Why should anyone be moral?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Inspired by the immoral/amoral thread. It's a question that's been nagging me lately. I can't think of a single valid reason anyone should be moral. Maybe you can help.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Monday, 19 April 2004 21:46 (twenty-two years ago)

thrasymacus to thread

― serr, Monday, 19 April 2004 21:52 (twenty-two years ago)

I think we're all moral, because we all have an idea of how we should behave (even if it is an entirely idiosyncratic or esoteric view) and are aware of when we don't behave as we would wish to.

question, to my mind, is just not letting morality in and for itself rule one's every action.

Matthew Arnold to thread.

― Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Monday, 19 April 2004 21:55 (twenty-two years ago)

er, so you can sleep at night?

― Orbit (Orbit), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

The principle of karma can provide disincentives to commiting actions which might cause suffering to others. Essentially, self-concern, which is how most good systems of morality work.
This one is a bit better though, because it's not based on fear.
A grim acceptance or resignation, perhaps.

― de, Monday, 19 April 2004 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I can't think of a reason why anyone shouldn't be moral.

― N. (nickdastoor), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:09 (twenty-two years ago)

all this morality...

let's live aesthetically...

― Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:10 (twenty-two years ago)

It makes life a little easier to bear?

If you're not, you go to hell?

If you're not, you risk incarceration?

Being good is the new bad?

People like you better?

(Some of these answers -- well, alright, questions, since they're posed so tentatively -- are not completely serious.)

― David A. (Davant), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

avoid punishment/already indoctrinated to the point where acting 'immorally' would upset you or just seem undesirable/because they're nice and like people

― ferg (Ferg), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Why be moral?

because the fabric of society is torn apart if you don't.

trust is what makes human relationships work; lack of morality makes trust impossible because there are no limitations to a person's actions and no code to giude them.

If no one is moral, it makes a shitty, cruel, existential world where people hurt each other and don't care that they did.

― Orbit (Orbit), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Morality without empathy, compassion, heart and soul is just obeying rules for the sake of it. YOu can draw up moral codes but if they seem cruel or overly severe or without any real sense of human relationships informing them then they tend to be dropped eventaully. E.G; sodomy, 100 years ago.

― badger Kitten (badger Kitten), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah but like, one person acting immorally isn't going to cause society to collapse.

x-post.

― ferg (Ferg), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:20 (twenty-two years ago)

trust=predictability

take that away, for whatever reason, and you will have a world with no trust.
the person next to you could kiss you or kill you.
all things are valid.
i do not want that world.

― Orbit (Orbit), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:24 (twenty-two years ago)

'A ragged urchin, aimless and alone,
Loitered about that vacancy; a bird
Flew up to safety from his well-aimed stone:
That girls are raped, that two boys knife a third,
Were axioms to him, who'd never heard
Of any world where promises were kept,
Or one could weep because another wept.'

The Shield of Achilles, WH Auden http://www.poets.org/poems/poems.cfm?prmID=1393

― badger Kitten (badger Kitten), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Existentially, why should we bother? In practice, most people are tolerably moral and usually, but certainly not always, more contented than the immoral. Remember the live by the sword, die by the sword bit though? Immorality is a young man's game. When you're old you'll want to rely on more than muscle, guts, and cunning. You'll want the complicated primate relationships which form part of the essence of being human and thay all require some kind of 'morality', some predictable code of behavior wherein you don't always act like a selfish asshole and think about your mates/ family, etc..

― Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 19 April 2004 22:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not asking, why should anyone be immoral. I'm asking, why should anyone be moral? What reasons are there?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Monday, 19 April 2004 23:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Well because by definition it's the better, greater and correct way to be. That definition is of course subjective, but wtf would anyone actually want to be lesser, worse or wrong?

― Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 02:33 (twenty-two years ago)

As there is no objective morality, whatever you believe is right is morally correct for you. In order to be immoral, you would have to purposely defy your beliefs and choices, thus negating your existence/acting in bad faith with yourself/etc..

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 02:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Is it correct to assume that if I am not moral, I will therefore be immoral? Does this follow as a deductive consequence?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 02:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Well you've got your societal morals (general consensus and stuff) and your individual morals, which are you know, still "valid" etc, but if, like, by chance or choice, yours don't line up with ours we will make unhappy faces at you and maybe even someone will get bopped in the nose.

― Kim (Kim), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 02:57 (twenty-two years ago)

How do you know I'm not moral? I may not tell you. I may even pretend to subscribe to your moral code to avoid conflict.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 03:59 (twenty-two years ago)

no such things as bad morals anyway. Just different morals.

― ipsofacto (ipsofacto), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 04:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Why should anyone be moral? You mean, why should you do what you should do? Stupid question.

― sldfoj4ipojf, Tuesday, 20 April 2004 04:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Not if the should is non-moral. There are two senses to the word: one is moral (I am ethically obliged) and one is not (it it in my interests).

For example, here are some non-moral uses of the word 'should':

I should eat something
I should knock your block off
I should go to the beach
I should check out that new movie

The 'should' in the question may be a non-moral 'should'. Let's assume it is.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:03 (twenty-two years ago)

because if everyone was moral, the would be a all-around better place to live for everyone (assuming the morals functioned correctly, ie prevented people from being killed/robbed/raped rather than just told you what to do cause God said it was bad)

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Are you sure?

What if no-one was moral? Would there be fewer wars or more?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I suppose you could say that's acting out of self-interest, but everything is at some level.

xpost if your morals say "war is bad. don't do it", then fewer.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:16 (twenty-two years ago)

What if you don't think war ius good or bad, but have no moral position on it as such? Are you more or less likely to fight?

Sorry I'm asking a lot of questions btw

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Dont confuse morality with religion here though. "being moral" does not = "being a religious goody two shoes".

Having morals is a set definition of rules: by their nature really they can be anything and still be morals.

unless you ascribe to Kanbergs(?) idea of the existence of a universal moral code, and thats just weird.

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

you mean a lack of morals, not bad morals? sociopaths have no morals, and therefore seem to think nothing of killing people for little or no cause.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Does anyone reading this thread subscribe to the non-existence of any universal moral code?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:25 (twenty-two years ago)

i do, and i'm amazed that the people who don't think that any of their arguments could get them out of a wet paper bag

― the surface noise (electricsound), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:26 (twenty-two years ago)

there's not a universal language either, but that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons why you should follow the rules of whatever language you're speaking.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Good non-moral rules.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I grew up under a very strict and relgiously related moral code. Now that i've ditched it I can't help but feel twinges of amorality sometimes, but mostly I do what I think is right and to hell with everybody else.

― ipsofacto (ipsofacto), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:40 (twenty-two years ago)

there's not a universal language either, but that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons why you should follow the rules of whatever language you're speaking.

-- oops (don'temailmenicelad...) (webmail), April 20th, 2004. (Oops)

very good point.

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:41 (twenty-two years ago)

there's not a universal language either, but that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons why you should follow the rules of whatever language you're speaking.

Yes but that isnt a Universal Language. Likewise, to contemplate the idea of a universal moral code is to say that there are some rules, somewhere out there, that EVERYONE agrees are correct.

And the more you think about that the more unfeasible it is. You might say "well don't kill, killing is wrong". Is it? In all cases, to all people? We know this isnt so because there are people who believe death is appropriate as punishment, for example.

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:44 (twenty-two years ago)

So, are you amoral because you think killing is wrong, or right, or you have no opinion?

(I suddenly feel all Momusy)

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:45 (twenty-two years ago)

My last post wasn't too clear to say the least.

What I meant to say was, there are good non-moral reasons for learning the rules of a language, but no good moral reasons that are immediately apparent.

Are there only non-moral reasons for conforming to a moral code? And if you have only non-moral reasons for being moral, is that truly a moral stance after all?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:46 (twenty-two years ago)

We really should be helping gaz with his gyprock work.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:47 (twenty-two years ago)

My brain hurts :(

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:51 (twenty-two years ago)

wait, you're asking what reasons are there for following a moral code, right? I don't think morality cannot be assigned to such things. They're pre-moral. They're what leads to morality.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 05:58 (twenty-two years ago)

is there a society that believes killing without reason is okay? (the valid reasons to kill may differ in each society)

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Social interaction is the point.
Without rules, it won't happen.
Morality provides rules. They may differ across cultural environments, but they are the rules that provide the framework. They will change over time. Taking them all as a whole, as known in human history, you can boil basic morality down to a few key points:

1. Do not do things that make communication and cooperation towards a common goal impossible.

2. Do not harm others, except in very specific ways that are according to rules and social context of the place and time.

In the same way that language has an underlying structure (hello, this was Chomsky's main contribution to linguistic anthropology and linguistics!!! the one that made him famous) morality can be said to have a similar structure, providing a template for culture to elaborate on.

Since all life is social, morality is by definition, a social, and not individual phenomenon.

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:03 (twenty-two years ago)

can i have a cookie now?

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:04 (twenty-two years ago)

You can have a choc chip cookie, Orbit. My gf made them and they're delicious.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:05 (twenty-two years ago)

*yum*

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:07 (twenty-two years ago)

*munch munch* Are you saying moral codes are *munch munch* hardwired survival instincts of sorts? *munch*

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:08 (twenty-two years ago)

A moral reason for being moral would be "because being moral is good", but I gathered that you were specifically looking for non-moral reasons.

― oops (Oops), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Well oops, having a moral reason for being moral would seem to lead to logical infinite regress.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:14 (twenty-two years ago)

*munch*
yes, a template for interaction is hardwired BUT it has to be imprinted with the culture.
Think of feral children. They have the operating system, but it hasn't been configured.

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Interesting analogy, that. Hmm *thoughtful face*

― Trayce (trayce), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:20 (twenty-two years ago)

or it might be better to say "nothing is installed yet"
*munch*

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:22 (twenty-two years ago)

So, Orbit, are you saying that moral positions are the effect of our biological systems, plus whatever we've been taught?

What implications does that have for a universal moral code?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:25 (twenty-two years ago)

everything we are is at its root an effect of a biological system, because we are biological beings.

however, we don't exist, like amoebae, in a world of consume and excrete. we are social beings, so there is, i believe a underlying grammar of morality which encourages cultures to configure their rules to maximize cooperation. it's hard to say this without sounding like Marvin Harris.

i guess the main point is that i don't think we should veer into saying "everything in our social world is biologically determined" because it is not. biology provides a template for the social in that you have brain center for communication, processing information, speech, communication. our moral positions are affected in terms of very basic principles of non-harm and group cooperation/survival coming from this template.

we have a social "operating system" lets' call it "assembly-level morality" that will be configured by your culture. Your culture may change its iMorals[tm] software version over time, and upgrades will occur. you never get to start from zero; you inherit the version that was current at your birth and in your culture.

So after all that *munch* yeah, i think i am saying that, in a qualified way
*looks for the miik*

implications for a universal moral code? do you mean in a presciptive sense?
if we look at cultures the world over they do share a universal moral principle: killing or harming others in violation of your cultural code is wrong.

― Orbit (Orbit), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:36 (twenty-two years ago)

In answer to the question, an acute sense of empathy.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 20 April 2004 06:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Could empathy actually be obstructed by having a moral position, especially in relation to someone who doesn't hold precisely to my morality?

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 21:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Think of feral children. They have the operating system, but it hasn't been configured.

And if it's not configured within a certain window of opportunity they will never become 'fully human' in the sense of language and opportunities for normal human relationships. Whatever differences exist between cultures, we all undergo relatively similar stages of development. Missing this you become a seriously underproducing outsider. Conceivably then the real reason to be moral is to avoid violence or banishment from society.

Could empathy actually be obstructed by having a moral position, especially in relation to someone who doesn't hold precisely to my morality?

Obviously. To empathise with everyone is also to dilute your specific empathy to the point where it's not very useful or satisfying to the object thereof.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 22:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Think of feral children

I was about say: "Won't someone please think of the feral children?"

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Do it for the feral children. Do it now.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 22:14 (twenty-two years ago)

VERSE

Now you may have a family
And you may have a home
And you may spend each Christmas all together, not alone

But someone’s out there crying
In the forest in the dark
Unable to use language, he's just roaming 'round the park

CHORUS

Remember the feral children
Cos they’re not like you and me
Hardwired for an ethics, yet unschooled in basic mor-or-ral-i-ty

Remember the feral children
They’re just roaming wild and free!
Open up your heart and show the feral children just a little sy-y-y-m-path-y

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 22:55 (twenty-two years ago)

good point about violence/banishment., and also in a large, complex society people who have never developed morality and operate a sociopaths, can escape this for a very long time simply because there are so many people in the community that they can go unnoticed.

― Orbit (Orbit), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 23:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Colin, that's beautiful.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 23:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Thank you. And please, dig deep.

― the music mole (colin s barrow), Wednesday, 21 April 2004 23:09 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.