How do you identify a person's morality?

[Unbeatable]

How do you identify a person's real moral code, be it your own or someone else's? Can a person be mistaken about whether they have one, or what it contains? If so, how? What exactly are its constituents? How does one define the distinction between a moral and an amoral individual?

I've seen it argued that anyone whose behavior is not random is behaving according to something which can be called a morality. But I've also seen it argued that a person's true morality is revealed in their attitudes of approval/disapproval regarding others' actions. And I've seen it argued that one's morality is a set of beliefs that one consciously endorses.

I don't know about the majority, but if I applied each of these operational definitions to myself, I'd end up with three different sets of conclusions as to whether I have a "morality" at all, and what exactly it consists of. So, how do you decide between these(and perhaps others)?

 

[Bronzeage]

What does moral code mean?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I've seen it argued that anyone whose behavior is not random is behaving according to something which can be called a morality.

There's some logic to that. Everytime you do something, you do it because of some reason. Whether or not that reasoning can be related to morality is another question. If you see someone knife an old lady to steal her groceries, the nature of his morality is made clear by that action.

If you make sure to drive the speed limit, however, are you doing it because your sense of morality includes not breaking the law or have you been persuaded that speeding kills, so you're doing it in order to lower your chances of dying? Even if it's the latter, this is the rationale behind why "drive the speed limit" became a law in the first place, so there isn't a whole lot of difference between following a moral code because it's a code and following it because you agree with the reasoning which made it become a code.

But I've also seen it argued that a person's true morality is revealed in their attitudes of approval/disapproval regarding others' actions.

I think that this is valid in that it gives an insight into a person beyond that which you'd get from simply observing him. His reactions of approval or disapproval of other people's behaviour likely have a very strong correlation to what he'd do himself in a similar situation.

And I've seen it argued that one's morality is a set of beliefs that one consciously endorses.

I don't know about consciously. A lot of our morality is so deeply ingrained in us that it's not really something we think about. If we have thought about it then yes, it was a conscious decision to endorse it as part of our moral code. However, if we just have a visceral reaction and find ourselves completely disgusted by it without really giving it any thought, is that not as much a part of our moral code as well?

 

[Kharakov]

It contains oral coed, so it can't be all bad.

Time jinx.

 

[Unbeatable]

What does moral code mean?

In this case, it's a poor choice of words. I believe the phrase I was actually looking for is moral values. As for what that phrase means-- that's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm looking for an operational definition.

 

[bilby]

It contains oral coed, so it can't be all bad.

Time jinx.

m.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What does moral code mean?

In this case, it's a poor choice of words. I believe the phrase I was actually looking for is moral values. As for what that phrase means-- that's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm looking for an operational definition.

I think that moral values could be defined as the basis for a moral code. The moral code is the set of rules that we use in order to operate together in a society. Moral values are the answer to the question "What kind of society do we want to be?" which then leads to the code.

 

[Bronzeage]

What does moral code mean?

In this case, it's a poor choice of words. I believe the phrase I was actually looking for is moral values. As for what that phrase means-- that's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm looking for an operational definition.

A moral code only has meaning, as it is effects behavior. What difference does it make if a person believes it is wrong to steal, but steals anyway?

The human brain is incredibly flexible. We are able to justify almost anything we do, given the right circumstances. There are too many real life examples to deny this. In acts of war, any brutality which harms non-combatants is shrugged off as the cost of war, which is to say, the cost of winning a war. "Winning" a war is a strange thing which preempts all other moral values.


Moral codes, moral values, yada yada, do not exist in a vacuum. The terms are only relevant when we consider interactions between people. While it is possible to kill oneself, it is impossible to steal one's own property.

This brings us back to the inevitable conundrum of moral philosophy. Moral codes of behavior, and the moral values they engender depend upon our definition of the group. There are thousands of rivers in the US, and any person is free to swim across anyone of them, in most situations. If it happens to be the Rio Grande between Texas and Mexico, we will send armed men to prevent this, for no other reason than the swimmer is not a member of our group.

If one wants to examine a person's moral values, discover who is excluded from their group, and what property rights do individual group members hold. It is quickly discovered that all definitions are fluid and change with the slightest change in circumstances.

 

[Unbeatable]

In this case, it's a poor choice of words. I believe the phrase I was actually looking for is moral values. As for what that phrase means-- that's what I'm trying to figure out. I'm looking for an operational definition.

A moral code only has meaning, as it is effects behavior.

And behavior only has value as subjective consciousnesses project value upon it.

What difference does it make if a person believes it is wrong to steal, but steals anyway?

I'm not certain. Are you? Do you know for a fact that beliefs are an epiphenomenon? I'm not certain, but I think beliefs probably have an impact on feelings(e.g. guilt, pride, shame), which affect actions.

The human brain is incredibly flexible. We are able to justify almost anything we do, given the right circumstances.

Without contradicting ourselves?

The terms are only relevant when we consider interactions between people.

Well then, which terms are relevant when we consider the psycholgy of an individual human being's judgments/preferences/inclinations regarding those interactions?
Can a person be mistaken about whether they have a moral code, moral values, or whatever term works better? How does one define the distinction between a moral and an amoral individual?

This brings us back to the inevitable conundrum of moral philosophy. Moral codes of behavior, and the moral values they engender depend upon our definition of the group.

Do you mean the group's definition of itself, in some sort of concensus?

If one wants to examine a person's moral values, discover who is excluded from their group, and what property rights do individual group members hold. It is quickly discovered that all definitions are fluid and change with the slightest change in circumstances.

I'm not aware that I have a group, personally. How do you identify your own group? Is it possible to be in a group and not know it, or excluded from a group and not know it? Is it possible to feign group membership? How do you identify your own moral values?

 

[Bronzeage]

A moral code only has meaning, as it is effects behavior.

And behavior only has value as subjective consciousnesses project value upon it.

What difference does it make if a person believes it is wrong to steal, but steals anyway?

I'm not certain. Are you? Do you know for a fact that beliefs are an epiphenomenon? I'm not certain, but I think beliefs probably have an impact on feelings(e.g. guilt, pride, shame), which affect actions.

The human brain is incredibly flexible. We are able to justify almost anything we do, given the right circumstances.

Without contradicting ourselves?

The terms are only relevant when we consider interactions between people.

Well then, which terms are relevant when we consider the psycholgy of an individual human being's judgments/preferences/inclinations regarding those interactions?
Can a person be mistaken about whether they have a moral code, moral values, or whatever term works better? How does one define the distinction between a moral and an amoral individual?

This brings us back to the inevitable conundrum of moral philosophy. Moral codes of behavior, and the moral values they engender depend upon our definition of the group.

Do you mean the group's definition of itself, in some sort of concensus?

If one wants to examine a person's moral values, discover who is excluded from their group, and what property rights do individual group members hold. It is quickly discovered that all definitions are fluid and change with the slightest change in circumstances.

I'm not aware that I have a group, personally. How do you identify your own group? Is it possible to be in a group and not know it, or excluded from a group and not know it? Is it possible to feign group membership? How do you identify your own moral values?

People contradict themselves all the time. It's probably more common than consistency.

If you are not aware you have a group, or are in group, you have failed to grasp the basic mechanics of any code of moral behavior, which is the source of your confusion.

 

[Unbeatable]

People contradict themselves all the time. It's probably more common than consistency.

If you are not aware you have a group, or are in group, you have failed to grasp the basic mechanics of any code of moral behavior, which is the source of your confusion.

Yes, that's why I'm asking the questions. If you don't feel like answering them, that's fine. I'll continue to be confused.

 

[Bronzeage]

People contradict themselves all the time. It's probably more common than consistency.

If you are not aware you have a group, or are in group, you have failed to grasp the basic mechanics of any code of moral behavior, which is the source of your confusion.

Yes, that's why I'm asking the questions. If you don't feel like answering them, that's fine. I'll continue to be confused.

Okay, I'm feeling generous.

Are you in the group of all human beings?

 

[Unbeatable]

Yes, that's why I'm asking the questions. If you don't feel like answering them, that's fine. I'll continue to be confused.

Okay, I'm feeling generous.

Are you in the group of all human beings?

Based on my physical appearance and medical examinations to date, occam's razor would lead me to conclude that I am.

 

[tantric]

there's an expression, in sanskrit, from the jain religion: ahimsa paramo dharma. 'himsa' is harm, the 'a' makes it negative, like in asexual. 'dharma' is teachings, lessons and also innate qualities. together it means something like: nonviolence is the highest state, but for me, it means that if your religion or ethical system makes you nonviolent and able to live in civil society, i have nothing to criticize about it. this seems like a functionality test, not a judgement of right and wrong, so it's more defensible. does that make sense?

 

[Unbeatable]

there's an expression, in sanskrit, from the jain religion: ahimsa paramo dharma. 'himsa' is harm, the 'a' makes it negative, like in asexual. 'dharma' is teachings, lessons and also innate qualities. together it means something like: nonviolence is the highest state, but for me, it means that if your religion or ethical system makes you nonviolent and able to live in civil society, i have nothing to criticize about it. this seems like a functionality test, not a judgement of right and wrong, so it's more defensible. does that make sense?

Well, it comes close to addressing the question I'm asking. Your use of the phrase "your religion or ethical system" is encouraging. You see that I'm talking about something that is possessed by the individual. But the question isn't what your criteria are for criticizing a person's religion or ethical system. The question is how do you tell that they have a religion or ethical system in the first place, or what it consists of?

 

[untermensche]

A person's morality is most visible in the attachments to family and close friends.

As you move from this "circle" a person's morality shifts.

Even to the extent that people who care about their children a great deal will support the bombing of people in Iraq for no good reason beyond the promises of politicians.

 

[skepticalbip]

How do you identify a person's real moral code

I would think that the best way to discover someone's moral code is to watch how they act when they don't think anyone they know is watching them. How they treat strangers of all levels of society, animals, property, etc.

 

[Unbeatable]

How do you identify a person's real moral code

I would think that the best way to discover someone's moral code is to watch how they act when they don't think anyone they know is watching them. How they treat strangers of all levels of society, animals, property, etc.

Is this also the best way to discover one's own moral code?

 

[Bronzeage]

Okay, I'm feeling generous.

Are you in the group of all human beings?

Based on my physical appearance and medical examinations to date, occam's razor would lead me to conclude that I am.

Again, your answer reveals a misunderstanding of the terms of this discussion. You claim to be a human and therefore place yourself in the taxonomic group of humans.

For the purpose of moral codes of behavior, a group is those people with whom you share mutual obligations and responsibilities. A person may belong to multiple groups. Some groups overlap and some groups can be seen as concentric rings. There is a difference in degree of the obligations and responsibilities of these multiple groups.

There are some people who truly believe they are in the group of all human beings, but on a practical level, it's not very realistic.

Now, using this definition, can you narrow down the group or groups of which you are a member?

 

[Kharakov]

How do you identify a person's real moral code

I would think that the best way to discover someone's moral code is to watch how they act when they don't think anyone they know is watching them.

Perve.