- Colin Erskine
- Winnipeg, Mb
- Canada
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
"Morality" is an abused term/concept. Can you suggest a solid definition?
We use the term "morality" so liberally across different conversations. Usually metaphorically without getting specific. It bothers me to no end when excellent speakers use the term "morality" loosely as if it necessarily implies specific behaviors like "sharing = moral" and "murder = immoral." To me, morality always seems best defined as sound reasoning and conclusion forming. Of course, as opposed to unsound reasoning.
It seems really clear that morality represents only that basic intention in any living creature to do something right as opposed to doing it erroneously. That is, it seems morality comes down to the intent of doing what seems to make the most sense to the best of the abilities of the individual or group of individuals.
As a simple anecdotal example, consider indulging a vice and stealing a purse from a store and then getting caught. While it may have seemed like a rational thing to do under the circumstances of expecting to get away with it, upon getting caught it would become apparent that the decision was not well calculated and certainly most harmful to the one person you were intending to take care of most, yourself. Your failure to achieve your own aim of self-enhancement is what dictates your actions as immoral, even from your own perspective.
Of course, there are a number of vices one might indulge that have negative consequences not only for the self but perhaps for society at large. Any action a ruler might take which brings about the unrest and revolt of her people, would be highly suspicious as being immoral since a ruler's decisions ought to be made to enhance their rule rather than degrade it.
Moral actions in all cases, seem to be those which the individual (and perhaps other individuals) can observe as clearly having the intended effect both in foresight as well as in hindsight. All other actions seem to neatly fit the description of immoral.
I'm interested in hearing other holistic, absolute definitions of the term "morality"
Don Wesley 50+
Why now, you may ask; well I was inspired while searching through TED to help another TED member who asked for help.
There are many good suggestions here no doubt and here is another, with a remarkable past!
I sincerely believe it answers the question asked which is:
Morality" is an abused term/concept. Can you suggest a solid definition?
A Charge To The Fraternity by Benjamin Franklin, starring Richard Easton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaBDLsicvcs&feature=related.
Don Wesley 50+
Can it be said that we are ignoring what we should have learned by now!
Billy Graham in his TED talk revealed – “that we have done very little to get rid of evil and it’s entrails of suffering.”
Not solving the problem of evil is immoral.
Let us dig deep into our courage and admit, this is the central reality.
edward long 100+
Whether an issue gets a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down is a SUBJECTIVE decision made at will by the constructors of the society.
Rules of morality are not transferrable, or enforceable, from one society to another.
If the question is asked, "Is eating dogs wrong?" It will be necessary to stipulate in which society you are asking about.
Morality is that which a given society deems good and acceptable.
Immorality is that which a given society deems evil and unacceptable.
Debra Smith 200+
Here is one from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy:
The term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
and another from Wikipedia:
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.
I like going back to the original meanings in the original languages for clarity.
I think a huge portion of this problem that you are articulating is that people are happily trying to communicate with only the fuzziest understanding of what particular words mean and yet they have well developed understandings of what they are trying to communicate.
Don Wesley 50+
As the psychoanalyst would say, "it is neither good nor bad; it just is!”
I will be back to keep the conversation alive and well!
Don
brian herring
Phillip McKay
Dan Conine
Humans tend to believe that their intentions can override their actions when it comes to morality. The fossil record doesn't agree. In the end, overconsumption of resources (political and environmental stability are resources, too) becomes immoral for any species. Some rules seem also to apply in general:
Action taken based on unquestioned belief results in evil.
Diversity is more important than quantity (most of the time).
Beliefs don't matter: actions do.
Randomness must be respected: sustainability/frugality/balance isn't enough to compensate for disasters.
People are animals, and as such, they take actions based on natural instincts more often than intentionally. In order to moderate behavior, the feedback must be applied at the point of action, rather than the point of intention.
Pilar Alvarez
Richard Nota 20+
What is clearer is that he seems to be associating trust and empathy with feeling good and twisting that into implying that feeling good brings about trust and moral behaviour. He then tenuously links that to a specific chemical, oxytocin.
Being able to trust someone is reassuring but the trust needs to be deserved. Better to drown your sorrows, moderately of course, than take oxytocin in order to trust a con man.
Whether empathy makes someone feel good depends on the situation. Empathising with someone enduring great chronic anguish is not a pleasant experience. Rationalising feeling good about behaving morally in such a situation takes more than the superficial approach of Zak.
"That's where oxytocin seems to come into play." Only if you trust Zak. I trust Colin Erskine is asking his question because there is reason to not trust Zak.
Pilar Alvarez
I think you should take empathy for what it is, not a comforting feeling necessarily.
It seems to me you are twisting a bit Paul Zack's talk, what he seemed to be saying is, look we've observed trust is more prevalent in the presence of higher levels oxytocin, that's it. Nowhere is he pushing we should all be pumping oxytocin pills in order to have a better world where everything is trust and good feelings, in his talk he actually hints caution against that conclusion.
Richard Nota 20+
Fabio Riv
Grace Rodriguez 500+
My suggestion for an "absolute definition of the term morality": It is a subjective set of principles determined by the people of a community, whether that community be defined by geography or culture.*
I use "subjective" because what is considered "good" or "bad," "right" or "wrong," or "beneficial" or "detrimental," depends upon the unique perspectives of the person(s) supporting an idea/behavior and the person(s) opposing it. I use "determined by the people" because morality is a human construct, akin to religion and politics and everything else that ventures into "categorical imperatives." And, "of a community" because what is "subjective" to a person is also influenced by the person's social, cultural and environmental context.
However, my suggestion for an "absolute definition" is not absolute. I may learn something tomorrow that may change it entirely. Such is the dilemma of a person trying to encapsulate and mummify a concept as ephemeral as "morality."
* I use culture broadly: There is a science culture just as there is an American culture or a tribal culture.
John de Ronde
Moral propriety keeps a community together with an understanding of what is right and wrong within that community. It is developed over time. What is right for one community may be unacceptable in another. One community's moral code may even be imposed on another in the event of conflict and defeat. What's worse, some people believe their moral code is superior to others. Here lies the problems we're seeing in the modern world. Why should a minority of Sunnis dictate the moral values of a majority Shias as we see in Bahrain? Why should western Christians impose their values on tribal homelands in Afghanistan? We may not be able to define morality except as a subjective construct but it sure is a hot topic!
whaleofatime 77
Nick Schmitt
There is no true morality and immorality, just as inductive reasoning is not perfect.
Morality is the ever-changing set of rules on how we should act if we, as individuals and as a society, are to prosper.
Murder is indeterminate. Murder of an individual who, if not murdered, would cause serious detrimental effects to society, is moral. Murder of an individual who, if not murdered, would cause serious benefits for society, is immoral.
A problem lies in what is 'detrimental' or 'beneficial' to society. Once we as a society begin to formulate a unifying theory on what these two words embody, we will be able to define our morality.
Mark Meijer 100+
Nick Schmitt
This would have an effect similar to the way an individual mind operates today. Instead of a human whose actions have been stagnated by the different areas of his mind all bickering over the right thing to do, the human takes all experience into account and acts accordingly.
Similarly, our capabilities in the future to share experiences and take into account all the experiences of others will become possible through super computer accelerating, and we will begin to transition from individual humans in a society to a single social organism.
It may be a scary thought, and an extreme one, but one I've been thinking about nonetheless.
Grace Rodriguez 500+
brian herring
Some folks think gambling is morally wrong some think its right, but legally it would only depend on the location the gambling was taking place.
whaleofatime 77
Colin Erskine
Even if you were religious and you expected some behaviors would please your god while others wouldn't, the moral thing to do in any case would be whatever seemed to logically conclude in the pleasure of your deity. Eat apple = bad, thefeore no-eat apple, kinda thing.
This is to suggest that something like taking care of your first born child and protecting them is actually a more sound conclusion for a parent to act on than the opposite. Especially if the proof for that course of action comes in the form of internalized feelings. Similarly, you could examine the rationality (aka. "morality") of eating when "feeling" hungry. The feeling is real and in the absence of any better ideas, you act on it.. you eat.
That morality might somehow be the superstitious version of rationality while technically no different is highly suspect.
Random Chance 30+
And each one different for different reasons, some sound, some border-line ridiculous, some
sounding like they border on wishful thinking, some maybe hitting it exactly on the head.
"There is no morality other than the instances." from Mark Meijer
I think that nails it. We may never figure it out, for the simple reason that we may not even
be sane, but we have been living according to some moral codes that I personally believe
were developed by insane people or at the least, extremely mentally ill people, with a lot of
influence, corrupted power, and too much time on their hands. All this time in fact. Millennium.
Therein lies the true meaning of the power of life. One can do whatever one wants. There really is
no morality or immorality involved. That condition however, can and does get modified by many things.
There isn't necessarily even a feeling or emotion involved in either, though there can be.
On the other hand, there seems to be so much "immorality" in the world that it seems the only morality
there is. Because of the sheer numbers, morality almost seems non-existent, uninvolved and uncaring.
By why does it have to be? It is not existential.
Is it immoral to kill another human being? Apparently not.
Our definitions are not correct, accurate or even close.
Then it comes from these "instances" that Mr. Meijer mentioned.
Neither good nor bad, but good and bad.
Why does one robot fight to keep another robot from destroying it?
Why does one form of artificial intelligence kill another form of
artificial intelligence?
We do have both. Real morality and artificial morality, and I don't think most
can tell the difference. Most people do not know the difference between right
and wrong. Most will rigorously object to that but if what we have, came from
insane people, then that is what we have been following, developing, ingraining
and believing to be true.
Colin Erskine
"We do have both. Real morality and artificial morality,"
I would say we have sound conclusions and fallacious conclusions, respectively.
Mark Meijer 100+
John de Ronde
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I’d eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
Richard Joyce in The Evolution of Morality (2006) calls our moral consciousness ‘innate’. Joyce surmises that “morality [and therefore he argues, conscience, which has its basis in moral judgment] exists in virtually every human individual. It develops without formal instruction, with no deliberate effort, and with no conscious awareness of its special features.” Interpreting one of his co-thinkers on morality, Robert Frank (1988), Joyce reiterates that conscience is “a repertoire of judgments and emotions (most notable, guilt) that motivate behavior in accordance with accepted standards of conduct even when external sanctions are absent.” When you catch sight of a dropped wallet and find $100 in it, what would be the right thing to do, bearing in mind you also found the owner’s name and address? The decision you make will tax your conscience, if you allow it to. You do have a conscience because you are vexed by the temptation. How will you feel if you keep the money and throw away the wallet? How would you explain yourself if you give back the wallet and pretend not to know what happened to the cash? As you should be able to see from this we are capable of moral judgment because our inner moral sensibility dictates, persuades, implores us to make the morally right decision. This, in my estimation, is the meaning and implication of conscientiousness - or our sense of what is morally right and wrong.
Daniel Prieto
I believe as well in democracy, and it's my preferred moral compass, or prime structure, but I don't think it's natural or universal. I proselite about it, I judge from its parameters, but I must recognise that it's artificial.
Oliver Stevens
Daniel Prieto
Mark Meijer 100+
Daniel Prieto
The arbitrary choice of values comes from human needs, but human needs vary according to the environment, physical (productive) and cultural (ideological). This needs arise from the need of fulfilling of a collective or cultural project, a 'munis', that ultimately leads to some final end, a 'telos', but –again– the ends and means depend on culture. The fulfillment of one's role in the 'munis' leads one to 'be more', 'be better', more moral.
Also, the values that are considered 'moral' change through time, a couple of hundred years ago an enlightened moralist would think that basic human needs for a colonist in South America would be different for the peasant, for the slave and for the indian, and he was right in his context, from his point of view, because those were the moral values of their time, and he was fulfilling his role in his social scheme. Now we could consider this moral as wicked and 'immoral', because it's not our moral system, nor thought schemes, nor economic conditions or social structures. Western thought has modeled a variety of ways to looking at values, from Plato, to St. Agustine to Derrida and beyond, but they are not unique, nor 'naturally true'.
I tend to agree that when one discusses about moral things as natural, given, or axiomatic in any way, one has a non natural interest, a will to be accomplished though others, a will to exercise power.
Colin Erskine
Richard Nota 20+
It is common for people to expect others to obey the law but make a special exception of themselves or close ones in the same circumstances. There is nothing arbitrary about that and it is definitely immoral.
Zdenek Smith 100+
" Your failure to achieve your own aim of self-enhancement is what dictates your actions as immoral, even from your own perspective."
I would not tie morality to self-enhancement. Self-enhancement is optional goal of any human being. I think we need morality because we have limited resources and space on this planet and therefore we need to ensure that individual's actions do not cause harm or unfairness to others while we all share the same resources and space?
If each of us lives on our own planet, it does not really matter, from morality point of view, what we do and there will be no notion of wrong or right.
Daniel Prieto
Zdenek Smith 100+
Colin Erskine
to be clear, I think "morality" is in the "therefore."
X is important "because" Y.. that is, certain behaviors are important because they seem to make the most sense in a particular context. Slamming on the breaks is important BECAUSE someone is on the road. Choosing a red tie instead of a blue one for a gift is important BECAUSE jim tends to like red instead of blue. Donating to a charity is important BECAUSE their cause is perceived to be in dire need.
It always seems to work out that there's "Good Reason" behind moral behaviors.
Mark Meijer 100+
Colin Erskine
Mark Meijer 100+
Colin Erskine
"How would you know if that's not an achievable "standard", technically speaking?" - It's impossible to be selfless unless you have no self. Everyone has a self, so selflessness is clearly impossible. That's the way I've seen things for years. Altruism is, it seems to me, an unattainable ideal.
Mark Meijer 100+
You think you have a self, because you tend to take certain thoughts at face value, believing that is you. Don't you wonder, if "you" have a "self", then who is it that has this "self"? You have no problem disbelieving me, so what makes you think it's an unattainable ideal to disbelieve ego thoughts?
You already sometimes disbelieve it, because that's the only reason you even know about the ego (which is what you call "your self"). Because you don't always listen to it unconditionally, right? And that's exactly why you are a moral person. Not because of the ego, but in spite of it. Because there is something underneath it which can choose to indulge it or not.
That choice is available all the time, not only sometimes. All that is needed is seeing for yourself how this works, simply by checking it out in your own direct experience, sothat you can learn to consistently see those thoughts for what they are, as well as how the body responds to those thoughts. But not by adopting another belief, rather by finding out the truth about whatever belief you have now.
You say everyone has a self? You say it's impossible to disbelieve ego thoughts? Prove it. Not to me. Just look at it, see if it's true. Find out where "your self" is. If ego is just a bunch of thoughts, how can it own anything, or do anything? How can those thoughts control you unless you listen to them without question? Don't theorize about it. Investigate it. It's not difficult. You'll be surprised.
Clint Pace