The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
philoreaderguy wrote:What makes an action immoral? How do we know if a certain choice, action, or behavior is immoral?
In asking what our moral principles are, how do we explain applying the moral standards with certainty? How do we account for the variation and diversity in moral codes within the world community? Is there such a thing as human nature from which basic moral standards are derived and lend themselves to the establishment of a natural law? What would modern day natural law thinkers such as John Finnis and Ronald Dworkin say on the issue of how we come to know our moral standards with certainty?
I personally find it impossible to avoid concluding that all peoples share certain fundamental motivations that govern human action such as a desire to seek the goods of self-preservation, procreation and social organization. But I do not know if these motivations constitute morality or ethics. If there is a natural law provided to mankind by God the creator, how do we explain acts of free choice and free will that depart from that natural law? Must one be a Christian and abide concepts of sin to define immorality?
This has always been an interesting question. But, to me it is a easy question to answer. The typical problem that comes along with answering this question is that people are trying to answer it by distinguishing between a right or wrong action. Any person could see their actions as right by them even if another person thought them as immoral. This is because a person's immoral action could serve as purposeful to the person acting it out. For instance if someone killed for the purpose of self defense, one could see this situation as being immoral for killing, yet justified or a right action for the purpose of survival. This subjective situation is where morality seems definable by the moment. Yet morality should be universal because emotions are universal. All humans can feel similar emotional reactions to completely different levels of circumstances. For example a starving child in Africa can feel the same level of joy when finding bread, while an American business man feels joy off of finally making that big sale. Both of these causes of joy would be taken for granted if presented to the other person. So, the emotion is subjective to the individual, yet it is still a universal experience that can define moral behavior. Although it is true that emotions are subjective, there is still this knowledge that a positive emotion represents goodness. And although one could argue that a killer could feel positive emotion when murdering... the knowledge that this is immoral is still known by the wise. For a wise person takes everything into account before concluding, just as a person writing a scholarly essay has to be unbiased. So, if every person's knowledge on what constitutes right action was taken into account, then the the right answer would arise because of a person's understanding of what actions constitute positivity. Now you could say that a killer would skew that answer... but then you have to ask... did they take everyone's opinions into account? Do they fall within the definition of wise? In which case a killer's immoral nature is not ignored by the wise yet it does not subvert the truth and meaning of virtuous behavior.
So all in all... the person that killed for self defense would not have had been confronted with the need to kill had the original attacker taken their victim's perception into account and/or had been wise enough to not want to harm in the first place. To focus on if it is immoral to kill in self defense is just diverging from the truth that immorality has negative causes...
I feel that this answer also brings light to the topic of what constitutes harming certain animals verses others (including humans)... in that you could ask... would the animal be emotionally effected if a human were to be harmed? I'm not justifying the harming of animals, but it shows why most humans are against harming dogs and other humans verses every other animal.
Mob rule determines such things, that is, you either rule the mob or they rule you. When the lynch mobs attack their victims they are demonstrating what they consider to be immoral and how they determine what is immoral.
I think when the coyote is roasting the roadrunner over a fire that's immoral. But I'll bet the coyote isn't thinking this while he's licking his chops.
philoreaderguy wrote:What makes an action immoral? How do we know if a certain choice, action, or behavior is immoral?
"philoreaderguy,
Well certainly an action is not moral until it is deemed so by a conscious subject, it is a judgement after the fact of action. I would say that if the action in its intent wished to inflict more pain and suffering on another than would normally be their lot, then this is immoral. Any intended action which had as its goal to inhibit another's life force or will to power, can be said to be immoral. Just an added thought, is indifference amoral or immoral, if through indifference one does noting to releave the suffering of another.
Nothing in the world in and of itself has meaning, but only in relation to a biological subject. Boagie
According to Kant, an action is immoral if you are acting in a way toward others in ways that you would not want everyone else to act toward others, yourself included. I read that the Kant thought the Golden Rule was derived from his categorical imperative.
I try to live by the golden rule. An action is immoral if I would not want that action done toward myself and if it somehow violates the rights or causes harm to another person. It is difficult to define exactly what makes an action immoral.
It would be immoral to steal bread to feed my hungry family, because I would not want bread stolen from me.
Morality is predicated upon our subjective judgment. Good thing there's intersubjectivity!
I personally believe immorality is the negation of another's conscious existence; it is the total disregard for the commonality we humans share. Any action that must be justified using solipsism is approaching the epitome of immorality.
For me,moral is an act of goodness. When we know that the certain thing is not good even if the effect is good we consider these as immoral because the act itself is bad. Like for example stealing money from others to donate to the poor one. It is immoral.
philoreaderguy wrote:What makes an action immoral? How do we know if a certain choice, action, or behavior is immoral?
An immoral action, choice, behavior, is always detrimental to someone. So it would be wise to determine if ones action, choice, behavior will hurt anyone, on purpose.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I personally don't believe that there is good or bad, immoral or moral. I believe that everything is just in its own state, is just neutral, but people keep labeling things good or bad. There is always a reason for everything that happens, you can always trace things back to a fundamental reason, like a chain reaction. I think people label things good when they benefit themself and others equally, and label things bad when people do things more for their own satisfaction or benefits, or when other people get hurt, because humans have evolved to socialize and survive as a group.