Variety is the spice of life would be my answer. Which isn't the answer to the question but at least it's an answer.

Interbane wrote:Here's a question for everyone.

Do you think there is an ideal morality, from a god's eye view? Not to say that everyone will be perfectly satisfied, because we must exclude the happiness of psychopaths, for example. But in all possible worlds, is there one in which happiness is maximized(if not perfected)?

It is likely not achievable, but is the ideal a possible thing?

Since I'm subscribing to the comprehensive definition I quoted above, it wouldn't be possible for me to imagine a summary of all those elements. I think that, day to day in our own society, when we say 'morality' we mean 'how we treat each other,' but this is only one aspect of morality more formally defined.

Your question seems to assume the utilitarian approach of maximizing happiness. That isn't necessarily at the heart of other moral systems.

So, short answer to your question, no.

Do you think there is an ideal morality, from a god's eye view?

from a god's eye view, i don't know, depends which god i suppose.

but from my point of view we don't need an ideal morality

close enough is good enough

if you aren't shooting people in the back of the head because they belong to a different sect, or harming others because you're blind etc etc

if you are as much as possible live and let live

meh, close enough

i have many friends that, like me, are far from morally perfect and we all get on fine, we let each other know if toes are being stepped on.

we don't need an ideal morality, the one we have is fine.

largely a matter of maturity i think.

but that corporate assclown i saw today could do with good slap. (metaphorically of course

again i think there is usually little need for a prescribed moral ideal for many, they are already doing just fine.

but ideas like hierarchy, monarchy, authority, monotheism, corporatocracy etc etc have caused countless moral crises and do so everyday still.

a lack of education is a problem to, immaturity, a lack of awareness etc etc

speaking of immoral

“Taken together, the bottom half of the global population own less than 1% of total wealth. In sharp contrast, the richest decile hold 87% of the world’s wealth, and the top percentile alone account for 48.2% of global assets,” said the annual report, now in its fifth year.

i think it's bad ideas and gullibility that got us into this mess.

Its findings were seized upon by anti-poverty campaigners Oxfam which published research at the start of the year showing that the richest 85 people across the globe share a combined wealth of £1tn, as much as the poorest 3.5 billion of the world’s population.

like a lot of things i can't easily tell you exactly what the ideal morality is but i can easily tell you why i think something isn't morally ideal.

here's some songs that resonate with my idea of morality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QzH4KOf9Bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgukduYJZ44

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcd-WCtlcx4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w211KOQ5BMI

here's a photo

http://rt.com/in-vision/inside-kobani-k ... on-locals/

If we did want to put together an ideal morality, we'd want to consider ideas from other cultures and religions. For example, from Islam we could borrow lending money without charging interest. But in general it wouldn't be meaningful to formulate a morality because seeing it in action is all that matters. Talking the talk is easy.

Camacho: Yeah but you're dealing with right and wrong as if it's something that can be deduced. And if it is, then what?

Then life goes on as it always has. You are always figuring out what is right and wrong after weighing a situation. But having identified what it is you are trying to keep track of, to say it briefly well being, then you can sift out influences on moral decisions that might subvert good moral reasoning. A great example is gay marriage.

DWill: Morality can define a people. It's often wrapped up tightly in identity. That's why I say we have competing views of morality when we look at Islam vs the West. It won't do to just say that what Islam considers to be morality simply isn't.

This is exactly what I’m talking about, DWill. Morality has been absorbed into a bunch of institutions which have tried to set up rules they see as universal. But at the same time those institutions are the product of a certain community with habits that have drifted into the territory of “morality” but which are really no such thing.

Recognizing what is in the domain of morality gives us a concrete benchmark by which we can judge what is actually right and wrong, rather than try to sift everything through a prism of cultural norms. Long held traditions are not necessarily morally right just because they are old, or because they are integral to a society. And if there are traditions which are truly counter to good morality, in that they unnecessarily cause mental or physical harm to others, or exploit individuals or groups, then we can evaluate them and be rid of them.

Camacho: One of them is when harm is good. That's something the west can't seem to get a good handle on. Something I know nothing about but see very real benefits from it.

There really are instances where the only moral thing to do in a moment is to kill someone. A gunman walks into a school and starts shooting kids. You are in his blind spot with a fire axe. You need to take that guy out before he causes further unnecessary mental and physical harm.

The key there, Camacho, is the word “unnecessary”. There are times where it is necessary to lie, cheat, steal and kill and we can determine those acts are legitimately good moral moves through understanding what morality is really about.

DWill: Isn't part of the problem between us and an ideology like Islam that we see as harmful what it sees as essential to its whole moral structure? Take the treatment of women, for example. On our side, we see allowing the free play of expression such as sex and pornography as essential to maintaining our liberties, while for Islam this is disgusting perversion.

It is. And that’s because we have allowed other considerations to subvert good moral reasoning. Is it good to throw battery acid in the face of a 12 year old girl for learning to read? No. And it does not matter what culture you come from. If you think that’s alright, you are just wrong. You don’t have a cultural prism that allows you to view that act to make it right. There isn’t a different kind of right. If you think that act is ok, then you are using variables that do not apply to push out the variables that really matter, and you are flat out wrong.

In the same way that you are wrong if you think a meter is the distance from your toes to your naval. You are just wrong. That isn’t how meters are defined.

Interbane: Do you think there is an ideal morality, from a god's eye view?

Yep! It’s what I started this thread with!

Morality is the code of conduct that arises between intelligent organisms that minimizes the unnecessary exploitation, mental and physical suffering of any individual while leaving them to live their lives as they would wish.

If we recognize these as the goals of good morality and strive for them, we’ve got all our problems solved. Morality is of course nothing but grey areas. Moral questions will still be difficult, and the correct answer will not frequently be obvious. But focusing on our actions and how they effect everyone else is exactly what the golden rule and other good codes of conduct endorse.

This has no cultural baggage associated with it. I could go to the Congo and lay this out and they could make it their own while retaining their own culture. It says nothing about who to pray to, who to obey, when to do things, or which way to teach children to potty train. It only puts the effects of actions on conscious entities to the fore front.

As far as I can see, it applies to everything, everywhere, always.

Is it right to kill a fly? That’s worse than smashing a stone. But it’s better to kill a fly than to kill a cow. But it is better to kill a cow than to let a family starve. And it would be even better to stop breeding cattle and instead feed families with the agriculture that currently feeds our cattle.

Each step here is about the impact on conscious entities.

Then life goes on as it always has. You are always figuring out what is right and wrong after weighing a situation. But having identified what it is you are trying to keep track of, to say it briefly well being, then you can sift out influences on moral decisions that might subvert good moral reasoning. A great example is gay marriage.

Hahahaha... no way imaginable. Life goes on as it always had as if life forgets or doesn't learn or doesn't try to correct actions for future benefit??? Maybe that's exactly the opposite of what you meant but that would mean laws and rules and... being an Ant (not the BT member).

I agree with trying to figure out what's right and wrong but who finds the correct solution? Does that correct solution fit everyone equally?

The last couple sentences were perhaps too deep for me. I'm unable to fully grasp gayness.... I see a lot of different types of homosexuality and while some fit more into what I see as mutually beneficial "love", most just seem like fornication for the like of a certain type of fornication. All I know is, two sames don't make another. And going by that, and not by god, I don't see how two sames can reproduce. So there's the losing end-game. It's a loss from the beginning.

Now, if these people want science to fix that in order for them to have kids or partially reproduce.... I MAY have objections to that. There's my vote... I toss it in with the rest.

johnson wrote:This is exactly what I’m talking about, DWill. Morality has been absorbed into a bunch of institutions which have tried to set up rules they see as universal. But at the same time those institutions are the product of a certain community with habits that have drifted into the territory of “morality” but which are really no such thing.

Recognizing what is in the domain of morality gives us a concrete benchmark by which we can judge what is actually right and wrong, rather than try to sift everything through a prism of cultural norms. Long held traditions are not necessarily morally right just because they are old, or because they are integral to a society. And if there are traditions which are truly counter to good morality, in that they unnecessarily cause mental or physical harm to others, or exploit individuals or groups, then we can evaluate them and be rid of them.

Interesting discussion, johnson. I think our interests in this are different. I read Haidt's book and got into the science and sociology of morality. So I wanted to try to give a sense of what the science says about morality, which is that it indeed is more than concerns about individual harm or, secondarily, injustice, as we've long held in the West. It's difficult for us even to grasp this, but in most of the world, concerns not seeming to involve harm are moralized. It's not that social conventions have been erroneously placed in the realm or right and wrong(i.e.morality)but that these have always been used to order life in that special way we call moral. We see matters of speech, eating and drinking, dressing, cleanliness, gender, and of course sex, all having moral valences. The main reason they do is that the cultures are collective or sociocentric; the individual isn't its own moral center as is the case with us, and therefore harm is seen to result from behavior that in our view should be no one else's business. We may see same-sex marriage as a no-harm individual choice, but to most sociocentric (and therefore traditional) cultures there is great harm to the collective in allowing that.

This doesn't mean we're stuck with a cultural-relativistic acceptance of practices like honor-killing in India, or female genital mutilation in Muslim countries. I believe those to be absolutely wrong because of the harm they do. They are morally unacceptable, and if we must clash with a culture that asserts a right to keep those, then so be it. But those horrific things are low-hanging fruit. Many moral rules about purity, authority, and sanctity are neutral or can be seen as playing a positive role for the culture.

We need also to use our imagination to understand how our own cultural warts appear to others as moral failures, in the same way that we view their warts as failures. How does a Muslim view our entertainment industry or finance industry , our murder and suicide rates, or our income inequality?

Both you and Sam Harris are making a normative statement about morality, rather than defining it comprehensively. That's fine, of course, I just think it's better to label it as such.

I read from an online article about "Imaginative Moral Deliberation" I thought it was interesting and that it might add to the thread, Paraphrased from the article, "the concept is described as a form of simulation, That when faced with a moral conundrum we are able to mentally rehearse possible solutions to see which feels like the best way to resolve the problem at hand", Read for yourselves if you think the idea is worth while, its dated 26 May 2014.
newscientist.com/article/mg22229700.900 ... NeQ5-bF-Bo

note: the author of the book reviewed is not the author of this thread

Thanks, Taylor. I don't have time to read it now, but intend to.

DWill wrote: It's difficult for us even to grasp this, but in most of the world, concerns not seeming to involve harm are moralized. It's not that social conventions have been erroneously placed in the realm or right and wrong(i.e.morality)but that these have always been used to order life in that special way we call moral. We see matters of speech, eating and drinking, dressing, cleanliness, gender, and of course sex, all having moral valences.

I see etiquette and morality as similar yet different. I think of them in an idealistic fashion, where someone might mistakenly think an item of etiquette is a moral issue, and they would be wrong.

Purity seems to have evolutionary ties, and there is some validity to moral appeals to purity. Sanctity is a violation of beliefs, and I think that while we consider appeals to sanctity to be moral issues, they are mistaken. As long as the violations doesn't cross over into harm(the sanctity of human life and the environment being obvious overlaps). Harm is the appeal that makes the most sense, and the other two can seem to be harmful when they really aren't, which is why mistakes are made. A violation of sanctity can be seen as harm to the divine order of the universe in many cases. I don't see this as valid, because it's premised on a truthful worldview, which is something that varies all over the world. A violation of purity can be seen as harmful to the tribe or to the psychological wellbeing of children, which is why I think there is some validity to appeals to purity.

With that said, I agree that we should use the words bequeathed to us. But we should attempt to amend them as our understanding progresses. There is much that other cultures consider moral that I don't think qualifies, but we can't simply make up a new category. By understanding what morality is all about, perhaps we can find the normative underpinnings and consider them "strong" morality, where the rest is weak morality; not quite etiquette yet also not the same as strong morality.