I don't know if morality exists...

[Lilin]

I mean, of course we aren't being immoral in our actions, but is this due to morality, or just due to the coding we have? Think about it, if morality existed it would be consistent; we would look at our actions and deem them unacceptable as applied to our moral code.

But this begs the question of what morality is, and I propose it is a cluster of statements collected together to form a basis of action, for example: 'don't victimise'. But even this basic statement is defied by normal everyday action, whereas if the statement was actually a basis of action instead of just an illusionary basis, this wouldn't be.

So I propose we stop moralising to people and instead start programming them, for morality seems only to be a habit people get into, and although it hurts to be immoral it also hurts to break habits and soon we'd be free of them.

[Bu🤠ns]

you're immoral for just BEING here.



welcome to the forums!

[Brotep]

What?  Morality is "programming."  (though we shouldn't stretch that metaphor of the brain as a computer too thin)

Also note the difference between immorality and amorality.

[Bu🤠ns]

What?  Morality is "programming."  (though we shouldn't stretch that metaphor of the brain as a computer too thin)

Also note the difference between immorality and amorality.

bolded for emPHAsis

and please to destroy your superego...remember communication is only possible between equals and if you have an internal governor then there will always be a hierarchy inside yourself.


and if you destroy your superego, the MGMT requests that you refrain from throwing poop on the walls, thank you kindly

[Honey]

What?  Morality is "programming."  (though we shouldn't stretch that metaphor of the brain as a computer too thin)

Also note the difference between immorality and amorality.

This made me go back to the book, Lila, An Inquiry into Morals by Robert Pirsig (also the author of Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance).  In the beginning of the book he quotes John Von Neumann, "who said, "the single thing that makes a computer so powerful is that the program IS data & can be treated like any other data."  That seemed a little obscure when Phaedrus had read it but now it was making sense."

He then goes on throughout the book, & interspersed with various story lines and back & forth to come up with his Metaphysics of Quality:

"Phaedrus had once called metaphysics "the high country of the mind" – an analogy to the "high country" of mountain climbing.  It takes a lot of effort to get there & more effort when you arrive, but unless you can make the journey you are confined to one valley of thought all your life.  This high country passage through the Metaphysics of Quality allowed entry to another valley of thought in which the facts of life get a much richer interpretation.  The valley spreads out into a huge fertile plain of understanding. 

In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided into 4 systems:  inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns & intellectual patterns.  They are exhaustive.  That's all there are.  If you construct an encyclopedia of 4 topics – Inorganic, Biological, Social & Intellectual – nothing is left out.  No "thing," that is.  Only Dynamic Quality, which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent.

But although the 4 systems are exhaustive they are not exclusive.  They all operate at the same time & in ways that are almost independent of each other.

This classification of patterns is not very original, but the Metaphysics of Quality allows an assertion about them that is unusual.  It says they are not continuous.  They are discrete.  They have little to do with one another.  Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an extension of that lower level.  Quite the contrary.  The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its own purposes. 

This observation is impossible in a substance-dominated metaphysics where everything has to be an extension of matter.  But now atoms & molecules are just 1 of 4 levels of static patterns of quality & there is no intellectual requirement that any level dominate the other 3.

An excellent analogy to the independence of the levels, Phaedrus thought, is the relation of hardware to software in a computer.  ...

He makes an excellent analogy here about hardware vs. software but I'm getting tired of typing.  & some get a wee bit annoyed by metaphysics.  (also makes other analogies throughout the book that work for me too like the platypus & other stuff about carbon based life)  Ah well.

"Hello!"
"Hello"
"do you like my hat?"
"no I do not like your hat.  Goodbye."
"Goodbye."
-Dr. Seuss

[Lilin]

Thanks for the emphasis, Burns. That's exactly what I was saying. If people just follow arbitrary code instead of morality, then they are not being moral, but rather amoral, since to defy the code would hurt their conscience and they don't want that.

It also seems the code often contradicts itself, and is often not best for the person holding the code or for other people.

When I said to stop moralising, I meant that to rationally discuss morality is silly because if you scrape a nerve or point out inconsistencies people get defensive, and may just start laughing at you to make you go away; if we want people to conform to our way of morality, then rationality is not the way to go.

[Harlequin]

Thanks for the emphasis, Burns. That's exactly what I was saying. If people just follow arbitrary code

Why is it arbitrary? I'd argue that most 'morals', which are in effect social programming, stem from quite obvious and reasonable origins. Codes such as "do not kill", "do not steal" etc allow cohesion within an expanded social environment - by getting people to play nice, the game can continue. I'd say that most basic morals are designed around the preservation of social order, and are not arbitrary in the slightest.

instead of morality, then they are not being moral, but rather amoral, since to defy the code would hurt their conscience and they don't want that.

I think you need to define the difference a bit more. between 'morality' and 'moral coding'.

When I said to stop moralising, I meant that to rationally discuss morality is silly because if you scrape a nerve or point out inconsistencies people get defensive, and may just start laughing at you to make you go away; if we want people to conform to our way of morality, then rationality is not the way to go.

No. You just discuss morality in a rational sense with other rational people.
[/quote]

[fomenter]

Thanks for the emphasis, Burns. That's exactly what I was saying. If people just follow arbitrary code

Why is it arbitrary? I'd argue that most 'morals', which are in effect social programming, stem from quite obvious and reasonable origins. Codes such as "do not kill murder", "do not steal" etc allow cohesion within an expanded social environment - by getting people to play nice, the game can continue. I'd say that most basic morals are designed around the preservation of social order, and are not arbitrary in the slightest.

"do not kill" is arbitrary in it cannot cover all possible surrounding circumstances, if my moral code is do not kill and i am forced to do so in the defence of my life i must break my own moral code to survive,  if my moral code is "do not murder" i do not break my code (killing where a other more reasonable option exists would be murder). the same with do not steal it is not arbitrary in the play nice social order sense, but if you are starving is there an exception? a moral code is good based on its ability to cover most situations "for the game to continue, play nice" and its ability to allow for the exceptions that arise.

[Harlequin]

Well true, my examples were quickly thought up and obviously are far more complex in reality. That wasn't really the point, though.

[Bu🤠ns]

what is arbitrary? maybe spontaneous decision making based on situational choices would be considered arbitrary.  your moral coding may or may not change the outcome of the situation.  ask yourself: what's your price for to begin a life of whoredom. so yes fuck rational decision making. !!!

[fomenter]

Well true, my examples were quickly thought up and obviously are far more complex in reality. That wasn't really the point, though.

ya i got the point, they are not random or arbitrary from a social order, necessity  perspective, i was not disagreeing with it, only adding the  application of a hard and fast rules or the narrow understanding of them to a fluid situational world is problematic.

[Harlequin]

Undoubtedly, and that manifests itself in numerous ways through the law/religion, where certain phrasings (usually stemming from older times) are simply too black and white to deal effectively in a dynamic world.

And of course, you have to deal with multi-layered morality - issues of the 'greater good' or judging actions through quantity of life saved, etc. I'm not attempting to say if that's a good or bad thing (I'm leaning towards bad) but it seems that morality is an incredible vague term to be used here. Maybe if the OP could clarify their position here, and justify some of their statements (such as a rational approach to discussion is wrong).