Should we be moral? Why?

[Gogf]

Morality is for the weak to follow and for the strong to manipulate.

I sometimes find Nietzscheanism very appealing, but I cannot shake the feeling that, from the standpoint of epistemic modesty, we cannot ignore our moral intuitions. I think this is partly motivated by my reliance on intuitions in other parts of my personal philosophy, but still... I do think it matters that I intrinsically feel that murdering people is wrong.

 

[killmetwice]

You should. I shouldn't. Ideally everyone except me would be moral thereby giving me an advantage over everyone else.

Morality is for the weak to follow and for the strong to manipulate.

this

personally i don't think stealing anything is worth it ,much less murdering.
i am happy with my computer ,internet connection and booze

 

[Gustave5436]

What is special about moral actions that makes them preferable to immoral actions? Why do people who believe that morality is just an evolutionary construct act morally?

Most people are not psychopaths and therefore are naturally predisposed towards moral behavior. The fact that immoral behavior (e.g. murder) acts counter to the interests of society, and causes significant psychological distress for the great majority of humans, is reason enough not to do it.

I am asking for a philosophical argument why someone should be virtuous, not an instrumental argument for why societies as a whole should have codes of acceptable behavior.

From a utilitarian standpoint, the fact that morality is an evolved biological adaptation is the argument. If the question is why one should be utilitarian, then the answer is that it is simply a matter of practicality.

 

[Japanrocks12]

So you think we should be moral because it feels good? This actually horrifies me.

Yeah, I guess that if this were prescriptive for how literally everyone should regard their morals, the potential for horror is boundless. That wasn't the question you were asking though:

Should we be moral? Why?

Do you think the fact that we have these feelings is meaningful?

I don't know what you mean by "meaningful," but these feelings exist in the 95%+ of us that are not sociopaths, so they can't just be written off and ignored.

When we speak of "immoral actions" such as murder, are these really only bad because they make the people who take those actions feel bad?

I mean, of course not, but one way to deter someone from committing murder is to refer them to the endless literature that exists about the documented existential angst faced by real and fictional characters who have committed the act.

What is the philosophical basis for acting in a way that maximizes my pleasure and minimizes my pain? This is called ethical egoism and is... not a very common belief among philosophers.

There aren't many Epicureans around? (This is where you call me stupid because I doubtlessly massively simplified the precepts of the Epicurean school)

Can we actually make normative judgments about actions at all? If so, why?

We can, but I didn't claim that my post outlined the way to do it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I would argue that the only qualification for a good moral system is that it's true.

I would argue that showing the 'trueness' of any moral system increases its transmissibility!
Remember, morals are taught to each other. We don't generate our moral code out of nothing. A moral code, no matter how 'true', will not be followed if people cannot be convinced to follow it.

You'll see examples when I encourage increased asceticism in order to generate more charity: people will outright mock this idea, and other will argue that it's just not a good idea. Now, I don't know if I'm wrong, but I really do think it's 'more good' to forgo luxuries in order to be more charitable (especially when we're aware of such desperate need in the world, and since money is so fungible). Despite my position probably being true, it's just not followed by others (or myself, as much as I should) because the idea is not properly transmissible.

We'll see similar debates in threads about vegetarianism or corporate governance.
So, a moral system being 'true' is a good reason to follow it. But the system must also be transmissible to get people to follow it: if no one follows it, how good of a system can it be?

 

[carmen510]

So should I feel bad if I, say, steal someone's life savings and get away with it?

Would you feel bad? Almost certainly, most people would feel bad about doing such a thing.

But should you feel bad? If your mind construes it to be inherently wrong, then I guess you could also say yes, you should feel bad.

Is it an absolute moral in the universe that stealing a person's life savings is bad? No, it isn't.

 

[Narz]

What is special about moral actions that makes them preferable to immoral actions?

We're primed for them by evolution & upbringing.

Why do people who believe that morality is just an evolutionary construct act morally?

See above.

 

[Archbob]

Because God Told me to.

I mean seriously, if there really isn't a God, it makes perfect rational sense to do whats most beneficial for yourself.

Morality without a God is all subjective. If your morality tells you to be kind and generous but mine says to destroy whoever gets in my way, whose to say that your right and I'm wrong. Might makes right in that case.

 

[nikosison]

Spoiler :

 

[El_Machinae]

If your morality tells you to be kind and generous but mine says to destroy whoever gets in my way, whose to say that your right and I'm wrong. Might makes right in that case.

Might doesn't make right, because there's no method of determining if you're correct ahead of time. You only find out that you were 'wrong' when you are defeated, and all defeats are inevitable.

You cannot use might in order to always succeed, and so might does not make right. Objectively, you will lose in the end, if you engage in this system of morality. And, if you lose, you were wrong in the beginning.

Using 'might makes right' as a moral system - and assuming success a priori is as incorrect as doing a math puzzle using bold, assuming that the bold will lead to the objectively correct path.

Additionally, once you consent to living in a 'might makes right' world (which you do, implicitly, by engaging in such a mindset) you're giving moral permission to anyone who seeks to depose you to use whatever methods they wish.

 

[Ayatollah So]

So, a moral system being 'true' is a good reason to follow it. But the system must also be transmissible to get people to follow it: if no one follows it, how good of a system can it be?

I'd go a step further: if it isn't transmissible, it can't be true. A morality has to be something that society can reasonably agree on with knowledge of its likely success or failure at achieving its own proposed goals. If a proposed morality will result in failure, it wouldn't be reasonable to attempt it.

The answer is simplicity itself: Because it's axiomatic. As soon as you describe actions as moral or immoral, you describe one as an action one should perform, and the other as one you shouldn't.

Yeah. But maybe the "should" in "should we be moral?" means something other than morally-should. Maybe it means, why is it rational to be moral?

Then the answer has two parts. One is that if we reason together about what to do (i.e. inquire into morality) then the course of action in the answer is by definition rational. The second part requires an answer to "why is it rational to reason together about what to do?" We can partly answer the second question by pointing out that reasoning together tends to result in much higher quality reasoning than reasoning alone.

But that's not decisive. Maybe there are some people for whom morality isn't a rational requirement. It's tricky - how would they know? If they are going to violate some moral norms, it would be imprudent to admit as much, so they will have to keep their goals to themselves. But then, when keeping quiet about goals, it is easy to miss alternative goals that might be more rewarding. Maybe while they are busy plotting how much money they can steal, they miss out on some deep personal relationships, or various other pursuits that might be more deeply appealing - if only one had some guidance from friends in a context of mutual trust.