Can thoughts be moral or immoral?

[ruby sparks]

Surly thoughts could be moral or immoral. If you are a character of the society you will act upon your thoughts right, If thoughts are moral you will be nice and if your thoughts are immoral you are a bad guy. Just like a movie script.

Yes. However, those arguing that 'thoughts alone' can't be immoral would say that so long as you don't act on them, it is ok. On the face of it, this seems a well-founded position, and by and large most would go along with it in principle, including me. It wouldn't matter, from that perspective, whether it was extremely rare (perhaps almost impossible) that our thoughts did not affect our outward behaviour in any way because it is nonetheless possible for it to at least substantially be the case (I can think of raping and torturing babies, but never actually do it).

In that way, the thoughts only create the potential for outward behaviour, as in being a trigger. If you were to counter your own bad thoughts, you would have effectively cancelled any badness at source. Perhaps, as Jarhyn suggests, it would be immoral not to do that countering, to allow the bad thoughts to continue unchecked. Even if the 'inner countering' were merely done on a harm-prevention basis, I think we could say it was moral thinking, and if so, good thoughts (eg my mentally deciding not to rape a baby, because it would be wrong if I did) can be moral, in and of themselves.

The issue of whether we have any free will at all, or at least the question of how much agency we actually have, hovers in the background, of course.

I think that our moral intuitions recognise that it is almost certain, perhaps even causally inevitable, that our thoughts will affect our outward behaviour, to at least some small extent. Is it even possible for us to hate someone, a neighbour or a partner, a daughter or a parent for example, without it ever manifesting in any way? That may be why, if someone is racist but never outwardly acts on it, we would nevertheless tend to think it is wrong to hate other people for no reason except their skin colour. Who here would say that hating someone for no good reason is totally ok just because you keep it to yourself?

Furthermore, our legal systems take our thoughts into account when judging how immoral some outward behaviour is. I think this is why both intent (and possibly remorse) for example, will affect sentencing. So maybe thoughts, as a component, can affect the degree of moral judgement.

And then there is the question of whether we have any moral obligations to ourselves, but that is a slightly separate issue. Were we to include it, then even 'thoughts alone' could cause direct harm.

 

[laughing dog]

Thou shalt not kill is a moral statement.

The statement itself is not moral or immoral. It's about the morality of a specific act - killing.

It is moral based on this well-recognized definition of moral (that I will repeat) -
concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Clearly it is concerned with the a principle of right and wrong behavior.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm only going to take issue with one statement from your post ruby sparks, which, to me explains a lot about your approach to thought as moral.

our legal systems take our thoughts into account when judging how immoral some outward behaviour is. I think this is why both intent (and possibly remorse) for example, will affect sentencing. So maybe thoughts, as a component, can affect the degree of moral judgement.

Our legal system are neither scientific nor materially correct. Any argument built on how the legal system operates needs be judged by the context in which it applied. In this case the legal system has no standing as something upon which one should judge the material correctness of what thought is or is not. It certainly has no standing as to what constitutes thought. Obviously neither intent nor remorse can be justified beyond some preachy babble lifted from those who pose as arbiters of such behavior.

Again I think we've come down to a demonstration for why material interpretation is superior to rational interpretation for even those things for which reason is considered as champion.

 

[southernhybrid]

Maybe I can explain it better with the following example. One can think or fantasize about actions that are generally considered immoral, such as shooting someone that they don't like, but if they don't act on those thoughts, nothing immoral has occurred. So, there is no reason to feel guilty or concerned about those thoughts, as long as the person has no intentions of actually carrying out that fantasy.

Don't most people fantasize about things at one time or another that aren't considered moral. Having the thoughts isn't immoral, even if the things that we are thinking about are immoral. If you don't get that, I give up.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Maybe I can explain it better with the following example. One can think or fantasize about actions that are generally considered immoral, such as shooting someone that they don't like, but if they don't act on those thoughts, nothing immoral has occurred. So, there is no reason to feel guilty or concerned about those thoughts, as long as the person has no intentions of actually carrying out that fantasy.

Don't most people fantasize about things at one time or another that aren't considered moral. Having the thoughts isn't immoral, even if the things that we are thinking about are immoral. If you don't get that, I give up.

But even if the particular choices you mention (as a kind of thought) are not immoral (which I think depends on the case), clearly others are. For example, someone might ask God to punish his enemy and torture him forever in Hell. The prayer happens only in the head of the man. But he is making an immoral choice, and actually attempting to persuade God to torture another person for eternity. Sure, God does not exist, but the perpetrator does not know that.

 

[Wiploc]

Maybe I can explain it better with the following example. One can think or fantasize about actions that are generally considered immoral, such as shooting someone that they don't like, but if they don't act on those thoughts, nothing immoral has occurred. So, there is no reason to feel guilty or concerned about those thoughts, as long as the person has no intentions of actually carrying out that fantasy.

Don't most people fantasize about things at one time or another that aren't considered moral. Having the thoughts isn't immoral, even if the things that we are thinking about are immoral. If you don't get that, I give up.

I get it. You were perfectly clear.

But you can't prove that no thoughts are immoral by giving an example one thought that doesn't happen to be immoral.

"Joe" hired a female engineer (back, I think, in the seventies) who screwed up some project. Joe declared that he would never hire another woman. Now, somebody talked Joe around, but that was a bad thought while he had it. It was a wrong and hurtful attitude.

It would have been better, more moral, for Joe to have been more alert to his prejudices, to have been less willing to generalize in that way.

 

[fromderinside]

Its a problem when one considers faeries and gods as real. Then it follows that thoughts are also real.

Our mental world is our own and owned by us to the extent we permit it. Letting faeries and gods in the door confuses us. Our material senses report one thing the mind choses to interprets as another. If we give into the mental interpretation we are going to fail as material beings.

I choose to leave the mental world alone and private. That leaves me free to treat transactions with the material world in material and objective terms.

 

[Wiploc]

Its a problem when one considers faeries and gods as real.

Fairies and gods are not real, but thoughts are real.

 

[laughing dog]

If someone thinks "Gee, murdering Joe is a good idea because it would be fun for me" - is that an immoral thought?

As a historical aside, the philosopher Adam Smith wrote a treatise entitled "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" - that suggests he thinks sentiments (which are thoughts) can be moral.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If someone thinks "Gee, murdering Joe is a good idea because it would be fun for me" - is that an immoral thought?

It's complicated, but seems to depend on the details. I just thought it and similar ones just to try to figure what you were asking, and I'm pretty sure it was not immoral. But it's a superficial kind of thought, like someone role-playing, an actor in a movie, etc. That is not immoral.

Now if they really believe it's a good idea, and feel inclined to do so even if they choose not to, then that is an instance of a flaw in the person's moral character. To the extent that there are choices involved - including the failure to act, in this case to try to improve their character -, those choices are blameworthy. So, I'm inclined to say 'yes', but in an indirect manner.

 

[fromderinside]

Its a problem when one considers faeries and gods as real.

Fairies and gods are not real, but thoughts are real.

I give you that mental activity is real and measurable. However the mental activity arising in one instance becomes consciousness of a feeling, in an other instance becomes an awareness of a condition. From a material perspective they seem to be the same. That is tracing back to inputs one finds they arise in the same way. Seems to me that mental activity of a particular sort needs to be consistent to be material.

 

[Wiploc]

Its a problem when one considers faeries and gods as real.

Fairies and gods are not real, but thoughts are real.

I give you that mental activity is real and measurable. However the mental activity arising in one instance becomes consciousness of a feeling, in an other instance becomes an awareness of a condition. From a material perspective they seem to be the same. That is tracing back to inputs one finds they arise in the same way. Seems to me that mental activity of a particular sort needs to be consistent to be material.

I can't decipher that.

Does it have something to do with fairies and gods being real, or have you changed the subject?

 

[fromderinside]

I was trying to communicate the transient nature of thought in both locus and content while we can follow the more or less constant physical nature of nervous activity underlying it. Thought does not seem to adhere onto physical activity. The only way I can rationalize this is that thought is like that of the construction of faeries and spirits and only exists in the moment with no consistent material substance underlying it. And like faeries thought need not be associated with material activity.

I cannot find a way to connect one construction in the brain, a thought arising out of impacting some language elements, with an analog that is consistent. It is not until that thought is executed that we see it's intent and derivation. In fact that is the way we can see that faeries and spirits are unreal when we see we cannot connect them to reality.

 

[Wiploc]

I was trying to communicate the transient nature of thought in both locus and content while we can follow the more or less constant physical nature of nervous activity underlying it. Thought does not seem to adhere onto physical activity. The only way I can rationalize this is that thought is like that of the construction of faeries and spirits and only exists in the moment with no consistent material substance underlying it. And like faeries thought need not be associated with material activity.

I cannot find a way to connect one construction in the brain, a thought arising out of impacting some language elements, with an analog that is consistent. It is not until that thought is executed that we see it's intent and derivation. In fact that is the way we can see that faeries and spirits are unreal when we see we cannot connect them to reality.

I still can't follow that. If you're arguing that fairies are real, I need to reinterpret post 47.

I'd particularly like you to rephrase this: "thought is like that of the construction of faeries. [emphasis added]" I think it's gibberish, a mistake. But if you think it is meaningful, I want to understand the meaning.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm quite specific in arguing faeries are not real. I use that point to show a relation with the construction or creation of thought.

I cannot find a way to connect one construction in the brain, a thought arising out of impacting some language elements, with a material analog that is consistent

It is not until that thought is executed that we see it's intent and derivation. In fact that is the way we can see that faeries and spirits are unreal when we see we cannot connect them to reality.

 

[aupmanyav]

A sin is a sin because it offends god. And there is no god.

That there is no God does not absolve us from our responsibilities. Thought, speech and action are just three steps of ladder. One leads to the other.

 

[rousseau]

Maybe I can explain it better with the following example. One can think or fantasize about actions that are generally considered immoral, such as shooting someone that they don't like, but if they don't act on those thoughts, nothing immoral has occurred. So, there is no reason to feel guilty or concerned about those thoughts, as long as the person has no intentions of actually carrying out that fantasy.

Don't most people fantasize about things at one time or another that aren't considered moral. Having the thoughts isn't immoral, even if the things that we are thinking about are immoral. If you don't get that, I give up.

I get it. You were perfectly clear.

But you can't prove that no thoughts are immoral by giving an example one thought that doesn't happen to be immoral.

"Joe" hired a female engineer (back, I think, in the seventies) who screwed up some project. Joe declared that he would never hire another woman. Now, somebody talked Joe around, but that was a bad thought while he had it. It was a wrong and hurtful attitude.

It would have been better, more moral, for Joe to have been more alert to his prejudices, to have been less willing to generalize in that way.

I think we have to start asking ourselves - what is morality - what is the relevance of morality - or - why be moral.

People obsess over what is or isn't moral, but in my view this behaviour itself has roots in biology - discovering and following explicit and implicit moral norms makes one desirable in an evolutionary context. So I think that's our 'why' - morality is inextricably linked with evolution and biology. We are driven to understand, follow, and create moral norms so we can be looked at positively by our social group.

To me this creates the sphere of relevance for morality - we choose what is moral and we decide to be moral - because of the real-world effects our moral philosophy has on our behavior, and the effects our behavior has on our life outcomes. So we can discuss and define 'thought' all day, we can claim a thought is immoral - but in real terms it's the expression of thought, and interpretation by other humans that has actual impact and where the moral domain actually matters.

It's a perspective shift. This entire thread is made up of people obsessing over what is moral, which is exactly what the real moral domain wants us to do - determine thought / behavior that makes us more desirable. If we stop obsessing over what is ethical or not, and start looking at how morality actually exists as a construct, then we reveal that only human expression has moral content - as in - content that can be interpreted by observers.

 

[southernhybrid]

I still think we are interpreting what was meant in the OP very differently from each other.

And btw, I've never fantasized about killing someone or anything like that, but I do have friends and relatives who have such thoughts and go so far as to verbalize them to me. None of these people would ever put these crazy fantasies into action, which is why I have a very difficult time understanding anyone who believes that thoughts in and of themselves have anything to do with one's personal morality.

As far as what is moral, there are human universals that are generally considered immoral in all cultures, but there are also personal morals which are the result of both genetics and how we are influenced by our environment. That, of course belongs in another discussion.

 

[Jarhyn]

I still think we are interpreting what was meant in the OP very differently from each other.

And btw, I've never fantasized about killing someone or anything like that, but I do have friends and relatives who have such thoughts and go so far as to verbalize them to me. None of these people would ever put these crazy fantasies into action, which is why I have a very difficult time understanding anyone who believes that thoughts in and of themselves have anything to do with one's personal morality.

As far as what is moral, there are human universals that are generally considered immoral in all cultures, but there are also personal morals which are the result of both genetics and how we are influenced by our environment. That, of course belongs in another discussion.

I don't really think the topic necessitates a separate discussion.

Really, it goes part and parcel with what I have been saying all along: what is commonly seen as a monolithic topic ("morality") is not a single mechanism but rather two completely separate models: one is an intrinsic driver of behavior that informs personal decisions and the other is an extrinsic driver of behavior that informs what is appropriate for anyone; that both "subjective" (moral) morals exist AND objective ethical rules exist. One is merely an emotional and personal approximation driven by evolved and believed expectations and the other is a prescription for social activity.

The conflation of the two allows for an interesting conflict, and the one of the OP: a conflation of morals and ethics on behalf of only acknowledging ethics then implies that thought cannot be "immoral (conflated with unethical)" because only actual external social actions are leveragable by ethics!

And then on the other side people try to drag ethics into morality.

It is patently frustrating because both sides are right (insofar as their usages of "morality" are concerned). But the incessant conflation of these two fundamentally different mechanisms then has cause everyone to talk past each other.

A thought can be immoral, violating the expectations we have for ourselves. A thought cannot be unethical, because it does not violate the reasonable expectations we can have for each other.

 

[ruby sparks]

I still think we are interpreting what was meant in the OP very differently from each other.

Possibly, but I think that's ok because there's scope to think about it in more than one way, or context.

For example, you are obviously right, as regards the examples you gave, and I don't think anyone disagrees. The law should not and by and large does not punish anyone just for thinking about killing someone.

But also, there are ways in which the law does take thoughts into account (eg most notably mens rea, or remorse). And many, many situations don't involve laws at all. Sometimes, they don't even involve other people (most people have a conscience, and morally judge their own thoughts).

And for example, and in another way, in a different context, if I were to stop myself from, say, killing someone, or I (self)talk my way out of hating someone, that would normally involve (what seem to fit the description of moral) thoughts, and nothing more than that, and if so, the answer to the OP question would be yes, thoughts alone can be moral (or immoral).