Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:49 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:58 pm Morality concerns how people ought to live their lives, which is to avoid suffering and pursue well being. Consistent with a Buddhist / Aristotelian view.

I agree with the above.

To reinforce the definition, the term 'suffering' and 'well-being' will need to be defined and explained to accompany the above definition to confine them to the moral perspective.

Uh, no. We use the term "health", for example, often as a certain umbrella term. We don't have a precise definition for it and our understanding evolves over time but the fact that we don't have a precise nor static definition does not make it vacuous nor a "good" that should be included in a moral calculus.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:13 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:49 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:58 pm Morality concerns how people ought to live their lives, which is to avoid suffering and pursue well being. Consistent with a Buddhist / Aristotelian view.

I agree with the above.

To reinforce the definition, the term 'suffering' and 'well-being' will need to be defined and explained to accompany the above definition to confine them to the moral perspective.

Uh, no. We use the term "health", for example, often as a certain umbrella term. We don't have a precise definition for it and our understanding evolves over time but the fact that we don't have a precise nor static definition does not make it vacuous nor a "good" that should be included in a moral calculus.

We don't need precise definitions but at least some kind of definition plus explanatory notes and setting limits for the terms used. I am just making the point, I will not go into the details at present.

Morality is basically 'how humans ought to act morally' within the moral Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].

Morally [& ethically] means doing what is good and avoiding what is evil.
The focus of what is Good is not committing evil naturally and spontaneously.

Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.

Every act of evil must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK.

What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 1:41 pm I too believe Nazis are immoral. I also believe Tory political philosophy is immoral.I believe President Trump and his acolytes usually behave immorally. However my opinions and those who share them are not the only opinions.
Social morality undergoes changes within societies. When a society is too much ideologically divided and people's feelings are much involved then collaboration is compromised.

There were conflicting ideologies in the 1930s and before which caused a world war.

'Morality' is neutral i.e. morality is not defined as that which Veritas Aequitas says is right.

The followers of Nazism, Tory and Trump believe your beliefs are immoral.
So who is right?

This is why we need a definition for morality-proper.

I don't pick up my definition of what is morality & ethics willy-nilly.
I had abstracted what I believed to represent 'what is morality-proper' from a survey of hundreds of definition from various sources, books, articles, internet, etc.

The common terms within those definitions are;

• good & evil, bad, right vs wrong, proper, well-being, acceptable, rightness, wrongness, virtues, benefits, no harm, happiness, avoid pains,
  
  system of rules, codes, standards, norms, normative, guiding principles, precepts, positive values,
  
  conduct, behaviors, actions, thoughts,
  
  prescriptivity, universalizability, overridingness, nonauthority dependence, and being about objective facts.
  
  personal, communities, humanity,

From the above I had defined 'morality' generally and in the widest sense as something to do with doing good and avoiding evil towards the well-being of the individual and humanity. If there is a need for details I will bring in the above elements accordingly.

I believe morality is an inherent function within the brain/mind of each individual person and this functions is expressed variedly with the above terms and they are all reducible to doing good and avoiding evil.

Do you have any counters to the above?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:41 am Morality is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
Morally [& ethically] meant doing what is good which is avoiding what is evil.
Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.

The well being of the individual became a general ethic only about three centuries ago and is of historical origin

The above defines moral philosophy. Moral philosophy is the academic discussion about the nature of good and of evil, and of ethical systems.

'Morality' as a vernacular term refers to the commonly held ethics such as 'murder is wrong' , and is often backed by the particular moral code of the local accepted religion. The 18th century early Romantic poet Robert Burns who wrote in the vernacular wrote "Morality thou deadly bane , thy tens o' thousands thou hast slain."

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 10:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:41 am Morality is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
Morally [& ethically] meant doing what is good which is avoiding what is evil.
Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.

The well being of the individual became a general ethic only about three centuries ago and is of historical origin

The above defines moral philosophy. Moral philosophy is the academic discussion about the nature of good and of evil, and of ethical systems.

'Morality' as a vernacular term refers to the commonly held ethics such as 'murder is wrong' , and is often backed by the particular moral code of the local accepted religion. The 18th century early Romantic poet Robert Burns who wrote in the vernacular wrote "Morality thou deadly bane , thy tens o' thousands thou hast slain."

Surely you are not going to be resigned to the vernacular term of anything of reality when you are doing philosophy? Note this is a Philosophy Forum.

Common sense [of the vulgar] understanding of anything is pragmatic but it has its limitations in terms of precision for the purpose of greater advancement for humanity.
This is why philosophy [this forum] need to brought into the picture.

"Murder is wrong is" intuitive to the majority of people. This is for the good of the community since murder is evil. But what are the reasons and justifications for it? What are the principles behind the rules. Are the rule and laws critical? Can we guide moral agent to be spontaneously moral rather than by coercion? There are loads of other questions to be asked with morality and ethics.

Thus the need philosophy to raise and answer the above questions and the prior and first thing to do is to define 'morality & ethics' from the philosophical perspective.

Philosophy should not be restricted are armchair or academic [bastardized] philosophy but whatever is discussed and learned must be transfer to the practical.
Thus we have to bring morality back to the practical to facilitate moral enhancements more expeditiously and effectively.

I enjoy the potential of English for expression and explanation; I only wish I knew more vernacular forms of English.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jul 05, 2020 11:06 am Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
I have done a survey of 'definition of Morality' within Google [10 pages of search results] and there is none!

The followings are what I found;

Dictionaries

• There are loads of variation on the definition of what is morality.
  e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality

There is only one [??] book and a few articles which is specific on 'Definition of Morality', e.g.

Articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
  
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
  
  Definition of Morality - David Wong
  https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... inition_of
  He presented definitions and concept of morality from various philosophers.
  
  and definition from many other articles from blogs, etc.

Book:

• The definition of morality
  Gerald Wallace, Arthur David McKinnon Walker
  https://www.amazon.com/Definition-Moral ... 0416151108
  
  However note a review and comment on the book.
  Review: Unfortunately, the literature does not offer a clear and succinct "definition" of morality. These writers work around the problem, but never conclude with anything like, "and thus, the definition of "morality" is...." So to that extent the title is misleading, but the book offers a good collection of readings nonetheless.

I can only find one specific book on 'the definition of morality'. Any other??

The Point is:

It is common to hear discussions of whether an action is moral, as if “moral” was a word with a specific agreed upon meaning. Unfortunately, the word has so many meanings that its interpretation is extremely difficult without extra information. For example, if I say “murder is immoral”, I could actually mean any of the following:

• 1. Murder violates an abstract principle that I would like all people to live by.
  2. The Bible (or some other religious text) forbids murder.
  3. As a result of evolution and natural selection most people have an innate emotional aversion towards murder.
  4. Murder is against the law.
  5. Murder is labeled as being “immoral” by most people in my society.
  6. Murder usually reduces the total net happiness of society.
  7. The idea of murder provokes in me an emotional state that I associate with “wrongness”.
  8. Nearly all religions urge us not to murder.
  9. Nearly all societies have laws that punish murderers or have customs that ostracize them.
  10. Most people would feel a sense of guilt if they committed murder.

Unfortunately, even dictionaries cannot clarify for us what the word “moral” means.

A great many well respected philosophers begin by assuming that morality is a single, well defined thing (without actually defining it) and then spend their time arguing about what properties it must have. But if we haven’t defined morality, how can we derive it’s properties?

If we cannot define what exactly we are discussing, how can we even be sure that we are really discussing a single entity at all?
[also how sure that your definition is definitive in alignment with the true referent]

As the list above shows, there are many very different things that we might reasonably call “morality”, including our genetic moral intuitions created by natural selection, the societal rules that are deeply ingrained in us, religious laws, and certain abstract concepts about how to treat each other.

I am not arguing here that morality is meaningless, nor am I arguing that morality has no well defined definition to individual people or even to specific groups of people. Utilitarians, for example, can talk about morality with each other with little confusion, since they are working with a common definition.

My argument, simply stated, is that the word “morality” means many different things to different people, and that discussions about what is moral often rely on the false assumption that all parties involved can understand each other’s words.
https://www.clockbackward.com/2009/07/2 ... -morality/

My point and question;
Since there is so much variations in the definition of 'what is morality',
my question to the Moral Facts Deniers [Peter, Sculptor, Flasher, and gang] is,
on what grounds do you justify your idea and definition of what is morality is the definitive one?

and Views?? [any one]

Sure, morality concerns with desire that which one ought to desire to live a good life (i.e. eudaimonia).

A factual statement is "true" if it corresponds with reality.
A moral statement is true if it corresponds with right desire (i.e. corresponds with what you "ought" to desire in order to have well-being).

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:32 pm Sure, morality concerns with desire that which one ought to desire to live a good life (i.e. eudaimonia).

A factual statement is "true" if it corresponds with reality.
A moral statement is true if it corresponds with right desire (i.e. corresponds with what you "ought" to desire in order to have well-being).

Following what you wrote above, generally the right order with what is morality would be;
'morality is how one ought to live a good life especially in avoiding evil grounded on right desires and reasons.'

One of the biggest issue is the terms 'evil' and 'good' are very loose and contentious [note the naturalistic fallacy], thus there is a need to justify and ground them solidly.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:46 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:32 pm Sure, morality concerns with desire that which one ought to desire to live a good life (i.e. eudaimonia).

A factual statement is "true" if it corresponds with reality.
A moral statement is true if it corresponds with right desire (i.e. corresponds with what you "ought" to desire in order to have well-being).

Following what you wrote above, generally the right order with what is morality would be;
'morality is how one ought to live a good life especially in avoiding evil grounded on right desires and reasons.'

One of the biggest issue is the terms 'evil' and 'good' are very loose and contentious [note the naturalistic fallacy], thus there is a need to justify and ground them solidly.

Veritas;

I don't necessarily agree. Terms like eudaimonia, or well being, or human flourishing, or health are somewhat umbrella terms with no precise definitions and our understanding of such terms are subject to change. That being said, that doesn't make them vacuous or without content. Once we agree that this is our foundation, then we can strive to "peel back the onion". For example, what are some of the components of well being? What components are human universals? What types of societies are the best for cultivating well being? However, the objective of morality needs to be defined before we discuss how to behave ethically.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:46 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:32 pm Sure, morality concerns with desire that which one ought to desire to live a good life (i.e. eudaimonia).

A factual statement is "true" if it corresponds with reality.
A moral statement is true if it corresponds with right desire (i.e. corresponds with what you "ought" to desire in order to have well-being).

Following what you wrote above, generally the right order with what is morality would be;
'morality is how one ought to live a good life especially in avoiding evil grounded on right desires and reasons.'

One of the biggest issue is the terms 'evil' and 'good' are very loose and contentious [note the naturalistic fallacy], thus there is a need to justify and ground them solidly.

Veritas;

I don't necessarily agree. Terms like eudaimonia, or well being, or human flourishing, or health are somewhat umbrella terms with no precise definitions and our understanding of such terms are subject to change. That being said, that doesn't make them vacuous or without content. Once we agree that this is our foundation, then we can strive to "peel back the onion". For example, what are some of the components of well being? What components are human universals? What types of societies are the best for cultivating well being? However, the objective of morality needs to be defined before we discuss how to behave ethically.

Not sure what you are disagreeing? Merely on impulse?

I mentioned "good life" in my definition which would include well-being, eudaimonia, etc. but the point is good life and well-being include a whole gamut of other things which are not related to morality at all, e.g. food, good sex, nutrition, supplements, exercise, reading, social, gathering knowledge, music, sports, and many other things.

That is why in the definition of morality, the good life or well being must be qualified with good or evil elements which must be justified.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:40 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:46 am
Following what you wrote above, generally the right order with what is morality would be;
'morality is how one ought to live a good life especially in avoiding evil grounded on right desires and reasons.'

One of the biggest issue is the terms 'evil' and 'good' are very loose and contentious [note the naturalistic fallacy], thus there is a need to justify and ground them solidly.

Veritas;

I don't necessarily agree. Terms like eudaimonia, or well being, or human flourishing, or health are somewhat umbrella terms with no precise definitions and our understanding of such terms are subject to change. That being said, that doesn't make them vacuous or without content. Once we agree that this is our foundation, then we can strive to "peel back the onion". For example, what are some of the components of well being? What components are human universals? What types of societies are the best for cultivating well being? However, the objective of morality needs to be defined before we discuss how to behave ethically.

Not sure what you are disagreeing? Merely on impulse?

I mentioned "good life" in my definition which would include well-being, eudaimonia, etc. but the point is good life and well-being include a whole gamut of other things which are not related to morality at all, e.g. food, good sex, nutrition, supplements, exercise, reading, social, gathering knowledge, music, sports, and many other things.

That is why in the definition of morality, the good life or well being must be qualified with good or evil elements which must be justified.

You stated "there is a need to justify and ground them solidly". Perhaps I misunderstood this comment, but some struggle with such concepts as eudaimonia because it doesn't lend to reductionism. Furthermore, it tends to be somewhat contingent in application. Hence, you really need to have to first have a situation, then ask what improves well being in that situation.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:58 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:40 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:29 pm

Veritas;

I don't necessarily agree. Terms like eudaimonia, or well being, or human flourishing, or health are somewhat umbrella terms with no precise definitions and our understanding of such terms are subject to change. That being said, that doesn't make them vacuous or without content. Once we agree that this is our foundation, then we can strive to "peel back the onion". For example, what are some of the components of well being? What components are human universals? What types of societies are the best for cultivating well being? However, the objective of morality needs to be defined before we discuss how to behave ethically.

Not sure what you are disagreeing? Merely on impulse?

I mentioned "good life" in my definition which would include well-being, eudaimonia, etc. but the point is good life and well-being include a whole gamut of other things which are not related to morality at all, e.g. food, good sex, nutrition, supplements, exercise, reading, social, gathering knowledge, music, sports, and many other things.

That is why in the definition of morality, the good life or well being must be qualified with good or evil elements which must be justified.

You stated "there is a need to justify and ground them solidly". Perhaps I misunderstood this comment, but some struggle with such concepts as eudaimonia because it doesn't lend to reductionism. Furthermore, it tends to be somewhat contingent in application. Hence, you really need to have to first have a situation, then ask what improves well being in that situation.

When I state justify and ground it has to be empirically and philosophically justified just like what we do with Science and that is to be best of our ability.
Look at Physics the greater we reduce the physical to its smaller element the more utility we can generate from it, e.g. coal in contrast to nuclear energy [with care needed in using it].

I believe everything can be reduced and must be also be deliberated holistically at the same time. What we need to be cautious is not to reduce whatever to some ultimate ontological metaphysical substance, e.g. god-particle of an illusory God.