Philosophy Discussion Forums

I’ve been thinking about this for a while. Do you think that to be moral we need to study Ethics formally? Or do you think we are born moral or learn to be through interacting with others?

Can it be all three? Nature and nurture (nurture being both theoretical and practical).

Philosopher king wrote: ↑April 9th, 2018, 2:56 am I’ve been thinking about this for a while. Do you think that to be moral we need to study Ethics formally? Or do you think we are born moral or learn to be through interacting with others?

The study could create a person who acts morally, but not a moral person. It is neither sufficient nor necessary.

Philosopher king wrote: ↑April 9th, 2018, 2:56 am I’ve been thinking about this for a while. Do you think that to be moral we need to study Ethics formally? Or do you think we are born moral or learn to be through interacting with others?

I do Know that we cannot conflate the insanity and sin of 'morality' with the unconditionally Loving expression of 'ethics';

'Ethics' is;
"Don't do to 'others' what you don't want done to you!"
Ultimately, (the illusion of) 'others' is Self!, and what you do or not to 'others' is actually done to Self!
'Studying this' can never 'get you (t)here! All thought is duality, unconditional Love is completely transcendental of such duality/conditionality.
To live it, one has to actually experience/Know the state of unconditional Love of which I speak.

Morality, on the other hand;

From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!

This is exact manifestation of the stolen Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Sin of Pride/judgment) in the Garden!

As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against 'judging' others;
"Judge not lest you be judged!"
Such judgment (good/evil) is the sin of 'pride'!
'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of their god!

You are told that;
"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"
Yet goes on to say that;
"None are righteous, no not one!"

I'm not even going into the insanity of morality at this moment...

Philosopher king wrote: ↑April 9th, 2018, 2:56 am I’ve been thinking about this for a while. Do you think that to be moral we need to study Ethics formally? Or do you think we are born moral or learn to be through interacting with others?

Social impact on human behavior may the the most significant influence as humans tend towards herd mentality. Studies show how great the effect but depending on the culture education and individuality can be emphasised (as we have in regions of America). I think though man also represents time and innate knowledge of responsibility resides within him but like genetic snippets I think man has the ability to alter this.

Nameless: Christianity doesn't own the concept of morality? I mean sure you can define it like that if you wish, but it's not a great definition to my mind.

Eduk wrote: ↑April 11th, 2018, 2:42 am Nameless: Christianity doesn't own the concept of morality? I mean sure you can define it like that if you wish, but it's not a great definition to my mind.

I was using the Xtian metaphor because the original question was from a Xtian who understood things like this, and a vast segment of the reading audience is Xtian and can understand the reference, if not agree with it.

The definition that I offered was, incidentally, from Wikipedia, not the bible, and the reasoning of the insanity involved in such 'judgment' of 'others' also goes beyond the 'religious metaphor' into psychological, logical, scientific areas, besides the 'spiritual', which transcends just Xtianity.

Ultimately, all 'judgment' is Self! judgment.
Sounds a bit counterproductive, if not downright nutz! *__-

But it is the bible that put the first 'warning label' of 'SIN' ('sin'- means without, oddly enough) on the toxic practice of 'judgment' (Pride).
Such practice hinders Enlightenment/unconditional Love, hence the 'sin' warning.

Christianity didn't invent sin either.
But I get your point about definitions of morality. Christians do own one of the definitions.
I should have asked the OP how they defined moral and what they considered good study material.

Philosopher king:

Can formal study of Ethics create a moral person?

Do you think that to be moral we need to study Ethics formally?

These are two different questions. Before addressing them I should note that I will be using the terms ethics and morals interchangeably since ‘moral’ comes from the Latin translation of the Greek ethikos, from which ethics is the transliteration.

I’ll answer the second one first. I do not think it is necessary. Most people do not study ethics formally and many are considered to be moral by at least some, although perhaps not by others who have different moral standards.

On the first question: since we cannot create a person we cannot create a moral person. We must start with what the person who comes to the formal study of ethics brings to it. There are some people who have no regard or care for others and in some cases not even themselves. There are some people who seem to be incapable of empathy, or empathy toward human beings. If they can be helped it is not through formal study of ethics. I do think, however, that someone might be led to see that they generally desire what is “good” but that the specific things they seek may result in consequences they do not consider good. And so, as a matter of self-interest they may come to consider the question of what is good. And thus, an examination of the good life. They can be led to see that what is good for them does not stand in opposition to what is good for others, that we all seek many of the same things - food, shelter, health, wellbeing, prosperity, peace (personal and interpersonal), happiness, and that we are social animals, so what is good for me should not be considered in isolation from what is good for others. This may not be sufficient for those who do not already possess good character, habits, temperament, and discipline. Formal courses do not typically cultivate such things but one who has become so inclined can do this outside of formal study.

Much of the last paragraph will be familiar to those who have read Aristotle.

Philosopher king wrote: ↑April 9th, 2018, 2:56 am I’ve been thinking about this for a while. Do you think that to be moral we need to study Ethics formally? Or do you think we are born moral or learn to be through interacting with others?

Your question reminded me a bit of my meta-ethics paper I took last year. What was being discussed was non-naturalism which, if any readers weren't aware, is the view that morality is a dimension like space and time. Morality could be like a sense of direction where someone is just naturally terrible with finding their way around. I was also thinking that it could be a bit like sport. You could, say, learn football, in the tactics, how to do certain tricks, but you could still be absolutely awful at actually doing them yourself, yet you would make a great coach. If morality was real, why wouldn't it be like this? It makes sense that some people would be better and worse at it naturally. Some would be great at it in theory but awful in practice.

To answer your question though, I am somewhat of a moral nihilist, although not committed to that position. My thoughts are that morality is itself not too difficult, at least for the basics. I think we can all generally understand "don't kill" "don't rape" "don't do things that make people sad". These basics views of morality work enough to get most people through life. It is when someone is a top politician or in any job that requires making important decisions that affect people where some formal training would be useful. Heck, it probably should be mandatory.

This should be somehow differentiated from the philosphical Ansatz, that you do impose. If you intend to have the philosophy that your Person just exists all others are just imagined, an ethical Point of view would be useless it can just be applied to yourself.

SimpleGuy wrote: ↑April 19th, 2018, 5:21 am This should be somehow differentiated from the philosphical Ansatz, that you do impose. If you intend to have the philosophy that your Person just exists all others are just imagined, an ethical Point of view would be useless it can just be applied to yourself.

It has been said;

"Perhaps it is the curvature of space that, like a funhouse mirror distorting our own reflection, we imagine strangers." - Mythopoeicon

As 'ethics' is;

"Do not do to others what you don't want done to you!"

All 'others' are (reflections of) Self!, how we treat 'others' is us treating Self!
So, very literally do 'ethics' apply.
Of course, in the mystico-Enlightened state of One, there are no 'others' to be ethical with, only Self! exists!
'Ethics/Love' is the natural default state..