Why is something immoral?

[reinaert]

Just 1 other

That's a ... group. Morality cannot be the function of an isolated self. It cannot be individual.

A personal approach: when I'm alone in the wilderness, I have a set of rules for how to survive the harder conditions. Those rules account for environment, my personal limits, my preparedness, accident, contingency, wildlife and weather. Those rules are, as a function of trial and error, entirely individual. No interaction with others is required to keep to them. Their efficacy can be tested in solitude.

But.

I also enter the wilderness with another set of rules, ones regular hikers will understand as trail etiquette. Those rules are utterly useless until I encounter another person, and we form by accident of passage, or by degrees of conviviality, apathy, suspicion or hostility, a group - however temporary. None of the rules of trail etiquette work unless my one counters another(s).

Conversely, my wilderness rules work even if no group is ever formed, and I remain entirely solitary. The rules of survival are not and cannot be a morality. Trail etiquette is and of necessity must be moral.

 

[Lutherf]

I think he has perhaps written it better, is this more what you meant? (The bold)

Why bother? You already know what I wrote and why I wrote it. Have your discussion with yourself. You’ll find more agreement that way.

 

[Lursa]

Why bother? You already know what I wrote and why I wrote it. Have your discussion with yourself. You’ll find more agreement that way.

OK, then you were really off-base.

 

[The Mark]

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 base my measurement of immorality on degree of harm caused to another person. This is not an exhaustive explanation for what is immoral, but it covers the vast majority of it.

Which, I suppose, is a way of ducking the question, because then you might ask what is harm?
But that way lies madness and chaos, so...

All of those things are immoral because they cause some degree of harm to another person.

Case 1: Stealing is immoral because you are harming another person by taking things they own and/or need. Arguably, people with more stuff and the resources to acquire replacement stuff are harmed less by theft. But still, they are harmed.

Case 2: Cheating on a person breaks their trust. Whatever your relationship agreement is, I am assuming cheating breaks it.
Assuming you are in a committed monogamous relationship with them, it harms them because you both agreed to that monogamous relationship, and you are betraying their trust, not to mention harming them emotionally because they are operating under the belief that various emotions they feel are shared only with you, and you reciprocate them. Definitely mental and emotional harm, possibly more.

Case 3: Rape is immoral because you are significantly (and often permanently) harming another person physically, mentally, and even beyond that - to one degree or another, in almost all societies, being a victim of rape potentially harms a person forever, even if they personally recover entirely, because it changes how some or all of that society views them.
In some ways, I am tempted to think rape is arguably worse than murder.

Case 4: Murder is immoral because you are harming a person to (arguably) the ultimate degree, by ending their life, preventing any future actions they could have taken, for good or ill. But we will never know, because they are dead.

Case 5: Suicide is wrong because it harms the people who love and/or rely on you. There are cases where it may be less harm than remaining alive, but that's a case-by-case thing.


Immoral acts are bad because they harm another person.
If you, 5 minutes from now, destroyed the universe, that would be immoral because you significantly and permanently harmed a number of persons we cannot grasp currently. But if you have that power, perhaps you can, and would know how much harm was caused.

Immoral acts are not simply good or bad, however. The degree of how immoral and/or bad an action is, depends on how much harm is caused, and how much recovery can occur, and/or recompense be granted.

 

[Lutherf]

OK, then you were really off-base.

I already told you that I was wrong and you are right, whatever it is you say. What else do you want? Go ahead, give us all a lecture and then disparage anyone that has a different opinion. It’s the best way for all of us to become as smart as you are.

 

[Econ4every1]

No “god basis” needed.

Agreed.

 

[Lursa]

I already told you that I was wrong and you are right, whatever it is you say. What else do you want? Go ahead, give us all a lecture and then disparage anyone that has a different opinion. It’s the best way for all of us to become as smart as you are.

I was actually trying to meet you half way with the other's post/phrasing

But you vent all you need to.

 

[Econ4every1]

No, it isn’t wrong or immoral.

Removing the eyes of Children isn't wrong or immoral? WTF?

 

[devildavid]

Removing the eyes of Children isn't wrong or immoral? WTF?

No, it isn’t. There is nothing inherently immoral. Morality is a subjective judgement. If the society agrees that doing this is necessary, it isn’t considered immoral in that society. You are judging using your moral stance, which is subjective and comes from your culture. It may be seen as cruel and bizarre from your point of view, but from the culture that does it is is seen as a matter of necessity for the success of their culture. That may be a superstition with no basis in fact, but they see nothing immoral about it in their belief system. So if someone told them it is immoral how would they react?

 

[devildavid]

I base my measurement of immorality on degree of harm caused to another person. This is not an exhaustive explanation for what is immoral, but it covers the vast majority of it.

Which, I suppose, is a way of ducking the question, because then you might ask what is harm?
But that way lies madness and chaos, so...

All of those things are immoral because they cause some degree of harm to another person.

Case 1: Stealing is immoral because you are harming another person by taking things they own and/or need. Arguably, people with more stuff and the resources to acquire replacement stuff are harmed less by theft. But still, they are harmed.

Case 2: Cheating on a person breaks their trust. Whatever your relationship agreement is, I am assuming cheating breaks it.
Assuming you are in a committed monogamous relationship with them, it harms them because you both agreed to that monogamous relationship, and you are betraying their trust, not to mention harming them emotionally because they are operating under the belief that various emotions they feel are shared only with you, and you reciprocate them. Definitely mental and emotional harm, possibly more.

Case 3: Rape is immoral because you are significantly (and often permanently) harming another person physically, mentally, and even beyond that - to one degree or another, in almost all societies, being a victim of rape potentially harms a person forever, even if they personally recover entirely, because it changes how some or all of that society views them.
In some ways, I am tempted to think rape is arguably worse than murder.

Case 4: Murder is immoral because you are harming a person to (arguably) the ultimate degree, by ending their life, preventing any future actions they could have taken, for good or ill. But we will never know, because they are dead.

Case 5: Suicide is wrong because it harms the people who love and/or rely on you. There are cases where it may be less harm than remaining alive, but that's a case-by-case thing.


Immoral acts are bad because they harm another person.
If you, 5 minutes from now, destroyed the universe, that would be immoral because you significantly and permanently harmed a number of persons we cannot grasp currently. But if you have that power, perhaps you can, and would know how much harm was caused.

Immoral acts are not simply good or bad, however. The degree of how immoral and/or bad an action is, depends on how much harm is caused, and how much recovery can occur, and/or recompense be granted.

The problem is that harm is also subjective and situational in nature. You used words that make a judgement on actions such as stealing, killing and having sex. But each case is subjective and situational and must be judged individually. Not all taking things is stealing, not all killing is murder, and not all sex is rape. These actions are always judged subjectively, and it is based on the situation.

Suicide may emotionally hurt those left behind but it is a personal decision on whether or not a person wants to keep living. Such choices are theirs alone, and anyone’s negative reaction to it doesn’t make it immoral. No one has an obligation to keep living for other people.

 

[Lutherf]

I was actually trying to meet you half way with the other's post/phrasing

But you vent all you need to.

Is that what "Yowzaa, na huh." means? Is that your translation of "I'm trying to meet you half way"?

Go ahead, give us all the lecture because you know FAR better than the rest of us in all things and that includes the philosophy of ethics and morality.

 

[Econ4every1]

We can only argue for what we prefer.

Sure, but how to groups agree on what to decide? Is it random or are there reasons?

 

[Lursa]

Is that what "Yowzaa, na huh." means?

Is that your translation of "I'm trying to meet you half way"?

That was the answer to the post where I proffered the other, differently phrased post. You continued to play the victim however.

Go ahead, give us all the lecture because you know FAR better than the rest of us in all things and that includes the philosophy of ethics and morality.

 

[devildavid]

Sure, but how to groups agree on what to decide? Is it random or are there reasons?

The reason is preference. It varies from person to person, but human beings don’t tend to like things that harm them in some way. So they hope to be in the group that does the harming rather than the group that gets harmed.

 

[The Mark]

The problem is that harm is also subjective and situational in nature. You used words that make a judgement on actions such as stealing, killing and having sex. But each case is subjective and situational and must be judged individually. Not all taking things is stealing, not all killing is murder, and not all sex is rape. These actions are always judged subjectively, and it is based on the situation.

Suicide may emotionally hurt those left behind but it is a personal decision on whether or not a person wants to keep living. Such choices are theirs alone, and anyone’s negative reaction to it doesn’t make it immoral. No one has an obligation to keep living for other people.

What precisely is harm is indeed somewhat subjective and situational.

But it seems reasonable to assume that, since the presented cases were stealing, cheating on a romantic partner, rape, murder, and suicide, we are not talking about a subjective examination of undefined events/actions that may be harmful, but rather defined and proven cases of each, with definite proof of and details about the harm caused.

These are not subjective at all, but rather objectively harmful actions.

Regarding your last point, I would disagree - it is entirely possible for someone to have an obligation to keep living for other people. I won't say that is always the case, but it definitely could be.

 

[devildavid]

What precisely is harm is indeed somewhat subjective and situational.

But it seems reasonable to assume that, since the presented cases were stealing, cheating on a romantic partner, rape, murder, and suicide, we are not talking about a subjective examination of undefined events/actions that may be harmful, but rather defined and proven cases of each, with definite proof of and details about the harm caused.

These are not subjective at all, but rather objectively harmful actions.

Regarding your last point, I would disagree - it is entirely possible for someone to have an obligation to keep living for other people. I won't say that is always the case, but it definitely could be.

Ypu presented situations using words that mean something has already been judged to be wrong about the action. Having sex may or may not be judged a rape. Killing another may or may not be judged a murder. Once you use a word that defines it as wrong, you are already making a subjective judgement of the action. It is akin to saying doing any immoral things to people is immoral.

 

[The Mark]

Ypu presented situations using words that mean something has already been judged to be wrong about the action. Having sex may or may not be judged a rape. Killing another may or may not be judged a murder. Once you use a word that defines it as wrong, you are already making a subjective judgement of the action. It is akin to saying doing any immoral things to people is immoral.

No, I was responding to a post, which presented those cases.

I was not responding to undefined actions.

 

[devildavid]

No, I was responding to a post, which presented those cases.

I was not responding to undefined actions.

Well of course actions that are defined as immoral are immoral.

 

[The Mark]

Well of course actions that are defined as immoral are immoral.

Yet, that is the question the OP was asking - why are these things immoral?

 

[justoneman]

The reason is preference. It varies from person to person, but human beings don’t tend to like things that harm them in some way. So they hope to be in the group that does the harming rather than the group that gets harmed.

I do not agree. I do not think it is just the wims of a group that "decides" what is moral or immoral. I think there is clear and obvious evil. For example: I think it is clearly immoral to kill and eat your mother. Sure you can create various scenarios forcing someone to choose to do the deed but it is artificial and does not remove the underlying immorality of the act.

 

[soylentgreen]

I would posit that morality originated as a survival mechanism. In smaller groups, we evolved to recognize that certain individual acts endangered the cohesion of the group, which is dangerous for small bands of people that can't outrun lions or outswim crocodiles. As we made the transition to larger, more stationary populations, morality probably evolved into something that protected social cohesion of larger groups, and more specifically, the architecture of the group's political power.

The only problem with that is that empathy and altruism are also seen among any in the animal kingdom and even the insect world that have a social set up. What we do not see among animals and insects is an individual, personal and subjective understanding of morality. That only comes from intelligence.
Even within a small group a tribal group there can and even should be conflicting ideas of what is moral. And when we evolved into larger city state and empires individual morality that would work with smaller groups were replaced with ethical standards also called laws and decrees.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nah. It's because selection pressures favored big brains and small pelvises, which means if we don't team up at least temporarily, our babies corpsify under even the best conditions.

But never ever assume empathy is a given.

I bounced through group homes and the foster care system. Empathy is not built in.

Untrue empathy is built in to many of us. but not all. Some people are born sociopaths with no ability to empathise. We also have various degrees of empathy. We can watch a show on tv where people do foolish things and hurt themselves and we laugh at their antics. But should we see the same harm happening to someone close to us like our own children we tend to act with concern and empathise with their harm rather than laugh at the fall they took.
Empathy does not have one setting. it varies according to how close we are to what we empathise with.

 

[soylentgreen]

I fairly sure many already do this.

Please don't take it the wrong way if I decline a dinner invitation from you.

 

[multivita-man]

The only problem with that is that empathy and altruism are also seen among any in the animal kingdom and even the insect world that have a social set up. What we do not see among animals and insects is an individual, personal and subjective understanding of morality. That only comes from intelligence.

Nah, respectfully disagree. I think you're oversimplifying this a bit. When bees sacrifice themselves to protect the hive, it's because they have the numbers to do it. The same is true with ants.

With humans living as bands of 12-20 individuals, it's more complicated. We needed to sacrifice the self, because if we had 12-20 individuals who only acted in their own self-interest, we'd be extinct. At the same time, we don't have the spare capacity for sacrifice the way an ant colony or a beehive does.

So there are some situations in which we probably evolved to say, "Meh, better you drown than you drown and I drown with you trying to pluck you out of the river." Believe it or not, that's not necessarily as selfish or anti-altruistic a decision as it might seem. An individual deciding he needs to survive for the good of the group can be a good thing.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nah, respectfully disagree. I think you're oversimplifying this a bit. When bees sacrifice themselves to protect the hive, it's because they have the numbers to do it. The same is true with ants.

The same argument could be made for man made wars. Yet each individual soldier is willing to sacrifice their own life for a supposed greater good. That is how bees and ants work too.

With humans living as bands of 12-20 individuals, it's more complicated. We needed to sacrifice the self, because if we had 12-20 individuals who only acted in their own self-interest, we'd be extinct. At the same time, we don't have the spare capacity for sacrifice the way an ant colony or a beehive does.

Same can be said for monkeys which live in small groups where one will willing scream to warn of a predator close by but in doing so attracts that predator towards him.

And now that we live in large nation groups wars tend to sacrifice many of us.

So there are some situations in which we probably evolved to say, "Meh, better you drown than you drown and I drown with you trying to pluck you out of the river." Believe it or not, that's not necessarily as selfish or anti-altruistic a decision as it might seem. An individual deciding he needs to survive for the good of the group can be a good thing.

Selfishness is also a part of our make up. As I said we need conflict in order to grow. So we do have conflicting desires. The need to save a loved one balanced with the need to stay alive to support other loved ones. The old ethical dilemma. When given only one choice, do you save five random children or one of your own children.