What is morality?

[MikeNovack]

All you're saying is that he was trained. Every child is. But when they come of age, and they can begin to ask "Why?" then that goes out the window. Either you give them sufficient reasons so that they come to believe it themselves, or they have no reason to believe it any more.

REALLY? You really believe that? You think the trained in sense of right and wrong instilled during your toilet training could easily be overridden by rationality?

TRY IT ---- Not that hard to clean up afterwards if you rationally lay down a sheet of plastic first. There's no RATIONAL reason not to put that sheet of plastic on the floor, drop trousers, squat, and take a dump. I am not saying you won't be able to do this but I am saying rationality will not prevent very strong feelings of THIS IS WRONG.

[Immanuel Can]

All you're saying is that he was trained. Every child is. But when they come of age, and they can begin to ask "Why?" then that goes out the window. Either you give them sufficient reasons so that they come to believe it themselves, or they have no reason to believe it any more.

You think the trained in sense of right and wrong instilled during your toilet training could easily be overridden by rationality?

Well, you're being a bit silly here. "Toilet training" is not a synonym for "training." It's only one kind, and of a very limited and scatalogical kind, obviously. But you knew that, which is why you tried the reductio ad absurdum here.

No social training is "easily" overcome, of course. But it certainly can be overcome, and everybody does, to one extent of another. If you think you're never going to get asked "Why," you should try raising a child...or a teenager. I promise you, you'll find they are quite capable of questioning whatever training you've imposed on them.

So what is the answer to WHY a child should follow your morality? Can you give a rational explanation of moral duty? Or do you have to resort to forcing it by way of power?

[MikeNovack]

Ah, I think you are wanting duty to do double duty.

I understand the concept of deontology ethics. So would agree if you are using it would make sense to think (and ask me to support)
"it is one's duty to do the moral (right) thing". But I see you saying "x" is the right thing to do because "x" is a duty. With the first, that becomes circular.

The logic DOES go from "it is a duty to do the right thing", "x is a right thing", therefore conclude "x is a duty". But it doesn't work in reverse "it is a duty to do the right thing", "x is a duty", therefore conclude "x is a right thing" << that works if there are no sorts of duties other than ones connected to morality >>

I think we need to look at:
A) What is morality for ---- I would argue that it is for choosing among alternative choices of action in situations. And that it applies at the moment when the choice must be made << thus I would rule out consequentialism as bearing on morality >>
B) Are right and wrong binary ---- I would argue that there are rarely only two possible actions and even when we are considering just two, rather than right vs wrong we need to think better vs worse << there are usually other choices even better and others worse even if not immediately available to the chooser.
C) In REAL situations where we are to make a moral decision between alternatives is is unlikely that we would have previously rationally considered exactly this situation and these alternatives. Luckily our brains, being neural nets, are well equipped to deal with this.You can think of as similar to interpolation. But even though X (situation, alternative1, alterntive2) and Y might have rational explanation, that interpolation as done by a neural net is opaque.
As an experience, we would just know that result/choice was correct, felt correct, etc.

[CIN2]

I think we need to look at:
A) What is morality for ---- I would argue that it is for choosing among alternative choices of action in situations.

Morality is not ‘for’ anything. It is itself, by definition, the overriding reason for acting in one way rather than another. This is the case whether you consider that the moral action is the right action, the best action, or the action that is your duty.

And that it applies at the moment when the choice must be made << thus I would rule out consequentialism as bearing on morality >>

Why? Is it because you think that in practice we cannot work out all the consequences at the time we act? Because if so, you are invalidly moving from ‘this theory cannot be put into practice’ to ‘this theory is incorrect’. There is no reason why it should be possible to put the correct ethical theory into practice. (Of course it must be logically possible - a description of the action must make sense; but it may not be physically possible - the laws of the universe or actual circumstances may preclude it being done.)

B) Are right and wrong binary ---- I would argue that there are rarely only two possible actions and even when we are considering just two, rather than right vs wrong we need to think better vs worse << there are usually other choices even better and others worse even if not immediately available to the chooser.

If you do not consider consequences, how do you decide that one action is better than another?

C) In REAL situations where we are to make a moral decision between alternatives is is unlikely that we would have previously rationally considered exactly this situation and these alternatives. Luckily our brains, being neural nets, are well equipped to deal with this.You can think of as similar to interpolation. But even though X (situation, alternative1, alterntive2) and Y might have rational explanation, that interpolation as done by a neural net is opaque.
As an experience, we would just know that result/choice was correct, felt correct, etc.

Rationally indefensible. Claiming to know that something is correct is only justifiable if you can explain why it is correct.

In practice, a consequentialist would make his or her best guess based on past experience. For example, experience seems to show that stealing causes more unhappiness than happiness, therefore in this case I do not steal. I may in fact be wrong in this case, for reasons unknown to me, but it is the rational thing to do.

[Immanuel Can]

So what is the answer to WHY a child should follow your morality? Can you give a rational explanation of moral duty? Or do you have to resort to forcing it by way of power?

Ah, I think you are wanting duty to do double duty.

I did not invoke the word "duty." I said, "Why should they follow your morality?" That's all.

I understand the concept of deontology ethics. So would agree if you are using it would make sense to think (and ask me to support)
"it is one's duty to do the moral (right) thing". But I see you saying "x" is the right thing to do because "x" is a duty. With the first, that becomes circular.

No, I'm not saying '"x" is the right thing to do because "x" is a duty.' Your paraphrase is ill-formed there.

Rather, it's YOU, presumably, who have some moral precept. (Unless you're amoral, which I have not seen reason to believe that you are.) Your child wants to know the reason for it. She wants you to justify your precept, so she can have good reason to believe in it, too, instead of having to obey in ignorance, out of fear, or merely because you are more powerful.

What do you say to her?

[MikeNovack]

Rather, it's YOU, presumably, who have some moral precept. (Unless you're amoral, which I have not seen reason to believe that you are.) Your child wants to know the reason for it. She wants you to justify your precept, so she can have good reason to believe in it, too, instead of having to obey in ignorance, out of fear, or merely because you are more powerful.

What do you say to her?

A) Look at what you are saying. Do you REALLY believe that realistic? Can you really imagine a child doing that? Asking, "Mommy, WHY is it wrong for us to take a dump on the floor in the corner of the room?"

However, in the unlikely event of this happening, I do know what the mother is likely to say. She'd probably say "Because we are people, not animals. People don't do that."

B) << I had an ulterior purpose in the example >> You, who believes morality derives from directives of God, likely do not know how to derive this from one of the commandments. << Yes, I could do that, know from which commandment could be derived if I wanted to do something like that >>

[Immanuel Can]

Rather, it's YOU, presumably, who have some moral precept. (Unless you're amoral, which I have not seen reason to believe that you are.) Your child wants to know the reason for it. She wants you to justify your precept, so she can have good reason to believe in it, too, instead of having to obey in ignorance, out of fear, or merely because you are more powerful.

What do you say to her?

A) Look at what you are saying. Do you REALLY believe that realistic?

Absolutely. It's totally realistic It's something every parent faces. "Why?" is the first question they learn to ask.

Now, do you have an answer, or just more evasion?

[CIN2]

There's no RATIONAL reason not to put that sheet of plastic on the floor, drop trousers, squat, and take a dump.

This has to be the silliest argument I have ever read on a philosophy forum.

There is a perfectly rational reason: it’s hard to clear up. Much harder than flushing the loo.

FFS find some more intelligent arguments.

[MikeNovack]

A) Look at what you are saying. Do you REALLY believe that realistic?

Absolutely. It's totally realistic It's something every parent faces. "Why?" is the first question they learn to ask.

Now, do you have an answer, or just more evasion?

We were NOT speaking about "in general" but about THIS specific matter (which the child learned BEFORE the stage of the constant "whys" (good grief, I have greatgrandchildren, know about raising kids)

HOWEVER -- if you think parents will give some GENERAL rational reason why to different moral lessons, you are mistaken. YOU might have some GENERAL basis for morality, many/most of us do not.

PS: Did you manage to find the Biblical reference? <<hint -- indirect, would be inferred by "if even in times of war, surely always". >>

[Immanuel Can]

A) Look at what you are saying. Do you REALLY believe that realistic?

Absolutely. It's totally realistic It's something every parent faces. "Why?" is the first question they learn to ask.

Now, do you have an answer, or just more evasion?

We were NOT speaking about "in general" but about THIS specific matter (which the child learned BEFORE the stage of the constant "whys" (good grief, I have greatgrandchildren, know about raising kids)

Then, unless you're a tyrant, you know you owe them reasonable explanation for WHY you tell them to follow X or Y ethical principle.

What did you tell them?

[MikeNovack]

What did you tell them?

You believe morality has a single source. Unreasonable to keep asking people you know don't believe that for their single source.

HOWEVER -- I can tell you the most frequent "why" the parent would give. Most frequent in terms of the number of different rules for which it will be the answer.

"PEOPLE don't do that; we are not animals"
"WE (people of our tribe) don't do that."
Good people don't do that."

[Immanuel Can]

What did you tell them?

You believe morality has a single source.

Not me. You. What did you tell them?

HOWEVER -- I can tell you the most frequent "why" the parent would give. Most frequent in terms of the number of different rules for which it will be the answer.

"PEOPLE don't do that; we are not animals"

I didn't ask about "people." I asked what YOU said.

"WE (people of our tribe) don't do that."

I didn't ask about "tribe." I asked what YOU said.

Good people don't do that."

Circular. They would naturally ask, "What makes a person 'good'?" It's just the same question again, because what you'd have given them is an assumption that they already know. But if they knew, they wouldn't be asking.

Again, what did you tell them? One of those three? They're non-answers to the question of what makes something or somebody "good." Tribalism, a vague appeal to "humans don't do what animals do," and "well, you must already know what a good person is...", these don't answer any question rationally.

Don't animals sometimes do good things? Then how does a reference to animals help?
Why should "what my tribe does," be good, when other "tribes" do the opposite?
And how can you know a person is "good" when you don't yet know what a "good action" is?

Behind all these must be some rational grounds, if you are going to convince your children to be rationally good. What is that grounds?

[Gary Childress]

What did you tell them?

You believe morality has a single source.

Not me. You. What did you tell them?

HOWEVER -- I can tell you the most frequent "why" the parent would give. Most frequent in terms of the number of different rules for which it will be the answer.

"PEOPLE don't do that; we are not animals"

I didn't ask about "people." I asked what YOU said.

"WE (people of our tribe) don't do that."

I didn't ask about "tribe." I asked what YOU said.

Good people don't do that."

Circular. They would naturally ask, "What makes a person 'good'?" It's just the same question again, because what you'd have given them is an assumption that they already know. But if they knew, they wouldn't be asking.

Again, what did you tell them? One of those three? They're non-answers to the question of what makes something or somebody "good." Tribalism, a vague appeal to "humans don't do what animals do," and "well, you must already know what a good person is...", these don't answer any question rationally.

Don't animals sometimes do good things? Then how does a reference to animals help?
Why should "what my tribe does," be good, when other "tribes" do the opposite?
And how can you know a person is "good" when you don't yet know what a "good action" is?

Behind all these must be some rational grounds, if you are going to convince your children to be rationally good. What is that grounds?

Could a parent simply say, "Good people don't do to others what they would not want done to themselves"? Would that work sufficiently? And if not why wouldn't it work sufficiently for a parent explaining why to do or not do X or Y?

[Immanuel Can]

You believe morality has a single source.

Not me. You. What did you tell them?

HOWEVER -- I can tell you the most frequent "why" the parent would give. Most frequent in terms of the number of different rules for which it will be the answer.

"PEOPLE don't do that; we are not animals"

I didn't ask about "people." I asked what YOU said.

"WE (people of our tribe) don't do that."

I didn't ask about "tribe." I asked what YOU said.

Good people don't do that."

Circular. They would naturally ask, "What makes a person 'good'?" It's just the same question again, because what you'd have given them is an assumption that they already know. But if they knew, they wouldn't be asking.

Again, what did you tell them? One of those three? They're non-answers to the question of what makes something or somebody "good." Tribalism, a vague appeal to "humans don't do what animals do," and "well, you must already know what a good person is...", these don't answer any question rationally.

Don't animals sometimes do good things? Then how does a reference to animals help?
Why should "what my tribe does," be good, when other "tribes" do the opposite?
And how can you know a person is "good" when you don't yet know what a "good action" is?

Behind all these must be some rational grounds, if you are going to convince your children to be rationally good. What is that grounds?

Could a parent simply say, "Good people don't do to others what they would not want done to themselves"?

Why would we believe that we have a moral duty not to do to people things they don't want done?

Who told us we did?

I can think of One who did. Can you?

[Gary Childress]

Not me. You. What did you tell them?

I didn't ask about "people." I asked what YOU said.
I didn't ask about "tribe." I asked what YOU said.
Circular. They would naturally ask, "What makes a person 'good'?" It's just the same question again, because what you'd have given them is an assumption that they already know. But if they knew, they wouldn't be asking.

Again, what did you tell them? One of those three? They're non-answers to the question of what makes something or somebody "good." Tribalism, a vague appeal to "humans don't do what animals do," and "well, you must already know what a good person is...", these don't answer any question rationally.

Don't animals sometimes do good things? Then how does a reference to animals help?
Why should "what my tribe does," be good, when other "tribes" do the opposite?
And how can you know a person is "good" when you don't yet know what a "good action" is?

Behind all these must be some rational grounds, if you are going to convince your children to be rationally good. What is that grounds?

Could a parent simply say, "Good people don't do to others what they would not want done to themselves"?

Why would we believe that we have a moral duty not to do to people things they don't want done?

Because if you treat others the way you would not want to be treated, it will get you a lot of enemies and no friends.

Who told us we did?

Do you need someone to command you not to do something to others that you would not want done to yourself? Could you not come to that conclusion independently from the fact that having enemies is, in itself, a major drawback of treating others as you would not want to be treated?