A question of Morality

[Dokhtar Bandari]

I am interested to find out how everyone else views Morality. What say you???? This can be in the context of Religion, Social standards, Politics and so on so forth.

Come on you Kantian you...give me what you got!!!!LOL

[indian_blues]

put ur views first.... maybe im shy...LOL

[maryam9]

ok, so little hari is too "shy" so i'll go first

i think everyone has a sense of morality - apparently we're meant to know the difference between right and wrong from the age of 5 or something.


Personally, i think that we know deep down inside when we're doing something right or wrong, but some people listen to their conscience more than others.

That's my opinion.
Now your turn, Hari

[indian_blues]

b4 i say anything.. I think this thread should be moved to general section ..i don't think this fits in to this category.

[Dokhtar Bandari]

b4 i say anything.. I think this thread should be moved to general section ..i don't think this fits in to this category.

Ghalat kardi...lol, it belongs here since morality and religion are closely related in most society. Go ahead spit it out...I will give you my view later, but I am interested in learning other points of view, I already know mine.

[mike435]

i fnd a great deal of morality in the torah

and for a personal stand point if i were to sume it up

maintain the situation so the expression of loving and kindess can flourish
and a sense of good coes about that expression

[SuperWoman]

I am interested to find out how everyone else views Morality. What say you???? This can be in the context of Religion, Social standards, Politics and so on so forth.

Come on you Kantian you...give me what you got!!!!LOL

dokhtar bandari ... maybe you can narrow down your question and give us some guidlines .. i think it can be a great discussion ...

[Dokhtar Bandari]

Will do Superwoman....(do you wear the costume too...LOL)

OK, what I want to know is, can an innate morality of human beings provide for a stable society? Most societies have been thought that Morality is exclusive to religion and that without religion Morality will be obsolete. Do you believe that? Do you think that human beings have a sense of Morality separate from religion which requires an absolute devotion to certain religious codes?
Hope this helps.

[indian_blues]

i'm bit confused but surely can answer your questions

can an innate morality of human beings provide for a stable society?

no I don't think so, we don't possess that quality... humans need to be taught what is right and wrong.

Most societies have been thought that Morality is exclusive to religion and that without religion Morality will be obsolete. Do you believe that?

no it is not exclusive to (any) religion. just look at the mess in Iraq (shia sunni problem).. even Bernard shaw thought Islam is the best... but it didn't provided the perfect humans. I find every religion wants to establish themselves, spread and exist forever.... becoz it is in the hands of humans and the strongest will survive. If i look at it in broader perspective religion doesn't help us to understand what is right and wrong.

Do you think that human beings have a sense of Morality separate from religion which requires an absolute devotion to certain religious codes?

Apart from religion we do learn certain things naturally within our family,society and experience and we follow these pattern which is not forced by religion. These pattern are universal becoz we live in a social form.

as far as religion it helps but not entirely.

[zubin]

I am interested to find out how everyone else views Morality. What say you???? This can be in the context of Religion, Social standards, Politics and so on so forth.

Come on you Kantian you...give me what you got!!!!LOL

lol!

The topic is less abstract than it seems. Lets see if the work I've done specifically on this topic brings me back to earth and not high in the ivory tower.

In this context, naturalism as well as a theory called particularism have become VERY trendy. I'll tell you why. Because while one might construct a Kantian principle of action- a principle that applies in all situations to make the action moral, and is thus absolute- in reality the principle is only one of action and does not say what morality itself is. I'll start with naturalism, then particularism, then intuitionism & Kant. I've clearly fallen for all this, though the exposition is not complete and some questions as to the essence of morality still unresolved.

Naturalism
Naturalism in the moral context simply means there is no absolute moral principle in reality. No action is fully moral. The example is the classic case of the sea captain made perfect. At the time of storm, in the spur of the moment, the sea captain often has to make a 'moral' decision between his crew. In one scenario he has to choose to save the lives of 5 while doing so will cause 2 to drown. But he doesn't want to do the opposite. He doesn't want to save 2 and let the 5 drown.

The first point made is that morality is a conflict between competing rights. One is being moral by saving 5 instead of 2, but this does not prove that morality is an absolute concept in the real world. The captain was not fully moral because he feels guilt of the death of the other 2 soldiers. Guilt constantly proves that our 'moral' decisions do not involve implementation of an absolute morality in the real world. There is a residue of immoral consequences to all our actions. You can test this by naming any real life moral scenario. According to naturalism, I will be able to reveal that the right decision also leaves a loss to someone else.

Particularism
Particularism simply expands on naturalism and says that every situation is different. So one will have to adjust his moral principles in every context. This is thought to prove that one moral principle does not exist.

Intuitionism and Kant
Intuitionism means intuition is the driver of a moral decision. You can't sit and think of what's moral, you have to react intuitively to the scenario. Ofcourse, it is acknowledged that people will have a different intuitive answer because of their childhood and beliefs. This is where Kant comes in. Kant (somewhat refined) simply says find a principle that if everyone applied it the world would be a better place. Based on this principle, you will come up with the right intuitive decision each time. Only it is a principle of action, and does not prove what morality is. Morality is in reality a conflict.

[Dokhtar Bandari]

i'm bit confused but surely can answer your questions



no I don't think so, we don't possess that quality... humans need to be taught what is right and wrong.



no it is not exclusive to (any) religion. just look at the mess in Iraq (shia sunni problem).. even Bernard shaw thought Islam is the best... but it didn't provided the perfect humans. I find every religion wants to establish themselves, spread and exist forever.... becoz it is in the hands of humans and the strongest will survive. If i look at it in broader perspective religion doesn't help us to understand what is right and wrong.



Apart from religion we do learn certain things naturally within our family,society and experience and we follow these pattern which is not forced by religion. These pattern are universal becoz we live in a social form.

as far as religion it helps but not entirely.

LOL...Indan jaan the whole question of Morality is a very confusing one, the jury is out on whether Morality is about what we do or who we are...and whether the laws impose Morality or they merely enforce it. And as you know Vedanta considers Morality as an act of unselfishness but yet our Ego may get in the way. Yet one may consider Morality as an effort to guide our actions by reason. Yet doesn't everyone reason their action differently, meaning don't we always justify our actions by some sort of reason?

[Dokhtar Bandari]

lol!

The topic is less abstract than it seems. Lets see if the work I've done specifically on this topic brings me back to earth and not high in the ivory tower.

In this context, naturalism as well as a theory called particularism have become VERY trendy. I'll tell you why. Because while one might construct a Kantian principle of action- a principle that applies in all situations to make the action moral, and is thus absolute- in reality the principle is only one of action and does not say what morality itself is. I'll start with naturalism, then particularism, then intuitionism & Kant. I've clearly fallen for all this, though the exposition is not complete and some questions as to the essence of morality still unresolved.

Naturalism
Naturalism in the moral context simply means there is no absolute moral principle in reality. No action is fully moral. The example is the classic case of the sea captain made perfect. At the time of storm, in the spur of the moment, the sea captain often has to make a 'moral' decision between his crew. In one scenario he has to choose to save the lives of 5 while doing so will cause 2 to drown. But he doesn't want to do the opposite. He doesn't want to save 2 and let the 5 drown.

The first point made is that morality is a conflict between competing rights. One is being moral by saving 5 instead of 2, but this does not prove that morality is an absolute concept in the real world. The captain was not fully moral because he feels guilt of the death of the other 2 soldiers. Guilt constantly proves that our 'moral' decisions do not involve implementation of an absolute morality in the real world. There is a residue of immoral consequences to all our actions. You can test this by naming any real life moral scenario. According to naturalism, I will be able to reveal that the right decision also leaves a loss to someone else.

Particularism
Particularism simply expands on naturalism and says that every situation is different. So one will have to adjust his moral principles in every context. This is thought to prove that one moral principle does not exist.

Intuitionism and Kant
Intuitionism means intuition is the driver of a moral decision. You can't sit and think of what's moral, you have to react intuitively to the scenario. Ofcourse, it is acknowledged that people will have a different intuitive answer because of their childhood and beliefs. This is where Kant comes in. Kant (somewhat refined) simply says find a principle that if everyone applied it the world would be a better place. Based on this principle, you will come up with the right intuitive decision each time. Only it is a principle of action, and does not prove what morality is. Morality is in reality a conflict.

Reading your explanation is just as good having sex...LOL

Let me understand this correctly, so Morality is fundamentally a prescriptive force? Meaning we ought to do what we ought to do? By nature or institution? That is leaving it wide open for individual to decide what is moral and not...example: you see a person laying on the railroad, your fist intution is to go and help that person, but a person who is driven by reason says, wait a minute the train is approaching and you are going to get run over just the same, its irrational...then the nature of the human comes in and says..do something, help that person...hmmmm what to do what to do??? bam train has come and gone...
I think in order for any one of the above to be a guiding light to Moral standards, a person has to have a strong beliefs in humanity. Meaning they have to do the right thing for the good of all or the good of the other person. But does everyone or even most people adhere to certain rules or moral codes that are universal in nature and for the good of the other guy?

[zubin]

Reading your explanation is just as good having sex...LOL

thank you and perhaps it lasts a little longer?

Let me understand this correctly, so Morality is fundamentally a prescriptive force? Meaning we ought to do what we ought to do? By nature or institution? That is leaving it wide open for individual to decide what is moral and not...example: you see a person laying on the railroad, your fist intution is to go and help that person, but a person who is driven by reason says, wait a minute the train is approaching and you are going to get run over just the same, its irrational...then the nature of the human comes in and says..do something, help that person...hmmmm what to do what to do??? bam train has come and gone...
I think in order for any one of the above to be a guiding light to Moral standards, a person has to have a strong beliefs in humanity. Meaning they have to do the right thing for the good of all or the good of the other person. But does everyone or even most people adhere to certain rules or moral codes that are universal in nature and for the good of the other guy?

This is partly a question of psychology that we have to settle before we can advance. I don't only believe, but believe it is already proven that, every person can take on the right principles of life. This is the virtue of Kant. He used a somewhat empirical religious framework to go against religious determinism, the notion that some are bad and nothing can be done about it. He didn't believe in hopelessness and said that a hopeless theory was of "no use" at all.

So he constructed the highest of all aspirations for humankind, the notion that there are principles out there which everyone can adopt. As a matter of psychology, because everyone has the ability to use logic despite disposition, I believe Kant has refuted determinism. He has refuted the need for anyone to rely on emotion alone in a given situation. So one's disposition is irrelevant. But yes, you're right. He has refuted disposition in the prescriptive sense, not the descriptive.

So in your example, the reality is that many people are selfish and this conflicts with others' rights, with morality itself. The point is that everyone person is capable of not being unduly selfish.

Now you might say "capability" is not enough, true. That's why I would expand on Kant and say it is not that people are capable, but that they are searching for the right answer. You might dispute this. In any case, it gives us a clear and promising role which will bring about a true morality. We have to find the universal principles everyone's looking for, and simply bring them up. As people in my opinion are naturally searching for these universal principles, they will adopt them by us bringing them to their attention. The only difficulty is how, given human nature, to bring them up to their attention effectively, without it backfiring.

[Leigha]

I think that morality is half taught, half instinct. but if both are neglected i think our society could (well isnt it already happening?) collapse or explode

[Dokhtar Bandari]

I think that morality is half taught, half instinct. but if both are neglected i think our society could (well isnt it already happening?) collapse or explode

Leigha jaan, are you saying that in any given situation where one is going to rely on a moral standards...ones actions are divided between what he is thinking and what he instinctively knows to be right or wrong?