What about male prostitutes? — Joshs

As far as I know this applies to all possible sexes and genders.

Prostitution is mainly human trafficking and the exploitation of people in distress for entertainment purposes.

In terms of this "active" element, for me, it's in interpretation, — Judaka

For me, it's in the evaluation."

Some kind of evolved reptile with our intelligence, undoubtedly, would not possess this kind of thinking as we do. This is why I describe it as an ability of ours. Is that a more agreeable assessment for you, or do you disagree with it? — Judaka

An intelligent reptile would likely make different evaluations than an intelligent chimpanzee, although there would likely be some overlaps, such as: not killing, not harming, not stealing... just to name a few.

Morality is many things, but for me, primarily, it is the ability to perceive things as right/wrong, fair/unfair and just/unjust. — Judaka

I would define morality as the active process of evaluating things and assigning them a value of either right or wrong, rather than passively perceiving them as such.

@Mark S
What I intended to convey is that it is considerably simpler to prescribe the actions one ought take to achieve a particular goal, rather than prescribing the goal they ought to strive for.

There is no commonly accepted ultimate goal for advocating and enforcing moral systems — Mark S

That's why I'm saying that moralizing without such a goal is much more challenging than when you orient yourself towards a goal X that you already have set for yourself.

When the topic is "moral oughts", I do not understand the combination of

1) the continued philosophical interest in, and too common assumption of, “imperative oughts” that do not seem to exist and

2) the apparent lack of philosophical interest in universal moralities based on conditional oughts such as Morality as Cooperation Strategies.

Can anyone explain it? — Mark S

I'll give it a try. The lack of interest in moral concepts based on conditional norms of oughtness can be explained by the fact that it represents a relatively simple problem. When the goal is known, it is relatively easy to reach a consensus on how it can be achieved. If X is known, determining the means Y is relatively straightforward. On the other hand, the more intriguing and challenging question seems to be what one can do before setting the goal X, or through which procedure one can achieve this goal. Or in other words, it's about the question of which goal X one should set and with what justification. This appears to be an almost insurmountable task, especially when one wants to find objections against rational egoism.

Can anyone explain

1) the continued philosophical interest in, and too common assumption of, “imperative oughts” that do not seem to exist and

2) the apparent lack of philosophical interest in universal moralities based on conditional oughts such as Morality as Cooperation Strategies? — Mark S

Meanwhile, I believe I understand what you're getting at. I will do my best to compose a satisfactory answer to it, but it will take a few more days, I'm sorry to say.

Are there goals shared by all well-informed, rational people? — Mark S

Even if that were the case (which I do not doubt), it would have no significance for moral duties because, as Hume already stated, one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is."

"Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Or, as John Leslie Mackie put it: "There are no objective values."

Do you mean to say that every immigrant in the Canada is cooking boiled beef and cabbage, because they're under British-style governance? — Vera Mont

I agree with you that diversity is possible under a single government, even more so under a single municipal administration.

You do see this is some alcohol and drug recovery programs, where people go around and apologize and even make amends for the wrongs they have done to people they know. I've also known a few people to gain insight into their actions over time and try to correct behaviors they now realize to be wrong. — Tom Storm

Agreed, there are such things. However, I meant actual cases in which one deceives, disadvantages, oppresses, or exploits another. In the cases I am aware of, moral appeals have had no effect, the abuses could only be stopped by legal proceedings.

But what is even more odd is that Christians when asked to name the commandments rarely remember more than 3. Not to mention the fact that of the 10 commandments, there's really only 4 that pertain to morality in any real sense. The rest are all worship and dogma related. — Tom Storm

You are right - interesting point! I would add that even if these commandments have failed to achieve their main purpose - the improvement of humanity - (otherwise they wouldn't be necessary to this day), they still provide historians with valuable insights into the lifestyle of the inhabitants of ancient Palestine. We learn that they occasionally ...

1. worshiped foreign gods,
2. misused the name of God,
3. did not sanctify the holidays,
4. did not honor their parents,
5. killed their fellow citizens,
6. committed adultery,
7. stole,
8. bore false witness against their neighbors,
9. coveted their neighbor's house or
10. their wife, servant, maid, and livestock.

In a similar way, the code of conduct of the boarding school at the Thomasschule in Leipzig provided surprising insights into the way of life of its students during the time of Johann Sebastian Bach. :smile:

I think most people just intuit what they ought and ought not to do based upon their own presuppositions — Tom Storm

What is the use of someone knowing what he ought to do if he is not willing to do it. There is, after all, the saying: "Man always remembers only nine of God's commandments, except the commandment he is about to transgress". I think there is some truth in it - knowledge is not everything, there is also wanting, desire, lust... etc

Have you ever heard of someone correcting an injustice just because it was pointed out to them that what they were doing was immoral? I haven't.
A reversal only occurs when otherwise unpleasant consequences would be imminent, that is my experience.

I think many have stared blindly into the darkness of humanity only to find nihilism while not looking carefully at the times people act out of kindness and care. We look so hard at wrongdoings when thinking about morality that we forget to include good deeds into the mix. — Christoffer

This is a misunderstanding; I by no means wanted to say that all people are evil. My experience is that people are different: some are friendly, helpful, and generous, while others are unfriendly, hostile, racist, chauvinistic, or cruel. Fortunately, the former are in the majority, or at least I hope so.

I don't find the question of whether there is an objective morality to be so crucial. It has emerged in the course of dialogues between cultures with different moral beliefs, as can be read in Wikipedia under "Value Pluralism.":

"In ethics, value pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism) is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. In addition, value-pluralism postulates that in many cases, such incompatible values may be incommensurable, in the sense that there is no objective ordering of them in terms of importance."

From my perspective, the question of the effectiveness of morality is more important than that of its objectivity. Personally, I believe that moral prescriptions do not deliver on what they promise, which is to improve people's behavior. They may be effective and necessary for children, but most adults tend to have a more rejecting attitude towards moral teachings. In general, adults want to decide for themselves what they do and what they refrain from, and they perceive anything else as arrogance and patronization. Many do not want to conform to what they refer to as "political correctness." My experience is that such people who disadvantage or discriminate others do not respond to moral appeals; instead, they need to be dragged into court.

Although many people are convinced otherwise, I do not believe that moral systems and teachings are indispensable for the existence of society (except for children, as I said before). I see them as rather ineffective and annoying, and sometimes even harmful (especially in strict religious systems), and therefore, I reject them.

What for? Nobody cares what colour you prefer their skin to be. — Vera Mont

Yes, you correctly identified my problem. :lol:

Maybe tap into that and see if morality can be objectively found for our species. — Christoffer

Many theologians and philosophers have tried to find an objective morality, but without success. The last one I know of is John Leslie Mackie. In his book "Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong" he says:

I have given abundant reasons why almost everyone should, in his own interest, welcome the fact that there is, and hope that there will continue to be, some system of morality, and why, even if the existing system does not suit him, his aim should be to modify it, at least locally, rather than to destroy it. But this [...] leaves unanswered the question 'Why should I not at the same time profit from the moral system but evade it? Why should I not encourage others to be moral and take advantage from the fact that they are, but myself avoid fulfilling moral requirements if I can in so far as they go beyond rational egoism and conflict with it?' It is not an adequate answer to this question to point out that one is not likely to be able to get away with such evasions for long. There will be at least some occasions when one can do so with impunity and even without detection. Then why not? To this no complete answer of the kind that is wanted can be given. — John Leslie Mackie

Well the way I see it is that nature itself is creative and destructive. It's chaotic and ordered. And natural living things embody this - acting in both ways either in service of themselves or in service of their community (social animals - packs, prides, squads, troops etc). — Benj96

I have a similar view: mutations are random and chaotic, and so are the conditions that favor a few individual mutations and eliminate most of them. Both, mutations plus letal environmental conditions, in their interaction are called evolution.

we can go against instinct if we so wish. — Benj96

This is a difficult hypothesis to prove.

We can be as self serving or as socially cooperative as we like. It is likely that we have more control over instinct than most animals do. Sacrifice and suicide being prime examples of how we overcome our primal instinct to self preserve. — Benj96

This is a deception, we can do many things but we cannot go against the laws of nature and against our instincts. Freud for example attributed suicide to the death instinct,

That's a toughie, given that the law of God as taught by most religions runs counter to the laws of nature; that good moral behaviour requires that one suppress one's animal instinct and repudiate one's animal drives. — Vera Mont

Mark Twain's point is precisely that the law of God is that which governs the planets, rivers, plants and animals (including man). In other words, that the laws of nature are the law of God.

Can one not do something purely spontaneous and random with no purpose at all. — Benj96

You are right, people can even do something purely spontaneous, while thinking about something else. How could I have forgotten this important possibility?

And they would all meekly obey - even though they didn't, under the most egregious apartheid. — Vera Mont

That is indeed the most difficult hurdle: how to convince people of the idea, but it is the only one. :joke:

Do you really want that ? A world that abhors pain. — kudos

Yes, I abhor my own pain, since I am not a masochist, and other people's pain, since I am not a sadist either.

Do you truly hate your villains or envy them? — kudos

I do not envy villains at all, since I am not Nietzsche. On the other hand, I don't hate them either, but I still prefer to see them behind bars.

Because, it happened through the slow, indirect evolutionary process, not asking or wishing. — Vera Mont

I don't believe that would be so difficult. You would just need to form two groups and ask one group to only have children with the darkest members, while the other group only has children with the lightest members. In a few generations, you would have two different skin types.

once this
program of procreative racial deconstruction
has run its course, there's no separating the colours again. — Vera Mont

Why not? Originally, all humans had the same skin color, namely black, from which the different colors developed. Why shouldn't the same be possible again?

What is the advantage of being meaningless and powerless, no more than a part plugged into a mechanical society, no more needed than another identical part? — Athena

As I said, I also see the disadvantages of uniformity, even though I don't view them as extreme as you do. Ideally, I would like to have both diversity and peace, but given the nature of human beings, it doesn't seem possible to me. Therefore, I have to choose one side over the other. As difficult as it is for me, I would rather give up diversity than peace. Unfortunately, I have no hope of changing human nature, which would naturally be the most beautiful and best solution.

Who knows, maybe after a year of uniformity, I would say: Please give me back diversity, even if it is connected with contempt, hatred and war. Could be, I don't know.

Such uniformity would be less interesting than we have now, but it's only a matter of time. — Vera Mont

You're right, there would be disadvantages, (I love diversity too) but I think the advantages would outweigh them.

I was hoping for a more convivial group, but the dolphins refused to take me along; said white people can't jump. — Vera Mont

Although I'm not used to being overtaken, I have to admit that you made it. :up: :smile:

Besides, I would like it if we all belonged to one nation, if we all had the same skin color, no matter which: white or black, green or blue, the main thing is no differences. I find it very unfortunate that people always want to separate themselves into groups from the others. I never wanted to belong to any group except that of humanity as a whole.

less war > more peace > less money spent on ordnance > available to spend otherwise; eg food, schools — Vera Mont

Sorry, I got it backwards. Now I understand that you meant savings on ordnance and not on school lunches. :lol:

If it is in our nature to do bad, how can it at the same time not be in our nature to do good? — kudos

It is in the nature of one to do good and in the nature of the other to do bad; we're not all the same, are we?

What you say is that we should expect moral law, custom, and rule to be transgressed. — kudos

I am not saying that we should expect this, but rather that this has been observed many times throughout history.

Doesn’t this seem ridiculous to you? — kudos

No, it makes me rather sad. I would wish that all people were good, but unfortunately that is not the case. Do you disagree?

Think of the money we'd save for schools lunches - and schools to serve them in! — Vera Mont

I don't understand: more peace, less school? How come?

I feel like moral life is a difficult beast. It entangles us in words, representations, and ideas. But none of it makes sense unless one chooses to be moral. — kudos

I, too, was confused by the concepts of morality for a long time. But by now, my confusion has subsided. Morality is good at defining good and evil, i. e. what we would like others (and ourselves) to do. But it is bad at making people do good and avoid evil. (I am talking about adults.)

Many still believe that expressing our desire for people to be good is enough to get them to be good. It is not enough to say "Be good!" but that is essentially what moralists of all times have said. I think it's also what Tucholsky meant when he said:

"We ought to. But we don't."

Or Mark Twain:

"No creature can be honorably required to go counter to the law of his nature -- the Law of God."
- Mark Twain Letters from the Earth

It is true, it does no harm to say "Be good!" but it is also useless, at least in my opinion. People always do what is in accordance with their nature: good people do good and evil people do evil. Not even the threat of eternal hell punishments have stopped people from doing evil.

I would be happy if humanity were united under a single government. Then there would be no borders and no wars. No country would invade its neighbor for lack of neighbors. No one would build bombs, tanks, fighter jets or warships.

Nahhh….that’s not what he’s doing. He’s showing how the moral subject contradicts himself — Mww

Only the first sentence from the quote is indirect speech, but everything from "Now, although ..." onward represents Kant's own opinion as to why it is reasonable to obey the categorical imperative.

By the way, I have found a passage in the "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" that, in my opinion, can serve as evidence that Kant justifies the categorical imperative with self-interest, thus contradicting himself. Therefore, I would say that his "categorical imperative" reveals itself as a "hypothetical imperative" .

Here is the quote:

"Still another finds himself in comfortable circumstances while he sees others in great need (and he could easily help them too): What concern of mine is it? Let everyone be as happy as heaven wills or as he can make himself, I will take nothing from him nor even envy him; only I have no desire to contribute to his well-being or to assist him in his trouble! Now, although such an outlook might become a universal natural law, it is nevertheless impossible to will that a maxim of this kind should hold everywhere as a law of nature. For a will that resolved this would contradict itself, inasmuch as cases could often occur in which one would need the love and sympathy of others, and by such a law of nature, sprung from his own will, he would rob himself of all hope of the assistance he wishes for."

The justification for altruism is based on the consideration that one might also benefit from the altruism of others. The question of why one should act morally is thus answered by stating that this principle of altruism is beneficial to oneself.

Therefore, moral action serves a purpose (at least in this example, but it is only one of four), and is therefore not selfless but rather purpose-driven, and thus not "categorical" but "hypothetical" in Kant's own terminology.

Kant is still top of my list in this domain, nobody else I’ve encountered has dug deeper yet. — kudos

With Kant, I have my difficulties when he says:

"Being charitable wherever possible is a duty, and besides, there are some souls so disposed to empathy that they find inner pleasure in spreading joy around them, even without any other motivating factor of vanity or self-interest, and they can delight in the satisfaction of others, even if it is not their own achievement. But I maintain that in such a case, actions of this kind, as dutiful and amiable as they may be, still lack true moral value and are on par with other inclinations, such as the inclination for honor, which, if it fortunately aligns with what is genuinely beneficial and dutiful, is deserving of praise and encouragement but not esteem; for the maxim lacks moral content, namely, to perform such actions not out of inclination but out of duty."

Therefore, Friedrich Schiller made fun of him with the following satirical poem:

"Conscience Scruples:

I gladly serve my friends
but unfortunately, I do it with inclination
and so it often vexes me
that I am not virtuous.

Decisium:

There is no other advice
you must seek to despise them
and then with disgust, do
what duty commands you."

I really like this aphorism. — kudos

Me too. Unfortunately, I know too little about the author to know what exactly he was trying to say. Perhaps he wanted to express his disappointment with German society at the beginning of the 20th century.

I myself use it in the sense that all people, even the friendliest among them, invariably and at all times inevitably pursue their own interests and inclinations.

I really like this aphorism. I feel like moral life is a difficult beast. It entangles us in words, representations, and ideas. But none of it makes sense unless one chooses to be moral. This is why most famed philosophers utterly fail to write coherently about it. — kudos

What about John Leslie Mackie and his book "ETHICS Inventing Right and Wrong". His views seem fairly consistent to me.

My intuition says self-interest is probably inescapable, but this comes in soft and hard versions and we need to recognize that self-interest is not incompatible with altruism. — Tom Storm

Psychologists say that self-interest is indeed inescapable. As for the soft and hard versions, it is rather not about different versions but about different interests: Some people are more interested in universal harmony and cooperation, others only in loving their own family and perhaps their animals. Some love the money, others the feeling of being okay and helping others.

A little hint: even aid organizations recruit new members by emphasizing how much it gives you when you help others and experience gratitude, according to the motto "helping makes happy".

A second hint: In his "Faust" drama, Goethe has his hero exclaim, "Stay yet! you are so beautiful!" With this, he wants to stop the moment of supreme happiness he feels when helping the flood victims.

If you want to rant that everyone must be as selfish and run by emotions as you, then go ahead. There are plenty of us in life who work to overcome emotions because they understand that some outcomes are better for the world then their own pleasure or happiness. The fact that you don't believe it says everything about yourself. You need to go meet more people in the world. Go volunteer at a place you don't want to. Do something that you know is right, but makes you uncomfortable. Then think about it. You need to experience it for yourself before you start making judgement about other people. — Philosophim

I don't want to rant about anyone. I too do things that I know are right, but it doesn't make me uncomfortable - quite the opposite. I wasn't passing judgment on you or anyone else, instead I was talking about some basic psychological principles that you seem to be completely unfamiliar with. I am passionate about psychology and brain research and have read a few books about it, by Eric Kandel, David Eagleman, Daniel Dennett, Daniel Kahnemann, Oliver Sacks and others. I was just reflecting the state of the science. If you feel personally offended by that, I'm sorry.

By the way, try to remember when you were stuck in a traffic jam and were happy for the other side because they had a free ride. A true altruist in such a situation would say to himself, "I'm so glad it hit me and not them!"

I do not receive ANYTHING for giving my money away. This should be clear. — Philosophim

I believe that you get a good feeling about it, and a good feeling is more than NOTHING. It represents a value in itself, and not a small one.

This good feeling can be triggered from person to person by different things: for one person by money, for another by power, attention, love, gratitude, sociability, favorite pastime ... etc. — Jacques

People interpret some of these motivations as being selfless, but in truth there is no such thing as selfless motivation.