I don't view morality as a set of principles but as a set of emotional and psychological characteristics that allow humans to perceive fairness, justice, loyalty, revenge, and so on. Within the second type of morality is the logic of fairness and justice. If something is immoral, then it inspires anger and disgust when you see it, you experience an instinctive rejection of it.

If I say "Oppression is wrong", when I see oppression, I am horrified and enraged, I want to destroy it, correct it, and I'm filled with sympathy and deep sadness towards the victims. Morality requires this strong emotional reaction.

Lying isn't inherently moral or immoral, because it's not inherently unfair or unjust, or at least, no one ever really sees it that way.

In the case of killing in self-defence, if it was necessary then most would say it's justified, I assume you feel the same. That would mean no triggering of any of the emotions associated with morality. You wouldn't hesitate to do it, you wouldn't stop someone else from doing it, and you wouldn't dislike that it was done, or any person who did it, so it was allowable and acceptable to you, right? Saying afterwards that it was still "immoral" because killing is wrong, well, that's just a bit hollow to me. It's your feelings that show what you find moral and immoral, not your words, right?

Interesting OP. Thank you for writing it.

My own take is that morality mandates behavior rather than a perspective. In that sense it must become objective for one to be called “moral”, a kind of “show don’t tell”, where it can be brought to judge. It needs to be seen, extended into the physical sphere as behavior.

Subjective morality alone, on the other hand, whether adopting perspectives, taking positions, or holding on to and espousing what one believes are good ideas, belong in the category of mere brain chatter, which to me is amoral behavior. Wherever morality reveals itself in words and thoughts only it is largely an exercise in subjective and personal excuse-making, probably to counteract the inner pangs of dissonance, which is self-seeking behavior. As a corollary, one cannot judge another for the views they hold.

So while having principles and being principled are necessary, at least as potential guides for how one ought to live situation to situation, they are nothing without the corresponding behavior and the objective aspect of morality. With this one can only lead by example, where coercion doesn’t quite fit.

I don’t know if this fits in in any way. If not I apologize.

Morality mandates a perspective be taken as one member of a group, with an interest in the group's wellbeing, and any views that fall outside of this context are invalid. — Judaka

Does morality mandate anythign or does a dominant culture with an official morality do this? Which is a separate issue to morality.

Morality will generally be connected to a worldview and values (religious or secular) and it is from this source, not the morality itself, that you will encounter context, justifications and coercion.

No culture has one morality as such, there are multiple perspectives, multiple moralities, views, opinions and then there are laws. Morality is incoherent and people don't pay much attention to it. Even within one religion - Christianity say - there are multiple interpretations of morality which explains why there are Christians who 'damn fags' and others who fly the rainbow flag of diversity. There are Christians who refuse to fight in wars and others who are enthusiastic members of the armed focus. Some who support euthanasia and others who are against it.

I tend to think of morality as a series of codes of conduct. Bernado Kastrup has an interesting definition - 'Humans create morality to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of order.'

Morality mandates a perspective be taken as one member of a group, with an interest in the group's wellbeing, and any views that fall outside of this context are invalid. — Judaka

I will make the concept/subject of morality more "coercive" than just a "perspective". Morality, in general, means conformity to the rules and principles of right conduct. I will talk about this in a second.
First, I need to point out that you have added an arbitrary element to the description of morality: "any views that fall outside of this context are invalid". As I understand it, it is more than a logical implication that follows the description of morality: it's an implied criticism. And as such, is an opinion that diminishes --if not distorts-- your description and the meaning of morality. Besides. morality is more about human conduct than views, although the latter can be considered moral or immoral. Anyway, it would not be so important if it did not reflect a negative view on the subject of morality.

Now, about the rules and principles of right conduct and why do you consider them coercive and unrealistic.

Who creates them and for what purpose? Can a group of people live together harmoniously in the absence of such rules and principles? Can a family live harmoniously without some rules and principles? Can you live harmoniously with yourself without some rules and principles?

It doesn't matter who creates them and what they consist of. What matters is their purpose, which invariably is to live in absence of conflict, that is, not acting against the wellbeing and interests of the members of your group or your family or even yourself.

When you join a group you agree with that group's rules and principles of right conduct. Sometimes these are written or spoken or they are silent and are made known to you only when you or someone else violates any of them. And, if you don't agree with those rules then there's no meaning for you and in fact you shouldn't join or stay with that group. But from the moment you choose to join or stay with that group, it is only logical that you agree with and stick to those rules asd principles, isn't that right?

So, I can't see anything "coercive" or "unrealistic" in all this. Can you?

If I say "Oppression is wrong", when I see oppression, I am horrified and enraged, I want to destroy it, correct it, and I'm filled with sympathy and deep sadness towards the victims. Morality requires this strong emotional reaction. — Judaka

I cannot agree with this.

Emotions may just as well mislead us in regards to morality. How many terrible things aren't done out of fear or anger? And why couldn't the ethical thing to do be something that we don't feel particularly strongly about?

'Oppression' in my view is way too vague a word to be useful in a moral context. It can describe a whole range of behaviors that may or may not be present when someone is accused of oppressing another.

Accurate language is important.

In the case of killing in self-defence, if it was necessary then most would say it's justified, I assume you feel the same. That would mean no triggering of any of the emotions associated with morality. You wouldn't hesitate to do it, you wouldn't stop someone else from doing it, and you wouldn't dislike that it was done, or any person who did it, so it was allowable and acceptable to you, right? Saying afterwards that it was still "immoral" because killing is wrong, well, that's just a bit hollow to me. It's your feelings that show what you find moral and immoral, not your words, right? — Judaka

Being forced to kill someone in self-defense is, I would assume, a deeply traumatizing experience. Tragically, it may leave people guilt-ridden for the rest of their lives, despite merely defending their lives.

In my view, Justice implies some kind of positive result. Therefore an act of killing cannot be Just. (despite possibly being legal/lawful).

Likewise, an act of killing, self-defense or no, cannot be moral.

In the particular case of self-defense, while the act of killing is still immoral, it would be hard to argue the person has committed an immoral act if they are involuntarily forced into a position where they must protect their lives. In that case, an intention to kill is not present, and without an intention there cannot be a moral act or immoral act.

The same could technically apply to any act which would otherwise be deemed immoral. If the act is 'accidental' the person has erred in some way, but it cannot be said they acted immorally, because an intention is not present. This is the realm of tragedy, ignorance, inevitability, etc.

An act of unintentional killing out of self-defense would fall in the tragic category.

That isn't so much a justification, but rather a means of rationally understanding the nature of the act.

Emotions may just as well mislead us in regards to morality. How many terrible things aren't done out of fear or anger? And why couldn't the ethical thing to do be something that we don't feel particularly strongly about? — Tzeentch

You're right, but I don't have a purely positive view of morality, as many aspects of it are destructive and terrible. I refuse to only call morality that which I agree with, or that which has a positive outcome. You're also right that oppression is vague, and that's an implicit part of morality as well, I don't believe it ever operates using the clear rules people imagine. As I described earlier, we naturally bend the rules to suit our emotions, and it is far from impartial and fair. One could easily despise oppression in one case but then ignore it in another as is convenient.

That isn't so much a justification, but rather a means of rationally understanding the nature of the act. — Tzeentch

I understand your point, you have a broader perspective that includes one's attitudes and characterisations such as the guilt and emotional turmoil, and the sombre reflection you describe. To call that part of morality is definitely fair, and I agree with you. It could be seen manifested in one's desperation to kill in self-defence as only a last resort, and in one's actions afterwards towards the victim & their family and so on.

I will make the concept/subject of morality more "coercive" than just a "perspective". Morality, in general, means conformity to the rules and principles of right conduct. — Alkis Piskas

I don't necessarily disagree that you can describe it that way, but only as a characterisation, it's not like morality is literally just conformity to the rules and principles of right conduct. If it was conformity, then my OP would be pointless because conformity does not require thought, one simply only has to obey. If morality is obedience mandated upon joining a group, where there is an implicit agreement to obey that group's rules would indeed, I agree, have the impact you describe on my OP. However, there are many rules that describe right conduct that fall outside the purview of morality for me. Such as following manners & customs, law, the social contract, cultural norms and so on, and for some of these, I would agree with you, but not with morality.

My OP is not about the actual following of rules but the discussion that takes place surrounding morality. If it's just a set of rules to be followed, and it's "my way or the highway" then fine, but is that what morality is? Do groups represent a homogenous view on moral issues where no debates or discussions can be had?

But from the moment you choose to join or stay with that group, it is only logical that you agree with and stick to those rules asd principles, isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

No, it's not right. As one is not forced to leave the group when refusing to stick with these moral principles as you call them. The option to not follow them or argue against them mightn't be agreeable to you, but is it there? Yes, and it's a core part of democratic, liberal Western ideals to allow freedom of speech, religion and values.

So, I can't see anything "coercive" or "unrealistic" in all this. Can you? — Alkis Piskas

I just don't agree with your view on morality at all, but if I did, then I can see your point.

First, I need to point out that you have added an arbitrary element to the description of morality: "any views that fall outside of this context are invalid". As I understand it, it is more than a logical implication that follows the description of morality: it's an implied criticism. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think it is a logical implication, it's a core feature of morality, the universal applicability of moral concepts. There must be some logic that dictates what is fairness, justice, and reasonable, that can be used to govern the group. Without this universal applicability and shared view, there is no unifying aspect that characterises morality. Your view of morality as a set of rules that the group must adhere to is an even more extreme version than what I've laid out. You've literally said that if someone's personal circumstances or beliefs or values contradict the rules of the group, then they should just leave. From that, it's hard to see why you would dispute my claim about the exclusion of views that don't matter to the group.

it's not like morality is literally just conformity to the rules and principles of right conduct. — Judaka

I said "in general". Which means that there are other meanings of "morality".
(Details count! :smile:)

If it was conformity, then my OP would be pointless because conformity does not require thought, one simply only has to obey. — Judaka

Well, it's not at all my intention to jump on you, but I need to comment on what I disagree with. Here, I disagree that conformity does not require thought. It is like saying that discipline, lawfulness (being in harmony with the law),and the like do not require thought. They do. I talked about agreement, remember? And agreement certainly requires thought. Conformity without thought would be robotic behaviour, blind faith and things like that. That would fit zealously religious people, people with lack of self-confidene or will, etc. And AI robots, of course! :grin:

If morality is obedience mandated upon joining a group — Judaka

Sorry again, but there's a difference between conformity and obedience.
"Conformity is the change in a person’s behavior to go along with the group, even if he does not agree with the group."
"Obedience is the change of an individual’s behavior to comply with a demand by an authority figure."
(See Conformity and Obedience)

there are many rules that describe right conduct that fall outside the purview of morality for me. — Judaka

Right. Because you have your own rules adn principles of morality, isn't that so? We all have. But being social beings, we need to make compromises in order to live harmoniously with other people. Isn't that right?

My OP is not about the actual following of rules but the discussion that takes place surrounding morality. — Judaka

Certainly.

If it's just a set of rules to be followed, and it's "my way or the highway" then fine, but is that what morality is? — Judaka

No, I don't think it is. Sometimes, as I already mentioned, these "sets of rules" are not even expressed, thay are implicit, kind of "invisible". Human logic, intuition, knowledge, experience, culture, and of course conscience, "talk" by themselves about what these rules are. And in most cases they are consistent with those expressed or dictated --explicitly or implicity-- by the groups, the society and humanity at large.
So, the sense of morality is created in a peson since an early age, by upbringing and education but also by one's own factors like the ones I mentioned above. Therefore, we cannot say that morarily is "coercive" or "unrealistic". Can we?

But from the moment you choose to join or stay with that group, it is only logical that you agree with and stick to those rules asd principles, isn't that right?
— Alkis Piskas
No, it's not right. As one is not forced to leave the group when refusing to stick with these moral principles as you call them. — Judaka

Correct. I should make it more clear that there are cases where one has to agree with the rules and principles if one wants to be part of the group. But see, even if one has to do a compromise, there must be always an agreement. Otherwise, for how long can one stay in group if one is in constant conflict with it? One can always try to change those rules and succeed, but this is something totally different. This is how a society evolves. There are always individuals and groups with bgf ideas and influence that change things in a society. Also, the society itself matures and changes with time. Things that were considered and faced as immoral in the past cease to be anymore. And vice versa, things that are considered moral or not immoral today were condemned in the past.

I just don't agree with your view on morality at all, but if I did, then I can see your point. — Judaka

I can certainly see that! :smile: But I appreciate a lot your directness and how you proceed to establish your views. And I believe this is why we are --or should be-- here: to express our views. (Although this is not the case for some! :smile:)

Here, I disagree that conformity does not require thought. — Alkis Piskas

Is your argument that conformity requires thought because you need to decide to conform? I'm not sure whether you've just decided to react to this comment in isolation or if it's supposed to have a bearing on the overall discussion, but this argument isn't compelling to me. The act of thinking about what to do or whether to do something can be said of virtually anything. Conformity is monkey see, monkey do, it is as thoughtful as obedience, where one can also "choose to or not to obey".

You've said the agreement is implicit, which ironically, also means it requires no thought whatsoever. Also, the groups we're talking about here are likely going to be ones that one was born into, such as one's culture, religion, region and etc. An implicit agreement, established upon birth or just by existing, to follow the rules or else, right?

Whatever difference there can be said to be here between conformity and obedience, or how much thought goes into this process, it's small. That being said, I am going by what you are describing and my imagination, since I don't perceive these issues like you do. If you're imagining in your head, a scenario that maximises the choice factor, while I'm imagining a scenario that doesn't, that could be responsible for this discrepancy. Even if I gave you everything here and admitted I was wrong, I don't see why it would undermine my position, or strengthen yours.

Right. Because you have your own rules adn principles of morality, isn't that so? We all have. But being social beings, we need to make compromises in order to live harmoniously with other people. Isn't that right? — Alkis Piskas

It's not a matter of compromise. It's just that a moral argument is only compelling when it describes circumstances that impact the group. It doesn't work if I tell you how important it is that I'm paid fairly because I like how that would increase my pay. I must instead tell you it's important we're paid fairly because of the principles of fairness and justice, that there's a wrong that must be corrected. Morality must appeal to reasons that others can get behind and be invested in or it's pointless. Even one's personal moral ideas will have this feature to them, it's an essential part of moral thinking.

Therefore, we cannot say that morarily is "coercive" or "unrealistic". Can we? — Alkis Piskas

Having an acceptable moral defence for one's actions or stances is necessary and therefore coerced, and it's an unrealistic setting because one's reasoning is not purely based on the universally applicable concepts available in morality. One must retrospectively defend their position morally, even one that was formed outside of the moral context. Such a convenient defence may not exist, and one might need to get creative to try to make it work, and people do that all the time.

If one is forming a moral position, within the moral framework, then it doesn't matter, the limitations are there for a reason and it's not a problem.

Otherwise, for how long can one stay in group if one is in constant conflict with it? — Alkis Piskas

Permanently, no? But it does depend on the context and the group in question.

I can certainly see that! :smile: But I appreciate a lot your directness and how you proceed to establish your views — Alkis Piskas

Glad to hear it.

Morality mandates a perspective be taken as one member of a group, with an interest in the group's wellbeing, and any views that fall outside of this context are invalid. In a philosophical context, that "group" is unlikely to be of your choosing, and instead might be the citizens of a nation or just the whole of humanity. Any motivation that would clearly be contrary to the group's cannot be reasonably used as part of an argument for a moral position, without explaining why that is fair or justified within the context of the entire group, or as the best solution to the situation.

The moral perspective forces someone to take an unnatural position to how one would usually. One's thinking factors in one's priorities, values, goals, philosophy, and how one interprets and characterises things and other factors that don't fit into the moral context. Moreover, smaller perspectives might be excluded, as you're to take the position of the group in question. — Judaka

The whole premise is flawed and biased. Morality can equally be seen as an individual rising above a deficient cultural moral code. Kierkegaard's knight of faith. Jung's Answer to Job. Carlyle's study on Heros, Hero-worship, and the Heroic in History.

Some people voluntarily embrace morality out of a sense of empathy or, more to the point, out a sense of duty (Kant). This is a very debased and cynical perspective on the nature and motivation of morality, and certainly not one that is widely embraced (thank goodness).

Err, I don't understand what you're responding to, but there is no functional difference between those things. — Judaka

I guess I've misunderstood. You seem to be against formal morality - you say it's coercive and unrealistic. As I noted, that kind of morality is just one manifestation of social control, what you call the social contract, about which you said:

I don't condemn society's ability to apply social standards to me, they are usually practical and beneficial for everyone. and I generally support these rules. — Judaka

You've said the agreement is implicit, — Judaka

Where have I talked about an "implicit agreement"?? I talked about "impicit rules and principles"! Which is wuite obvious anyway.

You have also chosen to totally ignore the element of agreement, which I repeatedly brought up and which is vital to the subject.

In short, you either cannot see my point at all or you have chosen not to, and just stick to yours. No problem with me.

And from what I have read in the comments by other members, no one agrees that morality is coercive. I'm not surprised, since it doesn't make sense. It's a very strange bias, which comes maybe from some traumatic experience(s) in your life or some serious misconception(s) on the subject, matched with an inablility to see the obvious and logical, all of which prevent you to see what morality actually is.

So, thanks for this exchange. There's nothing more for me to say.

When you join a group you agree with that group's rules and principles of right conduct. — Alkis Piskas

This is an implicit agreement, is it not? What groups are in question here? If one is born into a culture, a religion, or a society, don't they have rules and principles of right conduct? If one has to move interstate for work, and they enter into a new community, by your definition, they've agreed to the rules and principles of right conduct of this new place, that's an implicit agreement. Do you disagree with that?

You've told me that if one doesn't agree, then they should just leave the group. You're talking about people choosing between having to leave their hometowns and their families, changing religion, abandoning their culture, or agreeing to a particular set of principles and rules. If that's not a coerced agreement, then what is? They could teach kids the same ideas as yours in North Korea and it would fit just fine.

As for people disagreeing morality is coercive, well, I don't think everyone disagreed, and many who did, well they seem to have just read the title and the first two paragraphs or so. Morality is obviously coercive, but often in a good way, for example, if someone is a racist in public in my country, they'll quickly get shouted down by random people telling them to shut up. Perhaps many racists feel coerced into expressing non-racist ideas rather than their true feelings, but great, that's what we want anyway. There's literally no case to be made against morality being coercive, it makes zero sense. We want there to be repercussions for bad behaviour, that creates a coercive environment, that's it.


I'm not against formal morality, I'm just pointing out the obvious, that morality is coercive and unrealistic. I wanted to talk about some of the repercussions of that, and how to best handle it. I don't think morality is bad because it's coercive and unrealistic. It shouldn't be that controversial to say that morality is coercive and that it's a very specific way of thinking that excludes various categories of ideas.

Well, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I do despise the way people view morality, and how romanticised the concept is. If my way of phrasing things pissed some people off who wanted to argue against some of the basic features of morality with me, then I was here for it.

The basic issue described in my OP can be explained in many contexts, but let's take AI as a recent example. Why are people developing AI? Because they can, and for money, fame, because it's useful and perhaps for the betterment of mankind. What about the ethical and moral implications? Do the people developing the AI even give two shits about that? It's hard to say - because morality is coercive and we can assume that they wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of admitting that they don't care.

That's my first point, my second is that their decision to go ahead and develop the AI factored in their personal and financial goals, and the moral implications were probably there too. But within the moral context, personal and financial goals can't be included, and the moral implications were negative. You can't just tell people the truth, so, you need to come up with an argument to defend your actions, and this was my second point. This I think can be destructive for people's thinking as they will take this opportunity to work backwards.

Instead of asking "What is right?", they try to come up with a moral argument to justify their original decision or stance. Moral exploration occurs retrospectively, and so, people do come up with arguments to justify themselves, but why did they do that? It was not an honest investigation, they're biased towards finding themselves justified, and the conclusion is majorly biased. I think by acknowledging the environment is coercive, and that you are just satisfying a need to be convincing, you can avoid creating a nonsensical worldview as you would if you believed your lies.

Anyway, I dunno why I wrote so much when my OP says the same thing as my comment here, but now that I've written it I may as well post, hope it helps.

morality is coercive and unrealistic — Judaka

If by morality being coercive you mean that it indicates a course of action, this would be accurate. You might just as well say that "desire is coercive." Once could just as easily say "Morality is corrective." Yes, the entire purpose of morality is to shape actions, in some cases to choose a moral reason for acting instead of one's own desire. Some people don't view this as coercion, but as guidance. Freud identically characterizes the superego as functioning in this coercive, externalized fashion. Up to the point where it is reintegrated into the mature personality. Essentially, you are characterizing the moral perspective of an infantile ego.

The point is, there is a certain governing standard of social behaviour and action, which is essential for the creation of shared meaning. Minds are collective creatures.

In so far as morality can be conceptualised as part of one's "moral compass", or as you're talking about "self-coercion", I wouldn't have called it coercive and I didn't, just as I don't think desire is coercive.

Morality is socially coercive, it involves often heightened emotions and is utilised as the logic of the mob. Compliance can be selected because of duty, honour and empathy, as you say, but it can also be selected out of fear of ostracisation or disapproval.

By unrealistic, I mean that decisions made in the real world include a variety of considerations that aren't applicable in the moral context.

Now, I've made my reason clear for why I brought up these points in the OP and my previous comment, and it wasn't to say we should all be amoral or that I'm sad that people are forcing me to act morally, so please, spare me.

Morality is socially coercive, it involves often heightened emotions and is utilised as the logic of the mob. Compliance can be selected because of duty, honour and empathy, as you say, but it can also be selected out of fear of ostracisation or disapproval.

By unrealistic, I mean that decisions made in the real world include a variety of considerations that aren't applicable in the moral context. — Judaka

Yes, morality is socially coercive, which is to say, socially motivated and socially motivating. As I have been pointing out, this is an empirical fact. You are interpreting it as a (negative) value judgement.

How can anything not be applicable in a moral context? The essence of morality is to be contextually definitive.

These two things aren't the same, morality overriding other considerations and morality excluding them. I agree with these two points, and they together create the problem of my OP.

Is your only complaint that you'd prefer it if I used glowing and positive language to describe morality? I have a neutral view of morality, neither particularly liking nor disliking it. Whenever I don't use glowing language, I'm reprimanded just as now, and it reinforces my idea that I am completely correct to call it coercion. I suppose it only makes sense that moral zealots see this coercion as a purely positive thing.

Is your only complaint that you'd prefer it if I used glowing and positive language to describe morality? I have a neutral view of morality, neither particularly liking nor disliking it. Whenever I don't use glowing language, I'm reprimanded just as now, and it reinforces my idea that I am completely correct to call it coercion. I suppose it only makes sense that moral zealots see this coercion as a purely positive thing. — Judaka

I don't know, you say you are neutral, but coercion isn't a neutral description. Morality gives direction, it doesn't coerce. It is a person's choice to interpret a direction as coercion.

If we take an example of a moral system you don't like, an Islamist or ultra-nationalistic perspective, then you'll happily call those same elements coercive, but if it's one you do like, then it's direction, right? I take a birds-eye view, it's not popular, but I think it's correct.

If we take an example of a moral system you don't like, an Islamist or ultra-nationalistic perspective, then you'll happily call those same elements coercive — Judaka

Yes, this is an example of exactly what I am saying. Except I never called anything coercive.

It occurs to me that the best way to construe morality is to look at it as exemplified by a stranger making a request of you. Shelves in stores are designed for average height people. A very short person asks you to reach up and get something off the top shelf for him. Most moral situations are a lot like that. Except that the question is often implicit within the context. And I for one believe that for a lot of problems, there are usually certain people for whom solutions are a relatively easy matter. Instrumental capacity is often about the right person being in the right place at the right time.

I'm not against formal morality, I'm just pointing out the obvious, that morality is coercive and unrealistic. — Judaka

Isn't all social control coercive and unrealistic in that same sense? Society wants people to behave in a way that promotes the effective operation of society.

It shouldn't be that controversial to say that morality is coercive and that it's a very specific way of thinking that excludes various categories of ideas. — Judaka

Yes. I agree.

Well, I'd be lying if I didn't say that I do despise the way people view morality, and how romanticised the concept is. If my way of phrasing things pissed some people off who wanted to argue against some of the basic features of morality with me, then I was here for it. — Judaka

I think I just misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Do the people developing the AI even give two shits about that? It's hard to say - because morality is coercive and we can assume that they wouldn't want to deal with the consequences of admitting that they don't care. — Judaka

I don't it's that they don't care about creating something that may have very negative consequences. It's that there is enough uncertainty to allow them to justify acts they want to do for all the other reasons you listed. And then, if they need to to continue as they want to, they can deny the potential consequences.

Anyway, I dunno why I wrote so much when my OP says the same thing as my comment here, but now that I've written it I may as well post, hope it helps. — Judaka

I guess I didn't get it the first time around.

Do you consider basic acts of kindness to be part of morality? I don't...

Morality certainly has a wide variety of meanings, which makes it a very difficult word to use. I expect everyone to have a different idea of what it is, but the word holds power, and it's not always convenient to explain one's interpretation of such a complicated concept.

I don't lump in basic decency, kindness, the social contract, manners and any number of such things into the umbrella of morality. If you do, then we're just been talking past each other. I have outlined my views in the thread, but perhaps if I had agreed to talk about morality based on what you think it is, I wouldn't have said much of what I have, or I would've said it differently.

Isn't all social control coercive and unrealistic in that same sense? Society wants people to behave in a way that promotes the effective operation of society. — T Clark

Hmm, not in the same sense, morality polices thoughts and intentions as well, and it is used as the logic of groups. Any form of social control will be coercive in some sense, but it's mostly just policing actions, it's not quite the same. I also think that they're much less controversial because, unlike many moral views, social ideas such as the social contract, manners and rules of conduct aren't beneficial to any particular group, they're benign. Most people should be able to agree on them, and some moral ideas are like that too, but not always.

I don't it's that they don't care about creating something that may have very negative consequences. It's that there is enough uncertainty to allow them to justify acts they want to do for all the other reasons you listed. And then, if they need to to continue as they want to, they can deny the potential consequences. — T Clark

Well, I used it as an example, AI is a complicated issue that I won't get into here. I'm just saying we can't know whether they care or not because the environment is coercive, and that the incentives to find AI moral or immoral are playing a significant role in the debate.

I guess I didn't get it the first time around. — T Clark

No worries, pretty much all responses have interpreted the OP differently.

I don't lump in basic decency, kindness, the social contract, manners and any number of such things into the umbrella of morality — Judaka

What else is morality but a basic act of goodwill? Yes, like Rawls' basic duty of civility. Certainly manners are expressive of a moral perspective and would have to be included in any descriptive morality. It's hard to see how you could construe a normative morality that by definition excluded such things. Manners are just a "manner of treating somebody" which essentially what morality is.

The word "morality", as with many other complex English words, is bloated, filled with concepts that are distinct from each other, but also applicable in the same contexts. I distinguish between three separate concepts labelled as "morality".

The first is the evolutionary basis, that we are concerned about fairness, justice, and rules and think in terms of loyalty, betrayal and revenge. Could throw in the aversion to incest, perhaps some gender norms, it's debatable. The key features here are the emotional and psychological responses.

Secondly, there is a discussion about morality, which deals with the interpretation of what should or can be considered fair, reasonable or just. The evolutionary basis of morality just seems to entail a hatred of unfairness, but how something is interpreted to be fair or not is quite flexible. It could range from stoning someone to death over a minor offence to viewing violent responses as universally unjustified.

Thirdly, there's the morality that I'd call "philosophies of morality", which are not purely based on emotion or psychology and don't have to be at all. They can be completely divorced, and even a critique of the evolutionary basis of morality, such as emphasising logical and unbiased thinking. This might overlap with the second in providing an outline for understanding moral concepts such as fairness and justice. — Judaka

Sure, morality can cover any topic, including manners, nothing special about that. We would ask if it is fair, reasonable, or justified to be ill-mannered, and potentially one could find rudeness immoral.

How can we discuss the morality of various economic systems, or of governments, or of laws, and so many other things under your understanding of morality? I don't get it.

Hmm, not in the same sense, morality polices thoughts and intentions as well, and it is used as the logic of groups. Any form of social control will be coercive in some sense, but it's mostly just policing actions, it's not quite the same. I also think that they're much less controversial because, unlike many moral views, social ideas such as the social contract, manners and rules of conduct aren't beneficial to any particular group, they're benign. Most people should be able to agree on them, and some moral ideas are like that too, but not always. — Judaka

I'm not sure I agree with this, e.g. sex roles and racial prejudice. I don't think these are not generally, or at least not always, expressed in a moral framework. I think they have to do more with psychological comfort, the need for standardization, and some sort of feeling for the smooth operation of society.

Well, I used it as an example, AI is a complicated issue that I won't get into here. I'm just saying we can't know whether they care or not because the environment is coercive, and that the incentives to find AI moral or immoral are playing a significant role in the debate. — Judaka

AI is just one example - climate change, nuclear weapons, opposition to non-fossil fuels...

I'm not sure I agree with this, e.g. sex roles and racial prejudice. I don't think these are not generally, or at least not always, expressed in a moral framework. I think they have to do more with psychological comfort, the need for standardization, and some sort of feeling for the smooth operation of society. — T Clark

Not exactly sure what you're not agreeing with. Gender roles have always been heavily tied to morality, and have always been expressed in a moral context. For instance, the idea that a woman should serve her husband is a moral argument using the moral framework. It's espousing ideas of right and wrong, and what one must do, and it has universal applicability.

Racism has similarly always been heavily tied to morality. Europeans had already decided slavery was wrong centuries before abolishing it, racism was the workaround.

Many ideas can be tied to morality, for example, if you think aliens will invade Earth in ten years, then morality can become about the necessity for everyone to work together to build up our defences. Sure, there is/can be a "need for standardization" and so on. Morality can focus on how important it is for us to have standardisation, and to see attempts to disrupt the standard way as immoral and reckless. That has happened and does happen, and conservatism is a highly prevalent mindset in morality.

@Judaka I am curious what you would make of an old thread I started titles The Use of Hypotheticals if you have time.

Enjoyed entirety. I think another option is completely accept moral teaching but misinterpret. Never steal: constantly complain of living in colony.

I read through it. I wonder how you expect me to react to it, or why you wanted my reaction to it.

You're definitely right that morality and philosophy itself are public affairs, and so of course there are social considerations that influence how people answer moral questions. It's not easy to share things about yourself when you fear judgement, and I think that people are right to fear judgement. Is this part of the coercive element of morality? Definitely.

However, I do think that hypotheticals are not a practical situation to bring out the "darkness" of man. It doesn't allow for any kind of breathing room, because I think humans intuitively perceive, for example, murder, to be immoral. The "darkness" of man is the making of murder moral, not to intentionally act immorally. The complexity of the real world allows for the creativity necessary for justification, the hypothetical doesn't. I don't think people are reminded by others of their own potential for evil. We do genuinely hate murder, but in the cases where we don't, we call it justice, we say the victim deserved it or that it had to be done.

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan are both good examples of the darkness of people, racism in colonialism might be even better. Western Europeans believed slavery was wrong, but justified it by asserting that it was fine to enslave lesser races, that's what human darkness looks like. The meat industry is a great example of today's evil, most people already realise that farm animals have the intelligence to experience joy, boredom, fear, pain, anxiety, stress and loneliness, I've got little doubt that future generations will think of our justifications of animal sentience as just as foolish as we now view racism.

You paint morality like shackles, holding back the dark and violent nature of man, but I disagree with that. The evil we perceive in the acts of others are in their own eyes, necessary and justified acts, and the "evil" we perpetrate we, in turn, see as just and necessary. We do genuinely distinguish between good and evil, and we do try to do good, it's just what we define as good is often actually pretty shitty.

As for whether the hypotheticals themselves are any good or not, maybe they are, what I said doesn't apply as well to many philosophies of morality, especially ones like utilitarianism or deontology. I don't really know, but I do think the questions are very removed from the moral thinking of the average person. Sorry if I didn't answer in the way that you were looking for, but you didn't make any particular request so I just gave my initial impressions, if you want a different answer, you can just ask.

You paint morality like shackles, holding back the dark and violent nature of man, but I disagree with that. — Judaka

‘Shackles’ maybe but certainly not as necessarily holding back any darkness.