Is morality important?

[Stoppelmann]

There has been some dispute in this forum as to the value of morality, in some cases using the term "moral superstitions", and there has been considerable effort made in defining morality.

We can quote sources over and over and over again, but I asked Chat AI the following question, because it has been known to give balanced answers:

Is morality important?

The answer I received was:

As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or values, but I can provide information and perspectives on the importance of morality.

Morality is a system of principles, values, and beliefs about what is right and wrong, good and bad, and just and unjust. It helps to guide our behavior and decision-making, and plays an important role in shaping our individual and collective identity.

Morality can be important for a variety of reasons. For one, it can help promote social cohesion and cooperation by providing a shared set of norms and expectations. It can also help to prevent harm to individuals and society by promoting ethical and responsible behavior.

In addition, morality can contribute to a sense of personal fulfillment and meaning by helping individuals to live according to their values and principles. It can also inspire individuals to work towards a better world, by promoting justice, equality, and compassion.

However, it's worth noting that morality can also be subjective and culturally relative, meaning that different individuals and societies may have different moral systems. Furthermore, moral judgments can be complex and may involve weighing competing values and considerations.

Overall, while the importance of morality may vary from person to person and society to society, it can play a significant role in shaping human behavior and guiding us towards a more just and ethical world.

Would this be compatible with your concept of morality?

[value]

In my view morality simply involves the addressing of the question "what is good?" which in my opinion is of vital importance.

Science has been attempting to rid itself of philosophy and values which includes morality. Science (in practice) is operating on the basis of a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism - the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy - which results in an ideal to abolish morality.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) already warned about it in 1886.

"The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account."

Morality in my opinion is ever present - for anything in the cosmos - and can merely be neglected. The question 'what is good?' (the act of moral valuing) is always relevant and the depth of its answering potential can grow infinitely from the inside-out which results in a moral consideration potential, which is an intellectual capacity that is vital for long term prosperity and for concepts such as 'intellectual resilience' (strength in the face of an unknown future).

Morality is about serving the purpose of life - good - in the best (wisest) way. When humanity is to secure its future and to achieve an optimal path, it would be case that humanity is set to enhance its moral consideration potential with everlasting urgency to be certain that whatever path it has chosen, has been given the right chance to have been the right path.

In my opinion it is the facilitation of urgency in the enhancement of moral consideration potential within humanity that is required to secure humanity's future on the planet.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Moderation Note:

I have moved this topic to the Philosophers' Lounge (a.k.a. off-topic section), since it appears the OP is almost entirely a chat reply from a bot. While chatting with bots can be fun, it is generally considered off-topic.

It's also important that quotes are formatted properly using the Quote BBcode, especially when quoting bots or machines, so it can be easily determined by readers what content was merely generated by a bot versus a real human.

[LuckyR]

In my view morality simply involves the addressing of the question "what is good?" which in my opinion is of vital importance.

Science has been attempting to rid itself of philosophy and values which includes morality. Science (in practice) is operating on the basis of a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism - the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy - which results in an ideal to abolish morality.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) already warned about it in 1886.

"The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account."

Morality in my opinion is ever present - for anything in the cosmos - and can merely be neglected. The question 'what is good?' (the act of moral valuing) is always relevant and the depth of its answering potential can grow infinitely from the inside-out which results in a moral consideration potential, which is an intellectual capacity that is vital for long term prosperity and for concepts such as 'intellectual resilience' (strength in the face of an unknown future).

Morality is about serving the purpose of life - good - in the best (wisest) way. When humanity is to secure its future and to achieve an optimal path, it would be case that humanity is set to enhance its moral consideration potential with everlasting urgency to be certain that whatever path it has chosen, has been given the right chance to have been the right path.

In my opinion it is the facilitation of urgency in the enhancement of moral consideration potential within humanity that is required to secure humanity's future on the planet.

I completely agree with you about the importance of moral standards in human society. One only has to look at the stats of the vast over representation of psychopaths in the prison population to verify that.

I do disagree with you the "science" is either against or dismissive of morality, since there are fields of scientific study devoted to research into morality and it's effects.

[value]

I completely agree with you about the importance of moral standards in human society. One only has to look at the stats of the vast over representation of psychopaths in the prison population to verify that.

What exactly is meant with 'moral standards'? It seems to me that a nature vs nurture debate is applicable.

A recent study in Australia seeks to explain a cause for criminal behaviour in nutritional deficits and other studies have shown that crime is related to air pollution.

(2019) Omega-3, junk food and the link between violence and what we eat
Research with British and US offenders suggests nutritional deficiencies may play a key role in aggressive bevaviour. An Australian study in 2019 intends to redo the study on a much larger scale.
https://www.inverse.com/article/53501-a ... and-health
UK/US prison study in 2006: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... on.ukcrime

(2018) Polluted Morality: New Research Shows Air Pollution Increases Unethical Behavior and Crime
The health consequences of air pollution are well-documented, but a growing body of research indicates it also leads to other societal ills, such as higher crime rates and unethical behaviour.
https://michiganross.umich.edu/rtia-art ... havior-and
https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute ... and-crime/

I do disagree with you the "science" is either against or dismissive of morality, since there are fields of scientific study devoted to research into morality and it's effects.

Empirical morality is different from philosophical morality in my opinion.

Is philosophy a branch of science or the other way around?

Anthropology may study morality scientifically, but what it takes for morality to 'have developed' in a way that 'can be' deemed correct is a different matter in my opinion and ethics (the formulation of ethical rules) belongs to politics and cannot be the 'foundation' of morality.

The following study may be of interest. It shows the state of the art perspective on morality in science in 2020. It shows that science considers itself to have merely the 'universalization principle' available for deciding between good and wrong.

(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don’t seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html

How can the universalization principe potentially prevent a practice like GMO (eugenics on Nature)? And if it can't, would that mean that GMO is moral?

[Pattern-chaser]

In my view morality simply involves the addressing of the question "what is good?" which in my opinion is of vital importance.

Is this the best way of phrasing the question? I ask because you choose to use the word "good", which carries very little meaning until it is qualified. The most significant qualification is, "good" for whom/what? "Good" only means "desirable", and still requires the same qualification: desirable to who/what?

So all you want to ask is "what is desirable?" That seems like a very easy question to answer, although we might each have our own answers. It seems quite unlikely that we would all consider the same thing(s) to be desirable, so that deals with the "Is morality objective or universal?" question too, I think.

One last question: why is "what is desirable?" so "vital"?

[Pattern-chaser]

I do disagree with you the "science" is either against or dismissive of morality, since there are fields of scientific study devoted to research into morality and its effects.

Morality is invisible to science. Morality is not objective or universal. It has no existence in the spacetime universe. It often does not follow rules or laws. It cannot be (directly) observed or measured. Therefore, science cannot study it.

[The 'science' that claims to study morality can only observe humans, and attempt to infer their morality from their actions. A bit like Plato's cave story, wouldn't you say? ]

[value]

In my view morality simply involves the addressing of the question "what is good?" which in my opinion is of vital importance.

Is this the best way of phrasing the question? I ask because you choose to use the word "good", which carries very little meaning until it is qualified. The most significant qualification is, "good" for whom/what? "Good" only means "desirable", and still requires the same qualification: desirable to who/what?

So all you want to ask is "what is desirable?" That seems like a very easy question to answer, although we might each have our own answers. It seems quite unlikely that we would all consider the same thing(s) to be desirable, so that deals with the "Is morality objective or universal?" question too, I think.

What IS good might be desirable but what good is to BECOME cannot have originated from empirical desire in my opinion.

The question what good is to BECOME would involve morality and by 'addressing' (e.g. philosophizing) the question 'what is good?' one would reside within the context of the 'becoming good' and with that can achieve a state of moral being.

As I mentioned, it would be about the potential for moral consideration - an intellectual capacity - that would allow one to for example 'perceive the beauty of nature' beyond a scope that is mere empirical desire or greed.

What IS good is named 'value' in my opinion. Value is the result of morality - of philosophical contemplation or 'reasoning'. Value follows valuing (the answering of the question 'What is good?').

A question that may provide an insight with regard desire vs a search for good outside the scope of desire:

Is empirical greed good?

One last question: why is "what is desirable?" so "vital"?

It seems that you attempt to link 'empirical greed' to 'vital importance'. In that case it is indeed questionable similar to the idea of releasing GMO trees into the forests to boost forest growth to curb CO2 emissions, in my opinion. My critique as an example: "Can empirical greed be the origin of value? The attempt to stand above life as being life results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time." https://twitter.com/GMOFreeUSA/status/1 ... 2308696071

The good that is indicated in the question 'what is good?' that supposedly lays at the basis of 'morality-in-practice' isn't an actual good that can be desired with empirical greed.

[value]

Pending post in this topic

I do disagree with you the "science" is either against or dismissive of morality, since there are fields of scientific study devoted to research into morality and its effects.

Morality is invisible to science. Morality is not objective or universal. It has no existence in the spacetime universe. It often does not follow rules or laws. It cannot be (directly) observed or measured. Therefore, science cannot study it.

[The 'science' that claims to study morality can only observe humans, and attempt to infer their morality from their actions. A bit like Plato's cave story, wouldn't you say? ]

An interesting perspective but what allows one to argue that your argument is valid? If science cannot grasp it, how can it be said to 'exist'?

I would agree from the perspective that is described in a pending post from 5 hours ago, namely that empirical greed or desire cannot explain what takes place during the perception of beauty of nature. When the natural world is destroyed for industrialisation. What exactly is lost when it concerns the beauty of ...?

[LuckyR]

I do disagree with you the "science" is either against or dismissive of morality, since there are fields of scientific study devoted to research into morality and its effects.

Morality is invisible to science. Morality is not objective or universal. It has no existence in the spacetime universe. It often does not follow rules or laws. It cannot be (directly) observed or measured. Therefore, science cannot study it.

[The 'science' that claims to study morality can only observe humans, and attempt to infer their morality from their actions. A bit like Plato's cave story, wouldn't you say? ]

Huh? We are in agreement that morality is subjective. And you are correct that science studies humans, their subjective moral standards and role of those standards relative to human behavior. That is, there is a difference between my (declared) moral standards and my behavior, as noone follows their moral standards 100% of the time.

[Pattern-chaser]

In my view morality simply involves the addressing of the question "what is good?" which in my opinion is of vital importance.

Is this the best way of phrasing the question? I ask because you choose to use the word "good", which carries very little meaning until it is qualified. The most significant qualification is, "good" for whom/what? "Good" only means "desirable", and still requires the same qualification: desirable to who/what?

So all you want to ask is "what is desirable?" That seems like a very easy question to answer, although we might each have our own answers. It seems quite unlikely that we would all consider the same thing(s) to be desirable, so that deals with the "Is morality objective or universal?" question too, I think.

What IS good might be desirable but what good is to BECOME cannot have originated from empirical desire in my opinion.

You just introduced "empirical" desire. Where did that come from? And what is "empirical desire", as opposed simply to "desire"?

Also, what's the clairvoyance all about? You talk of what 'good' is to "become" — are you claiming foreknowledge here? ... Or are you simply referring to our ability to think of the future, and to hope that it might bring us certain things?

One last question: why is "what is desirable?" so "vital"?

It seems that you attempt to link 'empirical greed' to 'vital importance'.

And now you introduce "empirical greed" as though I have mentioned it, and you are responding. In fact, I was asking for clarification of your use of "vital" (see the top quote, above), which you do not seem to have clarified...?

[Pattern-chaser]

If science cannot grasp it, how can it be said to 'exist'?

This says it all, I think.



This is a philosophy forum, where we often discuss matters of philosophical import.

Philosophy covers a great deal more ground than science does — this is the answer to your question.

[Pattern-chaser]

I do disagree with you the "science" is either against or dismissive of morality, since there are fields of scientific study devoted to research into morality and its effects.

Morality is invisible to science. Morality is not objective or universal. It has no existence in the spacetime universe. It often does not follow rules or laws. It cannot be (directly) observed or measured. Therefore, science cannot study it.

[The 'science' that claims to study morality can only observe humans, and attempt to infer their morality from their actions. A bit like Plato's cave story, wouldn't you say? ]

Huh? We are in agreement that morality is subjective. And you are correct that science studies humans, their subjective moral standards and role of those standards relative to human behavior. That is, there is a difference between my (declared) moral standards and my behavior, as noone follows their moral standards 100% of the time.

Sorry, I was attempting to communicate my opinion that science cannot usefully study morality, as science cannot detect it. There is no scientific technique that can do this. The best a scientist could attempt is to observe lots of people, and use statistics to somehow derive a sort of 'average' morality, based on their empirically-observable behaviour. To me, that doesn't seem at all helpful.

[LuckyR]

I do disagree with you the "science" is either against or dismissive of morality, since there are fields of scientific study devoted to research into morality and its effects.

Morality is invisible to science. Morality is not objective or universal. It has no existence in the spacetime universe. It often does not follow rules or laws. It cannot be (directly) observed or measured. Therefore, science cannot study it.

[The 'science' that claims to study morality can only observe humans, and attempt to infer their morality from their actions. A bit like Plato's cave story, wouldn't you say? ]

Huh? We are in agreement that morality is subjective. And you are correct that science studies humans, their subjective moral standards and role of those standards relative to human behavior. That is, there is a difference between my (declared) moral standards and my behavior, as noone follows their moral standards 100% of the time.

Sorry, I was attempting to communicate my opinion that science cannot usefully study morality, as science cannot detect it. There is no scientific technique that can do this. The best a scientist could attempt is to observe lots of people, and use statistics to somehow derive a sort of 'average' morality, based on their empirically-observable behaviour. To me, that doesn't seem at all helpful.

Perhaps. For example, if I tell you that I find lying to be a violation of my moral standard, but you measure that I lie 5% of the time (which would be a very high number of untruths, I believe), would you conclude that telling the truth is part of my moral code? In other words is morality an aspirational guideline or description of behaviour?

[Pattern-chaser]

...In other words is morality an aspirational guideline or description of behaviour?

The former, IMO.