Keeping it simple: Morality and values

[agnosticatheist]

It seems that often discussions and debates concerning morality get bogged down. I'm going to try to keep it simple here, and hopefully have some dialogue.

It seems that values play a large role in human living and human interaction. When it comes to morality, some people value certain moral rules, while others value other rules. Still others reject many different moral rules.

Here is the question for debate:

How does Person A convince Person B that Person B should value the same moral rules that Person A does?

For an example, consider two people:

Joe: He thinks there is nothing wrong with drinking alcoholic beverages, even to the point of intoxication.

Andrew: He thinks that drinking any type of alcoholic beverage, in any quantity, and in any context, is morally wrong.

How does Joe convince Andrew to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

How does Andrew convince Joe to share his position on alcoholic beverages?

[instantc]

Morality, as I understand it, is not about what you do but rather why you do it. Thus, an action that is based on sheer reflex is morally irrelevant. Whether you kill someone unwillingly or save someone's life unwillingly, morality has nothing to do with either one those actions.

Morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" or "a particular system of values and principles of conduct." or "the extent to which an action is right or wrong" or "the degree to which something is right and good". If you save somebody on pure reflex obviously the action is morally right.

That's not at all obvious, I have never heard of a serious scholar who looks at morality in that way, I certainly don't look at morality that way. Law also supports my point of view, as a reflex is not considered to be a voluntary act at all, and therefore it does not give rise to criminal liability.

In my view, the suggestion that the external nature and consequences of an action should determine its moral value seems to completely miss the point of morality. Morality resides in one's intentions and motives rather than in the nature of his physical actions. Nor does this follow at all from the quoted definitions that you provided in your post.

[Bust Nak]

Or, say, from communitarianism to libertarianism, thus switching the very central premise of ones moral ideology.

And you think you have a way of consistently changing this?

The trolley experiment shows that morality isn't grounded in straightforward profit calculations. Many models, such as Kantian moral framework, can sufficiently account for the outcomes of these trolley experiments.

Can you give an example? Take the typical trolly experiment. Why is it good to leave the trolly to kill 5 instead of changing its course to kill 1 in Kantian ethics?

Our eyesight is grounded in biology, but what we detect with our eyesight exists independently of any biological construct.

Similarly, our moral perception is no doubt grounded in biology, but what we detect with our moral perception seems to me to be grounded in reason rather than brain tissue.

But people just feel what is right more than calculate what is right, at least that's what I do. The calculating part only plays a part when someone challenges my feeling.

[instantc]

Or, say, from communitarianism to libertarianism, thus switching the very central premise of ones moral ideology.

And you think you have a way of consistently changing this?

Maybe not in such plain terms, but I have definitely been able to change other people's moral views by way of reasoning with them.

The trolley experiment shows that morality isn't grounded in straightforward profit calculations. Many models, such as Kantian moral framework, can sufficiently account for the outcomes of these trolley experiments.

Can you give an example? Take the typical trolly experiment. Why is it good to leave the trolly to kill 5 instead of changing its course to kill 1 in Kantian ethics?

That's not good according to Kantian ethics, the better choice is to change its course to kill one person instead of five. That's also the intuitive outcome of the experiment according to the vast majority of people.

The more difficult experiment to handle is the one where you are supposed to push a person to the tracks in order to save the people in the trolley. The reason why sacrificing one life for five lives is wrong in that scenario can be explained in terms of Kantian ethics as follows. The central premise of Kantian moral framework is that we should not treat each other as object or as means to an end. When you use one person in order to save five other people, you are objectifying that person, you are treating him as means to the end in order to save other people's lives. Thus, according to Kant, you should let the people in the trolley die instead of pushing an innocent person to the tracks.

Our eyesight is grounded in biology, but what we detect with our eyesight exists independently of any biological construct.

Similarly, our moral perception is no doubt grounded in biology, but what we detect with our moral perception seems to me to be grounded in reason rather than brain tissue.

But people just feel what is right more than calculate what is right, at least that's what I do. The calculating part only plays a part when someone challenges my feeling.

I'm not talking about calculations. Consider the law of non-contradiction, the proposition that something cannot be a rock and not a rock at the same time seems obvious. It's not based on calculations, but yet it seems to stand to reason, and you wouldn't say that the truth of the law of non-contradiction is grounded in feelings, would you?

[Artie]

That's not at all obvious, I have never heard of a serious scholar who looks at morality in that way, I certainly don't look at morality that way. Law also supports my point of view, as a reflex is not considered to be a voluntary act at all, and therefore it does not give rise to criminal liability.

We are talking about morality not the justice system. Morality is the differentiation between what is right and what is wrong. It is the action of saving somebody that is right and moral. The justice system is just here so we can determine to which degree the right or wrong action was intentional so we can act accordingly.

In my view, the suggestion that the external nature and consequences of an action should determine its moral value seems to completely miss the point of morality. Morality resides in one's intentions and motives rather than in the nature of his physical actions.

It is the action that is moral or immoral, right or wrong of course. If a person intends to perform a moral act then his intentions and motives are moral, if a person intends to perform an immoral act then his intentions and motives are immoral.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 24 by Artie]

This is an unnecessarily convoluted semantic system.
Is accidental homicide the combination of immoral act and amoral (but not immoral) intention?
Is failed murder the combination of amoral act and immoral intention?

Giving the act itself morality is strange.
Is a gun immoral for being fired at a person?

[Artie]

The more difficult experiment to handle is the one where you are supposed to push a person to the tracks in order to save the people in the trolley. The reason why sacrificing one life for five lives is wrong in that scenario can be explained in terms of Kantian ethics as follows. The central premise of Kantian moral framework is that we should not treat each other as object or as means to an end. When you use one person in order to save five other people, you are objectifying that person, you are treating him as means to the end in order to save other people's lives. Thus, according to Kant, you should let the people in the trolley die instead of pushing an innocent person to the tracks.

To me the obviously moral thing to do in this situation is not to push this person to the tracks but simply make sure that he knows that if he sacrifices himself he saves five other people and what he chooses to do is his moral decision.

[Artie]

This is an unnecessarily convoluted semantic system.
Is accidental homicide the combination of immoral act and amoral (but not immoral) intention?

The act itself was wrong (immoral) but there was no immoral intent. Of course you would have to know the exact details of each case.

Is failed murder the combination of amoral act and immoral intention?

Since there was no murder there was no immoral act but the intent was immoral since the intent was to commit an immoral act.

Giving the act itself morality is strange.
Is a gun immoral for being fired at a person?

Of course not.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 27 by Artie]

To call the act immoral is to separate morality from agents.
Morality is necessarily based on the agent.

Not to mention that calling the act immoral creates many scenarios in which the morality of the act has no bearing on the morality of the intent. And that the morality of the act has seemingly no purpose other than to indicate whether or not it was a desirable outcome or not.

[Artie]

To call the act immoral is to separate morality from agents.
Morality is necessarily based on the agent.

Of course not. Murder is immoral and wrong it doesn't matter what the murderer thinks!

Not to mention that calling the act immoral creates many scenarios in which the morality of the act has no bearing on the morality of the intent.

Well of course it does. Why do you think we have different expressions like "murder" and " involuntary manslaughter" and so forth?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 29 by Artie]

Murder is by definition premeditated, so it does matter what the killer thinks.

Yes, we have different terms for murder and involuntary manslaughter.
But we don't say that they're both immoral acts with different moral intents.
Murder is immoral. Involuntary manslaughter is amoral.

The act is completely amoral. As I've said, nothing comes of assigning a morality to the act.