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

It probably should've but alas.

Why is having an acceptable moral defense necessary and coerced? — 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. 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.

"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

Coercion can be implicit and doesn't necessarily involve force, and that's part of my understanding when I use the word. 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. Especially if there's a power discrepancy as well, such as can occur within a group context.

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.

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.

Presumably you are using 'morality' in the first sense in your OP? — Leontiskos

I doubt I remained consistent, my meaning depends on the context.

As a word, "morality", is simply horrific. It has an essential role in referring to many distinct concepts, all of which are usually applicable in the same contexts.

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.

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

I see. The word is dangerous, it can be challenging to tell what people are referring to. Each of us engages with the concept in our own way, and it interferes with the role the word has in referencing.

Thanks - Your clarifications have helped me understand what you are saying, and have quelled any objections I might have had. — Leontiskos

Great.

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.

As for what you've outlined, I'd need you to explain the premises further.

My intent was that my previous post would've dispelled the notion that your summary had any validity to me, if it hasn't, then I'll need you to expand on it. Can you expand on "our moral views are inherited"? Explain how they're inherited, or where you got this idea from. When you say "they are forced upon us", what is forced upon us and how? Could you give an example? Or use a quote of mine that you were trying to paraphrase in this premise?

In short, I don't think a commitment to one's moral principles, and a desire to defend one's moral principles, is in any sense related to how I'd argue morality is coercive. Even if we were forced to defend our moral views, unless there is some consequence for giving a bad answer, then it wouldn't be coercive.

Like with drugs, these activities are inherently dangerous, and criminalising them compounds the issue. It is crucial to incorporate a reliable legal framework that facilitates good conduct by providers and consumers of sex work. There's a huge difference between a legal brothel and someone selling themselves on the streets.

I'm of the view that there's nothing inherently wrong with the practice, provided the conditions aren't exploitative or shady. It can be treated like any other trade when conditions are under a safe legal framework.

Thanks for making the effort to understand my argument.

Is that a fair assessment of your view? — Leontiskos

Unfortunately, it isn't. I can understand your conclusion, but those four OPs don't give a good sense of my moral views. They're mostly the results of more specific thoughts that I had which prompted me to make a thread. Morality is an incredibly complicated topic, but I will try to summarise my position, and maybe I might make a thread about my overall views later. I have given a brief summary already in this thread, so let me quote it.

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

What's inherited is an ability to perceive things in a moral sense, not our moral views. 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. By the way, before now I'd never heard of A-T, I've just read a summary to get the gist of it.

2. We are committed to our moral views.
3. Our moral views must therefore be defended. {Follows from premise 2} — Leontiskos

In my OP, it isn't necessarily one's moral views that need to be defended, it's one's moral views that are doing the defending, and thinking of one's moral views as acting to defend is central to the OP.

4. Therefore, a defense of our moral views is something we are forced to undertake, not something we choose to undertake — Leontiskos

In order to prevent the negative consequences that would result from admitting the immorality of something, one is incentivised to make a moral argument for it. An example to keep things simple; it is immoral to lie, one is caught lying and is thus incentivised to justify their act of lying.

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

To continue on, if a justification is given for the act of lying, although it could be convincing, whether their justification is a convenience or a legitimate interpretation of theirs will be difficult to ascertain.

The mental gymnastics comes from the strong incentive to conclude that one is in the right and this bias may very well be the basis for one's moral introspection.

This is more complicated than someone just lying to get out of trouble, it's a problem that pervades the entirety of moral thought. As the person applying moral principles, there is a conflict of interest. It'd be absurd to let a judge rule on a case where they were the defendant, right? But that's the very position that we're all in.

It's not just personal benefit. To defend our political, economic, religious, social, and cultural views with moral arguments, we're incentivised in all these cases as well. Concluding our views or beliefs are immoral means having to abandon and condemn them. My goal isn't to paint morality as soullessly self-serving, I aim to be nuanced, and my views on morality are complex.

I hope this clarified my OP.

His patience is surprising. Your understanding of his position is willfully misrepresentative, you know the position you're interpreting him to have is idiotic, and you're pushing that interpretation despite being explicitly and repeatedly corrected. Your interpretation never made sense in the first place, he spoke of "Using moral notions as a means to meddle", not moralising. "Using moral notions as a means to meddle" could be used to describe things of extraordinary significance, and implies something of at least some significance.

So why are you talking about discussions in a casual setting as the basis of your inquiry? That makes no sense. Your entire inquiry is willfully misrepresentative, if a reporter did this in an interview, it'd be an extreme case of bias, but it's your standard for philosophical inquiry, apparently. Amazing. Though, hey, he's got an unorthodox view, so it's all good, makes sense.

The context is that we were stating the causes for one characterising their moral system as a "personal morality", and that you, or we, have given unflattering reasons for it. I interpret his response to be an attempt to defend the decision to follow a "personal morality", by offering a different, competing narrative that paints the decision positively.

Similar to how if one had speculated on reasons for belief in religion and given unflattering reasons, they might get a response listing the negatives of atheism as a counter.

I believe that's why he gave that response, and to clarify, I'm just responding to your claim regarding the context, and nothing else. It seems to me that Isaac has just taken issue here with the counter, just like some passerby atheist might've taken issue with the counter in my earlier example, and has now started arguing against it. That's how I interpret this, as silly as it is.

I'm not seeing how morality alone 'meddles' in the affairs of others in this way. — Isaac

Who cares about people discussing things and sharing their opinions, where "agreeing to disagree" is always a viable option, and there's no stigma attached to any views? That's utterly benign.

Without a doubt, what's being referred to here, are acts using morality as a justification, where those acts constitute unwanted meddling. Such as finding homosexuality or incest immoral, and then using that belief to justify harassing, insulting, shaming, taking actions to correct the behaviour, or offering clearly unwanted advice and critique.

@Tzeentch's view on personal morality would disarm such behaviours, and it's behaviours like these that he is referring to. There is no contradiction here, and it's bizarre to attempt to use persuasion to show how the view is inconsistent.

I would define morality as the active process of evaluating things and assigning them a value of either right or wrong, rather than passively perceiving them as such. — Jacques

Taking your statement at face value, I agree with you. Morality as a word, for me, refers to so many different, and entirely incompatible ideas that no single definition of it can do it justice. In terms of this "active" element, for me, it's in interpretation, and humans can interpret things as right/wrong or fair/unfair using sophisticated perspectives and arguments. Morality as a word is definitely used to refer to this process of interpretation, besides just the ability I described, and much more than those two as well.

However, within the moral context, the right/wrong value is unordinary compared to elsewhere. It carries strong emotional and psychological factors behind it. This isn't produced by mere intelligence, and the ability to think this way is distinctly part of our human biology. Some kind of evolved reptile with our intelligence, undoubtedly, would not possess this kind of thinking as we do. This is why I describe it as an ability of ours. Is that a more agreeable assessment for you, or do you disagree with it?

Good OP. Although I myself wouldn't follow you towards emotivism, I think your general point is true and much needed. — Leontiskos

Thanks.

I should think that this proposition holds true: <If something is moral/immoral for me, then it is also moral/immoral for others>. — Leontiskos

Yes. Moral views should also manifest in what kind of system one would advocate for or oppose, and how they treat others, in ways that constitute as going beyond the personal.

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

That's a fantastic insight, I've underplayed these elements. To lessen the blow of one's views on others, for whichever reasons, could motivate the "personal" characterisation. One's moral view might be deemed inappropriate, and mightn't be tolerated by others, and the personal characterisation makes sense there too. I've seen some very passive-aggressive cases of it as well now that I think about it.

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

Even if I was immune, I've spent thousands of hours thinking about philosophy, we don't represent the average person, and I am certain that they are unable to tell, based on the results that make our world.

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

There is a lot of freedom within the domain of acceptable behaviour, but it is why we have the law. If an act is immoral but should be legal, then it will be socially enforced, but in cases, one doesn't fear such consequences, or they're inapplicable, it'll be up to them. Though, we can still educate people and attempt to sell people on the merits of acting morally, and if that succeeds, then great, but it'll never replace law.

In my view, a moral act must consist of both a good action and a good intention. — Tzeentch

True, I agree, I had just meant in terms of creating a society of people who acted well.

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

The coercion becomes part of a person's environment, which nurtures their way of thinking. Within this environment, they learn that by being aggressive and acting with malice and disregard for others, they will be disliked or punished. They themselves will learn to compromise, share, and act kindly towards others.

In fact, this very thing happens during early childhood, when children must learn socially acceptable behaviour, to respect other people's things, and the feelings of others, so that they are liked and can form relationships. Failure in this process can have devastating effects later on, as one will continue their socially unacceptable behaviour, and will thus struggle to form relationships.

Those who would steal, bully, cheat, lie and hurt others will often end up a victim of their own behaviour, consistently getting themselves into trouble. If one exists in an environment where they can exploit others, and are rewarded for it, then they will not cease that behaviour. Joffery from GoT is a good example of it.

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

It's important to remember that the "state" is not a monolith, it is possible to have a government with independent anti-corruption agencies that have the power to prosecute those in power. I know from a US perspective it might be hard to believe, but many democracies around the world are showing it possible. Government institutions that uphold the law, and hold elected officials accountable, are the most crucial parts of a government. It's within these institutions, that I hope our "moral paragons" are situated, but we live in an imperfect world, and there are no easy answers.

You're quite right that this is a situation we cannot change. All the more reason to focus on oneself! — Tzeentch

Fair enough, I have no desire for you to conclude any differently.

Sorry, didn't realise criticising the feminism in this thread was off-limits.

It seems like you're intending to ignore my criticism, so I'll stop expecting an answer to it.

To give a very generic answer to an incredibly broad question, to me, masculinity entails among other things a focus on competence, competition, independence, assertiveness, strength and status. Looking at emasculating terms, they often target a man's lack of these things.

If you defined masculinity and listed the merits in terms of ramifications, I'd at least find it interesting. It's farcical to talk about what a "real" man is, each designing and keenly anticipating certain real-world outcomes our answers would produce. The word must be allowed to mean different things in different contexts. I'd rather deal with the subtext of the question directly than pretend it doesn't exist. Your question permits no nuance, it has no context, it demands an absolute, and none of this is acceptable.

I'll ask again, though -- what is a real man? Or even simply a man? Or a masculine gender identity?

Those aren't laws. They're how we identify and feel — Moliere

What these terms refer to changes based on context, and your attempt to analyse them without context is pointless. A "man" is just a word, you're dealing with words as though they're concepts, and as though the contexts are just situations where words are used.

From a biological perspective, a social perspective, a legal perspective, a cultural perspective, a person's particular interpretation, or whatever else, the answer is different, and should be different. In each case, the word refers to something different.

The entire reason why this is even a discussion is that the word "man" is written into laws, it's part of social codes, and who qualifies as a man within those contexts is relevant for transgender people.

Or will you pretend that you're unconcerned about the ramifications of the answers? Would you define masculinity in a way that promotes behaviours you don't want? Alienates people in ways you wouldn't want?

Huh? How do you know it's the result of sexism? If there's no burden on you to prove any wrongdoing that creates the disparity in outcomes, then you're free to call any disparity the result of sexism. If you describe sexism as purely interpersonal then you can't describe sexism within a nation, you can only use disparities in outcomes for that. Go ahead, call sexism exclusively interpersonal prejudice, tell me outcomes aren't sexist, and I'll prove you wrong, or maybe one of the feminists could do it for me?


Thank goodness.

I don't think anyone defines sexism as a set of disparities, do they? — frank

She's learned that the hospital establishment will listen to him. They won't listen to her. It's sexism. — frank

You took a disparity in outcomes and called it sexism. Which is pretty standard.

Disparities are not "concrete outworkings of historic and present-day sexism", there are a myriad of factors responsible for any outcome, and they do not belong to a single cause. You can't measure the effect of sexism, because you can't measure, for example, the effect of sexist portrayals of women in films. You could know that might've had an effect, but you can't measure that effect. It's the same for a lot of things.

You want to legislate to get rid of disparities without asking why they exist, that's hilarious. Feminism in 2023.

A term describing disparities shouldn't have a moral stigma, disparities are only immoral if they're wrong or unfair. If sexism is just disparities, what does it mean to be sexist? And isn't it a problem to have a term that describes disparities, which in all the same contexts describes the reason for those disparities being due to a bias against the competence of women?

Yeah, not sure why you interpreted "disparity" as "income disparity" but any disparity in outcomes would suffice, proven or perceived.

Once upon a time, sexism was an explicit view of the superiority of men over women, and discrimination against women on this basis. Particularly within the industrialised era, such views don't just manifest themselves in personal interactions, but become systemic and these systemic factors create wide-scale disparities between genders. It doesn't do justice in describing the disadvantages that a woman faces due to sexism and therefore, it's insufficient to talk about the interpersonal in relation to sexism.

We need to analyse the disparities in political representation, media representation, wealth equality, representation in the workplace, disparities in legal outcomes and so on. Our cultures themselves have naturally been impacted by these systems and their disparities, so we need to look at concepts of masculinity/feminity, and the influence could have spread anywhere.

The trickle-down effect and the sexist nature of our systems and culture mean, along with things such as unconscious biases, that it's no longer required to explain disparities with explanations of discrimination against women, or the relatively defunct explicit view of male superiority of men over women.

Today, what does "sexist" mean? What is a "sexist" culture? What is being referred to? What is the logic that ties it together? There isn't any.

Just a list of disparities, whoever has the will is free to interpret them as they wish. "Oppression"... what's that? A list of disparities, cause irrelevant, speculation optional. What is "patriarchy"? Ah, right, another list of disparities.

How asinine one would be, to treat with seriousness the terms of sexism, oppression or patriarchy as described by feminists. The terms are used to, without qualification, list disparities and make attempts at explanations for their existence. Use reductionist narratives or legitimate arguments, anything goes.

Who could ever support "oppression"? Who would ever support sexism? Nobody can. Therefore, these terms, are literal condemnations, with little to no indication given as to why or what is being condemned. Many of the explanations are so insipid, it's hard to believe. Suppose that's what happens when terms refer to little more than something being undesirable.

How funny it is to watch a culture condemn sexism, while also defining sexism by what they condemn, it's such a farce. Why condemn disparities? What's the philosophy for why they shouldn't exist? The goal is so unbelievably obscured, but nobody cares, it's amazing, everyone's just "Down with the patriarchy!!".

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

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.

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

You're right, but I have no faith in "us", I only have faith in systems of incentives and punishments, that which manifest as environmental factors to influence decision-making. Though I appreciate the idea of "Be the change you want to see in the world", it's a noble approach.

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

Moral behaviour is behaviour that is moral, no? So long as that behaviour is occurring, then it is real. Though, I don't think it's a facade. It represents the environment one grows up in, and that influences how one thinks. Basically, if one is surrounded by opportunities to do evil, they'll be corrupted by it.

The question here is whether it's possible to coerce a society into behavior morally. — Tzeentch

I think the law already does it. Look at lawless states, where corruption is ripe and crime goes unpunished. The moral facade, as you put it, significantly disappears.

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

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.

The ideas of "we" and "us" in moral terms shouldn't be taken literally, there is 100% no "we" or "us", it's just the language of moral thought. So while "we" are technically the most powerful, capable of doing anything, that hardly matters when we're so disunified. This underpins my realism and highlights how unrealistic moral thought can be. It's also this misunderstanding of "we" that leads to moral ideas against politics, because if we're a unified body, who all agree and work together, then politics is unnecessary. This "we" contains my enemies, it contains incompatible views, incompatible ideals, and a disunified, unlinked mass of people, whom I'll never be working with, and who won't be working with me. One must be realistic, and not rely on solutions that can't possibly be implemented, in my view.

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

Fair enough. I do appreciate this approach in most cases, and dislike heavy-handed responses.

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

Yes, it's inevitable.

Within moral systems, or most of them, we condemn concepts such as "coercion", but then just label acts something else when we agree with them. Most would never call what they're doing coercion or imposing, but that's exactly what they're doing, they just replace it with flowery language to make it seem better.

Moral systems benefit from this intellectual dishonesty but would struggle to function without it. What's moral is what's right or what's fair, and deciding that will often involve choosing the lesser evil. If something is necessary, because it is superior to the alternatives, then for most, it will be the moral choice. Whether it relies on supposedly immoral acts or not is irrelevant.

I too choose moral outcomes over moral acts and I prioritise accountability over morality. Clearly, this is a stark contrast between us. There are merits to your approach, and I can promise there will be cases where my approach produces worse results, but in the long run, I can't trust self-accountability.

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

A few reasons, firstly, we cannot read someone's moral compass. Even if there were such moral paragons, we wouldn't be able to sort them from the charlatans.

My "Morality is Coercive" OP covered that moral deliberation necessarily excludes and takes priority over personal factors. It's a domain of thought that is necessarily unrealistic. Moral conclusions are supposed to take priority, which theoretically solves this problem, but in reality, that solution has proven itself heavily flawed.

Morality as overriding only makes sense in terms of enforcement, and those who would actually sacrifice their personal ambitions, their goals, their livelihoods, and their freedom, for moral purposes, are a rare breed. Enforcement brings moral behaviour and rational calculus into alignment. Give a person unchecked power and ask them to be moral, and it'll bring misfortune upon us, give a person power, but introduce accountability for misuse of power, and they may choose to act morally.

I am concerned about conflicts of interest. 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. Giving someone the ability to benefit from acting immorally, and then trusting them to avoid that temptation, it's dangerous.

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

It helps others to act morally because it influences their decision-making. If ignoring immoral behaviour was the norm, it would encourage it.

Though, I'm approaching this from a theoretical perspective, as is fit for moral discussion. I don't actually like morality that much, enforcement can be heavy-handed and malicious, and morality is a weak logic, unrealistic and filled with double standards and flaws. 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.

I'm not sure "neoliberal" describes capitalism; I see it most often used to describe conservative political policy with respect to regulation, government-sponsored social assistance programs, taxation, unionization and similar matters. I'm 100% anti-neoliberal politics. Capitalism is capitalism whether we're talking about companies making toilet bowels or fast fashion. — BC

In my view, capitalism is a borderline meaningless term, especially without context. When we think capitalism, we think of free markets, private property rights, the pursuit of self-interest, obnoxious advertising, wealth inequality, the employer-employee relationship, limited government involvement in the economy and so on. However, these are really characteristics of neoliberal capitalism, the form of capitalism that we're used to.

Capitalism has few indispensable features. The most notable indispensable feature is private ownership, and so critiquing capitalism leads to a conversation about state ownership. Despite the fact that most criticism of capitalism is clearly aimed at neoliberal capitalism.

China is the best example, somehow the West unironically praises the miracle of capitalism in China. Despite China's capitalism lacking many of what those same people would call indispensable, core features. Then when it's convenient, it's instead called "state capitalism", think about that term for a moment, and how antithetical it is to Western capitalism.

Many issues we associate with capitalism, such as debt, are far more related to monetary policy and the removal of the gold standard. The way our banks operate isn't part of capitalism, but it's central to how our economies function and our economies are capitalistic. The same goes for stock markets.

The term "neoliberal capitalism" has many advantages, but mostly I've just realised that the term "capitalism" is a trap. People will literally start talking about capitalism from hundreds of years ago, even if it's not even remotely relevant. They'll start talking about the issues with communism. They'll talk about how great capitalism is and how it's lifted so many people out of poverty. All of that gets shut down by just talking about neoliberal capitalism instead. It's new, it refers to modern Western economies, and its indispensable characteristics are the ones I'm generally trying to critique. If one says "Down with capitalism!" vs "Down with neoliberal capitalism!" the meaning is completely different, don't you think?

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what it's is referring to. — BC

Culture or consumer culture.

Opposing change or promoting change? — BC

Opposing regulation.

This is something doctors don't talk about much, but after an extended period of taking these drugs, many people find it impossible to discontinue the drugs. That's why drug manufacturers prefer products like antidepressants to antibiotics — BC

The incentives are all wrong in pharmaceuticals, and yes, it's a terrifying problem. The types of research we do as well, the types of results that we find and get promoted, the prices of drugs and so many other issues.

This is why neoliberalism is wrong. The conflict of interests here for the profit motivation of businesses and their duty of care aren't resolvable by the market, only government intervention can make a difference. This is where morality can be dangerous, it makes people naive. Whenever key decision-makers have a clear incentive to act against the public good, there should be sirens going off. There are no mitigating factors or exceptions, it's a disaster waiting to happen, or just an ongoing one.

Although your thoughts are almost the opposite of how I think about morality, I do respect your stance.

The coercive aspects of morality are integral to its function as a correcting influence, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Concepts of fairness, right or wrong, justice, and what is deserved, play their social role, and will inevitably result in consequences for actions that will unavoidably result in a coercive environment.

I understand morality differently than you do. Moral ideas are dynamic and flexible, due to the role interpretation plays, again, for better and for worse. It's capable of brutality and oppression, such as in the case of Nazi Germany. Although you might see in such cases, pretenders who invoke moral concepts for their own gain, I instead think morality capable of incorporating interpretations that are quite shitty, and so people can be shitty while motivated by genuinely moral ideas.

The relationship between power and morality can be unsettlingly for many. The two are inextricably linked, but the use of power can contradict our principles. The truth is that most of us do not want to have others impose their views on us, but we do want to impose our views on others. Though rarely articulated so plainly, it's implicit in all moral systems, though perhaps you and others like you are exceptions.

It's not that "might is right", but rather, that when a group's majority holds the same moral view, that itself manifests as power, just agreement alone within a moral context.

We have reservations about the attempts of others to do good though for different reasons. A notable difference is that when you use the term "morality", you are generally referring to what is moral, whereas I am referring to it as a generic concept. So, while we may see the same problems, where you might conclude people are failing to be moral, and that moral behaviour could be a solution, I see issues with morality. That's a stark contrast between how we interpret this issue.

Power corrupts in part by exemption. We understand the need for compromise and for order, the need for rules that benefit the group as a whole. While it might make sense that if I steal someone's stuff, that's good for me, it wouldn't be good for me if unchecked theft destroyed my community. Even someone who would personally love an opportunity to get rich from theft will likely play a role as an enforcer against it.

In the same way as racism, classism, sexism, or religion corrupt, they provide exemptions. We might agree to horrifically harsh measures as necessary and fine, but whoever implements them must be assured of their own safety. Rulers pursue lofty goals, that justify all sorts of cruelties, to accomplish something great, but importantly, know that they'll not be paying the price for it.

For me, the issue isn't that morality is coercive or social, it's about what we're enforcing, and sometimes it can be good. If people feel like there are no consequences for being rude, for hurting and exploiting people, then they'll be more likely to do it. I have no faith in self-regulated moral behaviour as an overarching theme. There must be enforcement of conduct, we ideally make moral behaviour logical and rewarding, and immoral behaviour illogical and punishing, and let people rationally decide to do good.

Even if the people enforcing the good behaviour are hypocrites, even if they're being dishonest, it's fine. We can't wait for moral paragons to guide us, in a world where politicians are consistently corrupt and religious institutions abuse children & cover it up. Accountability & enforcement are critical, and although I often don't agree with what's actually being enforced, and my position is more nuanced than I laid out.

This response was too long and covered too much ground, but hopefully, the gist of my perspective got through. What's your opinion on the need for accountability & enforcement? What compromises are you willing to make for them and how do they violate your moral principles?

The relationship between consumption and production is complex, but I lean more towards your conclusion that people must consume. We don't just buy fancy shoes, we buy respect, for status, to present an image, to be attractive, stylish, and so on. Many of us struggle with impulse control and as we're surrounded by things to buy, bombarded by advertisements everywhere we go, it can actually be hard to be a minimalist, as well as for many reasons.

I don't think consumer culture is a problem, or that it's causing any of these issues that are being talked about. It's all just part of neoliberal capitalism, or other forms of capitalism with similar features, of a lack of government oversight aimed at mitigating the issues we're describing. We could continue consumer culture while heavily regulating industries to reduce any of the issues mentioned in this thread.

I also don't think consumer culture is why we refuse to allow for regulation in the first place. We're inundated with different products, there's no basis in consumer culture for opposing change. If both of these points are accurate, then I believe that I'm correct in saying it's irrelevant, do you disagree?

Was there ever a time in human civilisation, when nice things existed, and people didn't want them? In the world over, farmers toiled the fields because they had to, they would've chosen the mansion and fine wines given a choice. Whenever it becomes available, to move to the city, make good money, and buy nice things, the cities swell. The same process is experienced by every industrialised nation.

Consumer culture was something I took more seriously until I learned that developing nations were even more materialistic than we were. Particularly in China, seeing how industrialisation resulted in the very same obsession with owning a nice car, property and owning nice things. How seamlessly everything changed to resemble what we're used to. Culture naturally shifts with the broader change.

As a facilitator, consumer culture has played its role, but culture has been a victim rather than a perpetrator. The previous culture shifts as industrialisation and urbanisation occur, to form some new brand of consumer culture. Whether a society indifferent to such things can exist, I'm dubious, but if it could, I wonder what problems it would be less likely to experience as a consequence.

Not all objective morality is the same, and the term "objective" itself varies in meaning, but perhaps you're better off not trying to create an ought. The desire to live weaves its way into our moral thinking, it manifests as our proclivity for ascribing value to life. While that doesn't create an ought, it does do something to ground moral thinking. "Ought" isn't built into us quite so explicitly as you may like, but our biology is designed in a way that naturally leads us to certain conclusions. While we don't "have" to do anything, what we will do is being influenced by our biology, as will what we think we should. You could expand on the idea from there.

However, as for your actual argument, it's a naturalistic fallacy as mentioned. Your role in selecting the facts, interpreting them and arriving at a conclusion can't be ignored. By including new facts, new interpretations, or understanding them differently, the "ought" can change. There's no winning here. Though, even if you somehow did convince others of objective morality in this way, I'm not sure what the point would be. People would just make exceptions or add nuance as it suited them, as is already the case really.

I see. I got it wrong, I'm as usual, indeed the cynical one here.

For me, the effectiveness of culture, morality, law and other corrective influences inversely correlate with power. Though the unpleasantness of the truth leads us instinctively to reject it, the systemic mechanisms that distribute and manage power define our societies. The majority views aren't that relevant. There must be some combination of incentivising, influencing and forcing of the government to regulate businesses, and of businesses to act responsibly, if it is to happen.

Billionaires like Steve Jobs, and more recently Sam Bankman-Fried, may not be concerned about owning fancy things, but they're definitely keen on power, and no less keen on it than any of the others. If our hopes are pinned on the goodwill of such people, we're screwed.

If our system incentivises and rewards actions that lead us down a path to unsustainability and economic inequality and whatever else, then that's where we'll go. Although I'm not saying that you argued against this, I just cringe whenever non-enforced measures, such as what businesses "should" do or "need" to do are emphasised. All such hopes should be abandoned, there is no cause for it. :cry:

Okay, I understand now. These issues occur within capitalism and government policies such as ones characteristic of neoliberal capitalism. Businesses are motivated by profit and are incentivised to prioritise it, focusing on their own survival and success over the common good. To prevent practices that go against some greater good, the state would need to regulate their behaviour, unless they owned the industries.

People do care about things like climate change, they care about their health and mental wellbeing. Businesses talk like they're going to act responsibly, they always say the right things, because what people want from them. They just don't follow through. They're too concerned about their competitors gaining an edge over them.

The businesses that succeed, and those who make it to the top within those businesses, aren't representative of the culture overall. They're being selected by their ability to generate profit and grow. A moral way of doing business means not choosing the optimal path to profit, and will thus be outperformed by competitors.

There's also a strong geopolitical aspect, a strong economy means a strong country. A model of non-economic growth would require a less competitive view of geopolitics.

There are many factors involved in this, but it seems like a global phenomenon, and culture hasn't been a key factor behind it. Do you think consumerism is the primary factor, a primary factor or a motivating influence for these other factors, or just generally, where does it fit in for you?

For me, concerns about climate change, pollution and other environmental factors, as well as issues such as worker pay, home affordability, wealth equality and issues such as my OP, are all examples against the idea of "progress at any cost". It's a bit more nuanced than being "against" consumerism, but could you explain how such ideas fit into your perspective?

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

You're saying that right & wrong don't define morality, and the terms just describe whether you heed or ignore a legitimate cry for help? Do you acknowledge conceptualising morality to fit your ideals, or not?

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

I've defined morality as the ability to perceive right/wrong, unfair/fair, just/unjust, it doesn't get less formal than that.


I agree that moral views apply inwardly, and must do so. I'm also not arguing that morality entails subjugating oneself to their society, and the many or the powerful to dictate to them how they should think.

To be honest, unlike the others, you've made the right sacrifices, to allow for a case against my OP while being intellectually honest. Notably, in your argument of detachment from politics, and your strong emphasis on not trying to influence anyone. Your refusal to engage in moral wordplay goes a long way with me, you're clearly very comfortable with yourself. I feel confident that you're genuine and your argument holds, I'm not sure yet how I want to fit what you're saying into the grand scheme of things.

Monks have been known to seclude themselves from society for decades, to live in isolation and yet continue to aspire to and live by their philosophical ideals. Not so that one day they can influence someone else to do so, but just for its own sake. They did so both in intention and result, and so are good examples of how it is possible.

Most moral ideals entail an emphasis that calls or obliges them to act. To stand by, to focus only ever inwardly, it's unusual.

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?

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

As I said, personal morality is just morality, and we all live in a society. You're so interested in framing this as my personal failure, but none of my arguments have been based on myself. I'm an outlier, and analysing through oneself, as you do, and as you show it does, leads to very biased conclusions.

Look through what I write, I'm evidently unafraid to make highly controversial arguments. I think for myself. I'm disagreeable and individualistic, I don't mince my words or avoid conflict. You've read enough of me that you should know that, but, it's a convenient ad hominem, so off you go, speculating about something ridiculous.

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

I am approaching morality as a thing, detached from my own moral views. Ironically, it was you who told me that only actions mattered in your thread about ethics and thoughts, and I argued against that. Now that it's convenient, it's being framed as though it were the opposite.

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. It's even harder to argue against this when you view morality as partially or entirely objective.

We can agree on this, the intention to "socially control" may not be there, or it may, as it does with me since I do seek to impose my moral views on others. Though rarely would anyone ever actually phrase it as "socially control" because of the negative connotations, people describe things they like using positive language. @Pantagruel will call it "motivating" or "guidance" and so on, referring to the same thing, but making every effort to make it look as good as possible.

It's just amusing to me, I'm saying something so absolutely basic here, that morality isn't just a personal code. The entire premise of the OP is that "personal morality" means, an explicitly stated lack of intent to influence or coerce others. Do people explicitly and emphatically state their lack of intention to influence or coerce others? Of course, they do. That you've decided to give this a 100% weighting in how we characterise "personal morality" is silly, we need to look at what's actually being done. You've done everything you can to avoid that and just point to my supposed moral failings, I've no wonder why, my claims are irrefutable otherwise.

Isn't it the same in other countries? Basically, if there's no choice but poverty, then consumerism is unimportant, but if it's an option, it's always chosen. Nations such as South Korea, Japan, Singapore, China & many eastern European nations all show the same thing.

"I measure my success by what I own" by country

"I feel under pressure to make a lot of money" by country

These were some very quick examples I found, but I'm confident that they're not misrepresentative, this phenomenon is real. Western nations aren't particularly materialistic, the countries are just generally richer and people can afford more stuff. Isn't that correct?

So right & wrong, fair & unfair, and concepts of justice aren't part of morality?

Must this "specific request" for help be answered with a fair & just solution? If so, then inevitably there will be a deliberation on what is right/wrong, fair/unfair, just/unjust, reasonable/unreasonable. The path you took to get there isn't important, they are infinite, where it took you is what matters.


Great!

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

Huh? How intellectually dishonest. Why wouldn't people fear the consequences, if the consequences are scary? Many people are embarrassed by just saying please or thank you at the wrong time, and other things of far less significance than "moral criticism". It's not just fear. People want to be liked, they want to please others, they want to be respected and cared for, and so much more, and all of that is threatened by acting in a way deemed immoral by one's society.

Instead of using your own moral ideas as the basis, and thus creating an incredibly biased perspective, use another culture instead. Morality informs laws, it can be used as a basis for firing people, ending a friendship, or becoming estranged from family members. You aren't approaching morality properly unless you're taking into account the aggregate impact of it across society, or at least in a group setting.

A personal morality plays a role in that, does it not? Why can't you just own it? As I said, it doesn't make what you're doing wrong, there are no negative consequences for agreeing with this.

Besides confirmation bias, I'd argue viewers desire biased reporting and see it as not only morally justified but as a moral imperative, and this is true all across the political spectrum. Responsible reporting takes into consideration the social & political impacts of their coverage and is expected to act accordingly. This was always true, but there are many political views being represented here that directly oppose each other on almost every issue, so you get stark contrasts in the biases that make them stunningly apparent.

There's no possibility of unbiased reporting, the question is what kind of biases are desirable and which aren't? Though it's important to note that "unbiased reporting" might refer to an intent and legitimate effort to report the facts accurately and impartially, rather than being literally free of bias.

I classed social morality in as just another part of social control but you didn't see it that way. — T Clark

I hope it's clear that I do see morality as involving social control, as I have stated in the past and in this OP. 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. That difference was relevant in my previous thread, but we can ignore it in this one, or not, up to you.

Are you saying my approach is less binary. I would have thought you saw it as moreso. — T Clark

That wasn't my intention, your approach seems binary, but it could work as a spectrum too. Spectrums can be simpler, as we can avoid issues with categorisation, but it doesn't matter.

That might involve attempts to influence or coerce, but there are many instances where it wouldn't — T Clark

I agree with that.

"Personal morality" was meant to refer to an approach to the whole of morality, as a code that one follows, without any intent to influence other people or the systems they live in. My argument isn't that every moral feeling necessarily aims to influence others. For example, one might aim to help the unfortunate because they feel it's unfair and wrong for them to be abandoned. That might occur in the case of a natural disaster, where no perpetator or wrongdoer exists. So, I think we agree here, it was just a misunderstanding.

I acknowledge that my response to you definitely did not make it clear that I felt this way, my apologies.

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

I see. I interpreted your point as being one against my OP, and thus misunderstood you. I agree with your overall point, and I have a very strong preference for your approach. Much of my distaste for morality comes from the hatred it can inspire, and it was reasonable for you to criticise what was an unbalanced presentation, that lacked the kinds of examples that you've brought up. I acknowledge this.

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

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. You did reveal some of the biased aspects of my laying out of the facts, and I'll have to spend some time considering whether it's really in my best interests to present things in that way.

“Standing up against injustice”. Do you mean retribution? I do believe in retribution. One has to be just. What that has to do with social control, I’m not sure. You’re not encouraging or discouraging anything with retribution. You’re satisfying a desire for justice.

Frankly, it’s all a little weird for me to suspect that following one’s own conscience has the effect of encouraging and discouraging others, as if we’re training animals. It sounds to me more of an admission of guilt than a statement of fact. — NOS4A2

Really? You're not discouraging anything? "Listen, this is your life, do with it what you will, I would prefer you to act morally, If you want to do X thing, that's your choice, I can't force you not to. However, if you do X thing, there will be consequences for that. You'll reveal to all your low worth, I will lose respect for you, and I will make sure to punish you". How is that not discouraging? Why wouldn't people fear retribution and act to avoid it?

If the majority agree with the need for retribution, then of course, that would create an environment that discouraged those acts. Would it not? I am not condemning this, and you could easily just say that you have no problem with creating an environment that discouraged the acts you find immoral, it's not a trap.

I only asked that you attempt to bring clarity to our discussion... Your response should've helped me to understand what were arguing against instead, just makes it more ambiguous.

This is the thrust of your thesis, correct? So, whatever your personal morality is, it is inherently just? So you are claiming that, regardless of any putative "objective" or "intersubjective" moral code, the implementation of that code is always a matter of personal discretion, ergo the only true morality is a personal morality? — Pantagruel

What you've quoted is arguing that a moral code that one follows still exerts pressure on others to act morally, and on systems to be organised fairly and justly. It has nothing to do with most of what you've talked about.

The term "just" reflects agreement or approval in a moral context. For example, a "just" punishment is one that is correct. A "just" system should be fair and reasonable, and produces desirable outcomes.

The concept of justice could be omitted from morality without any meaningful change. Justice exists when things are done "right" and are "fair", it is the latter two that matter. What is "right" or "fair" sits between being subjective and objective, in a way that is difficult to define, I won't go too into that right now.

It's in a similar place with other things human percieve, such as beauty, brilliance, nobility, kindness, courage, and etc. They're not entirely objective, there's room for disagreement, but there's a limit, some views would pervert how we periceve these concepts too much for us to accept them.

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.

As many do, you read my title "Morality is Coercive" and created an argument using your interpretation of it. What you've decided that title necessarily means I'm arguing for has nothing to do with me. Even learning that we're using the word morality very differently has had no notable effect. The context for reading me is that I'm arguing for how you've interpreted my thread title, and you're unwilling to question it. I imagine the belief you think I have is one I disagree with. If you'd like, try outlining what that view is, and probably we can agree it's wrong together.

The title is ambiguous by itself. You've interpreted it how you have, and now treat it as a claim to be challenged, but your interpretation of the title isn't my argument. I've defined morality as the ability to percieve right/wrong, fair/unfair, and this ability belongs to an individual. Only an individual can do this, so, I agree, it is inherently and irreducibly a personal condition.

The "personal" origin of morality wasn't in question. It's about whether morality purpoted to act only as a moral code for oneself is actually any different than otherwise, particularly in having an active social impact.

Ironically, those referenced in how I've used "personal" morality, are quite likely to think of morality as objective, and decidedly not personal in origin. They probably would've disagreed with you if you had made an OP with this very same name but using your argument.


One who saw coercion as immoral, and by coercion, I mean an unbiased interpretation, and refused to engage in it for the most part, could avoid it, although it'd be very unusual. I'm not arguing against that.

However, surely, your personal moral code involves standing up against injustice? It involves invoking consequences against others for their actions? 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.

As I said then, the essence of morality as a kind of duty (Kant) which makes us better, is a much more satisfying concept and appeals to a great many people, versus this pessimistic and sad outlook. — Pantagruel

You find it pessimistic because you define morality as goodwill. The coercion in morality comes from the intolerance of evil, and a desire for justice. It not inherently bad. But, this thread is not about that anyway.

Well, at least not exclusively.

I agree morality is a function of will, but it has a social function & effect, and my OP is arguing that this effect is present regardless of whether one characterises their particular approach to morality as being a code they live by. Btw, did you read more than the title? I am curious as I feel a good portion of responses to my threads lately seem a response to the title and nothing else.

I made a distinction that lasts only for my argument, to highlight the difference between a view of morality that exists only for oneself and one where morality involves aiming to influence group behaviour. Morality is personal, in this, all perspectives agree, but I am arguing that morality is always both personal & social, and never just personal. What you've said doesn't indicate whether or not you agree with that.

I see them as different, although certainly related, things. Personal morality is the path I follow when acting from my heart - empathy, fellow-feeling, friendship. I act in accordance with social morality out of fear or duty. Clearly they overlap a lot. — T Clark

Hmm, you've interpreted these terms "personal morality" and "social morality" in a different way that I had meant to have laid out. I took them as mutually exclusive ways of viewing morality. Personal morality as a code limited to oneself, and social morality where views are applied in social contexts, to influence others and the rules of the group.

If you want to piece-by-piece categorise your moral views, as either personal or social, or alternatively using a less binary view, that's a different approach.

However, even here, it's hard to imagine that the personal remains personal within the context of morality. So long as your feelings are genuine, then your empathy and compassion will inenvitably manifests in attempts to influence or coerce others. After all, you wouldn't sit back and watch someone else be treated cruelly and unfairly, as though it had nothing to do with you, right? You would want to intervene, and tell the belligerent to cut it out.

You don't have to judge people or their behavior, call them cowardly or disgusting, in order to hold those people responsible for their actions. The important thing about beating people or incest is the harm they cause to the victims, not the acts themselves. — T Clark

You can argue that harm is always wrong, and then list exceptions. Or you can say harm is not inherently immoral, and then argue for the cases where it would be. I'm not sure there's much of a difference. Moral systems always involve these games... You won't condemn harm when it's done under conditions that you consider fair & reasonable, so, yes, it's necessary to judge the acts as unfair, wrong, unreasonable and so on.

In those cases my personal morality does not match social morality. — T Clark

You'll have to define these terms, it's very clear that you've made them your own.

I don't necessarily feel angry at people who behave in a manner inconsistent with my personal morality or social morality, although I might. My feelings are not what's important, it is the safety and integrity of those who are harmed that matters. — T Clark

Certainly, your motivations are more nuanced that what I've written, to be sure, but surely, even putting emotions aside, common sense dictates that you should address the cause of the harm in some way, right? I'm not against it, by the way. I have no hidden motive.

This is an uncharitable, and mistaken, interpretation, at least for me. — T Clark

I don't think what's written there describes you. You've tried to argue, as I understand it, that your concern is for the victim, and your motivation is to help people, not influence. It's not as though all moral issues have such a clear perpetrator/victim narrative that can be applied. I'd like to hear how you've been defining personal/social morality, and whether you really need to debate with me, that your moral views do not contain attempts to influence anything beyond yourself. I'm sure you can see it false.

I guess morality is social behavior and probably only significant where there are other conscious creatures. — Tom Storm

In my OP I set out with the understanding of morality as the ability to percieve fairness and things being right/wrong. Thus it's not a choice, or something that can be turned on or off. I'd guess that you weren't able to follow the OP due to reading it using your understanding of morality rather than mine. As I don't understand your critique either, unless I just think of it as a critique of my explanation of morality.

Are they moral reasons or aesthetic? Beating anyone may or may not be cowardly, the salient moral issue is it is causing suffering to another conscious creature. Incest being disgusting is an aesthetic response, isn't it? It may be a moral transgression, where it doesn't involve consent and results in significant birth defects and suffering. — Tom Storm

We're approaching morality from very different perspectives, though as a sidenote, I don't think it matters for the topic of the OP.

From my perspective, the conceptualisation of morality as something like the ten commandments functions like an adjacent form of morality with the same name, but distinctly different than what I'm referring to.

I don't think of morality as necessarily involving logical or well-reasoned rules, it is simply the ability to periceve acts or situations as right/wrong, fair/unfair or just/unjust.

So, yes, for me, the idea that a man beating his wife is cowardly is a moral argument/belief, any reason would do, just so long as we're claiming a man beating is wife is wrong/unjust/unfair and it provokes an emotional response out of us if we see it.

Though, by the way, what do you mean by "aesthetic"?


Thanks, I do agree that other social mammals display the same way of thinking as us, as your examples suggest. I also agree that what we percieve as right/wrong, fair/unfair isn't totally innate, and would argue it is very flexible, as especially religion as shown.

Aren't there political, moral, cultural, economic, social and personal views and ideologies that fall outside the scope of consumerism? Don't people value being able to spend more time with their family, their physical & mental well-being and having free time to spend on hobbies etc? It's possible I misunderstood you, so feel free to clarify if that is the case.

Also, I'd say that some of these industries I've mentioned aren't simply about consumerism, such as gambling and social media, or at least, they seem more complicated than that. These industries control our social sphere and entertainment, and I'd imagine even those opposed to consumerism culture might use social media or consume addictive food.