Political Theory

Re: On Morality

hashem — Mon, 01 Oct 2012 05:09:15 GMT

Looking forward to responding. It was a nice weekend hopefully I will get a moment throughout the week.

Re: On Morality

Clayton — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 22:45:14 GMT

hashem:
Concepts about morality don't help, they just make people who are easily manipulated easier to control.

Clayton:
Why can't they [moral concepts] express facts about cause-and-effect in the social order?

You say that moral concepts make easily manipulated people that much easier to control - but why can't it be that the purpose of moral concepts is to express facts about the social order, and that those facts are actually what is responsible for the manipulation and that the manipulation is not restricted solely to those who are "easily manipulated"?

The word "manipulation" suggests to me a beneficiary - cui bono? But why does there have to be any beneficiary besides the genome itself? In other words, all social manipulation falls under the axe of natural selection, even conscious manipulation. We're all being manipulated, even those among us who are manipulating others. Or, as stated by Orgel's Second Law: "Evolution is cleverer than you are".

Now, I'm not trying to rule out analysis of proximate manipulation in the social order - government propaganda, religious bullshit, family dysfunction, etc. That's all real enough. But I don't think we're piercing through to the final level of analysis if we stop at that superficial level. And where the rubber meets the road is in answering the question "what function does this manipulation perform?" In the case of, say, monetary debasement, the function is to enrich the debaser, usually the King. In the case of spousal abuse, the function is to attempt to discourage cuckoldry with threats of violence. In the case of moral dictates, the function is often enrichment or enablement of religious leaders and their cronies. And so on.

The whole point of identifying the function is to determine if there is a dysfunction in the existing state of affairs. For example, if you think that fathers should pay for the raising of their own children, then you might not see spousal abuse as necessarily a dysfunction because the function of abuse is to dissuade cuckoldry, thus making it difficult for men to father children they don't pay to raise.

Clayton -

Re: On Morality

hashem — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:49:42 GMT

Pardon me for being confused, what are you asking? Can you rephrase?

Re: On Morality

Clayton — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:22:36 GMT

I don't claim to use concepts about morality as though everyone understands what I mean.

But it's not true that you have no theory of morality whatsoever. In fact, your theory appears to be that morality is primarily a kind of emotional manipulation. I don't think this is false but I do think it's incomplete.

I'm talking about punishment as opposed to reward, because it's relevant to understanding why someone "should or shouldn't" behave certain ways, as Malachi said morality deals with should or shouldn't.

OK, but there is a more all-encompassing concept of punishment and reward, like the Buddhist conception of karmic law. When you eat to excess and vomit, you are "punished" for your "immoral" behavior by Nature itself. That is, you suffer the consequences of your behavior. Of course, there is no spirit being administering said punishment, it's just cause-and-effect. I believe at least certain Buddhists view the social order itself no differently... when you sleep with another man's wife, and he beats you to a bloody pulp in a fit of rage, you have been punished; that is, you have suffered the consequences for your behavior and you have no one to blame but yourself.

While being beaten by another person feels more personal than some circuitry in your brain pushing the "eject" button on an engorged stomach, there is a perspective in which neither event is personal. Both are expressions of the same natural laws of cause-and-effect. Human males become enraged by sexual infidelity. Cause-and-effect.

I'm not saying people shouldn't punish each other, I'm saying there's no reason to except that your brain concluded it was the best course of action. Concepts about morality don't help, they just make people who are easily manipulated easier to control.

Why can't they express facts about cause-and-effect in the social order?

Clayton -

Re: On Morality

hashem — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:55:39 GMT

Clayton:
But the question is...Does the word "impolite" convey any definite meaning, or not?

To be certain, the question is "What is meant when someone says, 'It is immoral to X'?" A subsidiary question may regard whether the meaning conveyed is intersubjectively ascertainable. That is my question to everyone, hence this thread. I don't claim to use concepts about morality as though everyone understands what I mean.

Clayton:
But what makes something impolite?

I would rephrase the question to "What makes someone believe X is impolite?" Obviously, the subjective, various feelings of people, vulnerable as they are to manipulation. In fact the concept of politeness doesn't even arise unless there are multiple people influencing the values of each other. As far as I've gathered, that's also what makes someone consider something "immoral".

Clayton:
What is the standard/norm of politeness which has been violated when someone says "it is impolite to X"?

And so we come to the meat of it. Clearly, something is labeled immoral when it violates a normal standard. And thus evil things may be viewed as moral, and righteous things as immoral, since homo sapiens is a profoundly social, psychological being.

Clayton:
Why are you talking about punishment?

hashem:
The common ground between the concepts seems to be what Malachi is pointing out, that they deal with expectations about behavior—behavior that should be punished ("immoral" behavior) or rewarded (moral behavior)

I'm talking about punishment as opposed to reward, because it's relevant to understanding why someone "should or shouldn't" behave certain ways, as Malachi said morality deals with should or shouldn't.

Clayton:
Punishment arises from the urge to retribution which is actually a foundation-stone of social order.

Slavery and rape as the spoils of war were also pillars of social order until very recently. I'm not saying people shouldn't punish each other, I'm saying there's no reason to except that your brain concluded it was the best course of action. Concepts about morality don't help, they just make people who are easily manipulated easier to control.

Re: On Morality

Clayton — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:21:17 GMT

I don't believe concepts about morality have proved useful, indeed it seems they cause more confusion than understanding (that is, unless you take my position that they have served their use, which is to cause confusion and misunderstanding). So I don't talk about morality as though other people know what I mean. You bring up politeness. The characteristic of politeness that differs from morality is that it doesn't encompass the extremes that morality does, and therefore as you note, it doesn't carry the same emotional weight.

But the question is not the emotional weight, the question is meaning. Does the word "impolite" convey any definite meaning, or not?

Something impolite may be rude, but it probably isn't evil or else the stronger term "immoral" would have been used. On the other hand, something immoral may be characterized by the view that it was evil, or conversely it may be considered evil because it was felt to be immoral.

But what makes something impolite? What is the standard/norm of politeness which has been violated when someone says "it is impolite to X"?

I simply don't believe anyone has proper authority or grounds to punish someone else. The brain is developing cost benefit calculations based on input well beyond conscious awareness long before conscious aware ever experiences the output, so nobody can claim authority to punish someone because his brain made a cost benefit calculation you don't agree with.

Why are you talking about punishment?

What's considered "immoral", therefore, is subject to all the tools of psychological manipulation. Anything can be called moral, or immoral, depending on the various feelings of people, and the emotions that drive behavior can be fueled this way. I don't value concepts about morality precisely because, as I have been pointing out, they exist as tools to manipulate people, to limit competition for power, and to help inconsistent minds form myths as ex post facto rationalizations to cope with harsh realities.

*shrug - these are all human behaviors. Punishment arises from the urge to retribution which is actually a foundation-stone of social order. Without retribution, there is no possibility of social order.

Clayton -

Re: On Morality

hashem — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:47:33 GMT

I don't believe concepts about morality have proved useful, indeed it seems they cause more confusion than understanding (that is, unless you take my position that they have served their use, which is to cause confusion and misunderstanding). So I don't talk about morality as though other people know what I mean. You bring up politeness. The characteristic of politeness that differs from morality is that it doesn't encompass the extremes that morality does, and therefore as you note, it doesn't carry the same emotional weight. Something impolite may be rude, but it probably isn't evil or else the stronger term "immoral" would have been used. On the other hand, something immoral may be characterized by the view that it was evil, or conversely it may be considered evil because it was felt to be immoral.

The common ground between the concepts seems to be what Malachi is pointing out, that they deal with expectations about behavior—behavior that should be punished or rewarded—AND, especially, that they're both subjective having no value in communication unless both parties are aware of and in agreement about the meaning. I simply don't believe anyone has proper authority or grounds to punish someone else. The brain is developing cost benefit calculations based on input well beyond conscious awareness long before conscious aware ever experiences the output, so nobody can claim authority to punish someone because his brain made a cost benefit calculation you don't agree with.

What's considered "immoral", therefore, is subject to all the tools of psychological manipulation. Anything can be called moral, or immoral, depending on the various feelings of people, and the emotions that drive behavior can be fueled this way. I don't value concepts about morality precisely because, as I have been pointing out, they exist as tools to manipulate people, to limit competition for power, and to help inconsistent minds form myths as ex post facto rationalizations to cope with harsh realities.

Re: On Morality

Clayton — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:38:48 GMT

@hashem: What are the objective standards/norms of politeness that are violated when someone says, "That was impolite"? What do you mean when you identify someone's behavior as impolite? Does this meaning generalize to the case when anyone identifies another's behavior as impolite?

Clayton -

Re: On Morality

Malachi — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:22:42 GMT

At this point we would do well to acknowledge the distinction between definition and meaning. Like Clayton showed, a table may be defined many different ways. What matters is that the word conveys the intended meaning in any given scenario and context. Thus my question, what is meant by, 'it is immoral to X'.

A definition is a passage that explains the meaning of a definiendum. Unless you have something else in mind.

Whereas there are objective, dictionary definitions of morality and politeness

I dont mean to be rude, but did you even bother to familiarize yourself with the term "intersubjective"? Dictionaries are a record of meanings that have been commonly imparted to words. The dictionary isnt binding on any given person or conversation, indeed if it were language wouldnt be in a state of flux.

the focus of this thread is to establish what is meant by the phrase 'it is immoral to X'. What specific meaning are you trying to convey when you say that.

depends on the speaker. You have to ask each individual when they use it, unless they have previously defined it.

Again, as I showed and Clayton expanded on, the precise word is irrelevant—impolite, immoral, the spaghetti monster—what matters is what someone means to convey, AND that the others involved are recieving the correct meaning.

its also the case that a given precise meaning is irrelevant in the context of future discussions with other people that involve the word "morality."

If we go by some dictionary definitions (google, dictionary.com), morality is completely whatever anyone wants it to be. It's based purely on arbitrary standards, and social norms, sometimes but not necessarily involving concepts about evil vs righteousness. If people mean to convey the dictionary definition, then when someone says, "It is immoral to X" what they MEAN is "X violates the accepted normal standard and is therefore evil".

if youre looking for a common thread, "morality" always refers to "should" or "shouldnt." the why of the should or shouldnt is the part that changes.

Re: On Morality

hashem — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 17:07:46 GMT

Malachi:
there arent any objective definitions of "morality"

hashem:
I think you mean there isn't an objective standard of morality, and I would agree...However, there certainly is an objective definition of morality.

Clayton:
if there is an objective definition of morality, there must also be an objective definition of politeness.

At this point we would do well to acknowledge the distinction between definition and meaning. Like Clayton showed, a table may be defined many different ways. What matters is that the word conveys the intended meaning in any given scenario and context. Thus my question, what is meant by, 'it is immoral to X'.

Whereas there are objective, dictionary definitions of morality and politeness, the focus of this thread is to establish what is meant by the phrase 'it is immoral to X'. What specific meaning are you trying to convey when you say that. Again, as I showed and Clayton expanded on, the precise word is irrelevant—impolite, immoral, the spaghetti monster—what matters is what someone means to convey, AND that the others involved are recieving the correct meaning.

If we go by some dictionary definitions (google, dictionary.com), morality is completely whatever anyone wants it to be. It's based purely on arbitrary standards, and social norms, sometimes but not necessarily involving concepts about evil vs righteousness. If people mean to convey the dictionary definition, then when someone says, "It is immoral to X" what they MEAN is "X violates the accepted normal standard and is therefore evil".

Re: On Morality

Malachi — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 07:52:48 GMT

I think you mean there isn't an objective standard of morality, and I would agree. There is no saying an action is wrong just because it's evil, or vice versa.

I dont mean that at all, in fact I disagree. I believe there is an objective standard of behavior and consequences, both natural and supernatural, for deviating from it. I dont believe there is an objective definition of the term "morality." You help to illustrate this with your statement "There is no saying an action is wrong just because it's evil" well of course there is. I will say it, evil acts are immoral. In this case I am using sense 1 of Clayton's exposition.

What do you mean when you say "it is immoral to X"? If you think context is relevant, then by all means provide a context for your answer, but at least stick to the question.

I use the word in multiple contexts whenever I feel it is appropriate. I feel that this is a correct use of the English language. Generally my usage of the term coincides with one of the four senses I quoted from Clayton, except with the addendum that, as I am a theist, I think that morality is imposed (made objective) by an ontologically supreme entity.

Re: On Morality

Clayton — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 07:26:02 GMT

It might help to discuss a very similar, yet less emotive, word: impolite. "Is it impolite to X"? Surely, if there is an objective definition of morality, there must also be an objective definition of politeness.

Clayton -

Re: On Morality

hashem — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 07:13:22 GMT

I think you mean there isn't an objective standard of morality, and I would agree. There is no saying an action is wrong just because it's evil, or vice versa. However, there certainly is an objective definition of morality. In any event, you've failed to address the question:

What do you mean when you say "it is immoral to X"? If you think context is relevant, then by all means provide a context for your answer, but at least stick to the question.

Re: On Morality

Malachi — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 06:39:53 GMT

It means different things depending on the context. I think Clayton summed it up pretty well actually:

Clayton:
1)A value-laden expression of an individual's own sentiments about a particular kind of human behavior [...]
2)A value-free description of prevailing moral norms
3)A value-free assessment of the suitability of specific ends to bringing about an individual's satisfaction (in the technical sense of this term) - this is where Epicurus (correctly) placed the locus of ethical discussion
4)A value-laden assessment of the correct resolution of a dispute

It doesnt really matter what members on this forum decide "morality" means as the results of the discussion wouldnt be binding. Language is inter-subjective and in a constant state of change. It also is inherently contextual, meaning it cant be isolated from the environment. Think about what "context" means, you cant take a single statement or passage and interpret it in a way that is at variance with what it means in respect to the passages amongst it, i.e. as a part of a whole. You cant take the word "morals" in all of its forms and forbid individuals from using it when they feel it accurately conveys their sentiments, you just have to be a regular LVMI forums member and insist on asking people what they mean when they use it. Because every individual is different and has read different books.

Then by definition the concept is meaningless, and therefore useless in communication

this sticks in my craw. There are multiple intersubjective definitions of "morality." there arent any objective definitions of "morality" unless you can find a Bible verse saying otherwise or God is also an english lit professor.

Re: On Morality

hashem — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 06:09:32 GMT

Malachi:
There is no objective definition of "morality."

Then by definition the concept is meaningless, and therefore useless in communication. We would expect its use to do exactly what it has done: propagate confusion and misunderstanding, ignorance in the guise of intelligence.

But we shouldn't stop there. People on this forum invoke the concept constantly. There MUST be a consensus about what the heck meaning people are trying to convey. So instead of trying to focus on what isn't there, let's look at what is. Forget the word "morality" altogether, just think of the meaning you try to convey when you use the concept. Now describe that meaning in regards to this question:

What is meant when you say "it is immoral to X".