No, I wasn't saying that, though your statement seems fair, I just meant that "morality" has contradictory characteristics due to the differing meanings of the word in various contexts. Though they aren't real contradictions, only appearing due to ambiguity as to which "morality" is being referred to. — Judaka

I agree with that too.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nothing more than social control". It reads as being very cynical, though you acknowledge the necessity for it, do you deny its potential beauty and desirability? I think those feelings you refer to as your "personal morality" are often parents to this morality as social control. To me, it's inevitable that this will happen, because of the inevitability of politics. For example, if one loves animals, how can they not act in their defence when others try to harm them? Only a specific set of morals can flourish without turning to social control, entirely inward-facing ones. Is there any separation between thoughts & feelings that guide our own behaviour and those that motivate us to influence others? — Judaka

I'm not a cynical person, although I am annoyed by philosophical muddy-headedness. I've tried to make it clear that I recognize the necessity for social controls in general and many specifically, including your example of protection of animals. I also recognize that different types of social control are less coercive and more benign than others. On the other hand, I think formal systems of moral philosophy generally give special status to social rules that don't deserve it. "Don't do that because it's wrong" generally just means "Don't do that."

Though I've yet to hear a description of "personal morality" that would allow me to identify it by myself, one possible "personal morality" is our biological morality. A psychologically in-built morality, made up of our able to perceive fairness, experience empathy and possessing aversions to incest etc. Different forms of this are observable in other pack mammals such as dogs and lions. — Judaka

What Chuang Tzu calls "intrinsic morality" has a lot in common with what you call "a psychologically in-built morality," i.e. conscience, although there's more to it than that. And I think that's the problem with what he, Emerson, and I have written. Most people don't recognize, as you note can't identify, this seemingly amorphous agent.

Though that doesn't mean they'll be persuasive. — Judaka

Clearly, from the responses in this thread, that's true.

Though coercive morality would surely exist without personal morality, it's inconceivable to me that personal morality could avoid resulting in the coercive kind. — Judaka

This I don't agree with, although I think it's just a difference of language.

Sorry. I missed your comment the first time around.

While I agree one ought to follow his own conscience, his conscience needs to be developed, and studying moral philosophy is helpful in that regard. Emerson, for instance, was once a preacher, and it is doubtful he would have come to his later conclusions had he not put in the study of those doctrines. One needs to know a doctrine before he can become unsatisfied by it. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure about this. Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu specifically identify the behavior of young babies as good examples of action in accordance with inborn nature.

In Emerson’s example we discover that no one can be controlled by a normative claim, moral, ethical, or otherwise. The only coercive rules are the legal ones, enforced as they are by the threat of force, violence, and kidnapping. — NOS4A2

I think you're right about what Emerson proposes, but I'm sure he recognized that human behavior can be controlled by "normative claims," e.g. guilt, shame, community disapproval.

I think you'd probably agree with TClark if you understood what he's saying. — frank

I think both Banno and I smirked in exactly the same way when we read this.

An interesting discussion. Although there is a lot of overlap and similarity, Buddhism and Taoism take different approaches to many issues, including this one. One of the things I like about the writing of Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu is the easygoing, down-home understanding of the world and people. This is me speaking as someone who has a very limited experience with Buddhism.

Right. That's what I said. — frank

Yes. I didn't read carefully enough.

Morality is a dysfunctional word with too many very similar, overlapping but separate meanings. — Judaka

I agree. That's one of the reasons I started this discussion.

I think it's truth that morality is both natural and artificial/manmade, however, I think the "morality" that is natural and the "morality" that is manmade are distinct and different things. One referring to our biology and one roughly referring to our culture. It's very difficult to delineate the "natural" from the "artificial", and I wouldn't even be willing to try. "Personal morality" and this coerce/social morality we've described could be distinct from each other, but overlap greatly and I've no way to unravel that mess. — Judaka

If you are saying that what I call personal morality vs social control and what you call natural vs. artificial morality are similar concepts, then I agree.

"Moral" sounds prescriptive or evaluative, I'd say this "social control" is part of morality, and that morality & social control are not mutually exclusive. Their mutual exclusivity seems to be the core of your argument, but what's the argument for it? — Judaka

No, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. On the contrary, I am saying I think what people call "morality" is nothing more than social control.

You can forfeit your position as a participant, but the rules of the democracy are enforced by law and coercive factors will bend you or break you until you comply. By refusing to participate you sacrifice the power to influence outcomes while still experiencing the full weight of said outcomes. — Judaka

If I didn't think democratic government is legitimate that doesn't mean I wouldn't still recognize I am subject to the consequences of not following the rules and I would behave based on that understanding.

it has been found lacking in the larger claim of morality. — Philosophim

Found lacking by you and some others. Some other others have been more sympathetic. Also, as I wrote in the OP:

As far as I can see, all formal moral philosophies, and certainly any philosophy that specifies how other people should behave, is not moral at all, or even really a philosophy. It’s a program of social control - coercive rules a society establishes to manage disruptive or inconvenient behavior — T Clark

You are unconcerned with contradictions when other people are involved, — Philosophim

By contradictions I assume you mean conflict or potential conflict. There is nothing in my description of my personal morality, so-called, that prevents me from taking the needs and interests of other people into account.

When you introduce your ideas on these boards, it is not a place to assert and not address the details of your argument. That's just proselytizing. I feel you can be better than that, and maybe you're unaware of what you're doing, so I'm bringing it to your attention. — Philosophim

Thank you for your smug condescension.

As for the direct question of, "Are our values based on rational considerations?" this is hardly a debate. — Philosophim

Based on the contents of this thread, it seems you are wrong.

You've started to be insulting. Perhaps we should end it here.

Personally, I'm especially interested in the concept of causality qua instrumentality, and the instantiation of knowledge in the physical form of tools. — Pantagruel

My interest is primarily ontological, i.e. by what metaphysical mechanisms does the world operate.

I'll get back to you when I've read more of both books.

This is my theory: considerations of good and evil are mostly post hoc assessments of spontaneous action. In other words, everybody is like you. We all just act without a huge amount of thought and then guilt invades later when we realize that we didn't channel our angst in the best way, or maybe things went awesomely and we take credit for an outcome that was 99% accidental. Through experiences like that, action remains mostly spontaneous, but that lingering guilt or pride makes us pause and assess the options. — frank

This makes sense to me, with this addition - considerations of good and evil may be post hoc, but they are likely to effect my judgment when another situation comes up in the future.

And if your nature includes being self-determining to some extent? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Do I think humans are "self-determining." I'll have to think about that and we'll have to define what we mean by it. As for this discussion, nothing I have written and nothing I can remember from reading Chuang Tzu or Lao Tzu takes any position on the question.

...perfected freedom, which always chooses the better... — Count Timothy von Icarus

That doesn't strike me as true at all.

It was the same answer you gave before wrapped in a quote. I don't see how it added anything to your point, or answered mine. — Philosophim

You asked:

And if your intrinsic nature is a serial killer? — Philosophim

Emerson and I respond - "So be it." I think that answers your question. You may not find that satisfactory, but I think it's at least clear.

No, I don't doubt that. Many people believe they are good people, better than average, and have faith in their own judgements. — Philosophim

Ha! I like that.

A philosophical examination should find a stance that is rationally consistent.
You're on a philosophy forum, not a religion, meditation, or self-help forum. Its not about what makes us feel good, its about coming up with rational arguments. — Philosophim

I've made a rational argument that non-rational considerations have to be taken into account when dealing with philosophical, and human, issues. That is not a radical position to take. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were roughly contemporaneous with Plato and Aristotle. Taoism has been around for more than 2,000 years. If it's your position that it's principles are not legitimately philosophical, that's a bigger question than we can answer here.

That's just an opinion. — Philosophim

How is what you've written not also an opinion? We've both supported our views with more or less rational argument. They both go back to a question of values. Is it your position that our values - what we consider important, what we like and dislike, what we think is good and bad - is all and only based on rational considerations? If so, I think that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

I once had a dream where a mafia hitman followed me to North Dakota to kill me. There was a moment in the dream where I knew someone was going to die, either him or me, and I knew beyond any doubt: it's was going to be him. — frank

Yes, I saw this movie. No, wait. That was South Dakota. You have more interesting dreams than I do.

It's not that judgment has to prove itself somehow in terms of value. Sometimes it's just there. — frank

In order to effectively stop the hit man, I have to judge the situation and decide how to act. I don't have to judge whether or not what he is doing is evil. It's not relevant.

For Emerson, it wasn't a wishy washy situation. Around 3-5% of America's white population were abolitionists, and Emerson was in that tiny minority. He was surrounded by people who were afraid that a racially diverse society would crumble. His advice, which has been passed down for generations was; think for yourself. — frank

Good point. I hadn't thought of abolition as part of the context of Emerson's philosophy.

This can serve an important function in keeping groups united and coordinated. — Judaka

Yes, that's what I meant by "greasing the skids."

Morality exists in situations where we require others to act in a specific way in order to get what we want.

Another reason why morality isn't just "right and wrong" is that morality is rules for the group, for the benefit of the group, but only your group. Morality can facilitate cruelty and tyranny in this way. — Judaka

I have no problem with that, but I think many people here would disagree with you when you claim issues that don't involve right and wrong, good and bad, are moral. In the OP, I argued that what most call morality I call just another case of social control. I think that's similar to what you're saying.

It seems to me that you're advocating for the superiority of this "intrinsic" morality as a replacement for the "coercive" morality, and I can't agree with that. — Judaka

Again, the prescription for personal morality I've described is just that - personal, i.e. guidance for how I should behave toward others. It wasn't meant apply to how groups go about enforcing rules for human interaction. Call those rules "moral" or not, I see them as just another form of social control.

Still, to disavow this process is kind of like refusing to vote in a democracy. — Judaka

Here, I'll stretch your metaphor to the breaking point - if I don't recognize the legitimacy of democracy, why would I participate voluntarily?

It's important to recognise that for many such acts, even 1% of the group is more than sufficient to be disruptive and adversely affect the rest. While it can seem almost like bullying for the majority to push these outliners back into line, it is in fact necessary to do. To "live and let live" and only be guided by your own moral principles is unacceptable. There are times where one must stand up for the conditions that benefit the group. — Judaka

When I say "social control" I don't mean it as necessarily a bad thing. I recognize the necessity for society to organize itself, I just don't think it's accurate to call that "morality.'

You sort of do, given that this is a philosophy forum and all: — Leontiskos

No, I have some obligation to respond to your arguments civilly. Which I have done. That's it. I'm not responsible for convincing you, although I have tried at least to explain my ideas to you clearly.

Because this is a philosophy forum, not your private diary...You wrote a whole thread on your ideas, and a philosophy forum is by definition a place where people engage the ideas you present. — Leontiskos

And I have engaged with all my respondents, including you, as thoroughly as I could. I've tried to be clear and respectful of others ideas. You just happen to disagree with what I've written. That often happens in philosophy discussions.

I think you and I have reached the end of our discussion.

What you are proposing is not normative in any way, and therefore it has nothing to do with morality. "Do whatever feels right to you," offers no real measure for others or for oneself to understand better or worse courses of action. How could this be called morality? — Leontiskos

My ideas on motivations for my behavior have nothing to do with anyone else. As I've tried to make clear, and which you seem to have ignored, I have not claimed any amnesty from facing the consequences of my own actions. As for my own understanding, I don't need to satisfy you. Or Banno.

Many inauthentic texts are useful. — I like sushi

When they say it's inauthentic, they just mean they don't think it was written by Chuang Tzu himself. Even so, it was roughly contemporaneous and I find it completely consistent with what Lao Tzu wrote. Again - strongly recommended.

To me "intrinsic virtuosities." is problematic, if not suspect. — Vera Mont

To be blunt, why should I worry about your problems with and suspicions about my ideas. I'm not asking you to endorse them or change your own understanding of morality.

How do you tell intrinsic from extrinsic? How does your heart sort out the sentiments you've learned and internalized from the ones you extrapolated from all the stuff you've experienced, learned and internalized? How do you trace the origin of all your ideas, ideals, convictions and beliefs? How do you decide which is a virtuosity, which is a conceit and which is a delusion? — Vera Mont

First off, I haven't discussed the source of intrinsic virtuosities. I don't say that they are all inborn and are unaffected by things I have experienced. I usually fall back on general statements about humans as social animals who like each other and want to be around each other.

As for how I recognize my own intrinsic virtuosity - self-awareness. Before I became interested in Taoism I was very self-aware of my own motivations. That's not the same as saying I wasn't also subject to social convention, e.g. fear, pride, shame, etc. Recognition is much easier than overcoming. As I said to another poster earlier in this thread, if you doubt that explanation, there really isn't much else for us to discuss. I've always said that everything Lao Tzu wrote can be boiled down to one declaration - pay attention.

The quote didn't answer my question. — Philosophim

I think it does, although you might not like the answer.

The problem is you're likely a good person already, so have no qualms with believing in yourself. — Philosophim

You seem to be assuming I am not self-aware enough to recognize my own motivations. I'm certainly not perfect - I'm still subject to fear, shame, anxiety, pride - but on questions of how I treat others, I think I see clearly. You can doubt that, but that sort of ends the discussion.

I'm talking about people who aren't good people. — Philosophim

I have been explicit that I am describing my personal philosophy. If a bad person takes up Chuang Tzu as justification, we'll have to ask them about it.

The best analysis is synthesis, or the embedding of the construct of interest into a theory
~Mario Bunge, "Energy: Between Physics and Metaphysics" — Pantagruel

After your recommendation, I downloaded this book, but I haven't read much of it yet. I started in on the essay you listed, but I got a bit lost. I'll go back and work on it some more. I also downloaded "Causality and Modern Science," which I am currently reading. As I noted, causality is a subject that I've thought and written about a lot. I'm enjoying it so far - clear and well written, or at least well-translated.

I have not stated or implied any "moral judgment against" you or anyone in the current discussion. I've only taken issue with your concepts and conception of moral philosophy for being uselessly vague and arbitrary. — 180 Proof

I think you've misunderstood my point. I know you weren't judging me for the positions I was describing. When I wrote:

I don't see how it is an excuse when I don't recognize the legitimacy of your moral judgment against me. Or, looking at it a different way, nothing I have written immunizes me from having to face the consequences of my actions, no matter what their motivation. — T Clark

I was talking about how you might judge my behavior in a situation where you thought I was doing wrong.

Strictly speaking this is only true beyond a certain point in juvenile development. We require nurturing. — I like sushi

It's hard to say if I agree with that. The texts I've read are all aimed at mature adults.

I do find a lot of eastern mysticism has a habit of being interpreted as things happening in a Void of sorts. — I like sushi

I'm not sure what you mean.

btw how does Chuang Tzu differ from Lao Tzu? I've only read the latter extensively. — I like sushi

I've been reading and rereading Lao Tzu for a long time, but only recently got around to Chuang Tzu. It was really eye-opening. It really helped clarify my understanding of what Lao Tzu wrote. I felt right at home. Strong recommendation if you're interested.

People say that only what are called the "inner chapters," the first seven chapters, are authentic, but I found the rest of them very helpful too.

Judgment is necessary. But is punishment? — Vera Mont

A good question.

The pendulum swings between two poles: understanding and judgment (I got this from cabbalism, ha!) If I fall deeply toward understanding, then I eventually lose the ability to judge. I see it all. I understand why the Nazis did that, and how Stalin never meant to become what he was, and so on. I see all the biology and culture and twists of fate that produce the villain. I can't punish, because the only difference between him and me is that fate was kinder in my case. — frank

When I first read that, I thought it said "cannibalism."

As for Nazi's and Communists, I would ask what course makes for the most effective response to their behaviors? Understanding is clearly required.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” — Sun Tzu, The Art of War

As for judgment, if I call my enemy "evil," "monster," "inhuman," what value does that provide? As far as I can see, and I see it everywhere in the world, all it does is distract from the most effective response.

I think it starts around age 10. — Vera Mont

I think I would say it starts much later than that, perhaps in middle age, long after they have "worked out an ethical system for themselves" and have become dissatisfied. In reality, it could probably start any time, but for many of us, age provides us with freedom for contemplation.

Not necessarily. Yes, if they were indoctrinated in a strict religious dogma. It's a very hard struggle for them. But children who have been gradually given more autonomy, and opportunities to exercise good judgment, sportsmanship, altruism, deferred gratification, disciplined pursuit of goals, etc. can make the transition to reliable self-governance without too many ructions. — Vera Mont

In my understanding, and I think Chuang Tzu's and Lao Tzu's, any socially influenced "reliable self-governance," no matter how benign, will result in us losing sight of our intrinsic virtuosities. Whenever we act to gain a benefit - love, approval, success - or avoid a negative consequence - guilt, shame, punishment - we lose our way.

So have other philosophers, sages, shamans and prophets. — Vera Mont

I read other philosophers not in order to be shown what to think, but rather to get their help becoming aware of and putting into words things I am already capable of seeing. I use Chuang Tzu's, Lao Tzu's, and Emerson's words because they describe, maybe better than I can, things I can see are true.

I don't see the point you're making with this reference except that Emerson seems to "morally" excuse e.g. antisocial psychopathy ... almost as Heideggerian / Sartrean (romantic) "authenticity". — 180 Proof

Sorry, I overlooked this response previously.

I don't see how it is an excuse when I don't recognize the legitimacy of your moral judgment against me. Or, looking at it a different way, nothing I have written immunizes me from having to face the consequences of my actions, no matter what their motivation.

You've said that "my actions will be in accordance with the guidance of my intrinsic nature, my heart if you will," and the ambiguity comes with the terms "intrinsic nature" or "heart." Insofar as those central terms remain opaque, so too does your morality. — Leontiskos

Opaque to you, perhaps, but not to me.

Okay, but does Chinese philosophy in general say that the "intrinsic nature" of one person will tend to align with the "intrinsic nature" of another person, and with the order of the societal whole? Your angle here still seems much more individualistic than the Chinese philosophy that I am familiar with. — Leontiskos

Speaking for myself and not for Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, or anyone else, I think my intrinsic nature has a lot in common with other people's. Again, we're social animals; we like each other; we want to be around each other. But there is no requirement that this be so. And I've tried to make it clear that Taoism rejects consideration of "the order of the societal whole" as a proper guide to behavior.

You follow your nature. Your nature changes when you learn how much pain others are in and how much they're just like you. It's the nature of a child vs the nature of the seasoned, right? — frank

I'd like to think that behaving in accordance with the golden rule will arise automatically when we all live in accordance with our inner natures. I'm not sure that's true. I'm not even sure that behaving in accordance with the golden rule will arise automatically when I live in accordance with my inner nature.

But to finally act requires judgment, an end to discussion. — frank

But what does acting require judgment of? Not necessarily right and wrong, good and bad, or moral and immoral. We just need to figure out how to address the conflict in question. Assigning blame does not make that kind of action more effective.

So the mother appeals to the social aspect of the child - that part of his personality which craves affection, validation and approval. Later in life, he will be good for his playmates and gain acceptance; be good for the teachers and avoid punishment, learn, grow up successfully in his world and be good for an employer so that he earns a living, be good for a female counterpart and win a mate, be good for his community and be accorded respect. — Vera Mont

In general I think your description of the socialization process is a good one. For me that raises the question of when the principles of self-governance I've described are applied. The person who has gone through this process is more or less out of touch with what I have called their intrinsic virtuosities. As I understand it, Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu were writing for that person to show an alternative way of living, a way out of the bind caused by social expectations.

And if your intrinsic nature is a serial killer? — Philosophim

Several others on this thread have made similar comments. I've responded with this quote from "Self-Reliance."

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

the problem is that the person who makes this argument seldom has any idea of what they mean by morality. — Leontiskos

I don't think I've been unclear about what I mean by "morality."

This is presumably as true for the Chinese philosophers you are citing as it is for Aristotle. I would submit that those Chinese philosophers did not make the strong distinction that you are making between individual morality and social custom or law. For someone like Confucius this opposition would be a non-starter. — Leontiskos

This is not correct. Taoism developed in response to and contradiction of Confucius's rigid formal moral principles. The quotes I have provided from Chuang Tzu and Lao Tzu, the two founding sources of Taoism, are representative of the body of their work.

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. — Vera Mont

I've been saying that both law and any other form of persuasion or coercion are the same in that they are instruments of social control and have little to do with good and bad or right and wrong. That is just packaging, gift wrapping.

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. — Joshs

You raise an issue that's important to me, but which I haven't discussed in this thread. Beyond everything that's been written here, I don't think a system that "revolves around anger and blame" is the most effective way of addressing social conflicts.

I can go with that. — Joshs

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.