Quote:
Originally Posted by SixT4
Ah but I'm not. I distinctly said that nobody is obliged to do what's best for everyone. If you want to go around and kill everybody, well that sucks. I'll try to stop you, but people aren't obliged to do anything.
So, you are obviously working with a background notion of "moral obligation" here. But I'm not sure what it is. After all, most philosophers who say that you have an obligation not to do x, whether or not you want to do x, you shouldn't do x. Typically, philosophers will claim that you shouldn't do x because it is in some way irrational, or goes against reason.
Now, you might be saying that no moral system can actually provide us with reasons to act morally, and so it
isn't irrational to act immorally. If that is your view, then fine, I think that is reasonable. Of course, in order to show this, you'll need to show why the major moral theories that most people believe
do provide us with such reasons fail--which you haven't done.
If however, you are claiming that we don't have an obligation to act according to reason, then I am confused. That is, if you are admitting (as you seem to) that we
do have reasons to act morally (such as the prevention of pain, or because it is "better" for humanity), but that these reasons don't put any obligation on us, then I will repeat myself that I think you just don't understand the claims of moral theory.
Kant, Mill, Aristotle, and the other great moral thinkers were deeply interested in trying to show that we have
reason to act morally. But there isn't some deeper level at which we are then obligated to act rational. This obligation is like the obligation that a mathematician has to accept the answer of a correct proof. She doesn't
have to do so in some physical sense. It isn't like her head will explode if she doesn't. But nonetheless, we would say that insofar as she acts rationally, she will accept the proof. Similarly, if Mill successfully shows that we have a reason to maximize utility in our actions, then insofar as we are rational we will do so. But it isn't like we then need some deeper reason to act rational.
Quote:
A lot of the behaviours I recommend are probably going to be ones that you consider "moral", but that doesn't mean I'm using a system of morality.
But then again, everybody seems to mean something different by morality. I thought a key part of it was the idea that people should or were obliged to act in certain ways and obliged to avoid other behaviours. And the idea of good and evil etc.
I guess the main problem is that unless you are irrationally recommending behavior, then you are using morality as the basis for your recommendation.
Quote:
But yeah, morality is basically just a system people use to regulate their behaviour and make choices about what to do. That doesn't mean that you're proposing morality anytime you think about a rational course of action. If I think about what's best for me to do to live a happy life, is that considered thinking about morality? That's exactly what I'm doing here, except extending it from myself to the human population.
Well, of course, this depends on what theory of morality you think is correct. Many moral theories actually
do claim that morality is a consideration of all rational action.
Also, the question of what constitutes a happy life is a central question of moral theory. Many of the most important texts on this subject, such as Aristotle's
Nicomachean Ethics, are also primary texts in the history of moral philosophy. And extending this to everyone is basically just utilitarianism.
Quote:
I wouldn't call what I'm talking about "morality" and I can't comprehend how it would be meaningful for me to attach that word to it. I don't think the best course of action is "moral" nor do I think the worst course is "immoral".
As I said before, just because you don't want to use the label "morality" doesn't mean that you are not talking about morality. What you assert here are claims that are common in moral philosophy, so it seems kind of perverse to relabel it. But whatever...it isn't that big a deal what you call it.
Quote:
It might be due to bias, but I just feel weird about morality. It just seems so ambiguous, which is apparent in how everybody has no idea what is moral, or how to even figure out what is. You describe actions by either right or wrong, but nobody knows what it means to be "right". Right in what sense?
I think this is a completely understandable feeling. However, unless you've studied moral philosophy in some depth, your conclusion doesn't justifiably follow. After all, I have a similar feeling about some claims in quantum mechanics. However, since I'm basically a novice about physics, I don't claim that the
experts are not clear, or that physics doesn't make sense. Similar considerations should apply in moral theory.
Quote:
All I know is that I could go around in circles for years thinking about what is "right" or whether an action was "right" and never come to a conclusion. I don't think the idea of "right" is particularly descriptive. If I go with "what is the appropriate course of action... if we want to do the best for ourselves" then it becomes a much more meaningful train of thought. I find it much simpler to think about my actions in those terms.
Actually, you don't know this. If you studied moral philosophy for years, you would probably get a much better idea of what "right" means. You probably won't answer
all of your questions, but that is something we never do.
Quote:
Honestly, I used to think what I'm talking about was morality. I thought morality was simply thinking about your actions in relation to others and trying to do the best by people. But apparently that's not morality itself, but an action that would be considered moral.
If I'm wrong, tell me, because I'm confused now :P
I don't really understand the point of the distinction you are making here. Not really sure what you mean by "morality itself" here either.