Philosophy Forums


Morality is Irrational

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Morality is Irrational
mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 506
Posted 06/25/09 - 08:47 PM:
Subject: Morality is Irrational
quote post
#1
Morality is a code of conduct. A code that changes over time, and has no basis other then that which is conjured up out of thin air (please argue).

I was wondering if anyone on these forums had a logical, rational reason for the continuance of morality at all? Could we all not just do what we want? What difference would it make? (Note: this post is not intended for dualists).

Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.
unenlightened
everything is...
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3203
Posted 06/25/09 - 09:59 PM:
quote post
#2
mway wrote:
(please argue).



No, you might kill me. shocked

...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti

"Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys
mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA
Avatar

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

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 461
Posted 06/26/09 - 12:07 AM:
quote post
#3
Rationality shares the same relativistic characteristics as morals. Within a limited view of the world as a whole, say "limited universe of morals", a rational line of reason will be developed. As the rational grounds for the morals conduct is developed, the rational aspects will change in a a parallel line to the morals. The rationality is in the specturm of moral conduct, codes and values serving as the ends that justifies the means for the application of these given morals.

In short, morals are the "belief" of "good and bad" and the rational behaviour is the "justification" of these claims.

Now irrational is from the perspective of one outside of this particular example of moral code, conduct and value system. As an outsider will not have the same moral foundation as this group in question, the rationality of the outsider will be incongruent to the morals of the others being applied as "good and evil". Thus, one will perceive a rationality to be irrational. This is a simple matter of perspective.

If we need examples, lets stay general in scope or we risk the problem of being traped by our own morals codes, conducts and values.

A good example of a rational/irrational moral pursuit is revenge. The one seeking revenge will act rationally according to the moral crusade they are pursuing. For other observing this behaviour are, more than not, compelled to note how irrational the revenge seeker is in his or her frenzy to execute this moral code or "good and bad". Again, a question of perspective. A relative perspective I might add.

Rational?
Irrational?

All in the eye of the beholder of the moral code and seeking justification for it.

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
mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 506
Posted 06/26/09 - 01:27 AM:
quote post
#4
So do you personally find any particular actions to be wrong, as opposed to others which you deem right? On what basis do you derive your conclusions? I am asking because I am finding it very difficult to find reason for one action over another.

Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.
mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA
Avatar

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

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 461
Posted 06/26/09 - 02:43 AM:
quote post
#5
mway - "So do you personally find any particular actions to be wrong, as opposed to others which you deem right"?

Of course! Here in Austria, there is a big political shift, not to what is the "right", but rather hardline "neo-nazi" populist politics. This is seen by many as the best political method to come out of this "economic crisis. The younger voters are heading this charge. The populists are feeding them with half truths and fear, as is the nature of a populist. Their campaign looks more like "American Idol" than honest politics. For them, the measure of democracy is founded in popular opinion, as created and controled by the polititions thenselves. Many of the youth hold this hardline to be correct and that this "economic problem" should be corrected at any cost as fast as possible. (They can go back to their party lifestyle quicker, I suppose?) Even if it means using something for the old NS regiem of the Nazis.

(The new lie in the media is, "we should sacrifice more on luxury". Sacrifice? Luxury? These two have nothing to do with another. One sacrifices on things that are necessary for life. You grant youself a luxury. The implication here is that luxury is a necessary thing in life, so every now keep on buying these necessary (unnecessary) things. The REAL rich will stay WEALTHY and the "wantabes" will stay "wantabes". Pawns in a cruel game. Hey, if everyone now of days goes around with "exclusive marks and accessories", dosn't it make these exclusive things commonplace and no longer exclusive? I love the lies... a form of marketing morality and marketing rationality.)

Not only do I not support this political hardline, but I take it a step farther. I will not work as a trainer for any athlete who shares this conviction, of supporting such hardline politics. I feel that I would be investing my knowledge to support dangerous minds, who, due to athletic prowess, will be in the media and will influence others with such a dangerous propaganda, even though this is just an appeal to authrity. This fallacy will be damaging and even if it is not valid (as the masses do not take an intro to logic class, by and large). I cannot for the life of me directly or indirectly support such a behaviour. This is my moral position, based in my pursuit of the ethical universal objective reality.

I feel this "crisis" is a result of what should occur. It is a correction and not a crisis. A big assed correction, but the crisis is homemade and driven by the "powers that be", who stand most to profit from it. It is not a conspiracy as such, but rather the ruthless taking advantage of the "ignorant masses" for the sake of greed.

Is this crisis a bad thing. Finacially NO. Politically YES.
Can this "neo-nazi" politics solve this crises? Probably YES, but at what cost and by what means? I will fight against this to my dying breathe.

An I in step with the mass opinion? Hell, the masses here don't even see that this is "neo-nazi" politics. It has been given a new name that has something to do with being "patriotic". Do I have a belief that there are dangers here that are being ignored? YES! An I riding as Don Quixote against the "windmills in my mind"? MAYBE, but so what! My morals, my rationality. Does this make me a "good person"? Not to many. They find me insulting. What it does is make me "me".


"On what basis do you derive your conclusions? I am asking because I am finding it very difficult to find reason for one action over another".

This goes back to my "tired old" idea that ethics and morals are not one in the same. I choose to redefine ethics, as to create a bridge for a clearer understanding of the "paradox of life", that I see. If others see it...???

Ethics (non-moral) - Morals (immoral, as this is a subjective value based upon morals)
Universal - Local
All-Inclusive - Exclusive
Dennotation - Connotation
Unlimited - Limited
Objective - Subjective
Non-attachment - Attachment
Non-valuation - Valuation

and now, I must say thanks too you...

Indifferent - Rational/Irrational

For me, and perhaps only me, I see this as two sides of the same coin, the coin being reality. Now I do not know if the coin is in the air or if it is spinning or landed on it's side, but we are in a "paradox" of both side.

One can pursue the Objective side, but can only express and act in a Subjective manner. It is a way to "marry" so-call contrary positions and theories. I have no problem with Determinism/Free Will or Theist/Atheist, to give a few examples. This orientation opens more options and poses new questions, replacing many old questions.

Are my conclusions correct? I have no idea!
Is my morality rational? Too me, at the time, but both can change...
Does this bother me? NO, well only if I do not learn something in the process, but that would be my fault and not the fault of the decision.
Does this give all the answers? I don't know. I have ask them all. Much like my mother who has lived now 71 years in the same house, when she is asked, "have you lived here all of your life"?, she quickly responds, "no. I am still alive".

This probably doesn't help much, but that is about as good of an answer as I can give you, at the moment.

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
MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 179
Posted 06/26/09 - 09:40 AM:
quote post
#6
mway wrote:
Morality is a code of conduct. A code that changes over time,


There are two controversial claims here that would need to be established first by good arguments that, as far as I'm aware, do not exist.

"mway" wrote:
and has no basis other then that which is conjured up out of thin air (please argue).


I don't think that's an accurate description of how morality works. When I morally consider a situation, I at no point do at conjuring. It is true that what I'm doing isn't descriptive of the world as it currentely is, but a great deal of history and science isnt' about describing the world as it currentely is, yet history and science isn't about conjuring stuff out of thin air.

"mway" wrote:
I was wondering if anyone on these forums had a logical, rational reason for the continuance of morality at all?


There's a huge ambiguity problem just waiting to happen here with "logical, rational reason". I personally resort to semantics: logical and rational reasoning about desires (I use "desires" here VERY broadly, and to some extent "sentiments" would be a better word) is what objective morality is all about.

"mway" wrote:
Could we all not just do what we want?


We could do what we want regardless of the continuance of morality or otherwise.

"mway" wrote:
What difference would it make?


Not much, since most moral "decisions" are of habit. If I hold the door open for someone, it isn't because I've contemplated the satisfaction conditions of the imperative "I should hold the door open for this person"; it's because holding the door open for someone is a good habit that I have.

Doubt requires a reason to doubt.

Nothing is immune from potential doubt.

The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.
mikelepore
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 04, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 53
Posted 06/26/09 - 01:51 PM:
quote post
#7
I believe that morality is a description of what kind of reality the speaker or writer would prefer to exist in, but expressed with syntax that projects it outward to external things. For example, I strongly prefer that the world will be such that no one will kill my family, and I express my state of mind in words by saying that it would be wrong for someone to kill my family, and right to prevent it.

If it's a weak preference, e.g., I would prefer to have a DVD recorder, then I don't use such phrases as right and wrong. If the preference is so strong that I would fight for it, and I would fight the matter if society were to make it legal for someone to kill my family, considering it intolerable, then we use such terms as right and wrong. The intensity of the feeling makes it seem as though we are talking about external truths, but in all cases we are referring to our own states of mind.

I think this explanation is unavoidable because there is no other possible source for morals to be introduced when piles of molecules evolve into conscious beings.
Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519
Posted 06/26/09 - 02:54 PM:
quote post
#8
Though this wasn't intended to be posted on this forum at all, and yet it will be the second time I have posted it on this forum, I believe it is relevant to the discussion:

I personally believe that there are no "higher values", no inherent morals present in nature or dictated by a higher intelligence.

When thinking about morals and such, I find it useful to think about where morals came from in the first place. For this I will refer to Friedrich Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.

Nietzsche thought that people possess a "Will to Power", a drive, a force, a will to exert power and influence. During the times when no communities of any sort existed man's Will to Power was exerted outwards onto to the world. However, when communities were established man found that he would have to control is primal desires to exert himself on his surroundings in order to be fit to live in a useful community. Thus, the Will to Power was turned inwards on oneself and now man himself became a new wilderness to conquer. Morals, then, come from a process of self observation (driven by this Will to Power), such observations do include one's community, one's environment, and these observations are what we use to determine what is good and bad. Morals are therefore subjective; their existence is mind-dependant. There are no universal morals that one is judged by that distinguish the "good" from the "evil." There is only what you think and what others think.

Your ethics are entirely based on your perceptions and therefore, unfortunately for you, may be influenced by irrational emotion.

Many people, when viewing ethics in this way, conclude that they are meaningless/valueless (nihilism). On the contrary, I do believe that there is a rational justification for having ethics:

1. Your Will. "I want", "I will", is, for me, a logical justification for holding a certain moral. "Why do you believe this?": "because I want to." You have a Will and that Will is bound to manifest values and ethics of some sort, unless the Will itself deteriorates (which is also inherent in nihilism). You can base your ethics on rationalisations, for example, "I believe that eating animals is wrong because it causes suffering to them", though of course you’re going to have to take a "leap to faith" (read Søren Kierkegaard) and simply assert, with your Will, that "suffering is wrong."

2. It is beneficial to have ethics. Ethics are based on value judgements. The destruction of what is valuable is "bad" and that which preserves/creates value is "good." Man thrives on value, it spirits man to do great deeds and create great art but on a smaller scale it is an expression of mans power to exert his own preferences and the Will flourishes on this. Contrast this to nihilists, who find nothing valuable and become apathetic, their Will is paralysed.

Though this still does not answer the question of whether ethics are valuable or not, it merely points out the utility of them. Why should you care about ethics, about your Will or about your benefit in the first place? Why make the irrational assumptions that these things are meaningful?

That motivation to create value, to create ethics, must come from an affirmation of life, nature and yourself. You must embrace these things and care about them. May that be because you find these things beautiful, aesthetically valuable, or perhaps you affirm these things because your Will drives in that direction and living for your Will, or in harmony with your Will, is somewhat a meaningful endeavour, to live an "authentic existence", to live as what you are (this is an existential view).

The fact that you are completely free to create your own morals is daunting. Like when a potential suicide victim hesitates to "jump" even though there's nothing actually stopping him. Again, the motivation to overcome this anxiety comes from your Will and your affirmation of, basically, what you are: life, man and the world you live in.


The bottom line for me: any irrationality involved in creating morals is outweighed by the fact that I flourish on them and that I value myself more than pure knowledge.

Nietzsche wrote:
When a philosopher today gives us to understand that he is not a skeptic [...] all the world is offended to hear it...

[...]

Against this kind of “good will”—a will to the actual active denial of life—there is today confessedly no better sedative and soporific than skepticism...

[...]

“Are our ears not already filled with nasty sounds?” says the skeptic as a friend of sleep and almost as a kind of security police: “this subterranean No is terrible! Be quiet, you pessimistic moles!” For the skeptic, that delicate creature, is all too easily frightened; his conscience is schooled to wince at every No, indeed even at a hard decisive Yes, and to sense something like a sting.

[...]

For skepticism is the most spiritual expression of a certain complex physiological condition called in ordinary language nervous debility and sickliness...

[...]

they no longer have any conception of independence of decision, of the valiant feeling of pleasure in willing—even in their dreams they doubt the “freedom of the will.”

[...]

Paralysis of will: where does one not find this cripple sitting today! And frequently so dressed up! How seductively dressed up! ... “objectivity,” “scientificality,” “l’art pour l’art,” “pure will-less knowledge is merely skepticism and will-paralysis dressed up—for this diagnosis of the European sickness I am willing to go bail.


Indeed, I am willing to go bail on pure will-less knowledge.

mway, in his signature, wrote:
If you blindly believe and accept morals, you are no different to any theist, you are just in denial of your belief in some sort of god.


Blindly accept and believe "a so-called 'objective' moral code", would be more accurate, I think.
swstephe
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3285
Posted 06/26/09 - 07:07 PM:
quote post
#9
mway wrote:
Could we all not just do what we want?


So, what do you want to do? You want to do something that benefits you, not harms you. Doing something that harms you would be irrational, unless you get some secondary pleasure out of it. You value things that benefit you, just like everyone else. Sometimes, you can get greater benefit by acting selfishly, other times collectively, (I'm avoiding the word "altruism", which seemed to have spiked in popularity, but doesn't imply shared benefit). Shared benefit implies shared values, and relies on some form of contractual agreement on mutually beneficial rules of conduct. And voilá! You have morality as the most rational consequence of "doing what you want". Do unto others as long as you personally benefit.

Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.
unenlightened
everything is...
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3203
Posted 06/26/09 - 08:38 PM:
quote post
#10
mway wrote:
Morality is a code of conduct.


Is there some other way of deciding how to conduct oneself that is more rational?

How is doing what one wants rational?

...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti

"Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys
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.