Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

@MattDavis,

You wrote,

Quote:

If a decision is arbitrary, then your choice is without reason.

Your conclusion is wrong based on human experience. Your "if" doesn't correct the idea.

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

It is pertinent in that in order to behave ethically, one must make decisions.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

It is pertinent in that in order to behave ethically, one must make decisions.

I agree, but the process by which one makes decisions is largely immaterial. As long as the decision is intentional, it doesn't matter very much how that decision was made.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

There are quite a few logical fallacies and unproven assertions in that piece Joe.

But, reading it, I couldn't help wondering if the issue is the term "morality" which you assert (as if by definition) only refers to what I call "absolute morality".

Do you agree that there is a sociological phenomenon, that we evolved with, to form societies with norms of behavior. And that human individuals tend to adapt to the standards of behavior, and beliefs about right and wrong, of their society?

I call this a "moral code". I don't like the term you suggest (i.e. "personal preference") because it relates to a powerful tendency of human nature to adapt to the beliefs of their society about "right and wrong". The term "personal preference" doesn't really convey that to me.

I would be willing to agree on a new term for what I am calling "society based morality".

But there is sociological phenomenon that gives an individual a strong belief about is right and wrong that is strongly influenced by their society (and differs from society to society). This phenomenon influences our behavior and our sense of justice.

Every human is effected by this. It seems to me that the term "relative morality" is the best term for it.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Moral relativism is logically incoherent.

I agree.
(By "I agree " I mean that I, MattDavis, being of sound mind and body, am in agreement with the argument as elucidated by joefromchicago at the target of the url link Moral relativism is logically incoherent. This should in no way be taken as an agreement to any other past or future arguments by joefromchicago or by any other forum participants in this or any other discussion.)
Laughing

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:

If a decision is arbitrary, then your choice is without reason.

Your conclusion is wrong based on human experience. Your "if" doesn't correct the idea.

Is your human experience that the word "arbitrary" does not mean "without reason"?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Would you agree at least that in order to make a decision one must measure options against other options?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max wrote:

I would be willing to agree on a new term for what I am calling "society based morality".

Will this new term in any way assist you in demonstrating why it is that your decision to base it on society is not an arbitrary decision?
Why have you decided that the ultimate measure of morality is at the societal level?
Are their then in your mind: individual-based moralities, family-based moralities, society-based moralities, species-based moralities, animal-based moralities.
When these moralities don't agree, how is a course of action decided upon?
In that circumstance what meta-morality are you appealing to?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There are quite a few logical fallacies and unproven assertions in that piece Joe.

That makes me sad.

maxdancona wrote:

Do you agree that there is a sociological phenomenon, that we evolved with, to form societies with norms of behavior. And that human individuals tend to adapt to the standards of behavior, and beliefs about right and wrong, of their society?

Sure.

maxdancona wrote:

I call this a "moral code". I don't like the term you suggest (i.e. "personal preference") because it relates to a powerful tendency of human nature to adapt to the beliefs of their society about "right and wrong". The term "personal preference" doesn't really convey that to me.

I would be willing to agree on a new term for what I am calling "society based morality".

Sociologists would call them "mores." I'm not sure why a new term is preferable.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Would you agree at least that in order to make a decision one must measure options against other options?

Not necessarily. One can make a decision heedless of other options.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I doubt very much morality can be practiced with impunity. Governments can start wars regardless of how many innocent people will be killed.

0 Replies

Arbitrary does not necessarily mean without reason. A government, for example, can make an arbitrary decision, such as to deny someone legal recourse or redress, or to impose trade restrictions on another nation, or to make war on another nation--for reasons which seem sufficient to the power brokers of that government, but which are not consistent with equity, which are, one might say "unjust."

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joe wrote:

Not necessarily. One can make a decision heedless of other options.

OK
I reject the notion that a 'decision' can be made arbitrarily.
Wink

2 Replies

@Setanta,

This is the sense in which I have been using the word "arbitrary":

Quote:

existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance

Sorry for any confusion.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

I reject the notion that a 'decision' can be made arbitrarily.

Why? I flip a coin (like Anton Chigurh) to determine whether I will kill you or not. Is that not a decision that has moral implications?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I'm not confused . . . take note of the word "seemingly" in that definition. Because you don't know someone's motive is not evidence that they do a thing without reason.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

Ok, then what code do you think is behind the law that puts us humans imposing these limits on themselves especially with animals?

And regarding the jaywalk example, although all laws are not necessarily based on morality, at-least we can agree that there are laws which are based on morality.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Why? I flip a coin (like Anton Chigurh) to determine whether I will kill you or not. Is that not a decision that has moral implications?

In this scenario a decision that has moral implications has occurred.
The decision that has moral implications was decided when Anton decided to base someone's death on the flip of a coin. (... or perhaps when he decided that such matters should be decided in such a manner.)
I don't know what Anton's reason to do this was, but I am quite sure that he had some reason.

When he did that, all I could think about was Two-Face from Batman.

Do you think that the decision by Robin to wear such short shorts has moral implications? Laughing

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

OK then Joe, I will accept your terminology and your distinction between "morality" (an absolute truth about right and wrong) and "mores" (society based ideas of right and wrong).

But let's go a little deeper to explore this distinction.

1. In your opinion, is it true that many people believe they are acting morally when actually what they doing is following a set of mores (that aren't really morals)?

2. Are you confident that what you are following are actually morals and that you aren't fooling yourself and really following mores?

3. If the answers to #1 and #2 are "yes", doesn't that imply that most people, throughout history, although they may have been sincere in there mores, were not living morally (i.e. by the true moral concepts)?

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Max wrote:

If the answers to #1 and #2 are "yes", doesn't that imply that most people, throughout history, although they may have been sincere in there mores, were not living morally (i.e. by the true moral concepts)?

I think that you mean is "If the answer to #1 is 'yes' and the answer to #2 is 'no',.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know you are asking Joe but,
I think I follow your reasoning, and I agree with the conclusion.
Even if someone thinks that they are behaving morally, by virtue of acting in accordance with mores, they may in fact not be behaving morally, because mores are not necessarily an accurate reflection of morality.

I think that what this demonstrates is simply that societies, like individuals, can be mistaken.

0 Replies

Who are the proper subjects of moral consideration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know