I think enforceability is one problem for morality. — Andrew4Handel

Indeed, and sometimes that is a good thing ---if, for instance, human beings are understood as property or if homosexuality is considered evil. We don't want some people to have the power to force us to live according to their version of what is moral or right. I suppose the basic idea of freedom is that on matters that are questionable the individual decides. This is a gift and a burden. Part of us just wants to be told what to do to avoid wrestling constantly with our unstable understanding of right and wrong. 'Give us, say, ten laws that are absolute. And let's make it a rule that those are the only rules. And let's make it a rule that those rules never change.' One problem with some short list of rules is that they will not at all be complex enough for high-tech life. In life as we know it, we have experts spend years in law school only to specialize in one little aspect of just the written rules, nevermind the unwritten rules that cannot be formalized and yet are perhaps the most decisive. And of course the way we live is always changing, so that even a great set of rules can become inappropriate for the beings we become as we start to use new tools.

It is almost like force triumphs over ideology. — Andrew4Handel

This realization goes back at least to the Greeks. On the other hand, individuals aren't that powerful away from groups. Any force sufficient to triumph on a large scale is therefore to be expected from a group. Such groups depend on some kind of morality within the group, even if those outside the group are not recognized as deserving consideration. This suggests a complicated relationship between force and ideology. We might say that one ideology triumphs over another through ideologically-organized force, but an ideology can often take over without force or even the threat of force, by means of what we might call seduction. If I tell you a new story about your place in the world and what is right and wrong than the one you already have, then you may well adopt this story as your own. While logic is going to be part of that, I personally think it's naive to understand this seduction only in terms of logic. Thinking is motivated. We usually know what we want to 'prove' ahead of time. Then we creatively reach for arguments and potent metaphors. And if the conclusion appeals to us, we may be a little lazy about sniffing out fallacies.

Of course that's just one way of looking at it.

The first thing I find curious is that you're apparently thinking of morality as something that it shouldn't be possible to act against, either literally or practically. Or at least if one can act against it, you therefore see morality as pointless.

And then you're wondering how we can enforce morality. Wouldn't laws work? We think it's immoral to kill someone premeditatively, where the killer initiated the action, so we make that illegal, and then we can arrest and incarcerate the perpetrator. That's enforcement, isn't it?

Morality seems seriously undermined if people can just override a moral claim by an action. — Andrew4Handel

Indeed, and this happens fairly often. When people override moral claims we call it "antisocial", "wicked", "illegal", "criminal" or some such term.

For example it seems pointless to call The Holocaust wrong after it has already happened and millions of people have died and are apparently beyond the scope of justice. It seems a belated moral judgement. — Andrew4Handel

If one is not going to raise objections or interfere before or during a horrific crime, then it is at least not very useful to declare the criminal act immoral. As it happens, crimes like the Holocaust had occurred before 1938. There was the Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915-1917. The Turks have not accepted guilt for what they did. There was the slower American displacement of American Indians over hundreds of years which amounted to genocide. We haven't accepted guilt for that, either. Then there was slavery, which amounts to another variety of genocide. Later there was the Cambodian and Rwandan genocide. Once the crime is over and the victors have taken charge...

I don't think we know if any action is moral — Andrew4Handel

I suppose if someone was raised by wolves they would grow up not knowing anything about morality. People, however, grow up being taught some kind of morality by other humans. How do we know what is moral?

The process of being nurtured through infancy, growing through childhood, becoming a responsible adult, requires that we learn how to cooperate with others, request and give assistance when needed, share, and so on. When we violate the accepted norms of nurture, cooperation, helping others, sharing, playing together, and so on we get aversive feedback (punishment). At a minimum, morality is created through these experiences. Most people are also explicitly taught lessons on what is right and wrong.

Human beings all require this kind of basic morality to be in place in order to function collectively.

That is how we know what is right or wrong. We create principles which we expect ourselves to follow.

I think some people act and they feel satisfied with their action and that makes them believe the action or their prior intuition was correct. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, that's called self-justification. People who engage in wrong-doing, especially when they engage in it as part of a larger collective action, quite often feel very self-justified.

The fact is, people who know perfectly well what is morally right and morally wrong are perfectly capable of doing forbidden acts and feeling OK about themselves. This phenomenon is pretty common. Most of us do this occasionally, but we don't make a habit of it. But sometimes it is essential. I was taught that homosexuality was very wrong. None the less, I liked gay sex, and did it as often as possible. Once I moved out into the larger world and discovered a community of gay men, I was able to redefine gay sex as an inherently good thing and stopped feeling guilty about it.

I, like most Americans my age, was taught that communism and socialism were very, very wrong. Again, once I discovered a community of people who were socialists, I was able to change my thinking.

Morality changes, but moral guidance continues.

Morality changes, but moral guidance continues. — Bitter Crank

But you have not attained moral truth.

There is a difference between knowing what a moral action is and having an intuition. I am not convinced intuition is knowledge.

I think we could make a moral analysis of any action but we are selective about which actions or beliefs we target.

It is, for example, fairly easy to know that beating someone causes harm and might be wrong based on some principle that causing suffering is wrong or simply harmful. Taking the homosexuality example, it was hard for me to accept homosexuality was wrong because of the lack of harm it caused and seeing no rational argument against it.

But beyond things that are either clearly harmful or seemingly benign then we have the complicated territory of looking it no ethical subtleties such as the future impact of current behavior, the appropriate action to minimize harm, meta ethics, the scope of ethical concern and so on.
So for example what should I do for charity? How much should I give? How ethical is my lifestyle? Who should I vote for? Should I eat meat? This can even make morality seem like a burden.

And then you're wondering how we can enforce morality. Wouldn't laws work? We think it's immoral to kill someone premeditatively, where the killer initiated the action, so we make that illegal, and then we can arrest and incarcerate the perpetrator. That's enforcement, isn't it? — Terrapin Station

It is possible to enforce some moral claims although I think breaking the law is not an issue of morality. I don't think that when the courts convict someone of an offense that proves its immorality. But I agree that some crimes are dealt with adequately and an element of morality is enforced.

The problem is like with genocide or unsolved murders when someone gets away with an offense. That is where you may have the benefit of an afterlife enforcement of justice or karma.

The other problem and the one that inspired this thread is when a moral argument is "resolved" by action. I was reading about two families with 6 children and wondering why they felt it a good idea to have lots of children and why they felt entitled. They were talking about the joys of large families.

It is not illegal to have lots of children and when people feel self satisfied they feel vindicated and if you disagree with them you have lost the argument anyway because they have acted.
The only thing that might happen is that society might eventually disapprove of large families and history condemn this and it's contribution to overpopulation and environmental damage.

My judgement here might be wrong but how would I know?

The first thing I find curious is that you're apparently thinking of morality as something that it shouldn't be possible to act against, either literally or practically. Or at least if one can act against it, you therefore see morality as pointless. — Terrapin Station

I think society can have moral standards that are enforced by the police and justice system.

What concerns me is when people ignore morality and resolve a moral dispute by acting. This where people have a moral disagreement and only force resolves the dispute being moral argumentation failed.

A counter example might be a danger sign "Do not touch, live wire" If someone disobeys this command they might be electrocuted.

In some cases you can illustrate the harm caused by an action or watch a harm unfold but there are a lot of ambiguous cases where harm and responsibility is disputed.
In my own case it was being forced to go to church several days a week throughout my entire childhood where my parents will dispute that it was harmful or wrong.

And it seems proving something is harmful still does not resolve a moral dispute when some forms of harm are deemed acceptable.

This realization goes back at least to the Greeks. On the other hand, individuals aren't that powerful away from groups. Any force sufficient to triumph on a large scale is therefore to be expected from a group. — macrosoft

The problem then with the power of the group or the power of the majority is that it appears to trump reason. What ever rational arguments lie behind a position if becomes imposed by brute force.

I feel that action should be guided by reason mainly and a constant process of reason and reevaluation. I think people become complacent with norms.

Indeed, and sometimes that is a good thing ---if, for instance, human beings are understood as property or if homosexuality is considered evil — macrosoft

Homosexuality is a good example here because even at the height of the persecution and criminilization of homosexuality people still had gay relationships and sex.

Obviously it is good if you can override unjust laws but less good when you can just ignore any moral claim.

I am personally not looking for the Ten Commandments or any kind of shallow basic moral dogma but rather for the ability to justify my moral sentiments and enact them confidently.

I feel quite frustrated at many peoples complacency about morality where they either blindly accept moral dogmas or don't care about moral problems and have a kind of apathy or unjustified confidence.

In my view, your issues are caused by having a false picture of what morality even is. Morality is individual dispositions towards what (interpersonal) behavior is acceptable versus not acceptable, recommendable versus not recommendable, obligatory versus forbidden, etc.

You can't "prove" that something is moral or immoral because the idea of that doesn't even make sense. Something is always moral or immoral to someone, and different individuals have different dispositions about just what behavior is and isn't kosher, and that's always going to be the case.

You can't "prove" that something is moral or immoral because the idea of that doesn't even make sense. — Terrapin Station

I think it does.

If someone has a car there is a right way to drive a car.

There could be a right way for a human to behave just like their is a proper functioning of a heart. The thing said to undermine this is evolution and the idea that there is no longer teleology in nature.

I am a moral nihilist at the moment. I think inventing moral ideas for personal gain is the reverse of morality.

I think it is a poor quality existence if it is just a constant struggle for the supremacy of ones values.

I wouldn't say there are facts about right way to drive a car, the right way for a human to behave or the proper functioning of a heart.

There are only facts about what particular individuals consider the right way to drive a car, the right way for a human to behave or the proper functioning of a heart.

Morality, factually, is simply ways that people feel about interpersonal behavior.

A car and a heart have a function that can be proven when they stop functioning. I don't think biological functions are mind dependent at all.

The body functions successfully and performs vital tasks to keep a live.

There is a limit to how much the mind can control the body and your cells will continue to function whether you like it or not.

In this sense you can give people health advice based on the likely outcome of a behavior. There are physical consequences. If a person is stabbed in the heart or drives a car the wrong way down a road. However when it comes to the consequence for immoral behavior they usually have to be applied by other humans such as fines and imprisonment.

I don't agree with your characterization of morality. I think you can give different definitions of what morality is or does.

A car and a heart have a function that can be proven when they stop functioning. I don't think biological functions are mind dependent at all. — Andrew4Handel

The thing is that they can't function a wrong way. They're always going to simply be in some state or other even if the state is simply that they're in relative stasis except for decaying. One state that they're in is not objectively preferable to any other state they're in or can be in. That's only limited by physical possibility. They can't be in a state that it's physically impossible for them to be in. Any state that's physically possible is just as good as any other state objectively. People have preferences about one state or another, but that's all that is. It's not a fact that one state is preferable. Just a fact that an individual prefers one state to another.

The body functions successfully and performs vital tasks to keep a live. — Andrew4Handel

It's not objectively preferable to be alive rather than dead. Again, it's just that some individuals--most of them, in this case--prefer one state to another.

I don't agree with your characterization of morality. — Andrew4Handel

That's fine, but what it factually is doesn't hinge on your agreement.

A lot of morality cannot be enforced, which is exactly why it is considered virtuous to follow such morals. One could even argue that acting in a moral way because you are afraid of repercussions is not true virtue. One should not kill because one believes such an act to be wrong, not because one is afraid they may get caught. This reminds me of the following quote:

“The true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.”

"...I don't agree with your characterization of morality. I think you can give different definitions of what morality is or does..."

This appears to be your end to any further discussion, at least with the person known as Terrapin Station.

He is not 'characterizing' morality, but rather attempting to operationally 'define' it so that the two of you can have a more objective and cohesive interaction. Your simply rejecting his attempts to find common ground don't bode well for your enlightenment.

"...I am a moral nihilist at the moment. I think inventing moral ideas for personal gain is the reverse of morality..." Unless I misunderstand you here, you are contradicting yourself.

Morality is a set of rules reached by general consensus as a framework for two or more people to begin to trust and to respect each other, and to cooperate for their mutual benefit. When and where two disagree in that respect, there must be a detent or war. If it is your position that you may encourage my minor child to have sex with you, providing she agrees, and I am of the opposite opinion regardless of her agreement, where does that leave me in my determination that you shall not prevail? What type of 'society' could you and I build where you may have your way and where I must agree to it, or not?

It seems futile to call a behavior immoral or moral if no consequences come from that.

One state that they're in is not objectively preferable to any other state they're in or can be in. — Terrapin Station

It is not a case of whether a state is preferable but whether it is performing a function. You might want to commit suicide but that does not mean you body is not being kept alive by generally automatic functions. To kill yourself you need to end this function.

The point however is that you can describe how something functions ideally at a certain task such as comparing a weak heart to a healthy heart. This means if you want something to function optimally in that situation there is an optimal function to be achieved. But in terms of an individual humans whole life I don't see there as being a function for it like this (paradoxically) our body can be very healthy with no physical illness but we can have no purpose or telos.

Morality, factually, is simply ways that people feel about interpersonal behavior. — Terrapin Station

I don't see why the way someone feels about a certain behavior equals a morality. I don't consider all my responses to behavior of myself or others as moral responses. I can differentiate between harmful events that have no moral or volitional component (illness/weather events) and harmful behavior caused by ill will. I think you can justify giving a moral response to certain actions.

My idea of morality is looking for the proper actions to perform for myself and for society to be moral through its actions. I don't want people to be good just so I have nice thoughts about them.

I don't think humans are just like weather events and I don't think you can just describe humans like machines because using language humans express ill intentions, justifications and values that guide action. At the very least I think you can distinguish between harmful and benign behavior and malicious or benign attitudes.

It is not a case of whether a state is preferable but whether it is performing a function. — Andrew4Handel

Everthing physically possible is a function.

"How something functions ideally" is about individuals' preferences. There is no objective "ideal," no factual "ideal," beyond what people prefer.

Everthing physically possible is a function.

"How something functions ideally" is about individuals' preferences. There is no objective "ideal," no factual "ideal," beyond that people prefer. — Terrapin Station

You can think about human inventions here specifically. Can you not tell the difference between when your computer of phone is functioning or malfunctioning?

In the case of human artifacts they are designed with a specific function in mind with a design that is meant to optimize that function (or even allow for new functions or flexible functions).

Another example is games. To play the game Monopoly you have to follow the rules in order to play the game otherwise if you make up your own rules that will not be Monopoly. You can define something with a coherent set of rules.

The alternative is you don't assign any definitions or concepts etc at all and I think that is impossible. I think we have to perceive functions, concepts and dispositions in order to negotiate life.

Sometimes somethings properties decide how we can treat it for example we can't swim in ice. You can't just arbitrarily attribute functions or dispositions to things in defiance of some fixed attributes. In my opinion.

I don't see why the way someone feels about a certain behavior equals a morality. — Andrew4Handel

Because that's factually all that's going on when we "do morality." You observe the phenomenon, and then you take a look at what's going on ontologically with respect to that phenomenon. (This is not necessarily the same as what people believe is going on. People can have mistaken beliefs.)

I don't consider all my responses to behavior of myself or others as moral responses. — Andrew4Handel

Ah--you're reading my comment as if it was intended to be an exhaustive, detailed definition. It wasn't. It's a comment in the vein of "C++ is a programming language"--that's not meant to suggest that all programming languages are C++. Just that C++ isn't something other than a programming language.

Can you not tell the difference between when your computer of phone is functioning or malfunctioning? — Andrew4Handel

Certainly I can. But how? Well, based on how I think about that, what my preferences are, etc.

Certainly I can. But how? Well, based on how I think about that, what my preferences are, etc. — Terrapin Station

What about the fact that there are objectively different states something can be in. A malfunctioning computer is no in the same states as a functioning one.

For a moral judgement you want to differentiate between actions in some important respect to illustrate say, why charity and rape are not equivalent. One simple difference could be the harm caused. But I think moral needs something more rather than just stating that something is harmful or not to your preference.

What about the fact that there are objectively different states something can be in. A malfunctioning computer is no in the same states as a functioning one. — Andrew4Handel

Right. There are objectively different states that it's in,. Counting state A rather than different state B as "malfunctioning" hinges on how I think about it--namely, the preferences I have, what state I want it to be in, etc. Outside of an individual thinking about it that way, no particular state is "malfunctioning" versus anything else. It's just different states, no preference attached to them, no value judgments about them, etc. We're the things that have preferences, that make judgments, not the world outside of us.

But I think moral needs something more rather than just stating that something is harmful or not to your preference. — Andrew4Handel

It's that you have a preference that people don't behave towards each other so that they harm them (which is really another preferential consideration--you count x as harm and you have a preference that people don't behave towards others to put them in state x).

Because that's factually all that's going on when we "do morality." — Terrapin Station

I don't think the fact we have a preference and or intuition about certain behavior means that is all that is going on.

On the conscience view these preferences are created so we can differentiate between good and bad behaviors. This is like the argument concerning pain where pain indicates what is harmful for us.Pain can really be a good signal for avoiding harm.

So if someone is upset when they see violence I don't think that is simply a preference but an appropriate response to harmful behavior. henceforth I don't think responses are arbitrary or shallow.

I think moral responses lead us to want to change behavior and action in a moral way and also I think they have a mental component of judgement not simple negative or positive sensation. So for example pain caused by standing on glass does not lead me to a moral judgement but pain caused by being slapped does.

I don't think the fact we have a preference and or intuition about certain behavior means that is all that is going on. — Andrew4Handel

I don't either. Rather it's the complete lack of evidence of any other relevant phenomena that means that the preferences are all that's going on.

So for example pain caused by standing on glass does not lead me to a moral judgement — Andrew4Handel

Right. For one, because morality is judgments about interpersonal behavior, and that's not interpersonal behavior. That's not an exhaustive definition, just part of it.

I don't see how you can resolve a moral dispute by preferences because then that ends up as morality by brute force or survival of the fittest.

I agree that morality does definitely seem simply like preferences and that is what I want to transcend. The problem of transcending a preference argument is proving that there is some other basis to a moral judgement.

Right. For one, because morality is judgments about interpersonal behavior, and that's not interpersonal behavior. That's not an exhaustive definition, just part of it. — Terrapin Station

Is it not based then on preexisting moral ideas.