I would do it but it would probably haunt me for the rest of my life.
So then is it fair to say that you adopt a system of morality in order to assuage guilt about the consequences of your actions? Since you've just chosen to ignore your moral system in favor of survival.
Basically, what are the personal consequences to choosing an immoral (according to your moral code) action?
That is a problem with other people, not with me. Still, for the sake of those idiot other people, we can stick with the idea that some courses of action are better than others.
You don't seriously think you're immune to that flaw, do you? That's some serious Scott Rubin action right there.
In retrospect, there may not be an optimal course of action, since it could well be similar to the question "What is the maximum value of the function f(x) = x on the domain (0, 1)?"
But OK, so an action which is "better" is one that best ensures your own self-interest, irrespective of consequence to others?
No, that's not my position. I simply pointed out that in the one-person case, morality is indeed self-interest. In a reality where there are multiple conscious beings, this becomes more complicated, but I think the one-person case is a good starting point because it is rather clear-cut.
For example, if you compare two actions and both have the same impact on your own self-interest but the second is better for someone else's, I'd say the second is clearly more moral.
The issue comes when your self-interests conflict with someone else's self-interests. I think the best answer to this is basically to add them together (let's call it self-interest utilitarianism), but I'll grant that this is not obvious.
Here's a question: let's pretend your moral code would tell you that the action is immoral. Would you still do it?
Would you knowingly do something that you felt was wrong, if it guaranteed your own survival?
I would do it but it would probably haunt me for the rest of my life.
So then is it fair to say that you adopt a system of morality in order to assuage guilt about the consequences of your actions? Since you've just chosen to ignore your moral system in favor of survival.
I don't think people consciously choose one morality other another, they develop their own based on their experiences which then informs decisions based on circumstances. If they choose the "immoral" action they'll either reap the pain of doing so or justify it some way, even going so far as to change their beliefs.
This goes both ways; growing up believing homosexuality is a sin and then changing that belief later in life is not objectively immoral even if it would be immoral according to the previous set of beliefs.
Personal consequences of acting in immoral ways of could range from PTSD, survivors guilt, social ostracization, revenge, imprisonment, torture and worse depending on the strength of your convictions and the society you live in.
And how is this not the same thing as choosing to adopt a particular moral code?
If you change your moral code in response to an action, you've just adopted a new code.
And if morality just develops as a consequence to the collection of your experiences and actions, then action and experience come before morality. Morality is a secondary consideration, not a primary.
I would say that there are very few circumstances where death would be the most moral choice. Still, let's say I considered all of my options, thought long and hard about my morality, and came to the conclusion that death was the right thing to do. Then I would make a conscious effort to choose death, but I cannot guarantee that that is what I would do, since I am not a perfectly rational being. Nonetheless, if I did choose to survive, I would try to recognize that I had made the wrong choice, even though I know that as a human being I have an inherent tendency to rationalize past decisions.
I would say that there are very few circumstances where death would be the most moral thing to do.
I would say that there is no circumstance in which choosing death is the most moral decision. Life is all you get.
But that's not really the point I'm making. The point is that you chose to act independently of your moral code, and the previous point applies: action precedes morality. Morality is decided after action in order to justify said action.
The "consequences" that have been mentioned can almost all be mitigated through other means. The worst possible outcome is that you are killed for your actions, and I submit that when your options are death or not death, there's really no choice being presented, and the action cannot be considered through a moral framework.
I'm not sure- I think that some studies have shown that all of us, regardless of background have a common moral code.
Consider the "Trolley Problem" and the extensive testing done using it. In broad strokes the trolley problem is :
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
Variations on this moral question have been given to literally hundreds of thousands of people across ages as young as 8 upwards and from as many cultures as could understand it; each one came incredibly close in the spread of decisions based on the morals presented.
Then I would make a conscious effort to choose death, but I cannot guarantee that that is what I would do, since I am not a perfectly rational being. Nonetheless, if I did choose to survive, I would try to recognize that I had made the wrong choice, even though I know that as a human being I have an inherent tendency to rationalize past decisions.
OK, simple scenario. You are armed with a pistol, and someone charges you with a large knife and apparent intent to kill. They are rapidly approaching a distance inside of which you could effectively shoot, and you would not have time to call out to them and still fire should they not respond.
Do you shoot?
My answer is yes.
Do you shoot to kill?
My answer is still yes. There is almost no way to shoot to wound in a scenario like this and succeed. Aim for center mass. You will likely kill the person.
Irrespective of this other person's motivations, or the events that led to this moment, the most rational choice I have is to shoot and kill him, rather than accept a likely fatal stab wound from an aggressive stranger.
Then I would make a conscious effort to choose death, but I cannot guarantee that that is what I would do, since I am not a perfectly rational being. Nonetheless, if I did choose to survive, I would try to recognize that I had made the wrong choice, even though I know that as a human being I have an inherent tendency to rationalize past decisions.
OK, simple scenario. You are armed with a pistol, and someone charges you with a large knife and apparent intent to kill. They are rapidly approaching a distance inside of which you could effectively shoot, and you would not have time to call out to them and still fire should they not respond.
Do you shoot?
My answer is yes.
Do you shoot to kill?
My answer is still yes. There is almost no way to shoot to wound in a scenario like this and succeed. Aim for center mass. You will likely kill the person.
Irrespective of this other person's motivations, or the events that led to this moment, the most rational choice I have is to shoot and kill him, rather than accept a likely fatal stab wound from an aggressive stranger.
The answer is "yes" to both questions. Why? Because I am almost certainly more valuable to the rest of society than a stranger who would attempt to kill me with a knife.
Surely there are things that are absolutely, objectively morally wrong. An imperfect list might include human trafficking, slavery, rape, murder, snuff films, cannibalism, pedophilia, necrophilia, forced incest, domestic abuse, defacing a mint copy of Detective Comics # 27, and so on.
I cannot agree with the use of these kinds of principles as a basis for morality. You yourself have already mentioned a flaw, but, despite your pre-emptive objection, let me name a couple more flaws with your list:- - Why mention cannibalism when the real issue (apart from disease) is not cannibalism itself but murder? - Why mention snuff films when the real issue is murder? - Apart from the possibility of disease, what is wrong with necrophilia? - Apart from the later distress you will experience when you come to regret it, what is wrong with defacing a mint copy of Detective Comics #27? - Forced incest and pedophilia are redundant items, given that you already listed rape.
Cannibalism and snuff films might be subsets of murder, but they are not morally objectionable or justifiable for the same reasons garden variety murder might be. Similarly, forced incest and pedophilia are not redundant because they may be subsets of rape. These things require depravity beyond rape and murder. They are what you might call "double plus ungood", and as such, extraordinarily reprehensible. The added depravity required for a person to engage in those acts is like the added depravity that makes intentional homicide more highly sanctionable than negligent homicide. I could add to the list killing someone because of their race, gender, religious belief, or sexual orientation. Is that ever justifiable or tolerable?
Now, the thing everyone wants to talk about is how cannibalism or murder can be justified in our society, or that societies have existed in the distant past (looking at you, Jason) that have tolerated such things. That doesn't mean that they are moral. Many people in past societies that tolerated slavery, for example, knew that slavery was not moral. Thomas Jefferson is the main person I'm thinking about here. They may not have done anything about it, and they may have tolerated or even participated in it, but few believed or even argued that the institution was moral.
No one seems to want to talk about things that one might be morally required to do as opposed to things one is morally required to eschew. What about providing care to those in need? What if those in need are your children? To use a functional, utilitarian, cynical view, surely raising one's children properly is a universal, objective moral imperative as it ensures survival of one's genes and survival of one's species.
As for defacing a mint copy of Detective # 27, I'm going to choose to believe that you are just being ridiculous with your response. That, I submit, is objectionably morally wrong. I don't believe that I can imagine a culture that would tolerate it, nor can I imagine any justification for it.
but few believed or even argued that the institution was moral.
Um, I'm pretty sure that there are many writings showing otherwise. Many white slave owners believed that they were giving the negro a better life by enslaving him.
Of course, it was a post-hoc justification, but still, there you have it.
But your defining of the act as immoral did nothing to stop you from doing it.
So what is the purpose of calling the act "immoral" if it will not prevent you from doing it? What purpose does morality have if not to guide action?
My point was that it might not prevent me from doing it, that is not the same as will not. Human beings are not perfect, and even the most selfish of people will often do things that are not in their own self-interest simply out of stupidity. Simply because we might sometimes fail to act morally doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Because I am almost certainly more valuable to the rest of society than a stranger who would attempt to kill me with a knife.
Says who? You might be a more heinous criminal.
Says me, to the best of my knowledge. I can't be certain of that, but nor can I be certain of anything at all. However, I would hold that statement to be true with rather a high probability.
but few believed or even argued that the institution was moral.
Um, I'm pretty sure that there are many writings showing otherwise.
Not as many as you'd think. The writings trying to justify the peculiar institution mostly dealt with economic issues, trying to scare people by invoking the dangers of slave revolts and the violence that would certainly ensue if the slaves were freed, and appeals to the authority of the bible. Reading them, it's easy to imagine how the writers were trying desperately to come up with reasons to keep doing something they knew was wrong. Also, as I said, justification and toleration != belief that an action is moral.
Simply because we might sometimes fail to act morally doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
But why would ever fail to act morally at all? What is it that makes the difference when you decide to follow your morality and when you decide not to follow it? Or is it that you're not "deciding" at all and that you are simply reacting to your surroundings?
And how is this not the same thing as choosing to adopt a particular moral code?
If you change your moral code in response to an action, you've just adopted a new code.
And if morality just develops as a consequence to the collection of your experiences and actions, then action and experience come before morality. Morality is a secondary consideration, not a primary.
I've never been in a situation where I've been forced to decide whether or not to kill someone but I have an opinion on the propriety of murder. Does that mean I will never kill anyone? I hope so but it is no guarantee.
Nobody starts from a moral blank slate and chooses a moral code rationally; we develop one based on culture and passed experiences, evolving it as we live.
But why would ever fail to act morally at all? What is it that makes the difference when you decide to follow your morality and when you decide not to follow it? Or is it that you're not "deciding" at all and that you are simply reacting to your surroundings?
But why would ever fail to act morally at all? What is it that makes the difference when you decide to follow your morality and when you decide not to follow it? Or is it that you're not "deciding" at all and that you are simply reacting to your surroundings?
Fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the other. Fear of responsibility.
Is torture immoral and illogical? Yes. Does this prevent torture when fear and hatred are in the driver's seat of policy? No.
Simply because we might sometimes fail to act morally doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
But why would ever fail to act morally at all? What is it that makes the difference when you decide to follow your morality and when you decide not to follow it? Or is it that you're not "deciding" at all and that you are simply reacting to your surroundings?
Essentially, yes. Humans can and often do allow themselves to be controlled by their baser emotions.
Cannibalism and snuff films might be subsets of murder, but they are not morally objectionable or justifiable for the same reasons garden variety murder might be. Similarly, forced incest and pedophilia are not redundant because they may be subsets of rape. These things require depravity beyond rape and murder. They are what you might call "double plus ungood", and as such, extraordinarily reprehensible. The added depravity required for a person to engage in those acts is like the added depravity that makes intentional homicide more highly sanctionable than negligent homicide.
I disagree with this. Also, I'd like to see you answer with respect to necrophilia. What's wrong with it?
Not as many as you'd think. The writings trying to justify the peculiar institution mostly dealt with economic issues, trying to scare people by invoking the dangers of slave revolts and the violence that would certainly ensue if the slaves were freed, and appeals to the authority of the bible. Reading them, it's easy to imagine how the writers were trying desperately to come up with reasons to keep doing something they knew was wrong. Also, as I said, justification and toleration != belief that an action is moral.
So the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Sumarians, Egyptians, et cetera just tolerated slavery and secretly knew it was wrong?
Cannibalism and snuff films might be subsets of murder, but they are not morally objectionable or justifiable for the same reasons garden variety murder might be. Similarly, forced incest and pedophilia are not redundant because they may be subsets of rape. These things require depravity beyond rape and murder. They are what you might call "double plus ungood", and as such, extraordinarily reprehensible. The added depravity required for a person to engage in those acts is like the added depravity that makes intentional homicide more highly sanctionable than negligent homicide.
I disagree with this. Also, I'd like to see you answer with respect to necrophilia. What's wrong with it?
Do you see no difference at all between murder done in the heat of the moment, such as when a spouse arrives at home to find the other spouse in bed with another person, resulting in murder and some people wanting to make money who film some runaway kid being murdered so that they can distribute the film?
As for necrophilia, inappropriate handling of a corpse is taboo in many cultures. Why do you think it could ever be tolerated? Is it because you think that no one should care about a corpse aside from disease control? That's taking utilitarianism to an extreme, don't you think?
Video
I'll bet Jason can find some evidence of a biblical culture that engaged in genocide and thought it was moral, so I guess that means that genocide can't ever be objectively wrong, can it?
Not as many as you'd think. The writings trying to justify the peculiar institution mostly dealt with economic issues, trying to scare people by invoking the dangers of slave revolts and the violence that would certainly ensue if the slaves were freed, and appeals to the authority of the bible. Reading them, it's easy to imagine how the writers were trying desperately to come up with reasons to keep doing something they knew was wrong. Also, as I said, justification and toleration != belief that an action is moral.
So the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Sumarians, Egyptians, et cetera just tolerated slavery and secretly knew it was wrong?
I'd say some of them almost certainly knew it was wrong, but they did not have the ability to stop it. As society progressed, more people came to this realization until they reached critical mass and then finally slavery was quashed.
Nobody starts from a moral blank slate and chooses a moral code rationally; we develop one based on culture and passed experiences, evolving it as we live.
Essentially, yes. Humans can and often do allow themselves to be controlled by their baser emotions.
Both of you seem to be in agreement that your moral code is out of your own control. Your code is handed to you by your culture, and whether or not you follow it is largely independent of your own will. Things happen, you respond to them, and then your moral code changes in response to those events.
So why even bother with the concept at all? Reject the notion utterly. If we want to pretend that free will exists, then we should be able to decide for ourselves whether or not an action is moral, and choose to act or not depending on our answer.
EDIT: Basically, I know that we're not "blank slates" from a moral standpoint. What I'm saying is, why not wipe that slate and write your own morality on there?
Do you see no difference at all between murder done in the heat of the moment, such as when a spouse arrives at home to find the other spouse in bed with another person, resulting in murder and some people wanting to make money who film some runaway kid being murdered so that they can distribute the film?
Yes, there is a difference. Someone who would murder in cold blood for the purposes of entertainment is more dangerous to society at large.
As for necrophilia, inappropriate handling of a corpse is taboo in many cultures. Why do you think it could ever be tolerated? Is it because you think that no one should care about a corpse aside from disease control? That's taking utilitarianism to an extreme, don't you think?
Not as many as you'd think. The writings trying to justify the peculiar institution mostly dealt with economic issues, trying to scare people by invoking the dangers of slave revolts and the violence that would certainly ensue if the slaves were freed, and appeals to the authority of the bible. Reading them, it's easy to imagine how the writers were trying desperately to come up with reasons to keep doing something they knew was wrong. Also, as I said, justification and toleration != belief that an action is moral.
So the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, Sumarians, Egyptians, et cetera just tolerated slavery and secretly knew it was wrong?
I'm really talking more about America, but if you'd like to show me some writings of these ancient cultures showing that they, indeed, thought slavery was moral, then please collect them and post them. I'm pretty sure you'll find that any morality they wrote about was more along the lines of simple authoritarian admonitions to the slaves to behave, such as what Jason cited.
Also, Greco-Roman slavery was a little bit different than African-American slavery. Can you tell me why?
I'll bet Jason can find some evidence of a biblical culture that engaged in genocide and thought it was moral, so I guess that means that genocide can't ever be objectively wrong, can it?
I'll bet Jason can find some evidence of a biblical culture that engaged in genocide and thought it was moral, so I guess that means that genocide can't ever be objectively wrong, can it?
Comments
Basically, what are the personal consequences to choosing an immoral (according to your moral code) action?
In a reality where there are multiple conscious beings, this becomes more complicated, but I think the one-person case is a good starting point because it is rather clear-cut.
For example, if you compare two actions and both have the same impact on your own self-interest but the second is better for someone else's, I'd say the second is clearly more moral.
The issue comes when your self-interests conflict with someone else's self-interests. I think the best answer to this is basically to add them together (let's call it self-interest utilitarianism), but I'll grant that this is not obvious. I assume you mean the alternative is death?
This goes both ways; growing up believing homosexuality is a sin and then changing that belief later in life is not objectively immoral even if it would be immoral according to the previous set of beliefs.
Personal consequences of acting in immoral ways of could range from PTSD, survivors guilt, social ostracization, revenge, imprisonment, torture and worse depending on the strength of your convictions and the society you live in.
If you change your moral code in response to an action, you've just adopted a new code.
And if morality just develops as a consequence to the collection of your experiences and actions, then action and experience come before morality. Morality is a secondary consideration, not a primary.
Still, let's say I considered all of my options, thought long and hard about my morality, and came to the conclusion that death was the right thing to do.
Then I would make a conscious effort to choose death, but I cannot guarantee that that is what I would do, since I am not a perfectly rational being.
Nonetheless, if I did choose to survive, I would try to recognize that I had made the wrong choice, even though I know that as a human being I have an inherent tendency to rationalize past decisions.
But that's not really the point I'm making. The point is that you chose to act independently of your moral code, and the previous point applies: action precedes morality. Morality is decided after action in order to justify said action.
The "consequences" that have been mentioned can almost all be mitigated through other means. The worst possible outcome is that you are killed for your actions, and I submit that when your options are death or not death, there's really no choice being presented, and the action cannot be considered through a moral framework.
Consider the "Trolley Problem" and the extensive testing done using it. In broad strokes the trolley problem is : Variations on this moral question have been given to literally hundreds of thousands of people across ages as young as 8 upwards and from as many cultures as could understand it; each one came incredibly close in the spread of decisions based on the morals presented.
This is an excellent BBC radio program citing the anniversary of the puzzle, and the phenomenon of tracking human answers to it's very subtle variations.
Do you shoot?
My answer is yes.
Do you shoot to kill?
My answer is still yes. There is almost no way to shoot to wound in a scenario like this and succeed. Aim for center mass. You will likely kill the person.
Irrespective of this other person's motivations, or the events that led to this moment, the most rational choice I have is to shoot and kill him, rather than accept a likely fatal stab wound from an aggressive stranger.
So what is the purpose of calling the act "immoral" if it will not prevent you from doing it? What purpose does morality have if not to guide action? Says who? You might be a more heinous criminal.
Now, the thing everyone wants to talk about is how cannibalism or murder can be justified in our society, or that societies have existed in the distant past (looking at you, Jason) that have tolerated such things. That doesn't mean that they are moral. Many people in past societies that tolerated slavery, for example, knew that slavery was not moral. Thomas Jefferson is the main person I'm thinking about here. They may not have done anything about it, and they may have tolerated or even participated in it, but few believed or even argued that the institution was moral.
No one seems to want to talk about things that one might be morally required to do as opposed to things one is morally required to eschew. What about providing care to those in need? What if those in need are your children? To use a functional, utilitarian, cynical view, surely raising one's children properly is a universal, objective moral imperative as it ensures survival of one's genes and survival of one's species.
As for defacing a mint copy of Detective # 27, I'm going to choose to believe that you are just being ridiculous with your response. That, I submit, is objectionably morally wrong. I don't believe that I can imagine a culture that would tolerate it, nor can I imagine any justification for it.
Of course, it was a post-hoc justification, but still, there you have it.
Simply because we might sometimes fail to act morally doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Says me, to the best of my knowledge. I can't be certain of that, but nor can I be certain of anything at all. However, I would hold that statement to be true with rather a high probability.
Nobody starts from a moral blank slate and chooses a moral code rationally; we develop one based on culture and passed experiences, evolving it as we live.
But why would ever fail to act morally at all? What is it that makes the difference when you decide to follow your morality and when you decide not to follow it? Or is it that you're not "deciding" at all and that you are simply reacting to your surroundings? Fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the other. Fear of responsibility.
Is torture immoral and illogical? Yes. Does this prevent torture when fear and hatred are in the driver's seat of policy? No.
Also, I'd like to see you answer with respect to necrophilia. What's wrong with it?
As for necrophilia, inappropriate handling of a corpse is taboo in many cultures. Why do you think it could ever be tolerated? Is it because you think that no one should care about a corpse aside from disease control? That's taking utilitarianism to an extreme, don't you think? I'll bet Jason can find some evidence of a biblical culture that engaged in genocide and thought it was moral, so I guess that means that genocide can't ever be objectively wrong, can it?
So why even bother with the concept at all? Reject the notion utterly. If we want to pretend that free will exists, then we should be able to decide for ourselves whether or not an action is moral, and choose to act or not depending on our answer.
EDIT: Basically, I know that we're not "blank slates" from a moral standpoint. What I'm saying is, why not wipe that slate and write your own morality on there?
Also, Greco-Roman slavery was a little bit different than African-American slavery. Can you tell me why?