What are Morals?

applecorped said:
If you are saying that someone is a moral being because they imposes consequences upon themselves then are you not stating that morals are universal within humans since all humans at some point will impose consequences upon themselves?
Click to expand...
I'm not claiming that all consequences imposed on ourselves are morality, I'm claiming that morality is different than the external consequences used in the argument because it can, and is often, imposed on ourselves. There's a difference. I can't think of any consequences we impose on ourselves that come even close to stuff like guilt and the like, though. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

I would declare that the idea of morality is near-universal, though. Although there are some individuals that are not capable of feeling such things as guilt.
 
Last edited:
Lonewulf said:
I'm not claiming that all consequences imposed on ourselves are morality, I'm claiming that morality is different than external consequences because it can, and is, imposed on ourselves. There's a difference.

I would declare that the idea of morality is near-universal, though. Although there are some individuals that are not capable of feeling such things as guilt.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that.
 
applecorped said:
I asked this to another poster because I would like to get different opinions. Unfortunately my question wasn't answered. Are morals inherent? Learned? Do other animals have morals or is it completely a human construct that applies only to the human animal?

Could someone lead a "good" life without morals?

I would say absolutely yes.

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Morals is the sense of what is right (good) and what is wrong (bad) within a given society.

I read somewhere that morality is what you do when no one is watching. I don't entirely agree with that view, but I think it gets the meaning of morality across quite well.
 
applecorped said:
I hope that isn't true because that definately would give a meaning to morality that just shouldn't be true.
Click to expand...

Your morality is what you think is right or wrong. This may conflict with the consensus position of the society you happen to live in, but this is by the by.

In other words, your question as posed is meaningless. Whether you think you are leading a good life or not is, and can only be, reached through a set of morals. Even just having a sense of what you personally think is acceptable behaviour is a morality. That's what PC Apeman was getting at - if you are alive and cognisant of your behaviour, you have a set of morals, by definition.

One can only be amoral in one way - that is, in comparison to the standards of morality of another group.
 
volatile said:
That's what PC Apeman was getting at - if you are alive and cognisant of your behaviour, you have a set of morals, by definition.
Click to expand...

Who's definition? "Morals" is just a word that seems to mean different things to different people. It seems to describe actions more than define behaviour.
 
Correa Neto said:
Language perhaps would be a relatively good analogy, but I may be wrong.
Click to expand...

I highly recommend a book by Marc D Hauser called Moral Minds. It builds on the language analogy by discussing how we have a certain innate ability for language which effectively allows us to communicate without conscious thought once we have learnt the local parameters that apply to the ability. He argues that morality works in much the same way, only applying to our ability to judge right and wrong. Once we know our cultural parameters we can make judgements of right or wrong without conscious thought.

I initially bought the book because firstly the topic interests me, but also because it seemed to have credibility - the front cover features an endorsement from Stephen Pinker and the back cover has a similar endorsement from Noam Chomsky.
 
applecorped said:
When I am alone I do very embarrassing things. I hope morality isn't me singing Old time Rock and Roll in my speedos. ;)
Click to expand...
Morality is not you singing anything naked or you picking buggers.

Morality is you pocketing money you picked off the floor or sidewalk.
 
volatile said:
I think it's slightly problematic to call such behaviours "moral". Morality, to my mind, requires some capacity for self-reflection; some ability to tell right from wrong in something beyond an instinctual level. People will come to different ideas of what constitutes right and wrong, of course, but that's entirely the point - morals are arrived at by individual or group reflection (something you touch upon in the second half of your post).

That said, I am of course no denying that morals may be anchored in empirical concerns. Just that an empirical concern is not the same thing as a morality.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical concern." What empirical concern might motivate a gorilla to protect a helpless human boy from other gorillas?

I'll give you another example that happened to me many, many years ago. I had two cats, and one of them had done something that upset me quite a bit (I no longer remember what it was). I think I'd smacked the cat, and the cat had run away, which had infuriated me even more. I was yelling and walking toward where the offending cat was hiding, and the OTHER cat grabbed my ankle. Didn't bite it, just wrapped both paws around it (no claws) and held on. Maybe I'm just guilty of anthropomorphizing excessively, but it really did seem to me that it was the feline equivalent of "dude, take a chill pill." I was literally dumbstruck - the two cats weren't related, and the "protective" cat couldn't have reasonably hoped to restrain me, or do anything except to possibly redirect my wrath its way. And it gave me a "furrowed brow" look, that I interpreted to be "What you're doing is wrong," or at least "I disapprove".

The cats I have today seem to know right from wrong, or at least what I consider right and wrong. "You can sharpen your claws here, but not on the couch." "You can go outside, but you have to stay in the yard." Granted, these are not innate behaviors, but they do suggest to me the ability to tell "right" from "wrong" beyond an instinctive level. And cats are not nearly as social as dogs or primates.

I'd be very resistant to claiming that morality is an exclusively human trait.
 
bokonon said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "empirical concern." What empirical concern might motivate a gorilla to protect a helpless human boy from other gorillas?

I'll give you another example that happened to me many, many years ago. I had two cats, and one of them had done something that upset me quite a bit (I no longer remember what it was). I think I'd smacked the cat, and the cat had run away, which had infuriated me even more. I was yelling and walking toward where the offending cat was hiding, and the OTHER cat grabbed my ankle. Didn't bite it, just wrapped both paws around it (no claws) and held on. Maybe I'm just guilty of anthropomorphizing excessively, but it really did seem to me that it was the feline equivalent of "dude, take a chill pill." I was literally dumbstruck - the two cats weren't related, and the "protective" cat couldn't have reasonably hoped to restrain me, or do anything except to possibly redirect my wrath its way. And it gave me a "furrowed brow" look, that I interpreted to be "What you're doing is wrong," or at least "I disapprove".

The cats I have today seem to know right from wrong, or at least what I consider right and wrong. "You can sharpen your claws here, but not on the couch." "You can go outside, but you have to stay in the yard." Granted, these are not innate behaviors, but they do suggest to me the ability to tell "right" from "wrong" beyond an instinctive level. And cats are not nearly as social as dogs or primates.

I'd be very resistant to claiming that morality is an exclusively human trait.
Click to expand...

As I said, I think morality requires a self-reflective subjectivity - that is, the ability to judge the 'goodness' or 'badness' of a behaviour. Acting within prescribed limits doesn't quite reach that standard, I don't think.
 
applecorped said:
I asked this to another poster because I would like to get different opinions. Unfortunately my question wasn't answered. Are morals inherent? Learned? Do other animals have morals or is it completely a human construct that applies only to the human animal?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say they are inherent but rather that they are more-likely learned. There are a host of disorders that could arrise from an individual receiving inadequate care as he/she were being raised. These disorders could result in behavior that most societies would deem "immoral".

applecorped said:
Could someone lead a "good" life without morals?
Click to expand...

That would depend on what you define as good. Societies, however, I do not believe can exist without morals of some form.
 
applecorped said:
In that case I am very moral.
Click to expand...

In my view, my morality stems from the Golden Rule. I'm entirely atheistic and have been so since age 9. My morality, my ethics, is based entirely on the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I need no religion or faith or spirituality to understand how this simple concept is a fair and reasonable way by which to live. At most, I just need a bit of empathy.
 
Personally, I consider the Golden Rule to be quaint, but it fails when used against outside forces that mean to do you harm.

I prefer Carl Sagan's "Tit for Tat" method (though I may be paraphrasing it wrong...). Treat others as you would want to be treated, but punish bad behavior in self defense, but immediately resort to good behavior as soon as the other side lets up from their own bad behavior.

from an article:

You start out cooperating, and in each subsequent round simply do what your opponent did the last time. You punish defections, but once the other player cooperates, you're willing to let bygones be bygones. At first it seems to garner only mediocre success. But as time goes on, the other strategies defeat themselves, from too much kindness or too much cruelty-and this middle way pulls ahead. Except for always being nice on the first move, Tit-for-Tat is identical to the Brazen Rule. It promptly (in the very next game) rewards cooperation and punishes defection, and has the great virtue that it makes your strategy absolutely clear to your opponent. (Strategic ambiguity can be lethal.)
Click to expand...
Link
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom