Morality, Immorality, & Amorality

[Dante]

I'm against it. It was messy, inefficient, time-wasting... Wating for him to die would have been far more cost-effective. Besides which, I'm also of the opinion that it was none of our business to interfere in the running of another country, and it never will be, unless we intend to conquer it. There's no profit otherwise.

[Wolf]

Well, from the corporate American perspective, there was profit. I had thought that you would argue that, from a British perspective, only the Americans really make enough money to cover their costs. On the other hand, with the casualties the US has taken (around 650), the United States has about 90% of coalition losses. So, perhaps even they don't profit.

*Another question. Would you be for an invasion of another country if you could clearly gain a large amount of material profit?

[Dante]

If the invasion was actually an invasion to subjugate and occupy and amalgamate the country into ourselves along with the material profit then yes, I think I would be.

Or at least turn it into some kind of puppet...

[Apollyon]

Your Sig was begging a look, Dusty. :P

So can someone tell me briefly what the actual argument is? Pretty please?

Thing is I'll probably just end up agreeing with Dustscout anyway.. but I can always play Devil's advocate. :D

[Edric O]

You can never fully eliminate morals from your decision-making process, and here is why:

As an amoral person, you use logic to determine your course of action, without regard for "good" or "evil", correct? But any logical reasoning must be based on certain axioms, and every action must be done with a certain purpose in mind. Your collection of axioms and purposes can be said to be your "moral values".

For example, you consider that anything which brings you a profit is GOOD, and take your decisions accordingly. That is a moral judgement. When you say that you will do whatever gives you pleasure, you are saying that your pleasure is a GOOD thing.

You are not amoral. You are a hedonist.

The problem with a fully amoral standpoint (in which there is no "good" or "evil") is that you can never say what is the BEST decision when you are faced with a number of choices. From an amoral point of view, no choice is any "better" than the next one, since there is no such thing as "better" in the first place. So you are paralyzed.

Amorality means that you cannot make decisions, or that you make all your decisions randomly. Any logical (or even emotional) decision-making process involves judgements about "good" and "evil".

[Wolf]

I think Edric just delivered a broadside to Dust's signature.

[Apollyon]

Edric, your argument seems to rely largely on semantics.

"For example, you consider that anything which brings you a profit is GOOD, "

"Good" here could be replaced with "beneficial", or "correct" or several other words. None of these are linked to moral values.

Alright, beneficial means "well-doing" but it's not a moral good/wrong decision. It's a correct/incorrect one based on logical paths. Those logical paths, if not comprised of moral decisions, as Dust claims his are not, would be comprised of instinctual or experience-based ones.

I would say though, that due to upbringing and pack-mentality of mankind, while it is hypothetically possible for a person to think entirely logically without morals coming into it, it is in practice impossible.

[Edric O]

If you are amoral, you do not consider moral or immoral values in your decision making, correct? It seems to be strictly, "whatever is logically best at the time" sort of thing.

Logically best? Saying that something is "best" involves a moral judgement of good and evil.

Don't fall into the trap of forgetting about this moral judgement simply because you've grown so accustomed to it that you don't even notice it any more.

I agree that an amoral approach makes sense, if only in regards to politics and economics. Politically, once a government begins making moral judgements and moral decisions, a rule is set in stone. A political statement such as, "War is never wrong" is a moral judgement. You can still be anti-war, but for logical and practical reasons, rather than moral ones.

The problem is that any logical reasoning needs a hypothesis in order to reach a conclusion. When someone says he's using pure logic, your immediate question should be "and what is your hypothesis?"

Remember, logic can be used to reach any conclusion you want, as long as you start with the right hypothesis.

Politics shouldn't be constrained by rigid moral codes that don't allow you to adapt to new situations (such as "war is never justified"), but it should always be based on some moral axioms (such as "death and suffering should be kept at a minimum"). Otherwise you could end up with monstrous aberrations like nazism.

Politics is meaningless if you don't have a PURPOSE that you want to achieve. And moral judgements play a key role in selecting that purpose. For example, we use moral judgements to determine that the purpose of exterminating the human species is not an acceptable one.

Basically, amoral-politics limits you to doing whatever is economically or practically beneficial.

Economically or practically beneficial to whom? To one man? To a small group of men? Or to the people as a whole, to Humanity itself?

Keep in mind that what is economically or practically beneficial to one man or a small group of men may well involve the mass slaughter of millions of innocents.

[Edric O]

Edric, your argument seems to rely largely on semantics.

"For example, you consider that anything which brings you a profit is GOOD, "

"Good" here could be replaced with "beneficial", or "correct" or several other words. None of these are linked to moral values.

So when you are faced with several options to choose from, why should you pick the one that brings you the most benefit?

Because gaining a benefit is good?

But let's generalize: When faced with several options, you say that you should pick the one which has quality X. And I ask you: Why? Why should you pick the one with quality X and not the one with quality Y?

Ultimately, it comes down to a judgement of good and evil. Either quality X is good in itself, or it leads to something good.

[Wolf]

I see, Edric, I apologize for missing the moral judgements that words like "good" necessarily place on decisions. So, I would assume from your argument, then, that there is no such thing as amorality other than complete apathy and ambivalence, because to undertake any action, whatsoever, requires at its core a moral judgement that the action you are undertaking is somehow "better" than any other actions you could have taken?

And, your point about "to whom?" is the action beneficial, it would be from the point of view of the person doing the acting. I.E. the person slaughtering the millions.

Again, Edric, you appear to be correct. It is the justification of things as being "amoral" that allows for monstrous governments like Nazism.

However, does this not mean that a government is *forced* to somehow legislate morality? If you assume that all actions require a preconceived moral judgement, is not the government, then, undertaking a moral judgement every time it enacts a law? I was under the impression that such a thing was "bad" (moral judgement), but I may be mistaken. I am a bit confused, I apologize, hopefully you could clear things up for me.

[Edric O]

I see, Edric, I apologize for missing the moral judgements that words like "good" necessarily place on decisions. So, I would assume from your argument, then, that there is no such thing as amorality other than complete apathy and ambivalence, because to undertake any action, whatsoever, requires at its core a moral judgement that the action you are undertaking is somehow "better" than any other actions you could have taken?

Indeed. Amorality necessarely involves complete apathy, or a completely random decision-making process (since no course of action is "better" than another, you pick your course of action randomly or not at all).

And, your point about "to whom?" is the action beneficial, it would be from the point of view of the person doing the acting. I.E. the person slaughtering the millions.

This would, of course, lead to unacceptable results. It seems that we need a minimum of morality in order to keep our humanity.

Again, Edric, you appear to be correct. It is the justification of things as being "amoral" that allows for monstrous governments like Nazism.

You misunderstood me. The nazis never had anything to do with amorality. On the contrary, they had a very strong sense of "morality" - that is, their own twisted morality.

The point I was trying to make is that an amoral person wouldn't see the nazis as any "better" or "worse" than any other political group. Killing 6 million Jews is not any "worse" than not killing 6 million Jews. Of course, an amoral person wouldn't carry out genocide (since he wouldn't see it as "good", like the nazis did), but he also wouldn't do anything to stop genocide (since he wouldn't see it as bad, either). And if he takes decisions randomly, he might well decide to drop a nuclear bomb on a city for no reason...

However, does this not mean that a government is *forced* to somehow legislate morality?

Yes, it does. Legislating morality is, in fact, one of the main purposes of government. For example, both our governments legislate that "murder is evil". That is a moral judgement. Human rights are moral judgements too.

One of the main reasons why people established governments was so that they would have a single universal moral code, with clear rights and responsibilities for everyone.

I was under the impression that such a thing was "bad" (moral judgement), but I may be mistaken. I am a bit confused, I apologize, hopefully you could clear things up for me.

A government can't escape making moral judgements. However, these moral judgements shouldn't be too intrusive (for example, there is no reason for a government to pass laws about eating cheese). Of course, since there is no clear line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" moral judgements, the only thing we can do is to let the people decide just how much power the government should have. Or we could write down clear guidelines, in the form of human rights and freedoms - but keep in mind that these are also moral judgements.

You see, moral judgements are simply an inescapable attribute of intelligence. Any intelligent being must have a certain scale of values for making decisions.

I believe that the best way to decide exactly which moral judgements should be legislated by government is to start with a set of basic axioms that everyone (or almost everyone) agrees on, and develop things from there. The most important of these axioms are "happiness is good" and "suffering is bad".

[GUNWOUNDS]

I think Edric just delivered a broadside to Dust's signature.

yep time for dustscout to highlight his signature and press

[Wolf]

Yep, that mini-treatise on how government should enact laws sounds good, Edric, and thanks for clarifying that bit about how amorality did not create Nazi Germany, but simply allowed for its existence. So, to sort of sum up what we've been discussing, if you undertake any sort of action, any action whatsoever, you have made a moral judgement, because the amoral man sees no reason whatsoever to undertake any actions, and, thus, is rendered neutral of necessity. The reason the amoral man sees no reason to undertake any actions is because he must, of necessity, render a moral judgement that a particular action is "better" than all of the other possible actions he could have committed. If I am missing any critical parts to this line of reasoning, feel free to correct me.

On another note, what about people who largely commit actions with good intentions in mind, but occasionally willingly commit themselves to things which they believe are wrong? How can they commit themselves to an action that they know they should not do, are the necessarily hedonists, or is hedonism merely one possible explanation?

[GUNWOUNDS]

On another note, what about people who largely commit actions with good intentions in mind, but occasionally willingly commit themselves to things which they believe are wrong? How can they commit themselves to an action that they know they should not do, are the necessarily hedonists, or is hedonism merely one possible explanation?

arent those  "ocassional instances" just simply labeled "immoral" ?

[Dante]

Apollyon: Basically this thread was created because I was tired of explaining my arguments to Emprworm again and again. So far the debate has been a mixture of 'This is what I think morality, immorality and amorality are,' and 'you're wrong Dust scout.'

[GUNWOUNDS]

Dustscout said :

[Dante]

"And basically in your response you verified this... by say that amoral people do things on "whims" and  out of "vindictiveness""

I said maybe. Not all amoral decisions are simply through being vindictive and very few are whimsical. You clearly can't understand what I'm writing. Am I using too many long words for you?

And interestingly, Dust scout (there is a space between the words, I know it's complicated but try) did not say "oh see you are agreeing with Edrico i never thought i would see the day"

Dust scout said "Depending on Edric to do your work for you now? I never thought I'd see the day."

Be careful you don't go twisting words Gunwounds. Moreso than you already do that is.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"And basically in your response you verified this... by say that amoral people do things on "whims" and

[Dante]

Paraphrase yes, misquote no.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Paraphrase yes, misquote no.

wasnt a misquote.. i was agreeing with edrico and you were criticizing me for it.. thus when i quoted you i inserted the [meaning] they do it all the time in news articles.

:)

[Dante]

It was in quotation marks, it was a misquote.

Dustscout said :

[GUNWOUNDS]

dont get upset pal... if someone destroys your arguement there is no need for me to be original ... use what works  ;)

face it.. you got 4-5 people in here disagreeing with you.... but we probably dont "understand" you right?  ;D

[Dante]

Well you certainly don't and I'm not sure if Emprworm did either. Wolfwiz is acting sensibly and Edric O disagrees with me on basic principle. Apollyon hasn't given an opinion yet as far as I can tell.

The latter three understand and disagree. The same cannot be said for you. And incidentally, argument is not destroyed.

On a side note, it seems the sig served its purpose well...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well you certainly don't and I'm not sure if Emprworm did either. Wolfwiz is acting sensibly and Edric O disagrees with me on basic principle. Apollyon hasn't given an opinion yet as far as I can tell.

The latter three understand and disagree. The same cannot be said for you. And incidentally, argument is not destroyed.

On a side note, it seems the sig served its purpose well...

ok ok i admit i was kinda messing with you these last few posts...

but honestly i did read  Edrico's entire arguement and i read your entire reply... and understood them both... 

I am just saying i saw alot of similarities between the two.  Which made me think you were backpedalling a bit.

Also edrico has convinced me that  Pure Logic = Morals ...because a person is basing their decisions on a "best" outcome or item.

And that Amoralism = inaction or random action

so what is there to misunderstand?.... i think edrico  presented in an easy to understand fashion and everything he says just clicks.

and its not like i am biased towards edrico or something. quite the opposite.

:)

[Apollyon]

"So when you are faced with several options to choose from, why should you pick the one that brings you the most benefit?

Because gaining a benefit is good?

But let's generalize: When faced with several options, you say that you should pick the one which has quality X. And I ask you: Why? Why should you pick the one with quality X and not the one with quality Y?

Ultimately, it comes down to a judgement of good and evil. Either quality X is good in itself, or it leads to something good."

Ok look at it like this. Why would I pick quality X? Simply because it is more logically useful, not because either qualities are 'evil' or 'good'. This logical usefulness may be defined through instinctual, predetermined genetic choices and these have no bearing on morality.

A dog chooses to eat some food instead of playing outside due to its hunger. This is a 'good' choice as it needs food for energy. The dog has no concept of morals, this is a logical choice based on instinct.