okay, here's my thoughts on morality.

[seeker36]

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,
Chris.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




Chris I think you are spot-on in your views towards morality, ethics, and applied ethics.



You definitely have the ability to write and you have developed a mature attitude towards the state of man.




It is refreshing to see you post here at the Philosophy Now forums.



I wish you luck in whatever you choose to pursue towards your writings. Don't get discouraged.




Use this forum to sharpen your focus and to further develop your writing skills.





.

[Arising_uk]

... 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. ...

What a "moral emotion" seeker36? You think there is a 'moral organ'? If there is why does it not work consistently in all, e.g. as the kidneys and liver do?
p.s.
I can't argue against the idea that one should be aware of how ones feelings and emotions can affect ones morals but in general these feelings and emotions appear to have been given to one by ones society.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



...upon an open forum its more just people thinking that whatever they post is philosophical, rather than thinking philosophically about what they post.
~~~ AMod ~~~



.

[John]

What the hell's going on with the cross posting?

[seeker36]

Hi Bill and Arising uk,

Bill,

you definitely have the ability to write

God ,you have no idea how much I need to hear that. Thanks!

Use this forum to sharpen your focus and to further develop your writing skills

Indeed.

Arising uk,

What a "moral emotion" seeker36? You think there is a 'moral organ'? If there is why does it not work consistently in all, e.g. as the kidneys and liver do?

Thanks. No I am not a fan of Steven Pinkeresque psychology. I do not believe in “mind modules” or organs, or whatever. Perhaps "Moral" emotion is an overstatement.

p.s.
I can't argue against the idea that one should be aware of how ones feelings and emotions can affect ones morals but in general these feelings and emotions appear to have been given to one by ones society.

Yes i agree. And this is also the problem. people don't want moral responsibiliy. We are told "Don't do that", often without explantion as to why(Usually because I/god/we say so and we come to accept, even like that. We don't have to think). I think there is another problem with the idea of culturally imposed values. If society imposes it's morality on us,where on earth did the notion of morality come from? God? Is society god?

Okay then, here are my views on ethics and emotions: I perceive a dubious dualism when people talk about thoughts and emotions as if they are somehow separate subjective entities. When I look to my experience I find that my thought “Yum toffee cheesecake!” is accompanied by an emotion, depending on the context(pleasure if the cheesecake is present, or perhaps I might feel an unpleasant, painful feeling of want, which would have its roots in the thought/emotion “I want the happiness/pleasure that cheesecake means to me and I do not have it. I lack happiness”).

Ethical practice involves becoming aware of thoughts/emotions that provoke feelings of pain,anger,hate,jealousy etc(I feel angry and nilistic, what does this feeling mean?) Figuring out what the feeling means translates the feeling into an explicit concept that can be examined in order to verify it’s truth or falsehood(Actually, in my experience, genuinely painful feelings are never rooted in reality because they are based on absolutes like ”I am evil” A human being is not intrinsically anything) The moral implications of this have been outlined throughout history by religious and secular figures such as Jesus, Buddha, Maslow, Carl Rogers etc. Please comment people,

Chris.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


EXCELLENT post Chris.



.

[seeker36]

Hello all,
Continuing the disscussion. This from the skeptic magazine website:

Are you saying that moral development cannot occur without meditative practices/therapy? If so, what are those meditative practices/therapy, and how do you explain the apparent moral development which has occurred in people who do not practice meditation?

These are brilliant questions. Thank you for getting me to think.

My immediate thought is “No I would not say that moral development does not occur without meditation/therapy or whatever.” I think that would lead me into the trap of law based morality(Thou shalt meditate/Have therapy etc) I do think though, that moral development is contingent upon the development of what psychologist Daniel Goleman calls “Emotional intelligence”. I would define this as increasing ones awareness of what creates prosocial feelings in the individual and the people around him. The purpose of practices like meditation /therapy/ritual or whatever, is not to do these things as a way of saying “Ooohh look at me I am so moral” but rather as a way of increasing subjective awareness of thoughts/feelings/meanings that are otherwise unnoticed or taken for granted as gospel truth.

As far as what these therapies are, I suppose that the effectiveness of these techniques would vary from person to person(I find humanistic counseling really useful, a friend of mine tried this and did not). I don’t believe that there’s a one size fits all technique, but I am clear in my own mind that whatever “practice” is used, the intent is to raise awareness. There is also the issue of psychological resistance that may cause a person to terminate a practice.

As to the final part of your question, this is tricky. It depends what you mean by apparent moral development. It could be argued that people who follow moral laws such as “thou shalt not kill” are higher up the moral spectrum than than people who subscribe to an “every man for himself” attitude simply on the basis that, although these are laws in absolute terms, they do implicitly take the feelings of other beings into account. Subjectively, laws such as these may encourage people to think morally(Therefore develop more emotional intelligence), in that they are encourages to be aware that others matter.

I don't know that painful feelings are always based on absolutes. I can accidently do things that are hurtful to someone I care about or do something that I think is unethical or questionably so, and just feel stupid and clumsy about it, but not evil. I'm not sure that these would count as "genuinely painful feelings," but I can get on a roll and begin thinking of time after time that I've done things like that, and then shake my head and almost laugh about it, thinking, I guess, that being "only human" is being flawed.

Okay here’s how I see it. Painful feelings such as hate, rage ,greed, jealousy or feelings of emptiness/meaninglessness are indeed based upon absolutes. A person could say “Oh bollocks that was bloody stupid of me” and mean it in two possible ways. One is absolute and painful, the other is just an acknowledgement of human frailty. He or she could mean “I am stupid”(Absolute and painful) or they could mean “I just behaved stupidly. That was a mistake, how can I fix it?(Relative and momentarily painful).
Does this make sense?


Chris.

[duszek]

Sometimes you hurt someone again and again and you do not feel very cruel. You could be a little bit surprised and puzzled why you are doing this. But when you ask yourself (ask your heart of hearts) then some explanation shows up. You want to deter something you are afraid of and which might grasp you suffocatingly. Then it would be time to find out if this fear is based on a real danger or if it is a product of an overactive imagination and an hypersensitivity.

Another thing: do not not feel that utilitarianism might be a good thing ? If the greatest number around you are thriving and happy then you will feel happy too, won´t you ? Whereas if most people around you are depressed and miserable then you would rather flee or disappear.
So even for selfish reasons utilitarianism sounds right to me.

[duszek]

Empathy makes one refrain from killing instinctively.
Killing makes one unhappy or even traumatized.
Morality is not only altruistic but in the long run also selfish.

[seeker36]

Hello Duszek,

Sometimes you hurt someone again and again and you do not feel very cruel. You could be a little bit surprised and puzzled why you are doing this. But when you ask yourself (ask your heart of hearts) then some explanation shows up. You want to deter something you are afraid of and which might grasp you suffocatingly. Then it would be time to find out if this fear is based on a real danger or if it is a product of an overactive imagination and an hypersensitivity.

Yes i can agree with this. Sometimes i have expressed what looks like hatred, but on closer inspection I have the sense that i am pretending to hate someone or something. I don't really mean it. This "pseudohatred" is more of a case of feeling threatened and wanting to push that threat away. Is this what you meant?

Another thing: do you not feel that utilitarianism might be a good thing ? If the greatest number around you are thriving and happy then you will feel happy too, won´t you ? Whereas if most people around you are depressed and miserable then you would rather flee or disappear. So even for selfish reasons utilitarianism sounds right to me.

Well spotted The utilitarian idea works well in my view as long as it is not reduced to an abstraction that is divorced from emotional reality. It makes sense that the more truly happy, loving and compassionate people there are, the more they are able to model that behaviour and spread the love as it were. The problems with utilitarianism arise when people think in terms of maximising happiness through the sacrifice of the few(The somebody has to suffer effect). These are just tentitive thoughts, i need to think about it a bit more.

Empathy makes one refrain from killing instinctively.
Killing makes one unhappy or even traumatized.
Morality is not only altruistic but in the long run also selfish.

Yes absolutely. This is part of the confusion people have. It is literally true that what you do for another you do for yourself. Being "good" makes people happy.

[chaz wyman]

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,
Chris.

My may criticism is that you have not really said anything, except to contradict yourself.
1) Morality must be grounded in the object and subjective reality, with meditative practices
2) Abstract principles cannot work because they are not grounded in the person's moral emotions.

However position 1) is requires adherence to abstract principles denied in 2)
Further than that you have not hinted at what you think morality should contain.

[chaz wyman]

Empathy makes one refrain from killing instinctively.
Killing makes one unhappy or even traumatized.
Morality is not only altruistic but in the long run also selfish.

This is only true of some people, probably most, but only SOME people.
Moral laws are devised to prevent those of us who forebear from murder due to empathy suffering at the hands of those for whom empathy is just a word, and killing means pleasure.

[seeker36]

Hello Duzek and Chaz,
Further thoughts on utilitarianism:The problem i see is that utilitarianism is based on an absolute ideal of maximum happiness for maximum people. Who defines what happiness is? What about useful feelings like grief when a loved one dies? Is it not the most natural and expressive act to feel "unhappy"? And is this not "happiness"? I think that a society literally run on utilitarian principles could end up being a bit like the society in one the worst episodes of doctor who ever-"The happiness patrol"(You must conform to absolute happiness).

Hi Chaz,

My may criticism is that you have not really said anything, except to contradict yourself.
1) Morality must be grounded in the object and subjective reality, with meditative practices
2) Abstract principles cannot work because they are not grounded in the person's moral emotions.

However position 1) is requires adherence to abstract principles denied in 2)

I see what you mean chaz. In a sense, nobody can say anything at all without invoking "abstract principles". I'm suggesting that abstract principles(Such as utilitartianism) require intergration with concrete experience/sensory data and you are right to point out that this suggestion is, in itself an abstract principle. In Zen this is called the finger pointing at the moon. The finger is an abstract symbol that people interpret as "look at where this finger is pointing"(I don't think animals understand the distinction, they just look at the finger) and the experience of the moon is raw experience.

Further than that you have not hinted at what you think morality should contain.

Do you mean conceptually? This is fascinating and really illustrates the muddled dualities that seem to be inherant in trying to talk about ethics and morality. I'm beginning to see why Zen masters just shut up and meditate. Maybe i'll have to rethink the theme of my book. I think that at best, a person can only make generalisations about morality. If i say a moral rule is "do not inflict pain upon youself/another person" this is almost allways true. But what about vietnamese monks who self immolated in protest of the vietnam war? In my view, They were not commiting attrocities against themselves, they were saying "Look at what i am doing to myself. This is horrifying isn't it? This is what war looks like. An idiot setting himself on fire" So hurting youself is not always a no-no. There are no absolute moral rules, but postmodern nihilism aside this is i think a very real moral reality. Does this make sense?

Empathy makes one refrain from killing instinctively.
Killing makes one unhappy or even traumatized.
Morality is not only altruistic but in the long run also selfish.


This is only true of some people, probably most, but only SOME people.
Moral laws are devised to prevent those of us who forebear from murder due to empathy suffering at the hands of those for whom empathy is just a word, and killing means pleasure.

I think i'd say that the sociopath is as sociopathic towards himself as he is to others and so the sociopath suffers through his own actions. Killing may be momentarily pleasurable but serial killing seems to reflect an unquenchable rage. To me that sounds excruciating.

[duszek]

You are right, seeker36, nobody should be made forcefully happy.
But we can agree on a lot of things that make almost everyone happy: clean water and air, enough healthy food of our choice, a job which suits our abilities, social contacts of our choosing etc. etc.

A psychopath or sociopath does not have any conscience or any sort of remorse. So he is never excruciated by any remorse or bad conscience. That´s what makes him so succesful.