Why is something immoral?

[ataraxia]

If you'd humor me, I'd like to get a few answers to this question from anyone that wants to answer it and I'll reply with my thoughts.


Why is stealing immoral?
Why is cheating on a person you are in a committed relationship with immoral?
Why is rape immoral?
Why is murder* immoral?
(if all of these things are immoral for the same reason, you can lump them together)

What about suicide? Is it wrong, sometimes wrong or never immoral?

If an act is immoral, is it wrong? are immoral acts bad?

*Murder is the intentional and unjustified killing of another human being without their consent, conducted with malice aforethought.

I think of it this way: immoral behavior is behavior that hurts others.

So if you're ever stranded alone on a deserted island somewhere, then by this definition there is nothing you can ever do there that would be considered immoral. But put even ONE other person there (or even any animal which is capable of feeling pain like a dog or a horse- where ideas of animal rights comes from), then we can start talking about moral vs immoral behavior.

 

[ataraxia]

Not being pedantic here, this is a serious question.

What if I like eating broken glass?

I don't know anyone who would consider eating broken glass immoral behavior. Weird, maybe. Stupid. Might be in the realm of mental illness so I would be interested in a psych eval for such a person. But not immoral. You're not hurting anyone else.

 

[Econ4every1]

That is a conjecture. Conjectures mean exactly nothing. Find a real example of you want a reasoned conversation.

Ritual sacrifices have been practiced throughout history, is my conjecture really so hard to imagine that it breaks with reality to the point of being meaningless? I don't think so. I think you need a better imagination.

I'm just trying to have a little fun and engage with the community in a serious conversation. Come on in, join us, the waters warm.

 

[Econ4every1]

I don't know anyone who would consider eating broken glass immoral behavior. Weird, maybe. Stupid. But not immoral. You're not hurting anyone else.

Quite right, but the statement I was responding to was, 'do unto other as you want done unto you'. I was pointing out the flaw in that idea. If I'd like someone to make me eat broken glass (or any other ritual or behavior -probably unusual- that some people might like that others wouldn't) should I do that for others.

I prefer the statement; do not do unto others as you would not want done to you.

That said, I admit this is splitting a fine hair, but an idea worth at east contemplating.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Ahhh, so the keyword in this sentence is harm, would you agree? And we modified the word harm by using the terms unjustified and without consent.

So then unjustified and unwelcome harm is bad.

Would anyone claim this idea is just an opinion or is this a good starting place when trying to find rational justifications for ethics?

I wasn't defining "immoral". I was providing a reason that the specifically listed acts are immoral. There certainly could be other reasons to consider other behaviors to be immoral.

 

[watsup]

Ritual sacrifices have been practiced throughout history, is my conjecture really so hard to imagine that it breaks with reality to the point of being meaningless? I don't think so. I think you need a better imagination.

I'm just trying to have a little fun and engage with the community in a serious conversation. Come on in, join us, the waters warm.

The question then being why is ritual sacrifice now seen as immoral and is thus (hopefully) no longer practiced, if it was not from SOCIETY at large condemning such practice?

 

[ataraxia]

Quite right, but the statement I was responding to was, 'do unto other as you want done unto you'. I was pointing out the flaw in that idea. If I'd like someone to make me eat broken glass (or any other ritual or behavior -probably unusual- that some people might like that others wouldn't) should I do that for others.

I prefer the statement; do not do unto others as you would not want done to you.

That said, I admit this is splitting a fine hair, but an idea worth at east contemplating.

Well for me it might be something like: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.... IF YOU WERE THEM.

So for example, my wife really likes getting flowers, so I get them for her. But I don't particularly care for them for myself. I would much rather someone got me tickets to a sports game. But I'm not gonna do that for my wife. I will get her flowers.

Of course, have you heard the Wall Street version of the golden rule? Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you.

 

[watsup]

Quite right, but the statement I was responding to was, 'do unto other as you want done unto you'. I was pointing out the flaw in that idea. If I'd like someone to make me eat broken glass (or any other ritual or behavior -probably unusual- that some people might like that others wouldn't) should I do that for others.

I prefer the statement; do not do unto others as you would not want done to you.

That said, I admit this is splitting a fine hair, but an idea worth at east contemplating.

More conjecture. Sorry, it just doesn’t work.

 

[Econ4every1]

I think of it this way: immoral behavior is behavior that hurts others.

Ahh....Again, we're back to pointing to actions and how they effect our experience. Harm.

What if I asked, why should your dislike of harm outweigh my desire for pleasure?

So if you're ever stranded alone on a deserted island somewhere, then by this definition there is nothing you can ever do there that would be considered immoral.

Quite right! I like to say that morality is a team sport. It's sort of like the word team and marriage. In a universe of 1 person, these words would be meaningless. Just conjecture, thought experiments. Morality in that universe would be no different than what you like is good and what you dislike is bad.

 

[Econ4every1]

More conjecture. Sorry, it just doesn’t work.

Historical ritual sacrifices are conjecture?

 

[soylentgreen]

Why?

When an act is done through malice it will bring harm to someone. Most people have empathy and can feel that harm and relate to it. But being intelligent creatures we define that harm in terms of morality.

I'm not trying to be pedantic when I say this, but let's be sure we're using the same terms.

I generally think of ethics as you describe and morals or morally as decisions about right and wrong, good and bad when two more more people are agreeing on what right and wrong is, what others are calling the social contract.

That said, I'm not trying to claim any verbal real-estate, just want to be sure we're not talking past each other.

Think about it like this. In professional sports there are rules, every person has to agree to the rules to play and when they break the rules the can be penalized in the game, removed from the game, fined or banned. That system is the equivalent of a moral system. In soccer carrying the ball (if the game is on and you aren't the goalie) is bad. However, each player might have a different opinion of the rules, that would be their personal ethics.

Again, if you want to call it morals for the individual and morality for the group, I don't care, let's just be sure we're reading from the same sheet of music.

As far as the subjectivity of rules. If I asked you how tall you are and you said 5'10. How would you respond to the question: "are you objectively that tall"?

You have used two different terms here, morality and ethics.
Morality is personal and subjective. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving child would not be seen as immoral by those also starving but would be seen as immoral by the wealthy bread maker. Morality will always depend on the point of view and the circumstances.
Ethics on the other hand is an attempt to create an objective set of morality for society or as in your example, sports which have rules, that every person has to agree to.

Sure, but what happens when people have to live in a society, is each persons idea of right and wrong based on their balance of empathy and altruism? If not, and you'd agree in a shared moral system, what ideas should 'float to the top'. What does an effective moral system look like? How should anyone argue for a good moral system?

You are working with only half the picture there. The other side to how society works is that we need conflict. If we had the perfect utopia where nothing need change because we all get along and agree then we also would have a stagnant society where there is no growth or change. And without growth and change society will die. extinction is inevitable.
Our ideas of what is moral and what ethical standards we should have will change and should change with every new generation.

Empathy and altruism are not something we are forced to do. They are emotions that we feel but can ignore. But they do give us guidance on what we personally and subjectively call our morals. For example watch a video of a stranger fall flat on their face and you might laugh at the antic. But watch you own child do the same and you rush to the child concerned for their safety and well being. Empathy and altruism does not control us. it merely tells us what we feel to right or wrong.

 

[Econ4every1]

Well for me it might be something like: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.... IF YOU WERE THEM.

So for example, my wife really likes getting flowers, so I get them for her. But I don't particularly care for them for myself. I would much rather someone got me tickets to a sports game. But I'm not gonna do that for my wife. I will get her flowers.

Of course, have you heard the Wall Street version of the golden rule? Do unto others BEFORE they do unto you.

That's a good point, which leads me to the idea that "the golden rule" is probably best left to those that lack the intellectual capacity to contemplate complex moral conundrums as either rule admits to too many exceptions to be the foundation of an effective moral system.

 

[Luce]

If you'd humor me, I'd like to get a few answers to this question from anyone that wants to answer it and I'll reply with my thoughts.


Why is stealing immoral?
Why is cheating on a person you are in a committed relationship with immoral?
Why is rape immoral?
Why is murder* immoral?
(if all of these things are immoral for the same reason, you can lump them together)

What about suicide? Is it wrong, sometimes wrong or never immoral?

If an act is immoral, is it wrong? are immoral acts bad?

*Murder is the intentional and unjustified killing of another human being without their consent, conducted with malice aforethought.

Immorality is the act of harming people unnecessarily.

Everything else is just puritan bullshit.

 

[Noodlegawd]

That's a good point, which leads me to the idea that "the golden rule" is probably best left to those that lack the intellectual capacity to contemplate complex moral conundrums as either rule admits to too many exceptions to be the foundation of an effective moral system.

Can you give an example of a realistic complex moral conundrum that admits to such an exception?

 

[watsup]

Historical ritual sacrifices are conjecture?

A tribe plucking out eyeballs is conjecture.

 

[Econ4every1]

ou have used two different terms here, morality and ethics.
Morality is personal and subjective. Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving child would not be seen as immoral by those also starving but would be seen as immoral by the wealthy bread maker. Morality will always depend on the point of view and the circumstances.
Ethics on the other hand is an attempt to create an objective set of morality for society or as in your example, sports which have rules, that every person has to agree to.

While I agree that morals can be personal and subjective to some extent – your example of stealing bread to feed a starving child certainly highlights how circumstances can influence our moral judgments – I believe it's important to recognize that morality isn't entirely relative. There are often core moral values, like fairness, compassion, and honesty, and the desire to avoid harm, and suffering that are shared across societies.

You're right that ethics aims to create a more objective set of rules for behavior within a specific context, such as sports or a profession. However, even ethical codes can be influenced by cultural values and power dynamics, and they often require individuals to exercise moral judgment when applying those rules to specific situations.

I see morality and ethics as intertwined rather than specific and distinct entities. Ethical codes often reflect underlying moral values shared by a community, and morality informs ethical decision-making even within established frameworks.

In the case of the starving person stealing bread, it's true that their actions might be viewed differently by someone who is also starving versus a wealthy bread maker. This highlights the complexity of moral and ethical dilemmas, where competing values and circumstances can make it difficult to determine the "right" course of action.

The other side to how society works is that we need conflict. If we had the perfect utopia

I'm not espousing the idea that we need a perfect utopia or that such a thing will ever be possible therefore I don't have a lot ot add here.

When an act is done through malice it will bring harm to someone.

Can we agree that harm describes states of human experience? And that humans overwhelmingly experience harm and pain similarly? Even those that take pleasure in pain, like doing meth, or cutting one's own wrists, can't we say that these things cause objective harm, even if a person is experiencing subjective pleasure? And because humans have a nearly universal sense of harm and suffering and that being that it's bad, then perhaps we can assert that:

Unwanted or unjustified actual or potential harm, pain and suffering are bad, if the word bad means anything and is a god basis for an anchor point for a moral system?

One more thought about moral relativism. The only justification for moral relativism is that moral claims are based on knowledge and understanding. If in the past it was believed that prescribing arsenic is good (I think Hitler was prescribed arsenic IIRC) then at the time, if the preponderance of the evidence pointed to it being good, then it was good. All that's changed from then to now is knowledge.

 

[Econ4every1]

A tribe plucking out eyeballs is conjecture.

Whatever man. Join the conversation if you want. See you there.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

If you'd humor me, I'd like to get a few answers to this question from anyone that wants to answer it and I'll reply with my thoughts.


Why is stealing immoral?
Why is cheating on a person you are in a committed relationship with immoral?
Why is rape immoral?
Why is murder* immoral?
(if all of these things are immoral for the same reason, you can lump them together)

What about suicide? Is it wrong, sometimes wrong or never immoral?

If an act is immoral, is it wrong? are immoral acts bad?

*Murder is the intentional and unjustified killing of another human being without their consent, conducted with malice aforethought.

Morals are individual - internal to each person.

For myself, I would say that the foundational moral principle is the "harm principle" - stealing, cheating, rape, murder, etc are immoral because they harm another person.

Suicide is more complex, for the same reason.

 

[Econ4every1]

Can you give an example of a realistic complex moral conundrum that admits to such an exception?

Sure, if the idea is that I should do unto others as I want done unto me, what if I enjoy eating corn starch? What if someone walked up to me and put a spoonful in my mouth and I was like, YES!

A few more examples. I might like it when people hug me, even without asking, other people certainly do not.

In situations with unequal power dynamics, applying the Golden Rule without critical thought can perpetuate or exacerbate those imbalances. For example, a boss who enjoys public praise might assume their employees do too, leading to uncomfortable or even humiliating situations.

Now I could use other more sensational examples as people have some pretty unusual sexual proclivities, but I don't want to distract from the thrust of the conversation.

 

[zincwarrior]

If murder is moral than the words wrong and bad have no meaning in the context of human experience.

There are current cultures but I will go with old examples. For example, in Roman law the Husband could wack his kids, wives, and slaves. Perfectly legal and very moral if they committed an act that besmirched the family. Per feudal law It was perfectly moral, and indeed immoral not to, to go and murder your neighbor if your landlord ordered you to.

For the Comanche it was perfectly moral, indeed quite upstanding, to travel south to kill Mexicans, rape them, steal their horse and stuff, steal their children, and torture captives to death when home. Considered the right and proper thing.

It was perfectly legal for slave owners in the antebellum US to rape, starve, torture, and kill their slaves.

 

[Econ4every1]

I need to go for now, I will answer ever response when I have some time....

 

[Econ4every1]

if it was not from SOCIETY at large condemning such practice?

Why did society at large condemn the practice? How did people come to make decisions about right and wrong, that's what I'm asking. I agree that society, at least those that are "free", give their leaders the authority to carry out rules and laws, to enforce people's rights, but all societies base their ideas on something, right?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Sure, if the idea is that I should do unto others as I want done unto me, what if I enjoy eating corn starch? What if someone walked up to me and put a spoonful in my mouth and I was like, YES!

A few more examples. I might like it when people hug me, even without asking, other people certainly do not.

In situations with unequal power dynamics, applying the Golden Rule without critical thought can perpetuate or exacerbate those imbalances. For example, a boss who enjoys public praise might assume their employees do too, leading to uncomfortable or even humiliating situations.

Now I could use other more sensational examples as people have some pretty unusual sexual proclivities, but I don't want to distract from the thrust of the conversation.

I don't see any imbalances, just the implication that you assuming an unduly narrow and literal interpretation of the GR.

 

[Donothan]

Ok, but how does society determine what is immoral?

I was trying to understand why people believe different commonly held ideas that are generally thought of as wrong, bad or immoral are, in fact, immoral?

I think morality probably evolved from an eye for an eye tooth for a tooth philosophy where you don’t kill the people around you so that you don’t have to worry about someone else killing you, eventually i assume this turned into instinct most people have that way you can somewhat trust the people around you

 

[watsup]

Unwanted or unjustified actual or potential harm, pain and suffering are bad, if the word bad means anything and is a god basis for an anchor point for a moral system?

No “god basis” needed.