Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank wrote:

All this may require a variant definition (or considerations ) of "who are proper subjects" and "what are moral considerations"...but considering the planet and other life on it to be worthy of such consideration should not, in my opinion, be dismissed in such a cavalier way.

I agree that it is not a subject to be dismissed in a cavalier way.
I agree also that perhaps the terms I have used are leading to confusion.
Are my recent re-phrasings in terms of "interests" any help.
Would talk of "considerations" be better expressed in terms of "weighing interests"? I am at a loss as a better way to talk of what goes into making any decision, let alone an ethical one.
When I think of the process of decision making, I think of considering options.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

If you do not take into account "interests" (at least even your own), then how do you decide upon any action (let alone a moral one)?

I guess I'm not following you here. I'm familiar with discussions of right, duty, claim, and obligation in ethics, but I'm not sure what role "interest" might play. To me, an "interest" is simply an inclination, or perhaps a monetary stake. I don't see how that would fit into a system of ethics.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I guess I'm not following you here. I'm familiar with discussions of right, duty, claim, and obligation in ethics, but I'm not sure what role "interest" might play. To me, an "interest" is simply an inclination, or perhaps a monetary stake. I don't see how that would fit into a system of ethics.

Does ethics depend on making decisions?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Good then Joe.

So if I reject Morality, and decide to live my life the way I see fit, then I am not under any obligation.

There are things that are important to me. I want to get along in a society that for the most part works pretty well for me. I want to give myself fulfillment in ways that are individually meaningful for me. I want to see people I care about do well.

I reject the idea that Morality (or anyone else) can obligate me to do anything.

I do follow social rules (for the most part) because it benefits me to be integrated into the society that I am a part of. There is no more obligation than that.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I reject the idea that Morality (or anyone else) can obligate me to do anything.

Then you don't believe in morality at all. Which, I'll hasten to add, is fine. As I see it, there are only two positions that are logically defensible: (1) there is no such thing as "morality;" or (2) there is such a thing as morality, and it is absolute.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5251693)
Perfect! That's exactly what I've come to expect from you.

Thank you.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Does ethics depend on making decisions?

Well, in the sense that ethics only applies to beings who are capable of making ethical choices, yes.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I do follow social rules (for the most part) because it benefits me to be integrated into the society that I am a part of. There is no more obligation than that.

I don't want to point this out as a way of saying that you are reasonably incorrect in assuming this, but more as a point of perspective regarding that society you are a part of:
Such a position would be classified as 'sociopathy' in psychology. That is the condition of about 1% of the population.
One way of looking at this is that you are one of Nietzsche's Übermensch (Over Men).
The other is that you are a sociopath.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Joe wrote:

Well, in the sense that ethics only applies to beings who are capable of making ethical choices, yes.

How does one make a decision?
Not necessarily an ethical one.
How is any decision made?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

How does one make a decision?
Not necessarily an ethical one.
How is any decision made?

That's a proper subject for psychology, not morality. I don't know how that has any ethical component.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5251672)
Frank wrote:
All this may require a variant definition (or considerations ) of "who are proper subjects" and "what are moral considerations"...but considering the planet and other life on it to be worthy of such consideration should not, in my opinion, be dismissed in such a cavalier way.

I agree that it is not a subject to be dismissed in a cavalier way.
I agree also that perhaps the terms I have used are leading to confusion.
Are my recent re-phrasings in terms of "interests" any help.
Would talk of "considerations" be better expressed in terms of "weighing interests"? I am at a loss as a better way to talk of what goes into making any decision, let alone an ethical one.
When I think of the process of decision making, I think of considering options.

Matt...nothing I have read from you has ever made me suppose you were cavalierly dismissing the possible that the planet and other living things are unworthy of being considered "proper subjects for moral consideration."

Joe did...which was why I directed a couple of comments his way about that subject.

Frankly, the discussion has gotten to the point where I don't especially find it interesting or fun...so I have not engaged with much enthusiasm except to counter the inference, if not the contention, that the planet itself and other life on the planet ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF MORAL CONSIDERATION.

In order to answer this question you just posed, I'd have to go back and read stuff I consider the equivalent of "fancy clothes for the red carpet."

I do not intend to do that.

But I will engage you on this: I say that the planet Earth...and all life on it...ARE proper subjects of moral consideration.

If you disagree...give a Readers Digest version of the disagreement and we can start the interaction here.

(I do not intend to get into this here, but I will mention it so that it does not come back to haunt me in some future discussion. I think ALL EXISTENCE is a proper subject of moral consideration...so truly I do not limit my above comments just to living things and the planet. But that could take us far astream...and I will not participate in a discussion on that.)

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You are wrong Joe. There are three positions that are logically defensible (and I am not sure about the first two).

1) There is no such thing as "morality"
2). There is such a thing as morality, and it is absolute
3) There is such a thing as morality, and it is based on the society you are a part of.

I believe in morality the same way I believe in language. Obviously humans evolved with a sense of morality, and a sense of language, because these are things that help us survive as social animals.

However there is no absolute morality the same as there is no absolute language. Each society has specific details that are valid in their societal context and meets their social needs.

Saying there is no "universal" language is not the same as saying that language doesn't exist. And even though I don't believe in a "universal" language I still use a language in a way that is valuable to me and useful to my society.

Saying there is no "absolute" morality is not the same as saying that morality doesn't exist. I have a system of morality that is appropriate for the society I am a part of. I use this system of morality (which I don't pretend to be universal) in a way that serves me well.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

You wrote,

Quote:

1) There is no such thing as "morality"
2). There is such a thing as morality, and it is absolute
3) There is such a thing as morality, and it is based on the society you are a part of.

That's a pretty accurate description of morality. We can find all the three forms in this world if we don't interpret them so strictly. On 1, there is no such thing as "morality" is true in that whatever man does is "natural" to our species. The word itself is an invention by man. On 2, there are some in religious orders who commit themselves to live simple lives in monasteries where they "believe" they are living moral lives.
On 3, some believe there is such a thing as morality based on their own interpretation and perceptions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

2, there are some in religious orders who commit themselves to live simple lives in monasteries where they "believe" they are living moral lives.

I for one don't lead a simple life.
I don't live in a monastery.
I don't believe I am living a "moral life" in the sense of acting perfectly in accordance with what I believe is "absolutely" good,
but I do believe that in an any interactions between 'self's their is such a thing as a good or bad action.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

"Good or bad" are subjective.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You are wrong Joe. There are three positions that are logically defensible (and I am not sure about the first two).

1) There is no such thing as "morality"
2). There is such a thing as morality, and it is absolute
3) There is such a thing as morality, and it is based on the society you are a part of.

Quite incorrect. Moral relativism is logically incoherent.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

What is the relation between morality and law to you?
In my view the relationship between laws and moral codes is ultimately a question of moral commonalities. I hold the idea that morals are a social construct and would add that they are thereby inherently subjective. One persons moral code is unlikely to be exactly same or in complete accord with another's.
If you think moral considerations should only be extended to moral agents how do you explain laws against animal cruelty, and other such laws.

2 Replies

@aspvenom,

I agree that morals is a social construct whether it's the difference between cultural groups, races, religion, or most things created by man.

0 Replies

@aspvenom,

aspvenom wrote:

What is the relation between morality and law to you?

Laws often follow morality, but there's no necessary connection. It's against the law to jaywalk even though it's not immoral, except insofar as it's immoral to break the law.

aspvenom wrote:

If you think moral considerations should only be extended to moral agents how do you explain laws against animal cruelty, and other such laws.

If humans choose to impose limits on their conduct toward animals, it's because humans impose those limits on themselves. It's not because the animals can impose limits on human conduct.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone wrote:

"Good or bad" are subjective.

I think you have made your opinion on that quite clearly already.

If they are subjective, then they are dependent arbitrarily on the subject.
No matter if you designate the subject to be the individual, or the tribe, or the society, or the species, the designation is arbitrary.

If a decision is arbitrary, then your choice is without reason.
A choice without reason cannot be a moral one.
An arbitrary choice is a-moral (without moral implication).

As Joe pointed out, moral subjectivity is a-morality.

1 Reply

Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know