Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Morality


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,909 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 10:15 AM

I learned a model for morality of actions at school recently. There are three components to determine whether an action is moral or not. The objective act, the subjective goal, and the concrete situation.

 

In order for an act to be moral,

  • The object (or act) must be objectively good. Some acts, like killing, are intrinsically wrong because they go against a fundamental human right and cannot be considered moral.
  • The subjective goal must be good. A good intention cannot make an objectively bad act moral. In addition, a good objective act can be immoral if the intention is bad
  • The concrete situation (or circumstances) can lessen or increase one's responsibility for an act. For example, ignorance, fear, duress can lessen/nullify our responsibilities for actions, but cannot make an objectively bad action moral.

 

The ends does not justify the means. To what extent do you agree/disagree with this model? 



#2 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,348 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 10:40 AM

Morals, and morality in general have gone out the window, especially in modern day society. I blame the hipsters and their "yolo" crap.



#3 Guppie

Guppie
  • 1,285 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 11:26 AM

I would argue that there is no objectivity to be had when making an abstract judgement such as "good/bad."

 

Those concepts are subjective, and pretending they are not is kinda irresponsible.



#4 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,348 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 11:36 AM

I would argue that there is no objectivity to be had when making an abstract judgement such as "good/bad."

 

Those concepts are subjective, and pretending they are not is kinda irresponsible.

My judgement about killing, raping, harming etc another person is bad. So that's irresponsible?



#5 Guppie

Guppie
  • 1,285 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 12:05 PM

@Adam You think those things are bad (I also happen to judge those things as bad), but it's still subjective.

 

The idea "bad" is a constructed notion in your head. What you consider bad is different from what other people consider bad, because nobody has an objective standard by which to measure.

 

It is important that we have these constructed values, because they are integral to human society. We need agreed upon values in order to get along well enough to form families, communities and nations.

 

It is also important that we recognize that these ARE constructed values. Humans have a nasty habit of killing each other when they think they have an objective moral high ground.



#6 SheOfTheEnderworld

SheOfTheEnderworld
  • The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist


  • 3,838 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 12:16 PM

Morals, and morality in general have gone out the window, especially in modern day society. I blame the hipsters and their "yolo" crap.

 

I'm on Team Adam with this one. :D



#7 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,348 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 12:16 PM

Intardesting. Bad is bad, is bad.



#8 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2,462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 12:32 PM

Intardesting. Bad is bad, is bad.

I mean it's not really as clear cut as that. If you came home and a stranger had broken in and was raping your mom and was going to kill her afterwards, and you grabbed the baseball bat and started beating him to get him to stop, I wouldn't blame you or try to condemn you for it. You did a "bad" thing (harming someone) but it was justified, so is it really bad?

I happen to think that poachers in Africa who are slaughtering elephants (as well as other animals) for the ivory are reprehensible, and since potential jail time is not deterring them, I think it should be an offense punishable by death. Ordinarily, I'm against such strong measures, but if you again and again defy the rules because you think you are above them and they don't deter you from these acts, you should suffer the same fate that you are handing out to these creatures.

It's not easy to come to a conclusion about these things, there is a ton of discussion about the subject of morality and "good/bad" and your answer doesn't really give the subject justice. 

What do you mean by "bad is bad"? Every murder should have the same punishment? If I go outside and shoot the first person I see, I would consider that bad. If someone knocks on my door and beats me within an inch of my life and I somehow get to my drawer and pull out a gun and shoot him, is that just as bad?



#9 SheOfTheEnderworld

SheOfTheEnderworld
  • The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist


  • 3,838 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 12:35 PM

I mean it's not really as clear cut as that. If you came home and a stranger had broken in and was raping your mom and was going to kill her afterwards, and you grabbed the baseball bat and started beating him to get him to stop, I wouldn't blame you or try to condemn you for it. You did a "bad" thing (harming someone) but it was justified, so is it really bad?

I happen to think that poachers in Africa who are slaughtering elephants (as well as other animals) for the ivory are reprehensible, and since potential jail time is not deterring them, I think it should be an offense punishable by death. Ordinarily, I'm against such strong measures, but if you again and again defy the rules because you think you are above them and they don't deter you from these acts, you should suffer the same fate that you are handing out to these creatures.

It's not easy to come to a conclusion about these things, there is a ton of discussion about the subject of morality and "good/bad" and your answer doesn't really give the subject justice. 

What do you mean by "bad is bad"? Every murder should have the same punishment? If I go outside and shoot the first person I see, I would consider that bad. If someone knocks on my door and beats me within an inch of my life and I somehow get to my drawer and pull out a gun and shoot him, is that just as bad?

 

I clearly don't think he means "bad is bad" in a black and white fashion. :p



#10 Guppie

Guppie
  • 1,285 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 12:36 PM

@DonValentino I agree that the circumstances must be taken into account when making a judgement. You can't paint all actions with the same brush. A killing in self defense and a killing out of vengeance aren't the same.



#11 Goblinoid

Goblinoid
  • 120 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 12:40 PM

I'm with Guppie here. One problem I have with the OP's model is that it lists "objectively good" and "objectively bad" as though we should take those qualifiers for granted, when we shouldn't (can't?) do so. Morality is a human construction-- and therefore any judgments we apply to it are subjective. 

 

Feeling strongly about something doesn't make it an objective truth. Moral standards are subject to, and ultimately shaped by, personal opinion and cultural norms. In fact, when it comes down it, "objective morality" is itself a pretty oxymoronic phrase as it's referencing something that is held and formed internally. There is no such thing as "objective beauty;" this is similar. 

 

I feel I should note that I'm not saying morality isn't important, or that being subjective makes morality any less valuable. But I would question the definitions I mentioned in Ortin's model before going into any further into it.  



#12 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2,462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 12:42 PM

I clearly don't think he means "bad is bad" in a black and white fashion. :p

Ah, then how did he mean it? :)



#13 Guppie

Guppie
  • 1,285 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 12:57 PM

@Goblinoid I very much agree that morality is important. Just because it's abstract and subjective doesn't mean it's not incredibly important!

 

But, yeah, founding a model of morality on "objectively good" and "objectively bad" acts isn't very helpful at all.



#14 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,739 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 01:14 PM

In order for an act to be moral,

  • The object (or act) must be objectively good. Some acts, like killing, are intrinsically wrong because they go against a fundamental human right and cannot be considered moral.

Objectively, humans have no fundamental rights.



#15 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,348 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 01:49 PM

I'd tell you all about how I'm all for capital punishment, but then I'd get backlash asking how I can be for such a thing when there's always 'grey' area in every case, and that the judicial system isn't always correct. Oh...



#16 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,909 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 01:52 PM

I mean it's not really as clear cut as that. If you came home and a stranger had broken in and was raping your mom and was going to kill her afterwards, and you grabbed the baseball bat and started beating him to get him to stop, I wouldn't blame you or try to condemn you for it. You did a "bad" thing (harming someone) but it was justified, so is it really bad?

 

I happen to think that poachers in Africa who are slaughtering elephants (as well as other animals) for the ivory are reprehensible, and since potential jail time is not deterring them, I think it should be an offense punishable by death. Ordinarily, I'm against such strong measures, but if you again and again defy the rules because you think you are above them and they don't deter you from these acts, you should suffer the same fate that you are handing out to these creatures.

 

It's not easy to come to a conclusion about these things, there is a ton of discussion about the subject of morality and "good/bad" and your answer doesn't really give the subject justice. 

 

What do you mean by "bad is bad"? Every murder should have the same punishment? If I go outside and shoot the first person I see, I would consider that bad. If someone knocks on my door and beats me within an inch of my life and I somehow get to my drawer and pull out a gun and shoot him, is that just as bad?

Harming someone else is still objectively bad, but your responsibility for it in your first scenario is nullified because of the fear of your mother's death according to this model.

 

Killing someone, even if they do despicable acts, is always wrong. The death penalty under this model is always objectively wrong (though again, the responsibility can be lessened/nullified because of the circumstances). There are better alternatives (in terms of morality AND punishment), like life imprisonment.

 

I'm not claiming that all of the world can be defined as good is good, and bad is bad. There is a grey area, especially when there are mixed intentions. 

 

Objectively bad is objectively bad, but the responsibility for those actions are determined by the intention and the circumstances.


Objectively, humans have no fundamental rights.

Why not?



#17 Josh

Josh
  • 318 posts

Posted 21 February 2015 - 02:19 PM


  • The object (or act) must be objectively good. Some acts, like killing, are intrinsically wrong because they go against a fundamental human right and cannot be considered moral.

What fundamental human right? Who says we have this right and how are they more right than anyone else? In order for murder to be objectively wrong, human life would have to first have intrinsic value. Where do you propose we receive this intrinsic value? We can't assign it ourselves, so where does it come from? If you can't answer, then your assertion is wrong. 



#18 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,739 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 02:22 PM

Why not?

 

 

What fundamental human right? Who says we have this right and how are they more right than anyone else? In order for murder to be objectively wrong, human life would have to first have intrinsic value. Where do you propose we receive this intrinsic value? We can't assign it ourselves, so where does it come from? If you can't answer, then your assertion is wrong. 

 

 

This.



#19 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,909 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 02:51 PM

 

What fundamental human right? Who says we have this right and how are they more right than anyone else? In order for murder to be objectively wrong, human life would have to first have intrinsic value. Where do you propose we receive this intrinsic value? We can't assign it ourselves, so where does it come from? If you can't answer, then your assertion is wrong. 

The best that I can explain is that the intrinsic value of human life comes from our souls, or our consciousness for those of you that don't believe in the metaphysical. Humans have consciousness, and can exercise free will. This is the differentiating factor that makes humans greater than all other life forms we know of.



#20 Josh

Josh
  • 318 posts

Posted 21 February 2015 - 03:05 PM

The best that I can explain is that the intrinsic value of human life comes from our souls, or our consciousness for those of you that don't believe in the metaphysical. Humans have consciousness, and can exercise free will. This is the differentiating factor that makes humans greater than all other life forms we know of.

 

I think you're missing the point. In order for something to have intrinsic value it must have been prescribed such value by something higher than itself. Stating we have souls and consciousness does not by definition give us any intrinsic value. 

 

You see, the ultimate issue here is that for a moral law to function outside of a purely subjective realm there must be a 'moral law giver' that transcends humans by sheer nature. For a lot of people, this is usually accomplished by some sort of god. However, in the sheer absence of such a giver, objective morality is impossible. 


Edited by Josh, 21 February 2015 - 03:06 PM.


#21 Romy

Romy
  • Ableist Neocodex Elite Four Member



  • 4,739 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 03:08 PM

The best that I can explain is that the intrinsic value of human life comes from our souls, or our consciousness for those of you that don't believe in the metaphysical. Humans have consciousness, and can exercise free will. This is the differentiating factor that makes humans greater than all other life forms we know of.

 

So...it comes from our brain?



#22 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1,654 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 03:18 PM

End justifies the means is a tough one. Usually no, but I agree that Truman's decision of dropping the bomb saved many more lives than it cost, and as such I agree with it. 



#23 DonValentino

DonValentino
  • Neocodex Handegg League Champion/Daddy

  • 2,462 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 06:08 PM

The best that I can explain is that the intrinsic value of human life comes from our souls, or our consciousness for those of you that don't believe in the metaphysical. Humans have consciousness, and can exercise free will. This is the differentiating factor that makes humans greater than all other life forms we know of.

 

Elephants have consciousness. Why do you think humans should be held in higher regard? Especially shitty humans who ignore the laws and slaughter innocent animals? 



#24 ortin

ortin
  • I'm so l33k

  • 5,909 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 11:21 PM

Elephants have consciousness. Why do you think humans should be held in higher regard? Especially shitty humans who ignore the laws and slaughter innocent animals?

Do elephants actually have consciousness though? Interesting...

#25 Adam

Adam
  • Coffee God


  • 4,348 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 February 2015 - 11:23 PM

Do elephants actually have consciousness though? Interesting...

You are not an elephant.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users