What prevents us from doing the "wrong" thing

@rambo phil,

rambo;44859 wrote:

What prevents us from doing the "wrong" thing

Because there is no 'wrong' thing that can be done.

Quote:

Like that title says. Is it laws or our own moralities?

UYou say 'our' and 'we' like we are all mirror images of each other. We are not. We are all unique.
It is our inherent nature, at the moment, that manifests 'who we are'. Some folke wake up and kill someone and never do it again. Some never. All are unique, as is every moment!

Quote:

I mean we could all just go insane nd start killing each other for no reason,

Yup, as i said, some do. I seriously doubt that "all" could and would. It is not in many natures to do so.

Quote:

but what stops us from doing so?

Who we are.

Quote:

I believe partly it's related to compassion and what we have been "taught".

Some have more 'compassion', at certain moments, than others...

@rambo phil,

rambo wrote:

Like that title says. Is it laws or our own moralities? I mean we could all just go insane nd start killing each other for no reason, but what stops us from doing so? I believe partly it's related to compassion and what we have been "taught".

Because, contrary to popular belief we are "not" animals. If there is one human being that should have been aborted, it's Darwin. Damn! Allowed the necessities of life, there is no reason to do wrong. It's when those necessities, or life itself, are threatened we resort to wrong doing. It is a survival mechanism. Unlike the animal whose very existence is about "survival", the human being has the where with all to insure those necessities are obtained, shared and abundant. If there is an inequity of those necessities, iniquity will follow. Eliminate the inequity, iniquity goes with it. To rationalize wrong as an innate trait of man, is, IMO, a crock. Man doesn't kill because he can, he kills because he is force to.

William

@rambo phil,

rambo wrote:

Like that title says. Is it laws or our own moralities? I mean we could all just go insane nd start killing each other for no reason, but what stops us from doing so? I believe partly it's related to compassion and what we have been "taught".

We are not free if we are prevented, and are not ethical, which is to say: deserving of freedom if you will not prevent yourself....

@William,

William wrote:

If there is one human being that should have been aborted, it's Darwin.

:perplexed:

Anyways, I prefer a more psychological approach to this. As beings brought up with rules surrounding us, and experiences telling us that these rules are reinforced, we develop a sort of phobia of doing wrong. Such as a child being bitten by a tarantula may develop a fear of spiders, we who are scolded upon doing the wrong thing develop fears of wrong.

Sometimes the prevention of full freedom can be a good thing, if all that is being prevented is the freedom to do wrong. However who is then to define what is wrong? A comittee? A comittee to discuss what the previous comittee discussed and it's validity?

@William,

William wrote:

Because, contrary to popular belief we are "not" animals. If there is one human being that should have been aborted, it's Darwin. Damn! Allowed the necessities of life, there is no reason to do wrong. It's when those necessities, or life itself, are threatened we resort to wrong doing. It is a survival mechanism. Unlike the animal whose very existence is about "survival", the human being has the where with all to insure those necessities are obtained, shared and abundant. If there is an inequity of those necessities, iniquity will follow. Eliminate the inequity, iniquity goes with it. To rationalize wrong as an innate trait of man, is, IMO, a crock. Man doesn't kill because he can, he kills because he is force to.

William

Did you really say that about Darwin??? You can never have enough truth... Let me suggest that knowledge is not the problem, but what people do with... If you give a half baked queer like Hitler and ounce of knowledge he can turn into a ton of hell... Even those greatest opponants of abortion, if they sought justice across the board, and really wanted to, they could cut abortions in half tomorrow...But then, they would have to give up on judging people and start helping them...In trying to stop all abortions they do not stop half the abortions, and so they cannot reduce their numbers again, and again... They want political power, and they get it, and alienate the very people whose support they need to make the moral argument...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Did you really say that about Darwin??? You can never have enough truth... Let me suggest that knowledge is not the problem, but what people do with... If you give a half baked queer like Hitler and ounce of knowledge he can turn into a ton of hell... Even those greatest opponants of abortion, if they sought justice across the board, and really wanted to, they could cut abortions in half tomorrow...But then, they would have to give up on judging people and start helping them...In trying to stop all abortions they do not stop half the abortions, and so they cannot reduce their numbers again, and again... They want political power, and they get it, and alienate the very people whose support they need to make the moral argument...

You are right Fido, and I apologize. I have said many times even the work of the brightest minds falls into the worng hands. It is even said my many if Darwin were alive today, he would be the first to refute his theories. Thanks for calling me on it.

William

@rambo phil,

If you are trying to distinguish whether social conditioning or an individual's own disposition is the source of people's morality, then undoubtedly the answer comes from the social.

@rambo phil,

Morality is community...There is no individual morality... People are moral out of affection, out of their emotional attachment to others... It is not possibly something one can capture through abstraction....If you feel it, if you can feel another's pain, and if your premonition of another's pain is real; you will not hurt others... Do you want a moral world??? If so, make a world community...

@rambo phil,

I agree that morality is a general consensus supported by a popular opinion, but I don't think that has everything to do with why we don't do the "wrong" thing. Of course, to first understand what the wrong thing would be, you'd have to reference the set moral standard, but mostly, pride keeps us from slipping up. Humans love to believe themselves superior, they (or we should I say) like power. Conversely, we don't like to be looked down upon, scourned, inferior. Going against the popular ruling would give others a reason to look down on you, hurting your pride and thus justifying actions against you called "punishment."

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Morality is community...There is no individual morality... People are moral out of affection, out of their emotional attachment to others... It is not possibly something one can capture through abstraction....If you feel it, if you can feel another's pain, and if your premonition of another's pain is real; you will not hurt others... Do you want a moral world??? If so, make a world community...

I think you're discounting the role of subjectivity here. To use the language of Gramsci it is the hegemonic social class which creates and maintains a community's ethical standards, but you must remember - an individual's capacity to change a community is contingent upon his ability to independently critique these socially imposed values.
I dont think you can say there is no individual morality. Humans are moral beings. Its true that most morals are only understandable when viewed in relation to other people, but I think really you're missing somthing here

@rambo phil,

No; morality is a feeling..Think of the term Esprit de Corp...Morale is not a different word, but the same word used differently... If you have not got the feeling. don't bather looking for a formula... You will waste your time trying to find one...You cannot abstract it...Can you be abstract about your love...If so you isn't in it...

@nowhereisnowhere,

nowhereisnowhere wrote:

I think you're discounting the role of subjectivity here. To use the language of Gramsci it is the hegemonic social class which creates and maintains a community's ethical standards, but you must remember - an individual's capacity to change a community is contingent upon his ability to independently critique these socially imposed values.
I dont think you can say there is no individual morality. Humans are moral beings. Its true that most morals are only understandable when viewed in relation to other people, but I think really you're missing somthing here

Gramsci; who ever he was must have been raised by a dishwasher...People do not behave morally because of abstract relationships, but because of real relationships...
You must understand that community is older than man, so it represents a sort of perfection...No one can be truly objective about their community, nor has community for long been able to bear any sub-organizations within it...It is like old indians because of their survival and experience becoming shamen..They did not leave their community, nor did they form some other community within... They became what all old men became, half shrink, have holistic healer...
What we have is different than even five hundred years ago in America... Now we have nation states where diverse people have been brought together guided by law rather than morality... But we see it does not work, and we think the ideal of morality is wrong...It is instead the understanding of it that is wrong...If we cannot find a way to give people that emotional attachment to society then they tend to look at others as some sort of animal that they can bleed, milik, or slaughter as they see fit...And if you look at their behavior, they are abstract, and their commuities are insular, and they move to positions in government and law and finance because from those positions they can best prey upon the general society...They do not have that loving feeling, and no sort of abstraction of the idea of morality will ever give it to them... Law is an abstaction...It is a form of relationship as much morality is, but it is not a natural form as much morality is, but a construct; and the reason forms like law are embraced is the same reason they unltimately fail, because once they have trained some one to a certain form of behavior they can be exploited to no end...They know they are hurting, and they know what is happening to them is not just; but peace is the ultimate moral value even for the most savage of people; and it is a weakness...No one want to be the first to draw blood, so they are bled by drops and pennies of their lives...
For anyone in a natural community, the thought of changing the community never occurs...Survival is essential, and you cannot cahnge perfection, or even see it objectively...Can you judge your own family???Few can...Most forgive rather than judge, because they can see the relationship played out in time...Since they know how things got that way they see it as what it is rather than as what it might have been or could be...

@rambo phil,

rambo wrote:

Like that title says. Is it laws or our own moralities? I mean we could all just go insane nd start killing each other for no reason, but what stops us from doing so? I believe partly it's related to compassion and what we have been "taught".

I think that this deals primarily with psychology. Human beings have two brain functions that are believed to give us what we call free will or significant volition and those functions are emotional rationality & empathy. Both of these psychological developments are responsible for moral sensibility.

The law is also an important factor, because it teaches the brain (us) the reward and punishment system for certain actions. This helps to reinforce whatever natural moral sensibility people have.

@hue-man,

This forum is a typical ethics forum. The views of morality vary widely and often. Speculation is rife. Ask what's wrong and what's right and you get almost as many different views as viewers. Ethics is possibly the most perplexing subject in philosophy. Some philosophers avoid it altogether.

For those who avoid this subject or who would like to do so, I have what I hope is good news. Philosophy's neighbor, Science, is coming to the rescue. The research by neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists is developing answers to our questions about humanity's concept of goodness. An entirely new, probably unsettling and possibly universal, science-based understanding of virtue and evil may ultimately emerge.

Fellow philosophers, our losses to Science mount - astronomy, then psychiatry, and now ethics. Is there no end? Will Science's rapid advancements in the study of the brain and mind lead to even greater losses?

Imagine us not having enough unknowns to speculate about!

@Dewey phil,

Dewey wrote:

This forum is a typical ethics forum. The views of morality vary widely and often. Speculation is rife. Ask what's wrong and what's right and you get almost as many different views as viewers. Ethics is possibly the most perplexing subject in philosophy. Some philosophers avoid it altogether.

For those who avoid this subject or who would like to do so, I have what I hope is good news. Philosophy's neighbor, Science, is coming to the rescue. The research by neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists is developing answers to our questions about humanity's concept of goodness. An entirely new, probably unsettling and possibly universal, science-based understanding of virtue and evil may ultimately emerge.

Fellow philosophers, our losses to Science mount - astronomy, then psychiatry, and now ethics. Is there no end? Will Science's rapid advancements in the study of the brain and mind lead to even greater losses?

Imagine us not having enough unknowns to speculate about!

Science can give us objective answers to the biological root of the epiphenomena of human values, but it cannot give us axiological absolutes. There is no ontological basis for ethics or any values because there is no compelling way to go from is to ought.

Science has had the biggest effect on metaphysics, but not axiology. The study of axiology boils down to human perception and to universality when it comes to ethics.

@rambo phil,

Hue-man; you might consider that the compelling reason to go from is to ought is mirrored in the community and family which is, and what ought to be is clear to the entire community... Ask an individual what good is, and ask the individual what moral is and you always get some nonsense answer...It is simply nothing that an individual from an individual perspective can answer... We have not always had the conception we have of the individual...It was new to Plato, sort of taken for granted; but having none of the philosophical justification it picked up in the last thousand years...And if the individual so often denies everything including morality it is because the individual is an illogical, and unreal perspective from which to judge anything even while it is the only perspective from which to experience everything...

.Primitives saw everything outside of their communities from the perspective of their community... They were naked and without defense outside of their communities...Inside of their communities where the only place they were free, and safe and had rights...We do not grow up with that sense, of the life of community, and the danger outside...Our communities seem to be a nuisance, unecessary; and an obligation without reward... We have wide spread law, that we take for granted as well, and we do not see the many cases in which people must unite with people to have their legal rights...We have never seen all the many people who must struggle alone for their legal rights and protection in vain...When we are young and strong and we can almost get away with murder we do not understand that we are getting the best we ever will from society, of freedom without responsibility... But there is a responsibility...

The ought is always there...The -is, is the society around us that we are born into which is the source of our knowledge and rights...The ought is the obligation we pick up, and accept willingly to become full members of our society...Virtue is that line that divides the individual from society...The individual as an individual is always immoral...Society even at its worst is moral if it does not lose sight of its ultimate health and well being which is the well being of all...Now, I would agree that it cannot rob the individual of his life for nothing and look out for its future life..But that is a different subject, because when a society does that, it is already two societies...

@Fido,

Hi, hue-man,

I think science can give, and has given, us axiological absolutes. Robert Hartman, a Nobel Prize nominee, has developed the formal science of axiology. It identifies and quantitatively measures the internal valuing systems of individuals. It elevates axiology from a natural philosophy (based in theory and ideas) to a natural and formalized science (based on empirical data through valid measurement).

I'm not so sure as you are that there's no compelling way to go from "is" to "ought". John Searle and a few others have argued that an ought can actually be derived from an is. (Or, have I taken your claim out of its context?)

My general feeling is that the discoveries by science of what the brain is and how much it can do is opening the door for more scientific advisement on how we "ought" to behave.

@Dewey phil,

Dewey wrote:

Hi, hue-man,

I think science can give, and has given, us axiological absolutes. Robert Hartman, a Nobel Prize nominee, has developed the formal science of axiology. It identifies and quantitatively measures the internal valuing systems of individuals. It elevates axiology from a natural philosophy (based in theory and ideas) to a natural and formalized science (based on empirical data through valid measurement).

I'm not so sure as you are that there's no compelling way to go from "is" to "ought". John Searle and a few others have argued that an ought can actually be derived from an is. (Or, have I taken your claim out of its context?)

My general feeling is that the discoveries by science of what the brain is and how much it can do is opening the door for more scientific advisement on how we "ought" to behave.

I don't think that what you're talking about are ontological absolutes. What you're saying is that science can study axiology as an epiphenomenon, but that still doesn't say much more than what we already know about values, other than the bio-social foundation of values. Axiology also involves aesthetics and there is certainly no absolutism to aesthetics.

When someone says that there is no compelling way to go from is to ought in ontology they mean that just because something is one way doesn't mean that that's the way it is supposed to be.

Axiology boils down to human perception and appetites. Any code of ethics should be universal to all human beings, which is why I believe in moral universalism.

@hue-man,

You're right, hue-man. I am not talking ontological absolutes. Indeed, I never intended to and, so far as I know, have not talked ontological anythings. You have. Sorry, I should have asked this before, but why have you introduced ontology into this discussion?

As you say, humanity needs a universal code of ethics. That's why the scientific findings and theories I have talked about are so exciting. The evolutionary process is believed to have equipped the human brain with an innate sense of morality. Goodness is believed to have been wired into the brain. The potential for universal morality is already in our brain and DNA. The brain is plastic. Maybe we can develop that potential. (Don't laugh. Think of Galileo.)

Philosophy Forum

What prevents us from doing the "wrong" thing

Quick Links

My Account

able2know