Morality is based on desire.

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 961
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 20th, 2020, 1:45 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:45 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 19th, 2020, 1:22 pm
Morality is species specific.
You assert that morality is objective, but part of the meaning that "objective" carries is "universal".... 🙄
An objective truth is not necessarily believed by everyone.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2997
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Sculptor1 » November 20th, 2020, 1:49 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 12:31 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 8:29 am

Passions driving morals is everything, since the passions create all concern. Your own description of how morals are generated require the the base of emotions upon which reason works.

LIke most human activity, it is the most base passion that drives us to do anything at all. It gets us up in the morning.
Consider hunger. We cannot summon hunger, we cannot surpress it. There is a really good reason why some people are fat whilst others are thin. Ultimately it is differences in the balance of hunger and satiation given by hormones that respond to bodily conditions. Yes you can then apply reason; choice of foods and amounts. You can try to fool the urge to eat, and for those that need building up it they can force food into themselves that their body tells them they do not need.
But were it not for the body telling us to eat most of us would forget day by day, having to rely on reason we would wither away.
You do not get justice from a set of reasons. You are equipped with a "sense" of justice. You are xenophobic, homophobic, difference-phobic to varying degrees. But when you apply reason with a belief in universal fairness it is the feelings of goodness within you that make it so. In the same way some people see Mexicans, and black people as a threat, and rationalise their hatred with by various means.
Making laws with moral content exploits some human feelings, whist combating others. But in every event it is the passions that drive the project.
Logically, why should I care about any other person but myself?
Logically why would I even care about my own life and achivements?
Why would I take the trouble to live at all?
If I may quote the Bible:
Matthew 22:35-40 NIV wrote:35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
The interesting thing about the Great Commandment is that it tells us to Love. Love is a passion. And if we Love Good (37-38), and love Good for others as we love it for ourselves (39), then everything else will work itself out (40). So, one might say that morality itself is love.

But how do we love effectively? That requires knowledge and judgement. For example, the overprotective parent may cripple a child's initiative, while another parent helps their child develop creativity and self-reliance. Both experience love for their child. But one is providing the child with what they really need.

Passion alone is an insufficient guide to moral behavior. We must also know what the person who is the object of that love really needs, and help them to acquire that. So, our behavior may be motivated by love, but it needs to be guided by knowledge and reason.
FFS!!

PLONK

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 961
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 20th, 2020, 1:51 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 10:58 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: Morality is species specific.
Really??
Why not gender specific; age specific; nation specific; culture specific; history specific; church specific; state, county, town specific; street specific.
Why not individual specific??
What's your rubric?
Tigers eat antelopes. What is good for the tiger is bad for the antelope. Thus, morality is species specific.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2997
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Sculptor1 » November 20th, 2020, 2:11 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 1:51 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 10:58 am


Really??
Why not gender specific; age specific; nation specific; culture specific; history specific; church specific; state, county, town specific; street specific.
Why not individual specific??
What's your rubric?
Tigers eat antelopes. What is good for the tiger is bad for the antelope. Thus, morality is species specific.
And Muslims kiil Christians, Buddhists kill Muslims and Muslims kill Christians. Americans kill Afghanistanis, and police kill black guys, priests bugger children.
Are you trying to make a point?

So only humans are worthy of attention. SO itsl okay to be cruel to animals and chop down all the trees.
Now you have shown your CHristians colours, it all makes sense.
As long as you get your place in heaven the world can go and F*ck itself.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 961
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 20th, 2020, 3:16 pm

Sculptor1 wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 2:11 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 1:51 pm


Tigers eat antelopes. What is good for the tiger is bad for the antelope. Thus, morality is species specific.
And Muslims kiil Christians, Buddhists kill Muslims and Muslims kill Christians. Americans kill Afghanistanis, and police kill black guys, priests bugger children.
Are you trying to make a point?

So only humans are worthy of attention. SO itsl okay to be cruel to animals and chop down all the trees.
Now you have shown your CHristians colours, it all makes sense.
As long as you get your place in heaven the world can go and F*ck itself.
I'm pretty sure that all humans are of the same species. And I do consider myself a "God-fearing Christian Atheist". Atheist because that's most likely the truth. God-fearing because, well, I could be wrong. Christian because those are the values I grew up with. And you know what you can do with all your prejudices.

User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 2997
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Sculptor1 » November 20th, 2020, 5:46 pm

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 3:16 pm
Sculptor1 wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 2:11 pm

And Muslims kiil Christians, Buddhists kill Muslims and Muslims kill Christians. Americans kill Afghanistanis, and police kill black guys, priests bugger children.
Are you trying to make a point?

So only humans are worthy of attention. SO itsl okay to be cruel to animals and chop down all the trees.
Now you have shown your CHristians colours, it all makes sense.
As long as you get your place in heaven the world can go and F*ck itself.
I'm pretty sure that all humans are of the same species. And I do consider myself a "God-fearing Christian Atheist". Atheist because that's most likely the truth. God-fearing because, well, I could be wrong. Christian because those are the values I grew up with. And you know what you can do with all your prejudices.
Never mind. I really think there is little point continuing this.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 961
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 20th, 2020, 9:14 pm

Terrapin Station wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:20 am

My view is that morality is based on dispositions or "feelings" about interpersonal behavior period (moral stances are more specifically dispositions on interpersonal behavior (which can be "the behavior of one towards onself, too) that one considers more significant than etiquette). Those dispositions or "feelings" may or may not be rooted in empathy. It depends on the individual in question, and it depends on the particular moral stance in question for that individual. The only thing all moral stances have in common in this regard is that they're rooted in how the individual in question's brain happens to be structured and how it happens to function.

"Doing the right thing" to any individual amounts to acting in accord with that individual's moral dispositions. There is no requirement for a motivation there. People naturally approve and disapprove of various interpersonal behavior. It's a way that our brains naturally work.
I just found this one that I missed in the traffic.

I agree that dispositions are the first things we employ when making moral judgements. There are some that may be hard-coded in the brain (as in the "capuchin monkey fairness experiment" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo). But I think that most of our moral dispositions are not hard-coded, but are learned as children. We acquire cultural norms by observing the approval and disapproval expressed by parents, teachers, peers, and other sources.

But these habitual reactions seldom come with any explanation. So, we all "know" that lying is wrong, but when asked WHY it is wrong, we are clueless. And when we get a new, unique moral issue to resolve, especially one that changes our cultural norms, like ending slavery or permitting gay marriage, we don't know how to approach the problem.

Terrapin Station wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:20 am
Moral stances are variable/changeable/malleable. There is no objective good/bad. There is no moral knowledge, because moral stances can not be true or false (knowledge requires truth values). So in noting these things, we're not forwarding objections to the view I'm expressing. We're rather reiterating truisms about what morality is/what its nature is.
I believe that the truth about morality is that all of our cultural norms were originally established by considering problems with the way things were and changing things for the better. The problems of chaos were addressed by establishing rules. The problems created by people lying resulted in a rule against lying. The same goes for stealing and killing. And these are probably the oldest and most universal rules we have. I doubt you'll find any society that lacks rules against murder, stealing, and lying.

So, some rules are not so malleable, and have become so stable that peoples of all cultures consider certain things to be good and bad.
Terrapin Station wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:20 am
I'm also not saying that reason is not involved beyond whatever our root or foundational moral stances are in a given instance. It's just that reason does nothing to provide the root or foundational moral stances.
Right. We use reasoning to work out the fine details of a rule like "don't lie". There will be valid exceptions, special conditions where the rule should not apply, that we will all agree to.

Now, as to the root or foundation of a moral stance, I think that all rules, and rule changes, are the result of considering problems with the current way of doing things and how a new rule might produce better results. The root or foundation of a moral stance is found in its CONSEQUENCES, in the benefits and its harms of doing things one way versus doing them another way.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 961
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 20th, 2020, 11:41 pm

Gertie wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:28 am
''Fact - everything requires particular conditions to be met in order to Function in particular ways. Crystals, toasters, carrots, humans, etc.''
Sure. But we're speaking of functions directly related to outcomes that may be classified as "morally good" or "morally bad". And we're speaking of functions performed by living organisms. I don't know why you think that crystals and toasters have anything to do with living organisms. So, I would call that a "tangential distraction", and I should have asked you to stay on topic.
Gertie wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:28 am
And then asked you to make the argument for your Claim that particular conditions being met which enable organisms to survive thrive and reproduce have moral connotations.
Moral connotations are "good's" and "bad's", "rights" and "wrongs". Living organisms are biologically driven to survive, thrive, and reproduce. That which aids the living organism to do these things are beneficial. That which prevents these things are harmful. Giving a person dying of thirst in the desert a cup of water is morally good because he needs the water to survive. Giving a person drowning in a swimming pool the same cup of water is morally bad, because he doesn't need the water, he needs a lifeguard.

Are you really unable to see this?
Gertie wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:28 am
Here's the kind of argument I haven't seen yet -
- Explains what it is specifically about the function of survival, thriving and reproduction of biological organisms which confers moral consideration.
- And how that special property logically entails Oughts.
If one encounters a man dying of thirst in the desert and one has plenty of water, one is morally obligated to give a cup of water to the man dying of thirst. This is a very simple example from the base level of physical needs in order to survive.
Gertie wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:28 am
Which - Avoids tangential distractions.
That's your claim. Back it up.
Gertie wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:28 am
- Avoids slippery language
It's called English. And it does contain many words that can be taken different ways according to the context. And I've dealt with those whenever you've raised them (such as when we discussed the notion of "interests", or "good", etc.) But feel free to ask me to spell out the meaning of anything that you do not understand.
Gertie wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:28 am
- Avoids circular arguments
The only thing I can think of that appears circular is the axiom that Life is Good. But if you find a circular argument, feel free to point it out. And I'll explain why it is or isn't circular.
Gertie wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:28 am
- If you are treating a premise as axiomatic, notes this.
Axioms:
1. Life is good. Therefore it is good for every living organism to survive, thrive, and reproduce.
2. Morality is species specific. What is good for the cat is bad for the mouse.
Gertie wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:28 am
I don't think you can come up with a sound argument which doesn't have some flaw or assumption which itself needs justification. That's not a personal insult, because I don't think there is one. But you're so committed to your position you unconsciously slide into such errors, I think we all can do that. But then they have to be chased down, explained, only for rinse and repeat. It's like whack-a-mole on a loop at this end.
The other viewpoint is that the complaints have all been addressed one by one, and the plaintiff is holding on to their own preconceptions despite the explanations. But, what can we do. We're only human.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1011
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Count Lucanor » November 21st, 2020, 12:27 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 12:16 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
November 19th, 2020, 9:58 pm

That's a loaded question. Lying can be morally wrong sometimes and some other times it isn't, it depends on the context. So the question should be: "when is lying morally wrong?".
When is lying morally wrong?
When deception is meant to harm or take unfair advantage of the other party. Notice that honesty can be used to harm or take unfair advantage of the other party.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1011
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Count Lucanor » November 21st, 2020, 1:11 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 7:42 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
November 19th, 2020, 9:58 pm

That's a loaded question. Lying can be morally wrong sometimes and some other times it isn't, it depends on the context. So the question should be: "when is lying morally wrong?".
What I answered above is why does it have the moral status it has to a given individual.

Personally I don't at all think that lying is categorically morally wrong, but that doesn't matter for answering what makes it morally wrong to people who do feel it's morally wrong.
I'm not sure who was that directed to, but since I'm quoted I feel free to say that there are intersections of social contexts in which an individual moves (that includes simple everyday life, but also its existing, explicit and implicit prescriptive norms), and his/her moral disposition is nothing but the confluence of both the rational and emotive response to these specific situations. People must decide what is the general rule of action that applies in given situations and for that they must balance the internal and external influences.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4481
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Terrapin Station » November 21st, 2020, 5:39 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 1:11 am
Terrapin Station wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 7:42 am


What I answered above is why does it have the moral status it has to a given individual.

Personally I don't at all think that lying is categorically morally wrong, but that doesn't matter for answering what makes it morally wrong to people who do feel it's morally wrong.
I'm not sure who was that directed to, but since I'm quoted I feel free to say that there are intersections of social contexts in which an individual moves (that includes simple everyday life, but also its existing, explicit and implicit prescriptive norms), and his/her moral disposition is nothing but the confluence of both the rational and emotive response to these specific situations. People must decide what is the general rule of action that applies in given situations and for that they must balance the internal and external influences.
If it's a root or foundational moral stance for that individual in that situation it's (the moral stance qua the moral stance) not going to have anything to do with rationality.

User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4481
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Terrapin Station » November 21st, 2020, 5:52 am

Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:14 pm
I just found this one that I missed in the traffic.

I agree that dispositions are the first things we employ when making moral judgements. There are some that may be hard-coded in the brain (as in the "capuchin monkey fairness experiment" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo). But I think that most of our moral dispositions are not hard-coded, but are learned as children. We acquire cultural norms by observing the approval and disapproval expressed by parents, teachers, peers, and other sources.
You don't learn them. You can't learn to feel a particular way about something. Just because you're observing people around you behave some way (you're not literally observing how they feel, by the way; you're observing stuff correlated to how they feel, where you have to make guesses about the correlation), that doesn't mean that you wind up feeling the same way. You might feel the complete "opposite" way, and if they're pressuring you to conform with some norm in the context at hand, that might simply amplify your different feelings and also give rise to resentment about the pressure--while externally you might say that you agree just to get them to leave you alone.

Your environment will likely have some influence on you, but the influence is only going to result in agreement if you're already of a disposition to agree on that particular issue, plus you're also of a disposition to not negatively react to social pressure should you feel pressured, etc. The upshot of any social influence is going to depend on what an individual is like dispositionally, otherwise everyone in the same (more or less) environment would be a "clone," and that's not at all what the world is actually like.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1213
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Pattern-chaser » November 21st, 2020, 6:23 am

Sculptor1 wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 10:58 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: Morality is species specific.
Really??
Why not gender specific; age specific; nation specific; culture specific; history specific; church specific; state, county, town specific; street specific.
Why not individual specific??
Exactly, and it's worth drilling down a bit here too. Events and issues such as are morally judged don't happen independently, in isolation; they happen in context. Every time you add another "-specific", you pare away more of the context, more of the additional information that helps make the issue in question what it is. The more "-specific"s we add, the less universal, applicable and relevant we become. The logical extreme is that we pronounce only on one unique event/issue, with no context and no history, nothing to connect it or its associated meaning to ... anything else at all.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 961
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 21st, 2020, 6:49 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 12:27 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 12:16 am


When is lying morally wrong?
When deception is meant to harm or take unfair advantage of the other party.
Exactly. The more general rule that covers all forms of bad conduct is that we don't want to cause unnecessary harm to others. And in the formula "best good and least harm for everyone", avoiding an unnecessary harm reduces the total overall harm.
Count Lucanor wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 12:27 am
Notice that honesty can be used to harm or take unfair advantage of the other party.
In most cases, telling the truth is beneficial, but it can be harmful under some circumstances. For example, when hiding Anne Frank's family in the attic during the Nazi occupation, lying to the Nazi prevents a larger harm to her family.

User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 961
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Morality is based on desire.

Post by Marvin_Edwards » November 21st, 2020, 7:03 am

Terrapin Station wrote:
November 21st, 2020, 5:52 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote:
November 20th, 2020, 9:14 pm
I just found this one that I missed in the traffic.

I agree that dispositions are the first things we employ when making moral judgements. There are some that may be hard-coded in the brain (as in the "capuchin monkey fairness experiment" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo). But I think that most of our moral dispositions are not hard-coded, but are learned as children. We acquire cultural norms by observing the approval and disapproval expressed by parents, teachers, peers, and other sources.
You don't learn them. You can't learn to feel a particular way about something. Just because you're observing people around you behave some way (you're not literally observing how they feel, by the way; you're observing stuff correlated to how they feel, where you have to make guesses about the correlation), that doesn't mean that you wind up feeling the same way. You might feel the complete "opposite" way, and if they're pressuring you to conform with some norm in the context at hand, that might simply amplify your different feelings and also give rise to resentment about the pressure--while externally you might say that you agree just to get them to leave you alone.

Your environment will likely have some influence on you, but the influence is only going to result in agreement if you're already of a disposition to agree on that particular issue, plus you're also of a disposition to not negatively react to social pressure should you feel pressured, etc. The upshot of any social influence is going to depend on what an individual is like dispositionally, otherwise everyone in the same (more or less) environment would be a "clone," and that's not at all what the world is actually like.
Right. There are some influences of which we are consciously aware and may decide to reject. But at the physiological level, babies mimic the expressions of their mothers, and the expression resulting from the emotion can also activate the emotion. There are actually specialized neurons called "mirror neurons" that play a role in learning skills and enabling empathy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron#Empathy ). So I think it is also true that we can acquire dispositions from others. Attitudes about gender and race, for example, are acquired from ones culture, rather than coming built-in with the brain.

Post Reply