So, how would you define ...

[2ndRateMind]

So how would you define moral excellence? Or does the term have no significant meaning for you? Is it something to strive after, as a prerequisite to happiness, or is it merely internalised social conditioning, or, worse, the whole concept of morality a con trick to keep the people acquiescent to the rule of the elite?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

So how would you define moral excellence?

If I were asked to define it instead of having it pushed onto me by some ancient religious beliefs I would begin by separating it into two major categories.

1. Public Moral Excellence.
2. Personal Moral Excellence.

I would recognize and define these two categories in some depth. I feel that this would be required since not all humans are going to agree on what constitutes right and wrong behavior in every situation.

Obviously the Personal Moral Excellence is going to be different for different individuals. So everything in the category of Personal Moral Excellence would indeed be recognized to be subjective morality.

Returning to the Public "Moral Excellence" I would suggest that this must be considered based on what the majority of the society would agree upon as being "Moral Excellence" within their society. So this too would ultimately be a subjective morality, but it would be a subjective morality that requires a majority consensus.

Obviously the problem that will always be with us on these issues is that many people will be wanting to push their Personal values of Moral Excellence onto the public in general.

I'm not sure how to get people to have a good understanding of the difference. Many people today exhibit an inability to make a distinction between what they might consider to be moral excellence for themselves versus what might be moral excellence for someone else.

Once a person has an idea of an "Absolute Objective Morality" in their mind it's pretty hard to convince of them of the folly of that thinking.

[bluethread]

Obviously the problem that will always be with us on these issues is that many people will be wanting to push their Personal values of Moral Excellence onto the public in general.

I'm not sure how to get people to have a good understanding of the difference. Many people today exhibit an inability to make a distinction between what they might consider to be moral excellence for themselves versus what might be moral excellence for someone else.

How does one determine the "Public Moral Excellence" of the majority, if the individuals do not assert their "Personal Moral Excellence"? Also, what if the majority decides that "Public Moral Excellence" requires you to violate your idea of "Personal Moral Excellence"?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Hmmm. I'm interested in whether you think the 'public moral excellence' of a nation, or a state, or a county or city or town, is the sum of all the constituent 'personal moral excellences', as voted for or championed by the people, or something different from that?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Divine Insight]

How does one determine the "Public Moral Excellence" of the majority, if the individuals do not assert their "Personal Moral Excellence"? Also, what if the majority decides that "Public Moral Excellence" requires you to violate your idea of "Personal Moral Excellence"?

It's true that this would require a highly educated society which is already unrealistic. So this is fine for philosophical ramblings, but not nearly as easy to implement in the real world.

And I agree that you're right. A social majority does not guarantee anything as it is well known that "Mob Mentality" has been the source of many horrific and disgusting actions. So a majority of opinions is no guarantee of morality.

Perhaps you're right and the idea of public morality is a misguided notion?

We would probably be better basing public behavior on a demand that it harms no one, and just forget about any concept of morality.

Leave the concept of morality to personal subjective preferences. There is no need for a "public moral standard" anyway. It's simply a useless idea.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Hmmm. I'm interested in whether you think the 'public moral excellence' of a nation, or a state, or a county or city or town, is the sum of all the constituent 'personal moral excellences', as voted for or championed by the people, or something different from that?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Currently there is no such thing as National, State, County, City, or Town "morality". All that exists in those cases are governmental laws that needn't be based on moral concepts anyway.

Secular laws based on whether or not someone is being harmed is all that is required.

Moreover, many of the secular laws have absolutely nothing at all to do with moral concepts. For example it's against the law for a citizen to not pay their property taxes, but there would be nothing immoral about refusing to pay property taxes.

So all that exists are secular laws, not public morality.

Having said that, there are obviously secular laws that were put into place due to religious beliefs. For example the "Blue Laws" about what people are permitted to do on a day considered to be "Sabbath" by a particular religion.

Those laws have nothing at all to do with any morality.

So we currently can't even speak of the morality of a Nation, State, County, City, or Town because there is no such thing to speak of.

All that exists in the real world today are personal subjective opinions about morality.

[bluethread]

Leave the concept of morality to personal subjective preferences. There is no need for a "public moral standard" anyway. It's simply a useless idea.

Well, "public moral standard" generally refers to mores, folkways and covenants. Mores being unwritten standards of a particular group at a particular time. Folkways are mores that persists for long periods of time. And covenants are written laws between members of a given group. Covenants can then be broken down into contracts, statutes, ordinances and laws. In short, it is not that public morality is not important, it is just subject to a great degree of variability. That is why Covenant law in generaal and the Constitution of these United States in specific are such amazing inventions.

On the other hand, personal morality, though complicated in it's own right, is much more simple, because it is merely an agreement with oneself.

2ndRateMind wrote:

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Hmmm. I'm interested in whether you think the 'public moral excellence' of a nation, or a state, or a county or city or town, is the sum of all the constituent 'personal moral excellences', as voted for or championed by the people, or something different from that?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Currently there is no such thing as National, State, County, City, or Town "morality". All that exists in those cases are governmental laws that needn't be based on moral concepts anyway.

That is not true. Laws are only one type of convenant that governmental institutions are empowered to inforce. All of those covenants are moral statements. You might not see not paying of a specific tax as immoral. However, it was established because others decided that you have a moral obligation to provide, in part, for someone else. It is what is known as the "forgotten man" principle.

[Divine Insight]

That is not true. Laws are only one type of convenant that governmental institutions are empowered to inforce. All of those covenants are moral statements. You might not see not paying of a specific tax as immoral. However, it was established because others decided that you have a moral obligation to provide, in part, for someone else. It is what is known as the "forgotten man" principle.

Well, now we're getting into the entire semantics concerning the very term "morality".

If we take morality to be nothing other than a word that means "Right or Wrong". And then we accept that if some society decides that it's "wrong" to not pay taxes, then morality becomes nothing more than the demands of a society.

This is why in our modern day society we make a distinction between secular laws and "morality".

For example, it may be against secular law to park in front of a parking meter and not put any coins in the meter. But ultimately there is nothing "immoral" in that. In fact, one could actually argue that it's immoral for the government to charge for parking spaces that were paid for by the tax payer in the first place.

So there's a whole argument to be had about what the concept of "morality" even means.

You were asking what a person does when social morality conflicts with personal morality. Actually this happens quite often. Typically we choose to abide by the social morality simply to avoid the social consequences of having to deal with the legal authorities. Not because we necessarily agree with the "social morality".

I was originally responding to this thread concerning how I might define these moral concepts. But in truth, the way I have laid them out pretty much represents they way they actually currently exist.

The only caveat is that most people don't realize that this is the case.

But if you disagree with any social laws, then there you go. That pretty much verifies the situation, right?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Morality is subjective, so moral excellence is defined along the lines of behaving in a way that gets my extreme approval.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Morality is subjective, ...

Yes, I often hear this. If it is so, how do you account for the general social consensus that say, lieing, or cheating, or capricious murder, is bad and wrong, and being truthful, or honest, or a policy of mercy, is good and right?

...so moral excellence is defined along the lines of behaving in a way that gets my extreme approval.

I just hope, for your sake, what gets your extreme approval coincides with what society gives its extreme approval to. Not that society is always right, but many minds in conversation generally converge on better solutions than a solitary one in isolation.

Best wishes, 2RM.