Are most decisions moral decisions?

[coberst]

Are most decisions moral decisions?

In an attempt to comprehend the nature of ethics/morality one will find a forest of writings but essentially each person must build his or her own model of what ethics/morality means. Somewhere along the way toward becoming an enlightened person regarding this matter we all must settle on that which makes sense for us. That does not mean that we remain static about the matter but it means that we settle on some model that is our personal guide until we decide to change it.

I cannot remember where I read it but is resonates for me; ‘all decisions, wherein there is a choice, are moral decisions’. One may find quibbles to get around this message but the essence of the matter is that for a person seeking to be moral, all judgments from which decisions are derived warrant careful consideration.

Our community and our family mold our moral sense as we grow up. But at some point we must remold that model to fit our adult self. I am an American and my sense of ethics/morality was codified by the Declaration and the Constitution as I grew up and it is what determines, to a large extent, my adult sense in this matter.

The Declaration declares ‘We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights’. The Constitution sets forth a listing of the rights of all citizens that are to be protected by law. These declarations are part of my heritage and are what I accept as the foundation of my sense of morality.

It appears that the two concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’ form the foundation of any moral system. The ‘good’ is ‘rational desire’ and the ‘right’ has varying meanings. The status of the right seems to be the important variable that determines what one’s ethical/moral model becomes.

I call my model of morality as being a closed system as opposed to an open system. I call my system a closed system because ‘right’ is clearly defined in the Declaration and the Constitution as being prior to the good. That which is right has a fence around it with a big “No Trespassing” sign and is closed to usurpation by the good. A different system could be called an open system when there is no closed area representing rights but that the right is considered as being that which maximizes the good.

I suspect that often we do not have the knowledge and understanding to determine at the time we make our decisions which matters might be immoral, or amoral, as opposed to moral. I think that a moral person needs to have that consideration constantly in mind and thus to form habits that help to keep us on track even though we often act unconsciously. It is all a part of developing character I guess.

This is not to say that we must become fanatical about it. Is flossing a moral act? If I floss or do not floss, does it, in some minute way, affect others? I think so. Is watering my lawn a matter for moral consideration? It might be.

Questions for discussion

Would you say that an act can be a moral or immoral without our being conscious of the matter? Can a sociopath perform an immoral act?

Where do these two concepts, right and good, fit into your model of morality and or ethics? I use the term ethics/morality to mean that the two terms are the same for me.

Assume that some young person reads my OP and is inspired by it to study what morality is all about. Then that person goes on to read a response and s/he sees that the responder ridiculed the OP. This then deflates the idea to study morality. Can the ridicule be considered to have been an amoral act?

[The Atheist]

I suspect that often we do not have the knowledge and understanding to determine at the time we make our decisions which matters might be immoral, or amoral, as opposed to moral. I think that a moral person needs to have that consideration constantly in mind and thus to form habits that help to keep us on track even though we often act unconsciously. It is all a part of developing character I guess.

Why people use theology, I guess. It's not easy to arrive at a logical moral position, so it's easier to borrow someone else's.

All conscious decisions are moral decisions. Because our natural instinct is to look after Number One, which isn't always the best moral decision, thinking about the decision must employ our morality in making it.


This is not to say that we must become fanatical about it. Is flossing a moral act? If I floss or do not floss, does it, in some minute way, affect others? I think so. Is watering my lawn a matter for moral consideration? It might be.

You can still apply rigid rules to both of these.

Your flossing can indeed affect others, because non-flossed teeth can harbour bacteria which are not at all beneficial to human hearts and you might be needlessly causing work for hospital staff.

As to watering your lawn - sheesh; try that here in late summer and one of your neighbours will deck you, never mind the Thought Police.

The problem with this approach is that on a planet with 7 billion people, it might be morally right to top yourself.

To me, it all just shows that morality has to be relative, no matter how much the opposition cries about it. I don't believe 100% piety is possible. Or desirable, for that matter.


Would you say that an act can be a moral or immoral without our being conscious of the matter? Can a sociopath perform an immoral act?

No. That's the scary part for people of weak disposition. If it isn't immoral, how is it moral to punish the behaviour?


Where do these two concepts, right and good, fit into your model of morality and or ethics? I use the term ethics/morality to mean that the two terms are the same for me.

My morality's simple:

If it's good for me, it's right!

:)


Assume that some young person reads my OP and is inspired by it to study what morality is all about. Then that person goes on to read a response and s/he sees that the responder ridiculed the OP. This then deflates the idea to study morality. Can the ridicule be considered to have been an amoral act?

No. Ridicule has to be conscious and given the sought outcome, it has to be an immoral act.

I ridicule people all the time!

:lol:

[coberst]

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss

I agree to the point of saying that we have moral instincts, i.e. we have moral emotions. Without these moral emotions we could not function as social creatures. These moral emotions are an act of evolution. I would ague that the instinct for grooming that we see in monkeys is one example of this moral emotion.

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

[The Atheist]

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I'll have to pass on that, but I can tell you that, in New Zealand, morality is taught - in order - at:

Church
School
Home

I'd like to see it all be taught at home, but along with manners, sex, how to eat and behave in public, few parents choose to spend time talking about such mundane topics. Far better to discuss last night's TV than ask why humans have police forces and use the death penalty.

I cringe when my kids tell me about things they are told in "Values" periods at schools. Fortunately, they were taught values at home and they can shrug it off like a cheap coat.


I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

I don't believe that possibility exists any more. USA is so dominant that a species-threatening nuclear holocaust is no longer an option. I also don't believe that any global warming will eradicate the species. Might cut it back by 99%, but I think there are enough humans now that some will survive almost anything. Given the time frame left to earth, I can't see us damaging it to the state where life cannot exist.


It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

See above, most people can't handle relative morality. Take the easy way out and make up a god to enforce it on mankind. As it has always been.


Without these moral emotions we could not function as social creatures.

Are lions "moral creatures"? They have extremely well-developed societies but I'd hesitate to borrow their morality. (Although as an Alpha Male, the idea has some merit! :) )


These moral emotions are an act of evolution. I would ague that the instinct for grooming that we see in monkeys is one example of this moral emotion.

Isn't it more likely to be just more efficient?

If it's easier for someone else to get your fleas off your back, it makes sense to take turns at it. Are those birds that peck the rotting flesh from crocodile teeth moral creatures? Seems the same simple symbiotic work of nature to me.


We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

I agree, but I think our voices will be in vain.

[JWHooper]

We humans have to act right. Otherwise, we are not philosophically liberal citizens. This sound critical, but from Hop-Frog story by Edgar Allen Poe tells us that king was smelly. King was lazy, and suddenly he was thinking in terms of literary terms of stanzas of life behind nature of reality.

[RichardHresko]

The answer depends on the definition of 'moral.'

If by 'moral,' one means acting in accordance to a code of behavior, the answer is that it depends on what acts are codified. Also, given that definition, intention is not required. This is the understanding of morality among the ancient Greeks, who related morality with purity or pollution. Thus Oedipus had to be punished for killing his father even though he was unaware that Laertes was his father (that's what got the Erinyes after him -- the incest was another issue).

If we look at the idea of intent, which came to the West through the wrok of Peter Abelard and Heloise, an internal state enters into the discussion.

A neo-Platonic/Augustinian definition of morality would be linked to a doctrine of sin. Sin, by this definition, is choosing a lesser good over a greater good (very different from the definition of sin offered in many circles today).

Thus, as was mentioned somewhat earlier, moral behavior is precisely choosing to act in a way that is truly best for oneself.

This however does not mean to act in a way that necessarily leads to a material advantage. It means acting in a way that will help one realize his/her greatest potential and thereby achieve happiness.

For those who would think that merely seeking wealth, or fame, or position actually would help achieve happiness or at least a part of happiness, I invite them to a careful reading of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy.

[coberst]

I'll have to pass on that, but I can tell you that, in New Zealand, morality is taught - in order - at:

Church
School
Home



I agree, but I think our voices will be in vain.




When we manage to learn that morality (the science of human relationship) is the only path for the survival of the human species and perhaps for life on this planet we will take the matter more seriously. However, we now lack the intellectual sophistication, thus we must take the first step toward developing the sophistication required for survival. Darwin informs us that if we do not adapt we will become toast.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead/


The “art of reasoning consists in…getting hold of the big ideas and hanging on to them like grim death” William James


William Graham Sumner, a distinguished anthropologist states the ideal:

“The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade its entire mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life.”

[coberst]

The answer depends on the definition of 'moral.'



Morality is about human relationships.

I suspect that most of us are willing to agree that, broadly speaking, we have ‘fact knowledge’ and ‘relationship knowledge’. I would like to take this a step further by saying that I wish to claim that fact knowledge is mono-logical and relationship knowledge is multi-logical.

Mono-logical matters have one set of principles guiding their solution. Often these mono-logical matters have a paradigm. The natural sciences—normal sciences—as Thomas Kuhn labels it in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” move forward in a “successive transition from one paradigm to another”. A paradigm defines the theory, rules and standards of practice. “In the absence of a paradigm or some candidate for paradigm, all of the facts that could possible pertain to the development of a given science are likely to seem equally relevant.”

Multi-logical problems are different in kind from mono-logical matters.

Socratic dialogue is one technique for attempting to grapple with multi-logical problems; problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multi-logical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multi-logical.

Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis a new thesis is developed.

“When we are dealing with mono-logical problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multi-logical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.”

Our society is very good while dealing with mono-logical problems. Our society is terrible while dealing with multi-logical problems.

Do you not think that we desperately need to understand CT, which attempts to help us understand how to think about multi-logical problems? Do you not think that it is worth while for every adult to get up off their ‘intellectual couch’ and teach themselves CT?
When we attempt to solve problems in physics we have the logic (principles) of the prevailing paradigm to direct our efforts. We have a single logic (set of principles) to guide us.

When we encounter an ethical problem we almost always have to deal with economic considerations, religious considerations, perhaps legal considerations, etc. Each one of these domains of knowledge has its own set of principles, its own logic.

Thus in solving problems in a normal science, one with a paradigm, we have a monological problem. When we deal with many other types of problems that we encounter in living we must deal simultaneously with several domains of knowledge each with its own logic, thus we have multilogical problems.

Monological is single logic, multilogical is more than one logic.

Quote from Critical Thinking: What Every Person Needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World by Richard Paul

[The Atheist]

When we manage to learn that morality (the science of human relationship) is the only path for the survival of the human species and perhaps for life on this planet we will take the matter more seriously.

Well, that's the very nub of the problem.

The first issue is whether you'd ever be able to teach people the inevitability of what you say, then you'd have to assume that anyone would do anything. Take AGW as a case in point - the overwhelming opinion of scientists and climatologists who know what they're talking about are in agreement, but is there anything like consensus on the subject?

And that's with a physical - although inexact - science. Raise morality and you're up to your ears in theists, philosophers and other brands of idiocy.

You must've seen/read Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy?

The scene at the programming of Deep Thought explains exactly what would happen if it were ever felt that science could/should answer the "eternal verities". Ain't ever gonna happen.


However, we now lack the intellectual sophistication, thus we must take the first step toward developing the sophistication required for survival. Darwin informs us that if we do not adapt we will become toast.

Yep, and I have toast as odds-on favourite.


"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead/

Yet funnily enough - if I look at all the great change brought upon the world, I find that hard to swallow. When has it actually happened?

The only examples I can come up with are Nazis, Soviets, Maoists and the like, and while the end result might have been positive, I'd sooner find a less costly way of creating change.


“The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade its entire mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life.”

Now, we just have to figure how to make it the default kind of thought.

[RichardHresko]

Morality is about human relationships.

I suspect that most of us are willing to agree that, broadly speaking, we have ‘fact knowledge’ and ‘relationship knowledge’. I would like to take this a step further by saying that I wish to claim that fact knowledge is mono-logical and relationship knowledge is multi-logical.


Overall I agree with you.

The particular moral code(s) adopted would require agreement to some set of values, which in turn would seem to depend on some idea as to what the essence of being human means.

I agree that more than one type of knowledge is necessary to even attempt this task.