Morality does not get to the core of the problem, it merely numbs it and hopes it goes away.
Headaches are 'solved' by panadol, which makes the pain go away (for a while)
But the CORE of the problem remains untouched. Maybe it's stress, maybe it's not enough exercise. The CORE of the problem must be addressed
If someone kills/rapes someone, the solution is to lock them away which will deter others from doing the same (for a while)
But the CORE of the problem remains untouched. Why do people kill/rape each other? This is the CORE of the problem and must be understood for us to completely cure it.
This is why rehabilitation and treatment >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple imprisonment and isolation. Even criminals and troubled people deserve a chance to be reintegrated into society after their situations are seriously analyzed and steps are taken to solving those problems. Removing those people from the world doesn't get at the core issues like mental health and prejudice, which permeate our culture. It is very rarely the case that a person is completely hopeless, and certainly the vast majority of our prisoners could be affected positively if we actually cared about helping them.
Morality has nothing to do with problem solving, it's just some attempt at figuring what's right and what's wrong and it evolves with society. There are those who believe that morality is objective, which is cute and they're wrong. And there are those who believe that morality is subjective, as evidenced by the fact that it varies by society and we make shit up as we go along.
Now we've recently determined that rape is wrong even if the person getting raped is of lower social status than the rapist. This is where the only thing we have access to is pragmatic policies to stop rape. At this point it has nothing to do with morality, we're trying to institutionalize fixes for rape. Right now, our only tool is to try to incarcerate rapists because we have nothing else, or very little. We can try to do prevention to some extent, we can get help to people who seem to be sexual deviants and stuff like that, but naturally it doesn't fix the problem because we don't really fix problems generally speaking. Band aids is all we really have.
That said, let's imagine we knew, through some sort of divine intervention, the answer to "why do people rape and kill each other", undoubtedly this would be written down in a massive document. At this point, morality still doesn't do anything on its own, it merely tells us "this is wrong because we kinda feel like it's wrong" and we act upon it. Morality hasn't necessarily changed in any way, shape or form just because we're not better tooled to fight rape.
-Is rape wrong? Morality says yes The second we ask "how do we stop it", it's no longer a question or morality, unless the solution poses another question which can be argued to be moral in nature.
Moral question: Is rape wrong? Answer: yes
Pragmatic question: How do we prevent it? Answer: kill everyone so that no one can rape again
Moral question: Is killing everyone wrong? Answer: yes
Moral question: Is it more wrong than rape? Answer: yes
Pragmatic question: So how do we prevent rape without killing everyone? Answer: Kill the rapists.
Moral question: Is killing the rapists wrong? Answer: Kind of? etc
Ultimately, even if you get to the point where the question is "we now know everything there is to know about why people rape", the application of those principles is no longer a question of morality. It's just the use of the available tools by political and administrative forces to enforce what's believed to be moral.
TLDR: Morality is an ENTIRELY different topic from the application of measures which are meant to promote moral behavior. The fact that we put bandaids on everything is not because morality is insufficient, it's because we don't have the answers to the pragmatic questions of how to fix the problems. To make a bad analogy, morality is like a sonar, it detects problems, real or imagined. It rings out "there's a potential problem here", and then it's up to the crew to decide how to take it down, or if you should run away from it.
The problem is that, as David Hume pointed out, there is no guarantee that cause and effect are related. It's just something we attribute to phenomena.
As for the source of evil in the world I think it comes from dull mindedness, as Tom Robbins pointed out. Who in their right mind would have the hotness of head to commit atrocious crimes.
As Terrence McKenna pointed out culture is like software for the brain. Which one are you running?
So in conclusion, who really knows? There are some hints though for the real seekers of knowledge.
Sometimes you can't fix the core; you focus on fixing whichever parts you can. Also, you can't really fix it without changing who a person fundamentally is; and rewriting people's brains is something you wanna be really cautious with.
On March 23 2016 00:38 imgbaby wrote: The problem is that, as David Hume pointed out, there is no guarantee that cause and effect are related. It's just something we attribute to phenomena.
As for the source of evil in the world I think it comes from dull mindedness, as Tom Robbins pointed out. Who in their right mind would have the hotness of head to commit atrocious crimes.
As Terrence McKenna pointed out culture is like software for the brain. Which one are you running?
So in conclusion, who really knows? There are some hints though for the real seekers of knowledge.
Maybe you should try to "point out" some stuff since all these other people have pointed out so many things to point out :o
On March 23 2016 00:38 imgbaby wrote: The problem is that, as David Hume pointed out, there is no guarantee that cause and effect are related. It's just something we attribute to phenomena.
As for the source of evil in the world I think it comes from dull mindedness, as Tom Robbins pointed out. Who in their right mind would have the hotness of head to commit atrocious crimes.
As Terrence McKenna pointed out culture is like software for the brain. Which one are you running?
So in conclusion, who really knows? There are some hints though for the real seekers of knowledge.
Maybe you should try to "point out" some stuff since all these other people have pointed out so many things to point out :o
I laughed ^_^, though I'm not sure why I was so repetitive. Maybe I'm lazy or maybe I'm dull of mind. An original thought in moral philosophy is quite difficult for me because I have taken an entire course in it, from utilitarianism to Kant to Nietzsche and unfortunately for me, most of the philosophers we read were much smarter than I am.
As for my conclusions on the topic, I think as a culture we are failing to look at fundamentals of our culture. The female is over sexualized by our culture and egotism is a cause of our every-man-for himself philosophy. Also I think we need to point out the reasons for our laws. That way someone could obey the laws in his own way instead of just a rote memorization of rules.
edit- so in conclusion less objectifying in the media, more teamwork among people and explanations behind laws to allow for variance in behaviour from those who are upstanding citizens.
edit2- just to clarify I am not advocating any type of killing or sexual abuse. We should stand up for people who are victims of this behaviour.
Causality works different in morale than in the "real world".
Morale is constructed by a series of rules (i.e.: do not rape). So, causality in morale consist in the process of assign such rules to any given fact (i.e.: if someone rapes an individual, the "do not rape" rule applies to that person?).
In the "real world", though, causality works by analysing a given phenomena and atrributing the causes who contribute to build that phenomena (i.e.: the causes why some individuals commit rape).
On March 23 2016 04:21 Jerubaal wrote: @djzapz Why is rape bad? Under whose subjectivity is rape good?
I mean, my position is not one that feels good. People like for their beliefs to be like blocks that sit neatly in place but I don't think the world is like that. Let's use murder because we can all agree that murder is morally wrong and it's not as contentious as other topics which bring gender and other such stuff and it would detract from the point.
I'll use Sam Harris's basic argument to explain why I think morality is subjective. Imagine a universe where everything is made out of rocks. There's rocks and nothing else. There are no people, there is nothing alive. We can look at that world and we think rocks don't matter. There is no murder, there are no such concerns, just rocks and we can look upon that world and understand it to be this completely neutral state of affairs. In that world, there is no morality. If a rock collides with a rock and breaks it, then you have multiple rocks. A big rock is not more valuable than a small one, etc.
In reality we're in a world where there are rocks, but there are people too, and there are puppies and cows and other animals. I can kill a person, I can make decisions to some extent that affect other people and other beings. They can make decisions which affect me too, sometimes in undesirable ways.
I argue that morality is a purely human construct. Humans are the only beings capable of setting the rules. If we make the mistake of believing that some magical being, or "the universe" has set rules for our conduct, or has set a certain value to a human life, then I argue that we fundamentally misinterpret our world. We're the ones who set value. We're the ones who decide what everything is worth, and that's why over the course of history, the value of the human life has changed, and the punishments for various acts that today are considered immoral have varied wildly.
And so the idea that murder is just basically how we feel, and it's what we think. So you ask the question, why is rape bad? Just like murder, rape is bad, it truly is, but it's purely because we've decided so. We don't want that around us, it's bad for us.
I could go on and write about how I think morality largely stems from our evolution and just our instinct of self-preservation. It makes evolutionary sense for people to avoid murder. Societies with fewer murders did better than others, etc. We feel bad when we witness murders, and most of us will never commit atrocious acts like those because of the gut-wrenching feeling and the aversion most of us have toward those acts.
Essentially, we make the rules, it makes complete sense, rationally speaking, to say murder and rape are bad. It's because we've largely decided that the human life has value. I'd argue that it really doesn't, but that's fine. I value human lives, you probably do. We make the rules.
On March 22 2016 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This is why rehabilitation and treatment >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple imprisonment and isolation.
to add to your point: i've lived in Chicago, Upstate New York, Montreal and Toronto. My experience is that Canada's "soft on crime" methods keep the the criminals themselves soft. Canada has the wimpiest, most pathetic criminals relative to the scarey, desperate, violent criminals in New York and Chicago.
when i was a criminal in my teen years ( living in the suburbs of toronto ) i knew B&E "pros" who would not even confront a 70 year old woman. they'd run. talk about wimps.
i just hope Canada continues its soft on crime ways and i wish more northern US states would soften up... i bet you they'd be surprised what happens long term if they try it.
On March 22 2016 20:01 firehand101 wrote: But the CORE of the problem remains untouched. Why do people kill/rape each other? This is the CORE of the problem and must be understood for us to completely cure it.
these guys have to learn how to compromise better.. if a hot girl i know well won't have sex with me i try a compromise solution... i say " hey .. fair enough.. no sex.. i understand your point of view on that..but hey... how about a hand job?"
On March 22 2016 23:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This is why rehabilitation and treatment >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple imprisonment and isolation.
to add to your point: i've lived in Chicago, Upstate New York, Montreal and Toronto. My experience is that Canada's "soft on crime" methods keep the the criminals themselves soft. Canada has the wimpiest, most pathetic criminals relative to the scarey, desperate, violent criminals in New York and Chicago.
Some dude with an organized crime background got shot dead 5 minutes away from where I live in the northern suburbs of Montreal and it was in the news across the province. In most US states it wouldn't be considered newsworthy. This kind of shit doesn't happen very much, and it's especially rare outside of the big cities.
lol i made a post similar to this years ago and it got taken down because "no homework help threads" even tho im still not studying. guess i should have made it a blog.
On March 23 2016 12:16 Kazahk wrote: lol i made a post similar to this years ago and it got taken down because "no homework help threads" even tho im still not studying. guess i should have made it a blog.
fuck homework. the stuff i said about hand jobs is PHD thesis material.
Morality is a word and represents a concept. This is why morality is objective in a semantic sense, because we can not just have our own subjective understanding of words. We must agree upon the meanings of words so that we can understand eachother.
Most people have the same understanding of the meaning of this word morality, even without "reading the dictionary". This understanding is what has created the many "golden rules" in relgion. I agree with djapz that evolution has helped us facilitate our understanding and feelings about morality. It has to do with empathy and language i think. We feel bad when we see or imagine someone being hurt because of empathy. This is why we often can trust our feelings alone when dealing with situations where someone is hurt.
The language part has to do with reliability. We want to be reliable so people can trust us and keep us as a part of the group. To be reliable we must follow up on what we say. Whenever we are caught in doing the opposite of what we say, we feel really bad about it (this feeling has to do partly with us being social animals). Most all people communicate to others they know about their own beliefs of justice, fairness and other benficial values. This way you are socially accepted. Not only that, but this way you can have self respect. Most criminals actually justify for themselves why they are doing their criminal act to keep their self respect, albeit a confused one.. Many have been more or less treated bad themselves and can see their criminal act as bringing "balance" back in the equation.
A criminal can be very reliable towards his gang members, so we must not mistake criminals to all be sociopaths without feelings, rather understand that for various reason they dont share the same in-group feeling towards the rest of us. There are political measures we can take to prevent some of these reasons off course.
Now what i have described is the various reasons for why most of us end up with doing the morally correct thing because of feelings of empathy and for values we hold through our language.
But what does this word really mean? How does the concept of morality work? Anyone want to try first? This is important and i believe it will solve the problems of morality with regards to the OP. Morality has changed our culture many times in the past. Think human rights, women rights etc.
On March 24 2016 04:15 tanngard wrote: Here is how i think.
Morality is a word and represents a concept. This is why morality is objective in a semantic sense, because we can not just have our own subjective understanding of words. We must agree upon the meanings of words so that we can understand eachother.
Most people have the same understanding of the meaning of this word morality, even without "reading the dictionary".
I agree with most of what you said in your post but I'd be careful there. Morality and ethics are actually extremely complicated, and while people have some understanding of what they generally mean, the content of those big terms is extremely contentious stuff, as I'm sure you'd agree. But there are a lot of details even in the general definition of the term. There is no doubt in my mind that there have been thousands of pages written on how to define morality.
Not all of it is relevant for the current discussion, no doubt, but agreeing on the definition of words usually is a really shitty, yet necessary part of discussing these issues. That's what I tried to do in my first post on this thread, without getting too much into it, I basically didn't agree with the idea that morality somehow failed, and that's because I don't think that morality is to blame for the actions we take based on our understanding (or our ephemeral conception of-) what is moral.
I don't really have any answers to this but I did get a question when reading what you wrote.
My question was what does moral mean? I looked it up in a dictionary but to be frank, the definition I got didn't clear anything up for me.
Also from Djzapz comments it came to mind that maybe objective and subjective are not so mutually exclusive? (people do live in reality after all, so even if we all experience it differently it is still within a shared whole).
I do agree that very often problems get "solved" in a way that doesn't solve them for very long. Pretty disturbing to think about sometimes.
Have you been struggling with this at all lately firehand101? I often think about this stuff when I have to go through it so mostly just wondering.
On March 25 2016 13:30 TwoTrickPony wrote: I don't really have any answers to this but I did get a question when reading what you wrote.
My question was what does moral mean? I looked it up in a dictionary but to be frank, the definition I got didn't clear anything up for me.
Also from Djzapz comments it came to mind that maybe objective and subjective are not so mutually exclusive? (people do live in reality after all, so even if we all experience it differently it is still within a shared whole).
I do agree that very often problems get "solved" in a way that doesn't solve them for very long. Pretty disturbing to think about sometimes.
Have you been struggling with this at all lately firehand101? I often think about this stuff when I have to go through it so mostly just wondering.
Great question. I think the moral decision is the one that brings joy and fairness, equality and freedom to all. Though each culture has its own ideas, and these are often subjective. This is cultural relativism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism .... despite this there still must be an idea of what is best for the human spirit, because as we see there are systems for medicinal health. For instance it is best not to eat or drink e coli. So theoretically there must be decisions best for human well being in the psyche. These are moral choices. This is somewhat influenced by Plato.
edit: Actually screw Plato and Socrates, I'm going to steal from Kant here. Kant says that the moral choice is the one that if you were to make a rule of your behaviour for all to follow then that rule would be sound. I kinda forget actually. There are many opinions. For instance Utilitarians argue that the greatest good for the greatest number is moral.
edit2- and yes the utilitarians and Kant run into trouble with thought problems such as saving one life versus saving three lives if the decision has to be made to change the death of one into the death of three.
The best answer comes from Nietzsche imo which is that the moral thing to do is live dangerously. For why? because God is dead and man is to superman what ape is to man, and one must cross. But as Tom Robbins said "advice is (only) a form of nostalgia." There's also Kierkegaard who says that the bible is right with this one truism "love thy neighbour."
So in conclusion, morality is not a failure but rather a question answered quite well but not studied by many.
On March 25 2016 13:30 TwoTrickPony wrote: I don't really have any answers to this but I did get a question when reading what you wrote.
My question was what does moral mean? I looked it up in a dictionary but to be frank, the definition I got didn't clear anything up for me.
Also from Djzapz comments it came to mind that maybe objective and subjective are not so mutually exclusive? (people do live in reality after all, so even if we all experience it differently it is still within a shared whole).
I do agree that very often problems get "solved" in a way that doesn't solve them for very long. Pretty disturbing to think about sometimes.
Have you been struggling with this at all lately firehand101? I often think about this stuff when I have to go through it so mostly just wondering.
Great question. I think the moral decision is the one that brings joy and fairness, equality and freedom to all. Though each culture has its own ideas, and these are often subjective. This is cultural relativism
To answer DualTrickPony's question through imgbaby; morality is exactly the opposite of how he defined it.
A moral enforcement stems from immorality. There has to be a supreme power (The State/King/Ruler) that makes a rule which benefits them. To say 'Don't kill' is a moral rule, which can only be enforced by a ruling power which USED killing to gain the power they have, and now wish to protect themselves from violence USING violence (police etc). Killing itself is neither good or bad. Morality is just a tool for higher powers to enforce discipline and control over lower ones
Nietzsche's answer I think is to find your own morality, your own good and bad. Morality is neither good nor bad, it just IS. Morality is making a distinction between good and bad, and we ALL do this to some extent (ie moving your hand away from a hot stove, moving away from pain and into pleasure is your own morality)
I think the human race is at the stage now where they should not condemn morality (which I sort of did in the title, a mistake of mine I'll admit ) nor embrace and follow it completely, but UNDERSTAND what morality is and what it means. The state enforces 'don't kill each other' laws and 'don't rape each other laws'. It's time not to abandon these rules nor follow them completely, but to understand them. I have a very strong suspicion that once we start understanding morality, punishment etc, we will no longer HAVE THE NEED to kill and rape each other, because we understand ourselves. We are all one species, one race, one team, and it's high time we started acting like one.
In the same way rape is neither good nor bad, it just exists and we have to understand it, we have to understand morality also
On March 25 2016 13:30 TwoTrickPony wrote: I don't really have any answers to this but I did get a question when reading what you wrote.
My question was what does moral mean? I looked it up in a dictionary but to be frank, the definition I got didn't clear anything up for me.
Also from Djzapz comments it came to mind that maybe objective and subjective are not so mutually exclusive? (people do live in reality after all, so even if we all experience it differently it is still within a shared whole).
I do agree that very often problems get "solved" in a way that doesn't solve them for very long. Pretty disturbing to think about sometimes.
Have you been struggling with this at all lately firehand101? I often think about this stuff when I have to go through it so mostly just wondering.
Great question. I think the moral decision is the one that brings joy and fairness, equality and freedom to all. Though each culture has its own ideas, and these are often subjective. This is cultural relativism
To answer DualTrickPony's question through imgbaby; morality is exactly the opposite of how he defined it.
A moral enforcement stems from immorality. There has to be a supreme power (The State/King/Ruler) that makes a rule which benefits them. To say 'Don't kill' is a moral rule, which can only be enforced by a ruling power which USED killing to gain the power they have, and now wish to protect themselves from violence USING violence (police etc). Killing itself is neither good or bad. Morality is just a tool for higher powers to enforce discipline and control over lower ones
Nietzsche's answer I think is to find your own morality, your own good and bad. Morality is neither good nor bad, it just IS. Morality is making a distinction between good and bad, and we ALL do this to some extent (ie moving your hand away from a hot stove, moving away from pain and into pleasure is your own morality)
I think the human race is at the stage now where they should not condemn morality (which I sort of did in the title, a mistake of mine I'll admit ) nor embrace and follow it completely, but UNDERSTAND what morality is and what it means. The state enforces 'don't kill each other' laws and 'don't rape each other laws'. It's time not to abandon these rules nor follow them completely, but to understand them. I have a very strong suspicion that once we start understanding morality, punishment etc, we will no longer HAVE THE NEED to kill and rape each other, because we understand ourselves. We are all one species, one race, one team, and it's high time we started acting like one.
In the same way rape is neither good nor bad, it just exists and we have to understand it, we have to understand morality also
Wow, thanks for the answers.
Hmm, imgbaby's answer sounds more like where it begins and firehand101's answer is more about where it ended up.
Interestingly neither answer seems to indicate that morals are personal but instead are collective. That does seem like how it's most often talked about.
I agree very strongly that moral enforcement tends to end up becoming very abusive and exploited by the powerful.
On March 25 2016 13:30 TwoTrickPony wrote: I don't really have any answers to this but I did get a question when reading what you wrote.
My question was what does moral mean? I looked it up in a dictionary but to be frank, the definition I got didn't clear anything up for me.
Also from Djzapz comments it came to mind that maybe objective and subjective are not so mutually exclusive? (people do live in reality after all, so even if we all experience it differently it is still within a shared whole).
I do agree that very often problems get "solved" in a way that doesn't solve them for very long. Pretty disturbing to think about sometimes.
Have you been struggling with this at all lately firehand101? I often think about this stuff when I have to go through it so mostly just wondering.
Great question. I think the moral decision is the one that brings joy and fairness, equality and freedom to all. Though each culture has its own ideas, and these are often subjective. This is cultural relativism
To answer DualTrickPony's question through imgbaby; morality is exactly the opposite of how he defined it.
A moral enforcement stems from immorality. There has to be a supreme power (The State/King/Ruler) that makes a rule which benefits them. To say 'Don't kill' is a moral rule, which can only be enforced by a ruling power which USED killing to gain the power they have, and now wish to protect themselves from violence USING violence (police etc). Killing itself is neither good or bad. Morality is just a tool for higher powers to enforce discipline and control over lower ones
Nietzsche's answer I think is to find your own morality, your own good and bad. Morality is neither good nor bad, it just IS. Morality is making a distinction between good and bad, and we ALL do this to some extent (ie moving your hand away from a hot stove, moving away from pain and into pleasure is your own morality)
I think the human race is at the stage now where they should not condemn morality (which I sort of did in the title, a mistake of mine I'll admit ) nor embrace and follow it completely, but UNDERSTAND what morality is and what it means. The state enforces 'don't kill each other' laws and 'don't rape each other laws'. It's time not to abandon these rules nor follow them completely, but to understand them. I have a very strong suspicion that once we start understanding morality, punishment etc, we will no longer HAVE THE NEED to kill and rape each other, because we understand ourselves. We are all one species, one race, one team, and it's high time we started acting like one.
In the same way rape is neither good nor bad, it just exists and we have to understand it, we have to understand morality also
Wow, thanks for the answers.
Hmm, imgbaby's answer sounds more like where it begins and firehand101's answer is more about where it ended up.
Interestingly neither answer seems to indicate that morals are personal but instead are collective. That does seem like how it's most often talked about.
I agree very strongly that moral enforcement tends to end up becoming very abusive and exploited by the powerful.
Actually you have it the opposite way as well! haha My definition is how it STARTS, how a supreme power uses it to enforce control over lesser ones. Equality/Freedom for all is where it ENDS, where the ruling power eventually submits to the rule it proposed itself. So eventually the rule 'no violence' would apply to the state as well; this is where Nietzsche saw that morality ended, and was horrified by this scenario!
Morality is personal AND collective. You have your own personal morality, your own good and bad, and then there is good and bad for the collective/society which benefits them also.
A perfect world would have you following your own morality to benefit yourself and grow as a person WHILE complying with the state to benefit them also.
EPT
) nor embrace and follow it completely, but UNDERSTAND what morality is and what it means. The state enforces 'don't kill each other' laws and 'don't rape each other laws'. It's time not to abandon these rules nor follow them completely, but to understand them. I have a very strong suspicion that once we start understanding morality, punishment etc, we will no longer HAVE THE NEED to kill and rape each other, because we understand ourselves. We are all one species, one race, one team, and it's high time we started acting like one.
