determining the value of moral systems

[FinalEnigma]

I was going to start a thread on which moral system had the greatest positive effect, but I ran into a problem.

What measurement do you use to determine which of two moral systems is 'better'?

The most good produced for society? You're already assuming a moral system by asking that question.

Question for debate: What criteria can be used to accurately and reasonably determine the relative effectiveness of various moral systems?

[McCulloch]

Of course, this makes perfect sense, but the issue I come to is - detrimental judging by what system? as I said above, hedonism doesn't care what's detrimental to your neighbor - just to you. Most moral systems care about what's good for all/society.

I think that you are suffering under a popular common misconception of what hedonism is. Hedonism is simply any ethical system that uses happiness (or the lack of suffering) as its measure of what is good. Hedonism is not necessarily related to egoism. Altruistic hedonism judges the morality of actions by their consequent contributions to the happiness of all.

See also Hedonism by Andrew Moore at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[Random Mind]

if you are comparing two moral systems, and you assume one of them to judge the two by, your answer is invalid because it's circular - obviously the one you use a basis to judge is going to come out ahead of what it is being judged against.

The example was provided as a means to show the thought process people use when deciding on the effectivness of a moral system (in my opinion). I agree that if you use your own system to judge another system, your system will always come out ahead.

The question is pretty open. It doesn't really require any moral system to be better or worse. If the system is set up to make people more moral (by its standards) and people become more moral by following the system, then that system is effective. If the system is setup to make people more selfish and by following the system you become more selfish, the system is effective.

Am I missing something?

[FinalEnigma]

Of course, this makes perfect sense, but the issue I come to is - detrimental judging by what system? as I said above, hedonism doesn't care what's detrimental to your neighbor - just to you. Most moral systems care about what's good for all/society.

I think that you are suffering under a popular common misconception of what hedonism is. Hedonism is simply any ethical system that uses happiness (or the lack of suffering) as its measure of what is good. Hedonism is not necessarily related to egoism. Altruistic hedonism judges the morality of actions by their consequent contributions to the happiness of all.

See also Hedonism by Andrew Moore at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Really? My apologies! I was going by what I learned in my ethics and philosophy freshman college course.

surprising that they would teach something that misleading.

The question is pretty open. It doesn't really require any moral system to be better or worse.

The question? which one, mine?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

You seem to be blurring the lines of when people come up with a custom or moral they feel is appropriate and assuming that means God has given them the command to create this new custom. Since you didn't separate the two, please provide Biblical reference (or an "ancient book" reference as you put it) for evidence of your point.

It's kinda self-evident. Alcohol all those days of the week except that one day Christians hold so sacred. I have no biblical support to offer for this notion, it ain't mine.

Combining the two would be like blaming science for eugenics. It wasn't the fault of science that eugenics happened, it was mans interpretation of science. I'm not saying for or against the Sunday selling of alcohol. I personally don't understand the mentality behind it, if you are selling alcohol 6 days a week, why stop on the 7th? I doubt God cares what day a week people are selling or buying beer.

I don't get it either. Seems alcohol is either legal (moral) or it ain't.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

For me, morality is more a banning of certain behaviors, not so much the acceptance of certain behaviors. With this in mind I'd contend the best system of morals would be based on what can be shown to be detrimental, and not just "God don't like it so neither do I".

Of course, this makes perfect sense, but the issue I come to is - detrimental judging by what system? as I said above, hedonism doesn't care what's detrimental to your neighbor - just to you. Most moral systems care about what's good for all/society.

I don't so much look at it from a "which system of morals" perspective, but from a "what given moral issue" perspective.

I note the OP seeks a "which system of morals" answer, but to me that is too limiting. We should all judge each moral issue on a case by case basis, and avoid blanket notions of what system provides the best moral position. System A could have some great positions, but fail on a given point.

and beyond the question of 'me or society' what about 'society or life in general'?
is chopping down rain forests and killing thousands of animals immoral?

In considering the rain forest issue, we have many variables to consider, and differing conclusions to be drawn. Personally, I would contend it is immoral to destroy entire swaths of rain forest, but those that make a living doing so may well disagree.

I face this dilemma myself as a construction superintendent. I've found it far more moral to put food on my plate than to let a high paying project go. Am I a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I'm well fed.

That's one heckuvan OP you've got there, I give you your kudos for exposing my hypocrisy.

May I ask if you have a deeper point behind the OP, or are you just exposing humans as the frauds we all are?

(edit because I started off saying good paying project, changed that to well paying project, and it still didn't sound right so I just settled on high paying project)

[FinalEnigma]

From Post 8:

For me, morality is more a banning of certain behaviors, not so much the acceptance of certain behaviors. With this in mind I'd contend the best system of morals would be based on what can be shown to be detrimental, and not just "God don't like it so neither do I".

Of course, this makes perfect sense, but the issue I come to is - detrimental judging by what system? as I said above, hedonism doesn't care what's detrimental to your neighbor - just to you. Most moral systems care about what's good for all/society.

I don't so much look at it from a "which system of morals" perspective, but from a "what given moral issue" perspective.

I note the OP seeks a "which system of morals" answer, but to me that is too limiting. We should all judge each moral issue on a case by case basis, and avoid blanket notions of what system provides the best moral position. System A could have some great positions, but fail on a given point.

You have a good point there. I will have to consider that direction.

and beyond the question of 'me or society' what about 'society or life in general'?
is chopping down rain forests and killing thousands of animals immoral?

In considering the rain forest issue, we have many variables to consider, and differing conclusions to be drawn. Personally, I would contend it is immoral to destroy entire swaths of rain forest, but those that make a living doing so may well disagree.

I face this dilemma myself as a construction superintendent. I've found it far more moral to put food on my plate than to let a high paying project go. Am I a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I'm well fed.

There is that position to consider. There is something to be said for practicality.

For instance, I'm a vegetarian. I feel that it would be immoral of me to consume meat(note the emphasis on me. I accept that that is not a part of everyone's morality, but that it doesn't make them immoral).
However, if I was stranded in the woods with some others, and the only food we could acquire and be certain of the safety was meat...I'm not an idiot - I'll take the practical road and eat it to survive.

However, there are times when I think the moral stance trumps even practicality(like that example in a thread recently of the male who dressed as female in school and they were considering/did ban him from doing that basically for practicality(to prevent fights). I stand on morals and say that you never let people who are intolerant and wrong have their way just because it makes things easier.)

That's one heckuvan OP you've got there, I give you your kudos for exposing my hypocrisy.

Thank you.

May I ask if you have a deeper point behind the OP, or are you just exposing humans as the frauds we all are?

well, the OP was honest. I was initially intending to make a thread to try and prove a point, but then realized that if I did that, I was open to the objection that I was assuming a moral system to prove that that moral system was good. Therefore, I created this thread to explore the possibility of an impartial method of judgment regarding moral systems.

I was also seeking the logical requirements for a moral system to be accepted. For example, to be of value and to be able to be logically accepted, a moral system must:

1) be able to show itself to be of value(to follow it produces positive results)
2) it must be equal(it cannot proscribe different treatment for arbitrary reasons)

etc. (if you['ve suggestions on this part, please go here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 67#274167

I do have something I'd ultimately like to explore with this, but it will take a while to get there.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

Believe it or not, but I've not much time to respond right now, and I'm struck by this'n:

For instance, I'm a vegetarian. I feel that it would be immoral of me to consume meat(note the emphasis on me. I accept that that is not a part of everyone's morality, but that it doesn't make them immoral).

There's no way to ask this without it sounding like an attack, but since this is philosophy...

Doesn't declaring vegetarianism moral automatically declare non-vegetarians immoral?

[FinalEnigma]

From Post 16:

Believe it or not, but I've not much time to respond right now, and I'm struck by this'n:

For instance, I'm a vegetarian. I feel that it would be immoral of me to consume meat(note the emphasis on me. I accept that that is not a part of everyone's morality, but that it doesn't make them immoral).

There's no way to ask this without it sounding like an attack, but since this is philosophy...

Doesn't declaring vegetarianism moral automatically declare non-vegetarians immoral?

I see where you would get that. Let me see if I can explain. I see a little bit of intent in morality.

Say someone was raised to believe that lying is always immoral no matter what(person A), and someone else(person B) was raised that it is immoral to lie - if it hurts someone.

If you've lost some weight and you ask person B how you look, and he says you look great, but is lying, Was that immoral? No, I wouldn't say so.

Say you ask person A the same thing, and he also lies. was that immoral? I'd say yes, because he thinks it is.

Now say you are held by a madman. If you escape, he will murder 14 other people, if you do nothing, he will let everyone go tomorrow.

Person A knows this, person B doesn't. Would it be immoral for Person A, who knows that 14 people will die needlessly if he escapes, to escape?

How about person B. He doesn't know everyone is going to be released, or that his escape will result in 14 murders. is it immoral for him to escape?


Any time someone makes a choice that they truly believe is immoral, they feel guilty for it etc. they are wrong, because they are choosing something that they see as wrong, and knowingly making what they see as the wrong choice.

if someone unknowingly makes a choice that is wrong, it doesn't mean they are wrong - only that they didn't know.


I feel that eating meat is immoral. I might be wrong, I can't really say for sure.

You have no moral issues with it. We grew up in a society that views it as normal and perfectly moral to eat meat, so you don't see it as doing anything wrong when you enjoy your morning bacon you love so much.

I wasn't always a vegetarian. I became one about 2 years ago. at that time in my life, I was re-evaluating EVERYTHING about my life, and I happen to be a major nature lover. I chose, at that time, that, now that I thought about it, eating meat wasn't very nice to the billions of animals we raise each year for the purpose of being eaten, and I wasn't going to do it anymore.

The only way I might declare a non-vegetarian immoral, was if they used to be a vegetarian on the same moral grounds as myself.

[McCulloch]

For instance, I'm a vegetarian. I feel that it would be immoral of me to consume meat(note the emphasis on me. I accept that that is not a part of everyone's morality, but that it doesn't make them immoral).

There's no way to ask this without it sounding like an attack, but since this is philosophy...

Doesn't declaring vegetarianism moral automatically declare non-vegetarians immoral?

I read this as FinalEnigma would feel wrong about eating meat but does not believe that the morality of this issue is universal and would not feel warranted to impose it universally. On the other hand, I would assume that FE would also feel wrong about committing murder AND feels that a prohibition against murder is warranted.

[FinalEnigma]

For instance, I'm a vegetarian. I feel that it would be immoral of me to consume meat(note the emphasis on me. I accept that that is not a part of everyone's morality, but that it doesn't make them immoral).

There's no way to ask this without it sounding like an attack, but since this is philosophy...

Doesn't declaring vegetarianism moral automatically declare non-vegetarians immoral?

I read this as FinalEnigma would feel wrong about eating meat but does not believe that the morality of this issue is universal and would not feel warranted to impose it universally. On the other hand, I would assume that FE would also feel wrong about committing murder AND feels that a prohibition against murder is warranted.

quite so.