What is morality?

[osgart]

Then psychopaths are "moral"? Their "inner experience of conscience" remains unbothered by anything they do. So they must be as moral as anybody else, right?

That doesn't follow that psychopaths are moral from what I said. Psychopaths don't experience conscience or completely reject it.

Conscience is where morality begins. Immorality is ignoring or rejecting conscience.

Conscience, you say, and where does that come from? You should keep in mind that all things are process. Where there is no identification with the self of others, compassion does not arise, and compassion is conscience. That process is the foundation of any society or civilization. Our common biology is the rational foundation of morality and society. Where morality is projected outward to a religious superstition, morality is then once removed from reality. Morality is about the survival and well-being of the individual self and a community through an expanded concept of the self; that is where identifying with the self in others comes in.

Well I'll agree compassion is conscience and a virtue also. Any meanings of good character are virtues. Good qualities invoke compassion in the good of people. I'm an atheist and I practice no religion. Animals and humans have a vital characteristic each I call soul.

Morality is about virtues and they are the standards of goodness. Morality protects self interest, but it goes deeper then that. Morality isn't driven by necessity it covers it, and protects it out of genuine care. Care being a virtue. Deserve compels all virtues.
There is actual deserve and perceived deserve, natural deserve and earned deserve.

[popeye1945]

That doesn't follow that psychopaths are moral from what I said. Psychopaths don't experience conscience or completely reject it.

Conscience is where morality begins. Immorality is ignoring or rejecting conscience.

Conscience, you say, and where does that come from? You should keep in mind that all things are process. Where there is no identification with the self of others, compassion does not arise, and compassion is conscience. That process is the foundation of any society or civilization. Our common biology is the rational foundation of morality and society. Where morality is projected outward to a religious superstition, morality is then once removed from reality. Morality is about the survival and well-being of the individual self and a community through an expanded concept of the self; that is where identifying with the self in others comes in.

Well, I'll agree compassion is conscience and a virtue also. Any meanings of good character is a virtue. Good qualities invoke compassion in the good of people. I'm an atheist and I practice no religion. Animals and humans have a vital characteristic each I call soul.

Morality is about virtues and they are the standards of goodness. Morality protects self-interest, but it goes deeper then that. Morality isn't driven by necessity it covers it, and protects it out of genuine care. Care being a virtue. Deserve compels all virtues.
There is actual deserve and perceived deserve, natural deserve and earned deserve.

As I said above, all is process. The expanded concept of the self is the collective self in the group, society, or pack.

[Gary Childress]

Conscience, you say, and where does that come from? You should keep in mind that all things are process. Where there is no identification with the self of others, compassion does not arise, and compassion is conscience. That process is the foundation of any society or civilization. Our common biology is the rational foundation of morality and society. Where morality is projected outward to a religious superstition, morality is then once removed from reality. Morality is about the survival and well-being of the individual self and a community through an expanded concept of the self; that is where identifying with the self in others comes in.

Well, I'll agree compassion is conscience and a virtue also. Any meanings of good character is a virtue. Good qualities invoke compassion in the good of people. I'm an atheist and I practice no religion. Animals and humans have a vital characteristic each I call soul.

Morality is about virtues and they are the standards of goodness. Morality protects self-interest, but it goes deeper then that. Morality isn't driven by necessity it covers it, and protects it out of genuine care. Care being a virtue. Deserve compels all virtues.
There is actual deserve and perceived deserve, natural deserve and earned deserve.

As I said above, all is process. The expanded concept of the self is the collective self in the group, society, or pack.

Sounds like Heraclitus has been resurrected.

[Walker]

An independent realization shared by another is a verbal incarnation of a principle making the rounds through time.
Do you understand?

Morality is appropriate virtuous actions.

Two of its halfwit cousins are immorality, and amorality.

[Gary Childress]

Walker talking to himself again? Otherwise, no idea who in the thread he's responding to.

[promethean75]

Unless you're talking about morality prescriptively, then there is nothing to say about it. It's just human behavior. But because prescriptive moral statements and commands can only be hypothetically imperative (if for x, do y) and nothing can be said about x categorically to make it 'good' (being useful, preferable, excellent, or fabulous does not make something 'good') the subject of ethics is three-quarters empty.

There would be nothing more behind moral language than the expression of placing blame or giving praise. This would be the only 'sense' in ethical statements. The philosophy of ethics is the collective emoting of a thousand intellectuals, nothing more.

[Walker]

Walker talking to himself again? Otherwise, no idea who in the thread he's responding to.

Aside from his admiration for and attachment to incomprehension, understanding the posting mentioned by the befuddled one is one of those shoe-fitting exercises, but as Gary has undoubtedly learned since Velcro replaced shoe laces, shoes are for walking and not just admiring … although women are of course exempt from that calculus.

Gary should expand his horizons and finally learn that even if he can’t understand, there are probably improvement plans out there in the world for stunted wit and of particular interest, some of them only require only a minimal patronage fee staggered into installments for the budget-minded … but of course you get what pay for when the currency is attention.

Entertainment lightens the burden of hauling another’s water, and fills the relevance gap for a hall monitor with a voice.

[Gary Childress]

Walker talking to himself again? Otherwise, no idea who in the thread he's responding to.

Aside from his admiration for and attachment to incomprehension, understanding the posting mentioned by the befuddled one is one of those shoe-fitting exercises, but as Gary has undoubtedly learned since Velcro replaced shoe laces, shoes are for walking and not just admiring … although women are of course exempt from that calculus.

Gary should expand his horizons and finally learn that even if he can’t understand, there are probably improvement plans out there in the world for stunted wit and of particular interest, some of them only require only a minimal patronage fee staggered into installments for the budget-minded … but of course you get what pay for when the currency is attention.

Entertainment lightens the burden of hauling another’s water, and fills the relevance gap for a hall monitor with a voice.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is self-interest, but an expanded concept of the self that includes identification with others of a like kind, or even further expands to include all living things.

Why must it? Why can't it be entirely self-concerned? If private conscience is its entire substance, then there's no way for anybody to insist one has to care about another living thing, so long as the psychopath remains untroubled.

Excellent point; the psychopath is, I believe, one percent of the population, and is the exception to the rule. The psychopath nevertheless enjoys the sanctuary of society just as the rest of us do. This process for the rest of us is not willed, as Schopenhauer once said; it is something that grabs one, in the case of self-sacrifice in saving another. In other words, it's innate to a normal individual. When one sees another being cruel to an animal, there is a good chance the person has well-developed psychopathic tendencies. Apparently, we all have psychopathic tendencies; it's a matter of degree. Something goes wrong with the maturation of some individual; in other words, the psychopath is a lack of full development. The reason for some tendencies in us all might have something to do with the collective delusion that sees the world as a world of duality; to us, our apparent reality. Here it is common sense to us that the world is made up of a world of separate objects; there is I, and there is other. For the psychopath, the other pretty much remains an object which evokes no identification and thus no compassion within the psychopath.

This might be the case. It might not. We'd never know, if we were not already imposing a vision of "the normal" on the psychopath's behaviour. But this merely moves the problem back one step: how do we know that "normal" (by which we seem to be meaning "average," or something similar to that) is obligatory and right? It may be the case that "normal" people feel "normal" aversion to hurting animals; but by what right to they impose their "normal" view on the rest of the people? And by what index do they get to damn them as "psychpaths" and lock them up or at least forbid the "psychopath's" propensities?

Nothing in a purely Naturalistic order licenses such a move. Nothing in a purely Physicalist or Materialist order approves for us our aversion to the psychopath, or warrants our interdiction of his behaviour. And compassion, in such a world, is no virtue, no moral quality, but rather merely an expression of the preference of some group (us) which by nothing more than dint of numbers, is able to forcibly impose its selfish will upon the selfish will of the psychopaths; but which ultimately is no more moral or right than their propensities are.

I'm not the first to point this out, and not the most recent. Starting from Foucault, and even in the present day, we find there are loud voices advocating for the interests of "non-neurotypical" individuals...the queer, transgenderists, pedophiles, and even the outright mentally-ill, and arguing that their departures from the "norm" should be reintegrated into society, and asking by what right we exclude them from the complete round of social activities.

Why are such voices wrong, if the world we live in is the one described by Naturalists, Physicalists or Materialists? Why are their personal or evolutionary "quirks" wrong, and ours right?

[Immanuel Can]

Immorality is ignoring, or rejecting conscience.

I would tend to agree...but then, I can rationally do that, because I think conscience is a gift from God, and it's wrong to reject what God has revealed.

But how can others? Given something like Naturalism, Physicalism or Materialism to be at the basic nature of reality, and then there to be no God, no objective "right" or "wrong," why should conscience be a serious thing? Why should "ignoring or rejecting" conscience be anything close to "wrong" or "immoral"?

[osgart]

Immorality is ignoring, or rejecting conscience.

I would tend to agree...but then, I can rationally do that, because I think conscience is a gift from God, and it's wrong to reject what God has revealed.

But how can others? Given something like Naturalism, Physicalism or Materialism to be at the basic nature of reality, and then there to be no God, no objective "right" or "wrong," why should conscience be a serious thing? Why should "ignoring or rejecting" conscience be anything close to "wrong" or "immoral"?

Is God good because whatever God commands is good? Or does God always meet the existing standards for what good Is by nature?

Can't mankind on its own comprehend what is good and what is not good? Can't mankind attain to what is good?

Surely without good mankind destroys itself, and all that is necessary to live.

[Immanuel Can]

Immorality is ignoring, or rejecting conscience.

I would tend to agree...but then, I can rationally do that, because I think conscience is a gift from God, and it's wrong to reject what God has revealed.

But how can others? Given something like Naturalism, Physicalism or Materialism to be at the basic nature of reality, and then there to be no God, no objective "right" or "wrong," why should conscience be a serious thing? Why should "ignoring or rejecting" conscience be anything close to "wrong" or "immoral"?

Is God good because whatever God commands is good? Or does God always meet the existing standards for what good Is by nature?

Oh, that's an old question, and a very easy one. Some have called it "the Euthyphro Dilemma," after its early origins in Plato. But it's not really very hard.

The answer is "Yes." God is good, and good is also what God is. Since the very concept of "good" really means, "consonant with the character of God," there is actually no difference at all. God is the single and ultimate source and definer of what "good" means, and the predication of Him as good is also perfectly apt, since He has consistent character.

Can't mankind on its own comprehend what is good and what is not good? Can't mankind attain to what is good?

Ask yourself how he's doing right now. Start in Ukraine or Gaza, maybe.

Surely without good mankind destroys itself, and all that is necessary to live.

Okay, but knowing what good is, is not the same thing as being able to be good. I know what "flight" means; but I can't fly. It takes more than moral knowledge to become good; it takes moral nature. And mankind clearly has a nature that is not exclusively oriented to the good. If we did, there would be no war, no prostitution, no slavery, no theft, no pornography, no violence, no embezzlement, no racism, no oppression, no vandalism, no terrorism, no genocide, no hatred, no slander or gossip or envy or spite...but how are we doing, on all that?

We know we shouldn't do those things. But we do them anyway. That's the difference between moral knowledge and moral capability.