My thoughts on morality.

[Kennynguyen111]

Hello,
I would like to offer thoughts on morality. In my view, morality has to be grounded in all of reality and that includes both the objective physical world and the individual’s subjective experience. In other words, I believe that a person’s moral development requires meditative practices in order to develop awareness of one’s feelings and the moral implications of these feelings. I believe that a morality that is based entirely on abstract principles like utilitarianism is unworkable because it is not grounded in the person’s moral emotions. Thoughts, opinions, criticisms?
Thanks,
Kenny

[Veritas Aequitas]

We need to define Morality and Ethics.
Morality is the Pure aspect like Pure Geometry.
Ethics is the Applied aspect which use Moral principles as a guide for the practical.
Then we need to organize Morality and Ethics within a framework and model based on the System Approach.

Then we need to establish secular absolute moral rules as guides, i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

Thereafter we translate the pure secular absolute moral rules to the practical [ethics].

To ensure the practical [ethics] are in alignment with the absolute moral rules we need various strategies.
There are many strategies and one of them are the proper efficient meditative techniques of either Samatha or Vispassana types of meditation.

From the Buddhist perspective, the 4NT-8FP model of problem solving is incorporated with the Moral-Ethics System model.

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193&p=377268&hil ... ng#p377268

In this case we need to translate the Right Views of Morality to Right Actions [Ethics] as supported by Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness.

[EmmaQ]

Hello,
I would like to offer thoughts on morality. In my view, morality has to be grounded in all of reality and that includes both the objective physical world and the individual’s subjective experience. In other words, I believe that a person’s moral development requires meditative practices in order to develop awareness of one’s feelings and the moral implications of these feelings. I believe that a morality that is based entirely on abstract principles like utilitarianism is unworkable because it is not grounded in the person’s moral emotions. Thoughts, opinions, criticisms?
Thanks,
Kenny

Kenny, I also believe that each human practice and judgment about something should be based on spiritual teachings, on meditative techniques, etc. How else can a person feel what he thinks and speaks of?

[odysseus]

Veritas Aequitas

We need to define Morality and Ethics.
Morality is the Pure aspect like Pure Geometry.
Ethics is the Applied aspect which use Moral principles as a guide for the practical.
Then we need to organize Morality and Ethics within a framework and model based on the System Approach.

Then we need to establish secular absolute moral rules as guides, i.e.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27245

Thereafter we translate the pure secular absolute moral rules to the practical [ethics].

To ensure the practical [ethics] are in alignment with the absolute moral rules we need various strategies.
There are many strategies and one of them are the proper efficient meditative techniques of either Samatha or Vispassana types of meditation.

From the Buddhist perspective, the 4NT-8FP model of problem solving is incorporated with the Moral-Ethics System model.

Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193&p=377268&hil ... ng#p377268

In this case we need to translate the Right Views of Morality to Right Actions [Ethics] as supported by Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness.

Secular absolute moral rules????? That has a contradictions in it; that is, unless you can explain how what is secular is also absolute? You mean to say that there are absolutes, and these make an appearance in the world? Explain an absolute like this to me, if you would.

I did look at your link to your previous post. Not helpful.

[nothing]

Hello,
I would like to offer thoughts on morality. In my view, morality has to be grounded in all of reality

The first problem you will run into is people who deny the existential reality and substitute it with their own belief-based one. Thus, "morality" relies on the adopted worldview, and not reality. For example, if you say "reality" to a Muhammadan, the only reality implied is: there is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the final messenger and any/all who do not "believe" are designated "enemies of Allah" and war is waged against them. To a Muhammadan, killing an unbeliever is a "moral" act because it is prescribed both in the Qur'an and by the idol of Islam Muhammad - the two belief-based authorities of Islam.

and that includes both the objective physical world and the individual’s subjective experience. In other words, I believe that a person’s moral development requires meditative practices in order to develop awareness of one’s feelings and the moral implications of these feelings. I believe that a morality that is based entirely on abstract principles like utilitarianism is unworkable because it is not grounded in the person’s moral emotions. Thoughts, opinions, criticisms?
Thanks,
Kenny

The second problem is "believers" tend to blame their own internal state (ie. of emotions, if/when negative) on other people. Because emotions can be both positive/negative, and because morality is entirely subject to the worldview, wrong worldviews produce wrong morality such to invariably persist so long as tolerance for wrong worldviews persists.

Therefor, to address both ethics and morality, what is needed is a grounding in the ethical need for truth as authority, rather than authority as truth. If this ethical orientation were established, morality would follow accordingly as invariably as it does anyway with belief-based worldviews. The obstacle: attachment to belief-based idols/authorities such male central figure "mercy upon mankind" idols over which hundreds of millions are dead.

[odysseus]

Kennynguyen111
I would like to offer thoughts on morality. In my view, morality has to be grounded in all of reality and that includes both the objective physical world and the individual’s subjective experience. In other words, I believe that a person’s moral development requires meditative practices in order to develop awareness of one’s feelings and the moral implications of these feelings. I believe that a morality that is based entirely on abstract principles like utilitarianism is unworkable because it is not grounded in the person’s moral emotions. Thoughts, opinions, criticisms?
Thanks,
Kenny

There are two ways to look at ethics. One is the whether the agent is a moral one or not, and the other is the whether the action is moral or not. Utility is all about the action (though it produces results that are questionable), that is, assessing the action for it moral worth, which is how well it works. It has nothing to say about the agent; it does not ask, about the agent's intentions, nor does it offer criteria for whether intentions are good or bad. It just is concerned with what "works," hence the idea of utility.

An agent's motivations, on the other hand, are brought up when we try to understand whether s/he was moral in DOING the action. You can see how this would be very different things: If I accidentally back into a lever marked "torture a hundred innocent souls" and they are thereby tortured, we would say this is very, very different from doing the same thing for amusement's sake. YOU are concerned with agency, as well you should be. But understand that the two do not always go hand in hand: doing the right thing and having the right motivations. this is the trouble, pacifists, say, have when their unconditional love for humankind prevents them from harming a hair on the head of that malicious beast who needs to be killed to be stopped.

The only way to go is to be a sensitive, decent person with humanity and empathy...who is willing to send the savage beasts of the world to hell as well! Utility is what this latter would insist on.

So, the moral is, both are required for a full analysis of the moral content of an act.

[odysseus]

nothing
The first problem you will run into is people who deny the existential reality and substitute it with their own belief-based one. Thus, "morality" relies on the adopted worldview, and not reality. For example, if you say "reality" to a Muhammadan, the only reality implied is: there is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the final messenger and any/all who do not "believe" are designated "enemies of Allah" and war is waged against them. To a Muhammadan, killing an unbeliever is a "moral" act because it is prescribed both in the Qur'an and by the idol of Islam Muhammad - the two belief-based authorities of Islam.

Are you saying there is no moral "reality" only culture and its moral arbitrariness?

The second problem is "believers" tend to blame their own internal state (ie. of emotions, if/when negative) on other people. Because emotions can be both positive/negative, and because morality is entirely subject to the worldview, wrong worldviews produce wrong morality such to invariably persist so long as tolerance for wrong worldviews persists.

Therefor, to address both ethics and morality, what is needed is a grounding in the ethical need for truth as authority, rather than authority as truth. If this ethical orientation were established, morality would follow accordingly as invariably as it does anyway with belief-based worldviews. The obstacle: attachment to belief-based idols/authorities such male central figure "mercy upon mankind" idols over which hundreds of millions are dead.

It sounds a lot like you're saying what is needed is, as with others things, a nice, solid fact what moral rectitude. This IS what Mill and the deontologist, Kant tried to do. Alas, ethics is not like physics. But on the other hand, it is not as if there is nothing at all in ethics that has the kind of authority you're looking for, and that would be in the "value" of ethical situations.

[gaffo]

Hello,
I would like to offer thoughts on morality. In my view, morality has to be grounded in all of reality and that includes both the objective physical world and the individual’s subjective experience. In other words, I believe that a person’s moral development requires meditative practices in order to develop awareness of one’s feelings and the moral implications of these feelings. I believe that a morality that is based entirely on abstract principles like utilitarianism is unworkable because it is not grounded in the person’s moral emotions. Thoughts, opinions, criticisms?
Thanks,
Kenny

Morality is a "social instinct" and man as a social animal is more with a core moral instinct.