Philosophy Forums


Morality is Irrational

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Morality is Irrational
cosscos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 171
Posted 06/26/09 - 10:58 PM:
quote post
#11
Morality can never be irrational, because morality comes out of rationality. It is immorality that comes out of irrationality.

Morality is the ability for following morals in a community. These morals are very justified outcome for the sake of good or goodness.

Therefore, if morality is irrational, then morality cannot be justified and also can't be any more good or goodness.

Edited by Incision on 06/28/09 - 09:59 AM. Reason: still illiterate, but too many responses to delete
Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519
Posted 06/26/09 - 11:46 PM:
quote post
#12
cosscos wrote:
Morality can never be irrational, because morality comes out of rationality. It is immorality that comes out of irrationality.

Morality is the ability for following morals in a community. These morals are very justified outcome for the sake of good or goodness.

Therefore, if morality is irrational, then morality cannot be justified and also can't be any more good or goodness.


That sounds more like "The Law."

Morality is more relative from society to society and generally subjective for each individual (though alot of people's morals are extremely similar because they live within the same surroundings).

Edited by Incision on 06/28/09 - 09:59 AM. Reason: quoted edited post
mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515
Posted 06/27/09 - 04:28 AM:
quote post
#13
cosscos wrote:
Morality can never be irrational, because morality comes out of rationality. It is immorality that comes out of irrationality.

Morality is the ability for following morals in a community. These morals are very justified outcome for the sake of good or goodness.

Therefore, if morality is irrational, then morality cannot be justified and also can't be any more good or goodness.


Interesting...

I was the belief that rationality is a direct invention stimming from one's moral perspective.

Revenge... Suicide bombers... Anti-Abortion Killers... Hitler...

All form their personal moral universe and act rationally according to the self-established rules of moral conduct. The rationality is the support system of the morality.

One can claim that the actions of the above mentioned are irrational, but this is a moral reaction to what one perceives as immoral. What is immoral is the moral valuation of what does not match up with one personal moral universe.

Morality is never immoral, so long as it is from the perspective of the one who's morals are placed into question, but when questioning another moral system, suddenly, immoral and irrational become part of the vocabulary. The product of a self-justification. Us and them. Tribalism at it's best.

Crackers: "That sounds more like "The Law."

Morality is more relative from society to society and generally subjective for each individual (though alot of people's morals are extremely similar because they live within the same surroundings)".

I can buy that.

Meow!

GREG

Edited by Incision on 06/28/09 - 10:00 AM

I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS
HeWhoKnowsNothing
Truly Unwise

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2007

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 89
Posted 06/30/09 - 10:22 PM:
quote post
#14
From what I can understand, you entire argument relies on the proposition that morals are created with no solid premise to base from (as morals usually act as a philosophical premise themselves).

However, all morals do have a single basis, and that is interaction with other people within the human condition. Usually morals are setup to act as a less, hrmm legal form of rules that, instead of being imposed on people under threat of consequences, are self-imposed and are almost like a matter of pride. The reason why it is important to note this is because the morals are like a second set of rules to allow society to function smoothly. This is why many moral codes revolve around practices which keep interactions between people tame and civil.

I personally base my moral code off allowing everyone to make their own individual rational decisions in life. It is a bit hard to explain, but basically it revolves around giving people what they need to make good, individual decisions. The restrictions that it imposes are only there to prevent one person from imposing their will on another unwilling person. I only gave this example to try to let you know that there doesn't need to be a specific good or bad; just an objective that the moral code is meant to further. Additionally, I also wanted to show that the only basis for morals can come from interaction between people.

In response to your second question: yes you can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't get in the way of me doing what I want and deciding what I want to do. As a courtesy and in accordance with my morals, I wouldn't interfere with your individual decision making and choices, as long as they didn't interfere with mine (or of those I care about). This is really the basis of any moral code; you want to do what you want, but you don't want to get screwed over by others (ie: killed, stolen from, deceived/confused, etc), so people will generally not give each other trouble in this manner in order to smooth along interactions and to allow you to better do what you want without interference.

I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515
Posted 07/01/09 - 12:22 AM:
quote post
#15
HeWhoKnowsNothing: "From what I can understand, your entire argument relies on the proposition that morals are created with no solid premise to base from (as morals usually act as a philosophical premise themselves)".


I'm not sure who you are addressing here, but I will just add a note or two.

I would not go so far as to say morals are created without "solid premises" and a "solid base".

Again, the perception of a "solid premise" as well as a "solid base" are local perceptions and are in themselves relative to the one making the assumption of "solidity". This does not make them less than what they are. This does not make them more than what they are.

This is a reach, but such assumptions and perceptions are much akin to the question "is the glass half full or half empty?"

Full and empty are value accessemts and a question of personal perspectives. To say when the objective is to have a full glass, then either

a) the glass is too big
or
b) there is not enough fluid to fill the glass is a more appropriate answers when avoiding the trap of personal local perceptions.

"Solidity" has a value accessment in it that makes perceived thing subjective rather than an objective dennotation.

It makes a thing not of less value, but gives it orientation as to what it is. "Value" is of no "value" within the spectrum of universal objective dennotation. All subjective assertion would limit the objective, thus damning it to no longer be objective, inspite of good intentions. This is a bit away from the topic, but none the less important for the understanding.

Morals are based solidly in ones personal experiences and local understanding of things. They are founded in the limited resources avaliable. The "big step" is to really realize the limitation of morals and the danger when appied as a universal.

Your personal "moral code" sounds quite solid to me and you respect the limitations of this personal code and the codes of others. I see nothing "wrong" with that. It seems to be rational too me. If you choose to "push" these value upon another through whatever means justifies the action, then I may value your rationality as irrational, based soley on my personal perspective.

Rational and Irrational are value accessments and have no place in any objective understanding. They are a product of one's moral code.

Meow!

GREG


I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS
Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519
Posted 07/01/09 - 12:08 PM:
quote post
#16
mway wrote:
I was wondering if anyone on these forums had a logical, rational reason for the continuance of morality at all?


It keeps the masses in check and easy to manipulate, politicians can make an appeal to morality to sway arguments in their favour.

Arguably, that isn't a good reason to keep morality but rather a reason to be rid of it.

Overall, on a large scale, keeping morality is a good thing because it keeps the herd from becoming completely self-destructive.
On an individual scale morality is harmful to anyone who seeks intellectual freedom. Morals are a slander to the individual.

"Thou shalt not cover thy neighbours wife."

Why?
There is no reason why other than the will to obedience and servitude. If one feels like coveting then one should go ahead and covet.

Could we all not just do what we want?


We can do that now.

What difference would it make?


Alot. Not much. It's relative.
mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509
Posted 07/01/09 - 04:00 PM:
quote post
#17

I agree with HeWhoKnowsNothing, regarding morality to require an objective to be consistant. But to whom, and how is this objective chosen?

I totally agree with crackers that morality is relative. However, as with anything relative, it can be seen correct (or incorrect) from many angles and as such contradicts the very use of morality. How do you create/follow a moral code on the basis of relativity?

I would like to take it further and posit that morality is a proof for determinism (can be random), as a lack of free-will is the only logical conclusion for the invention of a moral code. This is true only for relative morality. If someone could show that morality is not relative, then I will concede my position.

Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.
xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 840
Posted 07/01/09 - 04:14 PM:
quote post
#18
mway wrote:

I agree with HeWhoKnowsNothing, regarding morality to require an objective to be consistant. But to whom, and how is this objective chosen?

I totally agree with crackers that morality is relative. However, as with anything relative, it can be seen correct (or incorrect) from many angles and as such contradicts the very use of morality. How do you create/follow a moral code on the basis of relativity?

I would like to take it further and posit that morality is a proof for determinism (can be random), as a lack of free-will is the only logical conclusion for the invention of a moral code. This is true only for relative morality. If someone could show that morality is not relative, then I will concede my position.



When you define your argument in ways that no one can disagree with you, it is futile (and probably rhetorical) to ask for someone to prove you wrong.


Whether or not morality is rational or objective or anything else has little to do with the world and everything to do with definitions.


For a moment pretend like you believe whatever god says is good defines morality. Presuming that you know what god has said, in what way is your statement "x is moral" relative? I suppose it is relative to what god said, but can anyone hold a different opinion? Based on the definition "what is moral is what god says", it would seem that anyone who says that what is moral is something other than what god says is wrong.


There are lots of moral systems and reasons why one thing is moral or not, but ultimately there may be a "fact" of morality. What you have to do is figure out if there is some feature of existence that is capable of defining/dictating morality.


If you believe in advance that there is no such thing as a moral fact and that you can believe whatever you want about morality, you will always come to the conclusion that morality is relative. If you grant the possibility that there is something that defines morality outside of yourself (or any other person), then you will likely be forced to conclude that morality is objective. Whether you can know what is moral is an entirely different issue.


So decide for yourself, is there something capable of being the source of morality outside of your preference (or that of anyone else)?

Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.
mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 515
Posted 07/02/09 - 12:43 AM:
quote post
#19
So, let's see what we have here...

Crackers:

"It (morality) keeps the masses in check and easy to manipulate, politicians can make an appeal to morality to sway arguments in their favour".

(SIEG HAIL!!! Thanks Crackers! The assumed good of morality is simply a matter of perspective and the application.)

"Arguably, that isn't a good reason to keep morality but rather a reason to be rid of it".

(Perhaps getting rid of morality would offer a clean slate, but I doubt this could occur. As our understanding of reality is not an "Objective" one, but rather "Subjective", we lack the required "universal vocabulary" to communicate. I would suggest an effort to understand what morals are, a personal code and not universal applicable. This refinement of perspective would then curb the tide of political manipulation to a small, but helpful degree. Better than nothin'! We need a song than makes as much sense as morals.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?...ndividual&videoid=52638666)

"Overall, on a large scale, keeping morality is a good thing because it keeps the herd from becoming completely self-destructive.
On an individual scale morality is harmful to anyone who seeks intellectual freedom. Morals are a slander to the individual".

(I would add a local morality when forced upon the global stage, as being the one and only exclusive gauge of right and wrong, is the cause for all wars. ALL WARS! No exceptions. The "large scale" you mentioned is actually not that large. You are refering to a local collective and the majority opinion held within this selected group will serve as the moral base. If not the majority opinion, the opinion of those who are on the seats of power. On the REAL large scale, global or "Universal", morality is only the tribalistic reason for "killing in the name of ..." - you fill in the dots. Crackers you are on the way to "Phenomenology of ethics and morals". Cool!)

mway:

"I agree with HeWhoKnowsNothing, regarding morality to require an objective to be consistant. But to whom, and how is this objective chosen"?

(Let's make sure our language is correct here. Objective or "Objective"? If meant as a goal, say the objective of a game to win or score a point and the like, cool. If meant as the "Objective" as opposted to the "Subjective", we have a new game here. I believe you mean the former, but I would rather not assume so.)

"I totally agree with crackers that morality is relative. However, as with anything relative, it can be seen correct (or incorrect) from many angles and as such contradicts the very use of morality. How do you create/follow a moral code on the basis of relativity"?

(That's easy. Faith that you are in the "right" as opposed to the other who are in the "wrong". This is the foundation of morals. Assumption of the values of right and wrong is the thing that empowers morals and the one making the moral code. Again, it is a local decision and cannot bring anything positive to a "unversal stage". Morals are relative and limited. That which I have call "Ethics" - not ethics; I need to coin the word as my definition is not the one you will find in wikipedia - or that which is a Universal, Dennotative, All-Inclusive, non-Rational/Irrational, "Objective"- non-Sujective, are not relative nor limited. Limitations destroy these "Ethics".

Morals are the pursuit of the "laws of how it should be", whereas "Ethics" are the pursuit of unlimited possibilities, a "Phenomenological Perspective".)

"I would like to take it further and post that morality is a proof for determinism (can be random), as a lack of free-will is the only logical conclusion for the invention of a moral code. This is true only for relative morality. If someone could show that morality is not relative, then I will concede my position".

(No need to concede you position. Morality is relative. No other options here. Welcome to "Pandora's Paradox Box". Determinism and Free Will are in truth, that same thing, just different perspectives. I never thought I'd say that in public. They are full dependent upon another, as they are different sides of the same coin, such as "Objective"/"Subjective". I'm not so sure we should go here. This is a great idea, but the paradoxes would not be to everyone's liking.)


xzJoel:

"When you define your argument (refering to mway) in ways that no one can disagree with you, it is futile (and probably rhetorical) to ask for someone to prove you wrong".

(Was the point made of suggestion or for the sake of argument? The problem here is that we are dealing with the inherent nature of morals which is that they are relative. Is this an argument or a given? I would say the latter.)



"Whether or not morality is rational or objective or anything else has little to do with the world and everything to do with definitions".

(Again SIEG HAIL!!! This is the position of the politicians and the meglomaniacs. Too hell with being objective. Too hell with my actions being rational or irrations. One does not have to invade Poland in order to show the effects and affects of moral expansion. Tribalism is something not good and damned dangerous when confronting another tribe. Why wait until it's too late? After the fact "ethics" serves no purpose other than placing one's self up on a high pedistal, nor is building towered foresight when you have root rot.)


For a moment pretend like you believe whatever god says is good defines morality. Presuming that you know what god has said, in what way is your statement "x is moral" relative"?

(Simple, it is local. The moment that "x is moral" comes into contact with any other "x is moral" interpretation, even within it's own tribe, it will be a matter of perspective and personal interpretation. This perspective makes "x is moral" relative to the experiences of the individual who holds this moral position of "x is moral". It cannot be avoided. The nature of all morals is relative. No matter how you wish to put the example together, naked or sugar-coated, in the end of it all, morals will be relative.)


"I suppose it is relative to what god said, but can anyone hold a different opinion? Based on the definition "what is moral is what god says", it would seem that anyone who says that what is moral is something other than what god says is wrong.

"What is moral is what god says", fine, but what we have here is the actual thing itself. It is personal and linked to local interpretation. Local can mean a tribal group or just one individual. The local statement of "what is moral is what god says" is founded upon "what is moral, as perceived through my limited experience of reality and understanding of what I believe to be a concept of moral, is what god, as I interpret god to be as a god, says, as I beleive that I have heard what I believe to have heard and have applied to what I have in my limited experience of reality to what I have heard". Really damend complicated, but that's more or less it, in a shortened form I might add. No "believer" would put if this way, but that is what it is.)


There are lots of moral systems and reasons why one thing is moral or not, but ultimately there may be a "fact" of morality. What you have to do is figure out if there is some feature of existence that is capable of defining/dictating morality.

(The "fact" of morality is ultimately that it is always relative. What you may be looking for here is what I defined as "Ethics" earlier, but this is not morals. "Universal Morality"? NO! That is like saying there is an "All-Inclusive Exclusive" or an "Objective Subjective". It is a nonsense word "Universal Morality". This nonsense word causes wars and only wars.)


"If you believe in advance that there is no such thing as a moral fact and that you can believe whatever you want about morality, you will always come to the conclusion that morality is relative. If you grant the possibility that there is something that defines morality outside of yourself (or any other person), then you will likely be forced to conclude that morality is objective".

(At what point does one give up? Simply put, there are no moral facts. What is so endearing about morals that you cling to this so? It's like nailing you foot to the floor and running in circles. There has never been an example of moral fact other than morals are inherently relative. A dog in a suit is still a dog. Whether or not you decide upon your moral code or allow it to be dictated from another source is not the issue in concluding that morals are in anyway objective. Morals are in no way objective. Objective positions are void of value accessments. Morals are value accessments. NO. No. ...)

"Whether you can know what is moral is an entirely different issue".

(Of course you know what is moral, for you, unless you are in indecision about an issue. There is not big secret here.)

So decide for yourself, is there something capable of being the source of morality outside of your preference (or that of anyone else)?

(That's the point of realitivity we are making. The sources of morals have no central position. Preference does play a role, for yourself and not for others.)

I need an espresso badly!

Meow!

GREG

I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS
xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 840
Posted 07/02/09 - 06:41 AM:
quote post
#20
mayor of simpleton wrote:

xzJoel:

"When you define your argument (refering to mway) in ways that no one can disagree with you, it is futile (and probably rhetorical) to ask for someone to prove you wrong".

(Was the point made of suggestion or for the sake of argument? The problem here is that we are dealing with the inherent nature of morals which is that they are relative. Is this an argument or a given? I would say the latter.)



"Whether or not morality is rational or objective or anything else has little to do with the world and everything to do with definitions".

(Again SIEG HAIL!!! This is the position of the politicians and the meglomaniacs. Too hell with being objective. Too hell with my actions being rational or irrations. One does not have to invade Poland in order to show the effects and affects of moral expansion. Tribalism is something not good and damned dangerous when confronting another tribe. Why wait until it's too late? After the fact "ethics" serves no purpose other than placing one's self up on a high pedistal, nor is building towered foresight when you have root rot.)


For a moment pretend like you believe whatever god says is good defines morality. Presuming that you know what god has said, in what way is your statement "x is moral" relative"?

(Simple, it is local. The moment that "x is moral" comes into contact with any other "x is moral" interpretation, even within it's own tribe, it will be a matter of perspective and personal interpretation. This perspective makes "x is moral" relative to the experiences of the individual who holds this moral position of "x is moral". It cannot be avoided. The nature of all morals is relative. No matter how you wish to put the example together, naked or sugar-coated, in the end of it all, morals will be relative.)


"I suppose it is relative to what god said, but can anyone hold a different opinion? Based on the definition "what is moral is what god says", it would seem that anyone who says that what is moral is something other than what god says is wrong.

"What is moral is what god says", fine, but what we have here is the actual thing itself. It is personal and linked to local interpretation. Local can mean a tribal group or just one individual. The local statement of "what is moral is what god says" is founded upon "what is moral, as perceived through my limited experience of reality and understanding of what I believe to be a concept of moral, is what god, as I interpret god to be as a god, says, as I beleive that I have heard what I believe to have heard and have applied to what I have in my limited experience of reality to what I have heard". Really damend complicated, but that's more or less it, in a shortened form I might add. No "believer" would put if this way, but that is what it is.)


There are lots of moral systems and reasons why one thing is moral or not, but ultimately there may be a "fact" of morality. What you have to do is figure out if there is some feature of existence that is capable of defining/dictating morality.

(The "fact" of morality is ultimately that it is always relative. What you may be looking for here is what I defined as "Ethics" earlier, but this is not morals. "Universal Morality"? NO! That is like saying there is an "All-Inclusive Exclusive" or an "Objective Subjective". It is a nonsense word "Universal Morality". This nonsense word causes wars and only wars.)


"If you believe in advance that there is no such thing as a moral fact and that you can believe whatever you want about morality, you will always come to the conclusion that morality is relative. If you grant the possibility that there is something that defines morality outside of yourself (or any other person), then you will likely be forced to conclude that morality is objective".

(At what point does one give up? Simply put, there are no moral facts. What is so endearing about morals that you cling to this so? It's like nailing you foot to the floor and running in circles. There has never been an example of moral fact other than morals are inherently relative. A dog in a suit is still a dog. Whether or not you decide upon your moral code or allow it to be dictated from another source is not the issue in concluding that morals are in anyway objective. Morals are in no way objective. Objective positions are void of value accessments. Morals are value accessments. NO. No. ...)

"Whether you can know what is moral is an entirely different issue".

(Of course you know what is moral, for you, unless you are in indecision about an issue. There is not big secret here.)

So decide for yourself, is there something capable of being the source of morality outside of your preference (or that of anyone else)?

(That's the point of realitivity we are making. The sources of morals have no central position. Preference does play a role, for yourself and not for others.)

I need an espresso badly!

Meow!

GREG



I certainly understand that you want to use "moral" as one thing and "ethical" as another, but it seems rather petty and wholly besides the point. Fundamentally, the question is a simple, "Am I obligated to behave in a particular way?"

You like to focus on the locality of "morals", but lets talk about the centrality of them. Bears are obligated to eat berries, people to eat bears. Two different classes of things and two rules - does this make for a relative morality?

Sure, the rule that is applicable to you is relative to whether you are a bear or a person. It might even be that this rule was applicable in 1850 but not applicable in -50,000. But so what? The application is local, but the rules (with all of their particulars) are universal.

If you believe that we are nothing but fundamental particles acting in accordance with some set of "laws" (be they gravity, the strong force, or what have you), are we subjective? That is to say, does the fact that our particles did not always arrange themselves in the way that makes us mean that we are localized and therefore not "rational/logical" to believe in? If it is true that our particles did not always exist, is it not rational/logical to believe that they presently exist?

So what, precisely, about a morality do you take issue with? Everything is surely relative (if for no other reason than most people insist that definition involves separation of one concept from another). Everything is surely local (we live temporally and specially). All of our perceptions are surely limited to what we are capable of perceiving. All of our knowledge is governed by the same constraints that morality has. Is your point that it is not rational or logical to believe anything is true?

Rather than beat around the bush, I suggest you focus on the notion of obligation (or “ought”). If we are capable of being obligated and the mechanism which creates obligation exists, are we not obligated?

If your point is that we cannot be obligated, then there is really no where to go. You believe what you believe.

If you accept that we can be obligated, then what can do the obliging? What level of obligation is sufficient to receive the appellation of “morals” or “ethics”?

Tangentially (by that I mean I am throwing away 2000 years of Western Philosophy/ethics) what does morality/ethics have to do with the good/valuable? Isn’t it precisely because we want to equate ethics with goodness that we end up throwing out ethics? I suggest you take your value assignments and leave them at the door. Good, bad, or indifferent, obligations relate to morals/ethics, not your preference. You may not like or value what you are obligated to do, but so what?


Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.