" of one.

Kant, on the other hand, looks for it in reason, and finding it there, finds something that can sometimes appear alien and strange. And as reason arguably pre-existing, in the sense of reason's being universal and necessary. — tim wood

As the basis of this argument I am rejecting Kant's understanding that morality is based on reason and is universal. For me, it is non-rational and personal.

I have said for a long time that ethics is unethical and morality immoral ... it is only recently that I have started to wade through the jargon to find what the accepted terminology is for outlining this better. — I like sushi

I think you and I are on similar paths. This thread is an effort to wade through the jargon.

I am more inclined towards meta ethics. Emotivism is a useful term for part of how I see things - hence placing Moral Views effectively outside of direct philosophical scope. — I like sushi

Is my position meta ethical? Is this discussion "outside of direct philosophical scope?"

I had to look up "emotivism." I seems close to what I am talking about in my posts on this thread.

I can go with that. — Joshs

To understand all is to forgive all? I doubt it.
And I take exception to 'lockstep' applied to willing participation in a community, or adherence to a culture. All cultures have some leeway for individual variation - the more militaristic and authoritarian ones, less than the liberal, egalitarian ones, but always some.
Humans have never lacked the ability to understand one another's motives or tolerate one another's peculiarities. — Vera Mont

To understand all is not to need to forgive in the first place. Forgiveness requires a prior assessment of moral blame and culpability. As far as your assertion that humans have never lacked the ability to understand one another's motives or tolerate one another's peculiarities, the question is where and to what extent you see that understanding and tolerance as breaking down. I am admittedly on the fringe on this issue. I happen to believe that every time one become angry and feels the need to admonish another , or to forgive them, one is failing to understand things from the other’s vantage. Our culture and justice system revolve around anger and blame. Even those of us who believe there are profound flaws in our legal system would defend the need to point out malevolent intent and irrational thinking in themselves and others.

As I see it, there is no fundamental difference between a legal system and a moral one. — T Clark

Legal systems are based on the prevailing moral principles. In theocracies and monarchies, the transition from commandment to law is swift and pretty much literal. In more diverse forms of social organization, or those predicated on philosophical principles (like communism) or stated values (like personal liberty) something is lost, but much more gained in the translation. Not every moral tenet is written into law - or it was, but later struck down - and not every law is concerned with the avoidance of sin (which is any act against the wishes of a deity or one's own core being. Indeed, the vast majority of laws, bi-laws, rules and regulations are enacted in the service of property, commerce, defence, public safety, transportation and the orderly conduct of daily life among a multitude.

We have eaten of the apple of self-awareness, and fallen into internal conflict between what we are and what we feel ourselves to be.

To say that man is a social animal expresses this conflict - between the individual animal and the community. — unenlightened

Yet one does not really have to go all the way to China; in our own Christian tradition, the individual conscience also reigns supreme. If you follow that internal voice, you cannot go wrong. — unenlightened

Fair would be that once you have fallen there is no redemption. Without guilt, there can be no virtue. — unenlightened

If you don't know good from evil, there is no virtue in doing good and no vice in doing evil, you just do what you do. — unenlightened

Perhaps this is all true according to one or another Protestant development of Augustine, but I would want to distinguish that tradition from the "Christian tradition" per se.