Moral Health

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Moral Health

Post by prof »

.

It is a common human predicament that we often choose an action other than the one we perceive to be best. Philosophers know this problem as akrasia. When we are able to choose what is good for us, when we know, and act upon, our own best interest, we have moral health. (1)

:idea: Let us here differentiate the concepts “desire” and “impulse.” Let’s explore what they have in common as well as the difference between them. :idea:

Desire may be defined as “a longing, an urge, or a craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment”
For example, a desire for fame. Or, a sexual appetite.


An Impulse may be understood as: A sudden, involuntary inclination prompting to action: This inclination is often due to the influence of a particular mental state. [One may, for example, act from a generous impulse, or strike out at someone from an angry impules] …with thanks to dictionary.com


The two concepts may be related to one another; one may be swayed by an impulse to feed one’s appetites due to harboring a desire. :cry:

Moral health is enhanced by impulse-control.
To live an ethical life is to enjoy a high degree of moral health. 8) What is a mark of low moral health?

To find fault with others is not the ethical way to live. Neither is it ethical to blame, to name-call, to play the victim, to deride, to defraud. To overgeneralize is another cognitive error that reduces one’s moral health. To believe oneself superior to another human being is an ethical fallacy: a cognition such as, “I’m a somebody, and you are a nobody” would be a cognitive liability, an ethical mistake.

To violate Ethics is to lack moral health, or have it but to a low degree. To rate "Excellent" on the H.V. P. (the Hartman Value Profile) or to have it reveal that you neither over-value yourself and the world, nor do you under-value them, is to display (at that moment in time) a high degree of Moral Health.

I have here introduced an original concept;which may serve to upgrade existing Ethical Theories.
Let's discuss it. I'd love to hear your views on these matters.

___________
1) See also, Daniel P. Thero - Understanding Moral Weakness.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

For moral health that are many impulses that are best not controlled.
Last edited by Hobbes' Choice on Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6266
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Moral Health

Post by FlashDangerpants »

prof wrote:Moral health is enhanced by impulse-control.
Perhaps so, but why? Not punching dogs is morally superior to the alternative. But is it morally superior to fight the impulse to randomly punch dogs or to not have such impulses?
prof wrote:To believe oneself superior to another human being is an ethical fallacy: a cognition such as, “I’m a somebody, and you are a nobody” would be a cognitive liability, an ethical mistake.
Am I allowed to believe I am better than Hitler, or does it only count if I have, but choose not to at on, the impulse to slaughter millions of innocents?
prof wrote: To violate Ethics is to lack moral health, or have it but to a low degree. To rate "Excellent" on the H.V. P. (the Hartman Value Profile) or to have it reveal that you neither over-value yourself and the world, nor do you under-value them, is to display (at that moment in time) a high degree of Moral Health.

I have here introduced an original concept;which may serve to upgrade existing Ethical Theories.
Let's discuss it. I'd love to hear your views on these matters.
Original? Seems to be a couple of thousand years oldtbh.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Original?.
Greetings, Flash

It would help if you would read the first three brief chapters here:

http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... Course.pdf

Then we would have a common basis for discussion, for you would know then where I'm coming from. You have a good mind, and a background in Philosophy. Thus you would be an ideal reader for that text. One might venture the trought that it was 'written for you."

BTW, Hitler was a sociopath; he was a sick man. The highest degree of moral health includes humility and nonjudgmentalism. While one is "allowed" to feel superior to someone who is severely handicapped, I doubt that will get yone very far in life.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by Greta »

prof wrote:To find fault with others is not the ethical way to live. Neither is it ethical to blame, to name-call, to play the victim, to deride, to defraud. To overgeneralize is another cognitive error that reduces one’s moral health. To believe oneself superior to another human being is an ethical fallacy: a cognition such as, “I’m a somebody, and you are a nobody” would be a cognitive liability, an ethical mistake.
I expect that the above dicky behaviours will increasingly be seen as naive, archaic and simply bad strategy for anyone seeking to lead a happy life.
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Moral Health

Post by Necromancer »

Moral health can equal conscience such that wounded moral health can be said to be damaged conscience or blunted conscience. No? :wink:
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

If one's conscience is currently asleep one cannot be said to have full moral health, but moral health is more than having a sensitive and educated conscience: that is only one component of moral health.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Moral Health

Post by Terrapin Station »

It is a common human predicament that we often choose an action other than the one we perceive to be best.
In my opinion what tends to be going on there instead is that one chooses an existentially authentic action rather than a socially-pressured action. The aim is to not feel guilty or anxious about bucking social pressures.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

Some of the relevant philosophical topics are Theory of Action, the definition of "rationality," ways in which one's "better judgment" can be defective or false, whether one has a will, whether a will can be weak, whether it is a matter of changing one's previous intention to act in a certain way, and/or how many factors shall we take into consideration before making a udgment?I

Here, at this link, is some highly-relevant discussion of these issues pertaining to akrasia:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weakness-will/

Then to get a fuller picture, follow it up with the philosophical analysis here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weakn ... aWilPotRat


Also see the summary in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrasia

Your comments?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

Greta wrote:
prof wrote:To find fault with others is not the ethical way to live. Neither is it ethical to blame, to name-call, to play the victim, to deride, to defraud. To overgeneralize is another cognitive error that reduces one’s moral health. To believe oneself superior to another human being is an ethical fallacy: a cognition such as, “I’m a somebody, and you are a nobody” would be a cognitive liability, an ethical mistake.
I expect that the above dicky behaviours will increasingly be seen as naive, archaic and simply bad strategy for anyone seeking to lead a happy life.
Hi, Greta

You understand well that if a happy life is one's objective, discarding those morally-unhealthy behaviors is a wise prerequisite.

You keen sense of values shines through :!:
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

Sally believes A to be the best course of action yet she chooses to do B.

What's going on here?

Does she lack impulse-control?

Is she factually wrong about A being best, and intuitively she suspects B is actually best?

Has she merely changed her mind regarding her earlier intention to do A, and she now intends to do B ?

Has she depleted her mental capacities to control herself from doing B?

Has her motivation to do B become stronger (than her motivation to do A), the closer she has come to the reward that B has to offer? [See George Ainslie on "pico-economics."]

Is she ignorant as to what "the best action, all things considered" is because she hasn't considered enough alternatives to make a sound judgment?

Is she lacking in 'will-power'?

Is she operating from opinion rather than fact?

...All of the above??


I tend to hold, along with Socrates, in the dialogue, Protagoras, that if we really truly knew the best course of action we would pursue it, for we would keenly be aware of the consequences of doing otherwise. To fail to aim for the good is self-defeating and counterproductive - or even suicidal.

And if we have 'enlightened self-interest' we want to flourish, enjoy life, share our happiness, good fortune, and/or well-being with as many others as possible :!: :D

Thus we don't want to be self-defeating; we would rather - if we know our Ethics - be self-improving, self-enhancing, life-enjoying, problem-solving, making progress. The ultimate purpose of Ethics is to provide a Quality Life for one and all.

Your views?
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

prof wrote:Sally believes A to be the best course of action yet she chooses to do B.

What's going on here?

Does she lack impulse-control?

Is she factually wrong about A being best, and intuitively she suspects B is actually best?

Has she merely changed her mind regarding her earlier intention to do A, and she now intends to do B ?

Has she depleted her mental capacities to control herself from doing B?

Has her motivation to do B become stronger (than her motivation to do A), the closer she has come to the reward that B has to offer? [See George Ainslie on "pico-economics."]

Is she ignorant as to what "the best action, all things considered" is because she hasn't considered enough alternatives to make a sound judgment?

Is she lacking in 'will-power'?

Is she operating from opinion rather than fact?

...All of the above??


I tend to hold, along with Socrates, in the dialogue, Protagoras, that if we really truly knew the best course of action we would pursue it, for we would keenly be aware of the consequences of doing otherwise. To fail to aim for the good is self-defeating and counterproductive - or even suicidal.

And if we have 'enlightened self-interest' we want to flourish, enjoy life, share our happiness, good fortune, and/or well-being with as many others as possible :!: :D

Thus we don't want to be self-defeating; we would rather - if we know our Ethics - be self-improving, self-enhancing, life-enjoying, problem-solving, making progress. The ultimate purpose of Ethics is to provide a Quality Life for one and all.

Your views?
For all we know A is the same as B.
OR A might be throwing herself of a tall building, and B might be throwing someone else off a tall building.
In some scenarios A OR B could be the best.

Without specifics, your post is empty textual masturbation, with no happy ending.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

A is not the same as B. That is why two different letters were used.

Hobbes writes: "A might be throwing herself of a tall building, and B might be throwing someone else off a tall building.
In some scenarios A OR B could be the best."

Are these examples - suicide and murder - examples of the ethical life? Are these what the morally-healthy engage in??

Careful readers noted that A was defined (in context) as Sally's belief that A "is the best course of action", ("all things considered.") The issue at hand is why do some choose what they believe is the 'worse course of action'? It has to do with: What goes into a decision? and Why do people act against their own best interests?.

Are these not important questions to ponder?

Actually, as I have written in several posts earlier, my Ethics is not oriented around the concept "action," but is rather a focus on character. So here, in this thread, I was stretching my mind to see things from others' perspectives, namely what the philosophers - who wrote those selections to which I offered links - were explaining under the topics: "weakness of will" or akrasia.

I'm asking readers here to reflect on (and hopefully come up with some answer, as to) what terms should be defined in that vague discussion at Stanford, and on Wiki? Are the concepts offered relevant to a sound ethical theory? Do you have something constructive to contribute to that line of inquiry?
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by prof »

Moral health is analagous to physical health.

Is "moral health" something that everyone who speaks English can understand?

Can we sensibly inquire as to the moral health of a team? ...or of a corporation?

Can some businesses be (morally) healthier than others? What are the criteria? Could it be a measure of balance ...the balanced views of each individual worker?

Can an entire economy be out of balance? What about our current state of Economic Inequality? Is that morally health?


Your analysis is welcome !
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Moral Health

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

prof wrote:A is not the same as B. That is why two different letters were used.


Hobbes writes: "A might be throwing herself of a tall building, and B might be throwing someone else off a tall building.
In some scenarios A OR B could be the best."

Are these examples - suicide and murder - examples of the ethical life? Are these what the morally-healthy engage in??

Depends.
And "depends" is something you have no way to deal with, This makes everything you say both boring (at best), and irrelevant in empty headed (at worst).



Careful readers noted that A was defined (in context) as Sally's belief that A "is the best course of action", ("all things considered.") The issue at hand is why do some choose what they believe is the 'worse course of action'? It has to do with: What goes into a decision? and Why do people act against their own best interests?.

They do. Live with it. Acting against your own interest can be ethical other times it might not be. But you are the moralists don't get to say what works for another person.


Are these not important questions to ponder?

Actually, as I have written in several posts earlier, my Ethics is not oriented around the concept "action," but is rather a focus on character. So here, in this thread, I was stretching my mind to see things from others' perspectives, namely what the philosophers - who wrote those selections to which I offered links - were explaining under the topics: "weakness of will" or akrasia.

I'm asking readers here to reflect on (and hopefully come up with some answer, as to) what terms should be defined in that vague discussion at Stanford, and on Wiki? Are the concepts offered relevant to a sound ethical theory? Do you have something constructive to contribute to that line of inquiry?
Post Reply