Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Is morality real?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Is morality real?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

If the Philosophy Forum decides on an experiment involving a cat and a flamethrower for no higher purpose than that it relishes incineration, and the result is a very crispy cat corpse, most people would like to think that the Philosophy Forum had just committed an act of grave villainy. Luckily for the Philosophy Forum (which does just that), a group of soulless, analytical philosophers rush forward and, sporting expressions of desperate triumph, demand that our accusers show the world exactly where the immorality lies in kitty's torching. Realization quickly dawns on the bastions of morality, as they struggle to extract from this "evil doing" the substance of immorality, finding that what they thought was such an obviously immoral act defies even their most impressively vigorous rantings.

So, is morality, and thus immorality, "real"? If good and evil really are real, what is the nature of their being? If morality is not real, can we avoid the trap of moral relativism?

[EDIT: Whoops! Looks like I posted this in the wrong forum. If one of the admins could move it to the Ethics section I'd be much obliged.]

@TK421,

There is no morality, only preference.

@Mr Fight the Power,

TK421,

"So, is morality, and thus immorality, "real"? If good and evil really are real, what is the nature of their being? If morality is not real, can we avoid the trap of moral relativism?"

Morality is a highly functional myth,which enables civilization,the source of its genesis is compassion,the ability to identify with another and thus a mutual self-interest arises,even as it is applied in a weaker state to the rest of the animal world."There is no right or wrong only thinking makes it so." Being human is a universal experience so it is not suprizeing that some of this applied morality is held in common,the deviations found between cultures might be attributed to differring environments,the harsher the environment the more dictoral its terms."Can we avoid moral relativism?" No,I do not believe we can."Is morality real?" Emotion[compassion and self-interest] is real and it is upon this foundation that we build.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

TK421,

"So, is morality, and thus immorality, "real"? If good and evil really are real, what is the nature of their being? If morality is not real, can we avoid the trap of moral relativism?"

Morality is a highly functional myth,which enables civilization,the source of its genesis is compassion,the ability to identify with another and thus a mutual self-interest arises,even as it is applied in a weaker state to the rest of the animal world."There is no right or wrong only thinking makes it so." Being human is a universal experience so it is not suprizeing that some of this apply morality is held in common,the deviations found between cultures might be attributed to differring environments,the harsher the environment the more dictoral its terms."Can we avoid moral relativism?" No,I do not believe we can."Is morality real?" Emotion is real and it is the foundation of whatever we build.

I guess one could also say that the money system is a "highly functional myth", or that the judicial system is a "HFM" too. So I guess that they are no so "real" as the laws of physics. But what follows from that?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I guess one could also say that the money system is a "highly functional myth", or that the judicial system is a "HFM" too. So I guess that they are no so "real" as the laws of physics. But what follows from that?

kennethamy, Smile

"So I guess that they are not so real." Yes it is true,the monetary system is an abstract concept representing whatever money will buy, it has no value of its own other than serving to hold a position of value,example of goods and/or services.

"What follows from that?" You will have to be a little more precise as to what your request is,otherwise what follows is what you have/the society you are living in,and the money you are spending.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennethamy,

"So I guess that they are not so real." Yes it is true,the monetary system is an abstract concept representing whatever money will buy, it has no value of its own other than serving to hold a position of value,example of goods and/or services.

"What follows from that?" You will have to be a little more precise as to what your request is,otherwise what follows is what you have/the society you are living in,and the money you are spending.

Let's consider the game of baseball, something that is the product of society. That it is a product of society doesn't mean that Barry Bonds didn't hit his when he hit his 746th home run on May 27, 2007. And, similarly, that morality is a product of society doesn't mean that torturing a small child is not an evil thing to do. There are different kinds of facts; there are social facts, and there are moral facts. A toy duck is not a real duck, but it is a real toy duck just the same. It is not something imaginary. And, torturing a small child is not an imaginary evil either.

@kennethamy,

Good and evil are moral judgements,nothing is good or evil in and of itself.

"There is no such thing as right or wrong,only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Good and evil are moral judgements,nothing is good or evil in and of itself.

"There is no such thing as right or wrong,only thinking makes it so." Shakespeare

Certainly, thinking something is right or wrong is a necessary condition of its being right or wrong. But is thinking also a sufficient condition? Some action could not be wrong unless it was believed wrong; but is its being believed wrong enough for it to be wrong. For instance, would it be true that if it were believed wrong to help those in distress, that would make it wrong to help those in distress? Or, if it were thought right to rape and murder a small child, that would make it right to do so? Could just anything be right just because it was thought to be right; and could just anything be wrong just because it was thought to be wrong? Even if, nothing could be right unless it was thought to be right, and nothing could be wrong unless it was thought to be wrong?

@kennethamy,

Something is right or wrong only through judgement, in the absence of such judgement there is no morality.

"Autonomy and morality are mutuallly exclusive." Nietzsche

@TK421,

Perhaps the first thing we should do when deciding whether morality is real or not is to clarify what we mean by "real". In the question ("is morality real?"), "real" means as real as the chair I'm sitting on, or "real" as that which exists independent of the human species; if humanity spontaneously combusted, this object I call a "chair" would presumably still exist, unlike aspects of social reality such as the rules of baseball. So when asking the question, "is morality real?", we mean from the outset, "is morality objectively real?". Considering the example of the flaming feline we find ourselves hard-pressed to extrude from the act any "objectively real" immorality, even though each of us may feel horrified at the evilness of lighting a living cat on fire.

Morality is not objectively real. :eek:

It does not follow, however, that morality is therefore not real.
Are not social constructs real, as kennethamy argues? Certainly they exist. Morality, if anything, is an essential part of the social fabric. I doubt anyone would try to philosophically contort themselves into arguing that humanity does not depend on social reality, or that morality is not a necessary condition of the latter. Could we exist independent of a social fabric? It seems unlikely. Could social reality last without the grease of morality? Probably not.

So we've distinguished two kinds of reality: objective (independent) and social (dependent). I'd like to suggest that we are as dependent on social reality as social reality is on us - that we could not be what we are independent of the social fabric - that social reality is essential to our ontology.

Unfortunately, ugly yet very powerful remnants of an outdated conceptual framework condition us into thinking that objective reality is the only legitimate or real reality, dumping everything else into the abyss of mere illusion. But let's resist the dictates of The (academic) Man for a moment and critically reflect on the concept of "objective reality". "Objective reality" involves the notion that there lies a reality "out there", independent of our pesky selves, pregnant with truth. The eternal project of science and traditional philosophy, among other intellectual pursuits, has been to access this "other" reality through detached, reductive analysis and reasoning. Now, by it's very definition we can only ever know this reality through representation (as in the "laws" of physics) constructed using materials of our non-objective reality (such as language); thus the reality of objective reality will never be more than the pseudo-reality of a diagram in a textbook. Reality is the fabric of our existence. To talk about the primacy of a reality that can never be real to us, except in a secondhand kind of way, is senseless.

So when philosophers ask the question in meta-ethics, "is morality real?", they're actually asking, "is morality objectively real?", meanwhile assuming that objective reality is the only legitimate kind of reality. But because "objective" and "subjective" reality coalesce, the very question that ignites the debate contians baggage which predetermines certain skewed conclusions.

None of which says much about morality.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Something is right or wrong only through judgement, in the absence of such judgement there is no morality.

"Autonomy and morality are mutuallly exclusive." Nietzsche

To say that something is right of wrong only through judgment is not to say the same thing as to say that in the absence of judgment there is no morality.

The second may be true, and the first, false. The second says that judgment is a necessary condition of morality, so that without judgment there is no morality. But the first says that all that is required is the judgment that something is right or wrong, and it doesn't matter what that something is.

So that, to take a particular example: the first says that a judgment is necessary for the rape and murder of a little child to be wrong (and maybe that's true); but the second says is that even if it weren't rape and murder, but some other action, say kindness to the little child, would also be wrong as long as it was judged wrong. That just seems to me false. It may be that you cannot have right of wrong without someone judging it right or wrong; but that's a far cry from saying that no matter what that something is, whether it is right of wrong depends only on whether it is judged right or wrong, and not on what is being judged.

@kennethamy,

Kennethemy, Smile

I know it is a little difficult to accept but the meaning of a happening is dependent upon a subject to define it.So even the most horriable thing you can imagine, to someone without the faculty of compassion it might seem acceptable or even good,particularly if they profit from it in some way.

@TK421,

TK421!

Morality is the subjective evaluation of good or evil, it is a cognitive operation,that which belongs to objectivity is the action itself as the objects being evaluated.

"It does not follow, however, that morality is therefore not real.
Are not social constructs real, as kennethamy argues? Certainly they exist. Morality, if anything, is an essential part of the social fabric. I doubt anyone would try to philosophically contort themselves into arguing that humanity does not depend on social reality, or that morality is not a necessary condition of the latter. Could we exist independent of a social fabric? It seems unlikely. Could social reality last without the grease of morality? Probably not."

Morality is the expression of compassion,it is what compassion builds for itself in the objective world,all that you can see out there in the way of social fabric,industry and technology come from your own nature,your own biology.Is the beauty of the spiders web intended or does it come out of the spiders very nature.

"So we've distinguished two kinds of reality: objective (independent) and social (dependent). I'd like to suggest that we are as dependent on social reality as social reality is on us - that we could not be what we are independent of the social fabric - that social reality is essential to our ontology."

This sounds like it is getting back to the problem of subject and object,the objective world is object and you are subject and never shall they part,there is only reality when subject and object stand together.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Kennethemy,

I know it is a little difficult to accept but the meaning of a happening is dependent upon a subject to define it.So even the most horriable thing you can imagine, to someone without the faculty of compassion it might seem acceptable or even good,particularly if they profit from it in some way.

It would be easier to accept if I thought there was a good argument for it. Could you help me? A bare assertion is not necessarily a true assertion.

If you mean that the significance of a happening partly depends on people, I agree. Moral properties like good or bad, right of wrong, are interactive properties caused by the interaction between people, and what occurs in the world.

And I agree that a psychopath with devoid of human sympathy might not be moved by some terrible event. But then, as I mentioned, the person is a psychopath. People who have lost their taste buds cannot taste sugar as sweet either. But then, they have lost their taste buds.

Suppose that a someone (say from some exotic place) was shocked because we put on our left shoe before we put on our right shoe rather than the other way round. Say the way we were shocked at the rape and torture of a child. What would that show? That the rape and torture of a child and the order in which one puts on ones shoes in the morning have equal significance?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy, Smile

"And I agree that a psychopath with devoid of human sympathy might not be moved by some terrible event. But then, as I mentioned, the person is a psychopath. People who have lost their taste buds cannot taste sugar as sweet either. But then, they have lost their taste buds."

Yes,to a psychopath it is not terriable,to someone without taste buds sugar is not sweet,notice the event the psycho is looking at is the same one you are looking at,notice also that the fellow without taste buds is experienceing the same sugar as you are,the difference is not in the substance or event, the difference is in the subject[you] or the fellow without taste buds.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

kennethamy,

"And I agree that a psychopath with devoid of human sympathy might not be moved by some terrible event. But then, as I mentioned, the person is a psychopath. People who have lost their taste buds cannot taste sugar as sweet either. But then, they have lost their taste buds."

Yes,to a psychopath it is not terriable,to someone without taste buds sugar is not sweet,notice the event the psycho is looking at is the same one you are looking at,notice also that the fellow without taste buds is experienceing the same sugar as you are,the difference is not in the substance or event, the difference is in the subject[you] or the fellow without taste buds.

Of course the event is not terrible to the psychopath. I not only pointed that out, I emphasized it. That means only he doesn't think it terrible. Naturally, he doesn't. He is a psychopath. But he isn't our standard of the value of the event, anymore than the person without taste buds is our standard of whether sugar is sweet. Sugar is sweet because sugar tastes sweet to people with normal taste buds, and the rape of an innocent child is immoral to people with a normal mentality.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Of course the event is not terrible to the psychopath. I not only pointed that out, I emphasized it. That means only he doesn't think it terrible. Naturally, he doesn't. He is a psychopath. But he isn't our standard of the value of the event, anymore than the person without taste buds is our standard of whether sugar is sweet. Sugar is sweet because sugar tastes sweet to people with normal taste buds, and the rape of an innocent child is immoral to people with a normal mentality.

Kennethamy, Smile

Does all meaning is subjective mean anything to you? Because ten thousand people disagree with me,it does not make them right.The sugar is not sweet in and of itself,the terriable event,is not terriable in and of itself.it might be said these things are an experience and an evaluation brought to bare upon a given cercumstance/object.The objects out there,the objective world,only have the meaning you give them,otherwise they just are,with no meaning.As the old Buddhist said,what is the meaning of a flower,there is no meaning,it just is.:eek:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Kennethamy,

The sugar is not sweet in and of itself,the terriable event,is not terriable in and of itself.it might be said these things are an experience and an evaluation brought to bare upon a given cercumstance/object.The objects out there,the objective world,only have the meaning you give them,otherwise they just are,with no meaning.As the old Buddhist said,what is the meaning of a flower,there is no meaning,it just is.:eek:

But where is the sense in talking about the reality of a thing we can never know. If the experience of a thing is not the thing itself, what is the thing? Meaning is intrinsic to experience; it acts as the structure of our reality. Sure, experience will differ, but the similarities in the nature of each of our realities make the differences almost negligible.

It seems doubtful that anyone could be completely devoid of a sense of morality, unless perhaps they were missing some basic functions, like language.

@TK421,

TK421 wrote:

But where is the sense in talking about the reality of a thing we can never know. If the experience of a thing is not the thing itself, what is the thing? Meaning is intrinsic to experience; it acts as the structure of our reality. Sure, experience will differ, but the similarities in the nature of each of our realities make the differences almost negligible.

It seems doubtful that anyone could be completely devoid of a sense of morality, unless perhaps they were missing some basic functions, like language.

TK421,

Well,a reality we will never know is about how Kant expressed it, his name for it was the same as yours,"The Thing In Itself," which we can never know.You know TK421, I do not think there is anyone who could prove without a doubt the existence of the world you live in.

I personally believe there are people out there with really no sense of morality, by this I mean as something which might limit their behaviours,at best it is the law that stop some of those people from going as far as they would like to,there are monsters walking in our midst.:eek:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

TK421,

Well,a reality we will never know is about how Kant expressed it, his name for it was the same as yours,"The Thing In Itself," which we can never know.You know TK421, I do not think there is anyone who could prove without a doubt the existence of the world you live in.

I personally believe there are people out there with really no sense of morality, by this I mean as something which might limit their behaviours,at best it is the law that stop some of those people from going as far as they would like to,there are monsters walking in our midst.:eek:

I doubt there is anything that can be proved without doubt. But why should that be the standard of proof? It isn't in science, and most of us believe that science gives us knowledge.

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Is morality real?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Is morality real?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know