I didn't get this at all but now I do.

Hmmm. So what does this make morality? Well I did a bit of reading. I've got a pretty cool book that I took out at the library about a year ago (the philosopher at the end of the universe - Mark Rowland) and didn't take it back (Kant would not be pleased K ). Theres some fairly simple interpretations in there including a chapter entitled "Why be moral", which is where I got this question from.

Ok, soooooooo according to Mark Rowland, the question of 'why be moral' is to look at the two reasons that we have as humans for doing things. One reason is that we want to do something. So if someone decides to shag someone else's bird, he did it cos he thought it was in his own interest. The other reason is that we believe that it is the right thing to do. Not necessarily right for us, but morally right, which does not always coincide with what we want. And then to look at why we allow these moral reasons to out weigh these prudential ones.

So why SHOULD we act morally. Well in this case there's 3 meanings on the word SHOULD, apparently. The first comes from a philosopher in the 15th century Thomas Hobbes, who saw all people as essentially egoists. He preached that we are all out to get what we can get, and we want as much of it as possible, and we'll do pretty much whatever it takes to get it (remember this was the 15th century) Problem with this though is everyone is gonna get pissed with each other, and as Hobbes said, a life situation would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short'. So this helped to form something called a social contract theory of morallity, in which the idea is everyone agrees on nnot fucking each other over, in return for not being fucked over themselves, ie I won't try to kill you if you don't try to kill me. The problem here though is that morality is associated with punishment, which is not really what morality is about. Rowland compares it to believing in God (in the hardcore sense), and acting morally because you don't want to go downstairs for an eternal bumming session You are acting for your own self interest, rather than for anyone else's, which is a sociopathical way of thinking.

The second SHOULD is the moral one, which was supported by David Hume, who was against the social contract theory. He claimed that we are moral because there are actually a good number of peeps that are genuinly nice, and quite fond of each other, causing us to empathise with one another.

And the third SHOULD is the logical one. Immanuel Kant claimed that a moral wrongness is logical inconsistency. If, for example, everyone went around breaking promises, then nobody would trust one another, and therefore a 'promise' would cease to exist, leaving none to be broken. So he's basically saying if you are not moral, then you are not consistent, which looking at the picture as a whole, would obviously be detrimental to society. This doesn't answer the question however as to why WE as individuals should be moral, it just looks at why WE as society should act morally.

And pretty annoyingley, he ends the chapter basically saying that the question of 'why be moral' doesn't really have an answer. I'll quote the last bit which I think sums it up

"There may be no ultimate reason for being or becoming one sort of person rather than another. It is something we just do. It is our action, rather than our reasons, that lies at the bottom of the self definition game. The beginning of morality is the question 'why be moral?' And in the beginning lies the deed."

That is exactly the problem with those books that try to cover so many philosophical theories in so few pages. They do zero justice to the complexities of the arguments and make them seem dumb.

My version of Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is 66 pages long. Do you think, if Kant could have explained his position in the space of a few paragraphs, he would have bothered writing the other 65 pages? No, he wouldn't (add to that, the Groundwork ... is just one of Kant's works on morals and you start to see how much is needed to understand just one philosopher's position on this let alone the whole field).

Like it or not, if you want to get an understanding of philosophy you need to read the complete unabridged texts of the key works in the specific field of philosophy you are interested in. There is no way around it.

According to your review your book discusses 'Why be moral?' without referrence to Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Popper, Locke, Mill, Descartes, to name but a few. In fact he only references 3 philosophies. He has his own agenda in choosing that particular 3. In a study of philosophy those books are worse than useless.

Your man seems to ignore the fundamental argument as to what Kant's moral 'ought' is grounded on. Kant was not stupid enough to forget to tie up the loose end of why logical consistency is inescapably necessary. He was wrong, but he did give an answer to that question.


Like I said before you will need to do some serious study to get to a position where you are conversant with the topic enough to even begin to think about proposing a submissible answer to a question like 'Why be moral?', or to even recognise a good answer to that question. Even then you'd have to write a few thousand words just to get a mere aroma of your theory in an acceptable form for it to enter the vast body of work on the subject and have even the slimest chance of standing up to the level of scrutiny it would then be exposed to.

I could go total sophist on you all. Pick some position, even at random, and argue you all down because it is a skill that you hone over years of being a philosopher. As you need to dig at all works, especially your own so you create them to be robust, as that is exactly what will happen to them once other philosophers get their hands on them. It wouldn't make it true and another decent philosopher would tear such an argument to shreds.

You're better off starting with some basic philosophical assumptions, e.g. morals are subjective, and looking for the foundation of morals in biology and psychology. Rather than trying to work up to those assumptions.

Philosophy is my thing, it consumes me I needed to know, so I went to those depths because only the total and exclusive application of the scientific method of knowledge acquisition would satisfy that. On the other hand quantum physics interests me, fascinates me, I find it fun and exciting, but it doesn't consume me. So there is much of my knowledge in this area that has been acquired through the method of authority. I don't get the maths for starters. So I just have to accept what I'm being told or I'd have to get much more involved than I'm motivated to.

So here you are and you have to make a decision. How much do you really care about this question?

If this question is not keeping you awake at night, driving you to read and write at all hours and to have 'forgotten all customs of exercise' as Hamlet puts it (that's stop washing, eating, dressing, maintaining relationships etc. to you and I), then relax accept that there is a reason to be moral because an authority tells you there is (and because it doesn't matter as you want to be moral anyway) and get on with the much more accessible subject of how to be moral.


Peace,

kowalski

Yeah I totally admit to cutting it super short and taking only a few of the concepts out of what I read. I am very much interested in the subject (not enough to stop washing and socialising mind) and fully intend to get my head into it, i've just got a shit load of other work that I am doing at the moment for college, with exams coming up and blah blah blah.

I totally understand that from a philosophers point of view, this kind of stuff is sacrilege, but just as my book intended, I think to someone that is not educated in philosophy but is interested in the concepts this post is mildly informative.

I would say disinformative. It only generates confusion and potentially harm. Just look at all the dangerous new age nonsense that's been floating around here recently. A small amount of knowledge can be deadly.


Peace,

kowalski

I can recommend some better 'gateway' texts for you.


Peace,

kowalski

Yeah sure, i would very much appreciate that. Just been reading some stuff on Kant Kant but ive not been awake long enough and it's hurting my head.
I've actually decided to do my independant study at college on film and morality. I've had a word with my tutor, and he said theres no need to go too deep into it, cos it's just a 3000-4000 word essay so I've just got to talk a little bit about moral ethics and then choose a couple of films that have this as a theme (or included in the theme). so if you've got any ideas there that would be greatly appreciated!!

I'm getting turned on at the thought

Just taking that line out of context.. your right.

The subject is being a moral PUA. So why raised the point... because your in set and the girl says "i have a BF".. I've never EVER heard a woman say i'm someone's girlfriend! ergo, placing some ownership over the male in question.

In addition i'm highlighting the fact that the concept of women going with another guy on a night out, even if she has given herself to another man (bf/gf), is her choice, she has given herself that role, and equally can take it way again, make out, sleep with who she chooses. But is that the sort of trust worthy woman you would want in your life.... i certainly would not, as i wouldn't do that to someone i had willingly given myself to.

Peace guys.

A good essay title for this I think may be 'Can an understanding of ethical guidelines be affected through movies?' If anyones got any movie suggestions for this lets ave em?

Crime carrot lol!

Sorry return to your sensible debate