What are the advantages to behaving morally?

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

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by prof »

commonsense wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:59 pm
I am curious to know in what sense the term is intended by such scientists.
But not so curious as to purchase a Kindle. The chapter headings are quite appetizing. Is there another way to obtain & read this piece?
The book by M.C. Katz, How to Live Successfully, does not discuss animal ethics, but the principles in it can easily be extended to include animals. The author thinks it would be plenty of an achievement to get humans to the point where they understood the priorities that are in their best self-interest - as the scientific findings indicate. The science shows how the human species can continue to exist, can even flourish. It will do this by - among other things - finding a balance, becoming aware of the web of the universe, seeing how everything fits.

This awareness, though, is an advanced stage of development which will be attained after everyone (or at least a critical mass) comprehend and practice the ideas to which (among many other media) this book calls attention ......and a tipping point is then reached. Early education (such as preschool) will play a large role - and, what the author refers to as "ethical technologies," will also help eventually to bring about an ethical world.

[ I found it possible to request of Amazon to download free-of-charge onto my computer the Kindle program - and then to read thereby - at no cost, provided one joins their "matchbook" program - any of the books and manuals listed on Amazon which have a Kindle version.]

I'm happy to be able to inform you that you can read free of all charge the document (the paper, the treatise, the magnum opus) right on your computer, over the internet. The priceless knowledge in it is being given away free - as the ethical way to go, . The price will soon - in a day or two - be reduced to zero.

Then you will know
in what sense the term "Ethics" is used by the scientists in that field - and your healthy curiosity will be satisfied :!: :) :)

As an alternative, until the price adjustment is arranged, you can send me a PM here, with your email address, and I will send you a pdf of the booklet. {This is a little more inconvenient as a way to access the material, and it entails more delay.} At any rate, after perusing the book, I would appreciate hearing some feedback as to your impressions and reflections on the ideas and concepts offered.
.

The longer you live the more you can be setting a good example as a role model. Superb health is related to longevity. [What follows is based upon personal experience!] To be unusually healthy, to not suffer aches and pains, to rarely get sick, and then to recover within a day if you do get sick, it is recommended that you eat a plant-based diet and take B12 supplements. Become a vegetarian as early in life as possible; you don't have to be a vegan, you can be a lacto-ovo veggie, one who eats milk products (such as yoghurts) and eggs. If one of the reasons for your doing this is that you don't want animals to suffer, nor to shed their blood needlessly then you are being ethical, as Dr. Singer - after years of deep-thinking about the matter - has come to understand it.

I used the word "needlessly" for it could be argued that it is selfish of you to be able to pursue a certain cultural practice, that of meat and fish eating, rather than to comply with the diet preferred by the Great Apes - who, it turns out, have more than 32 biological points in common with us humans, points such as shape and number of teeth, how the jaw moves, etc., etc.} For further details, see https://www.healthscience.org/health-science-magazine
The magazine is issued by this nonprofit association: https://www.healthscience.org/

I'd love to hear what Forum readers think on these issues !!
Last edited by prof on Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:14 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by Greta »

commonsense wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:42 pm
Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:05 amShould morality apply only to humans? If not, where is the line drawn, and why? What are the criteria for an entity to qualify as being worthy of moral treatment?
These questions get at the core of any discussion of morality.

I suppose that all species deserve a degree of moral treatment. There's likely a hierarchy in which we have placed ourselves first.

Why human beings have done so may be a related issue of enquiry. My best guess is that it is a matter of self-preservation--not a very lofty pursuit, but I suppose a necessary one nonetheless.

I agree. I must admit that when I read people making very lofty moral pronouncements on forums, many seem to think nothing of unhealthily large slabs of steak into their faces without sparing a moment for the sentient being whose energy has been unwillingly donated to the human cause. A morality that starts and ends with humans is ungrounded IMO.

At present, our hierarchies and priorities are fairly clearly represented in our laws - first priority are institutions, then citizens, non-citizens, trees, pet mammals, pet birds, farm mammals, farm birds, and the rest (note that some trees are rated highly due to their value to people).

We seem to have an instinct for sensing roughly how much order and sentience is lost when a living being dies. Chaos, disorder and mindlessness are easy, accessible to us at any time. Order and awareness are relatively rare and precious, and the greater the apparent order, the more precious it seems to us. So the loss of a human is a greater loss of ordered information than that of other mammals and birds, and they are more mentally ordered than invertebrates, and so on.

Still, the hierarchies can temporarily change based on convenience. It's said that it's better to be a dog than a woman under the Taliban, and certainly any sufficiently inconvenient group, human or other, can end up going to the bottom of the hierarchy - to be exterminated or caged, eg. war, prejudice, pest animals.

It's an interesting friction - the desire to cooperate, nurture and help vs the desire to kill and control. The former is needed for group living and to avoid pointlessly dangerous conflicts and the latter is needed by predators and dominant species. Further, in a social setting, living amongst others, there is pressure to be a killer yourself. For example, if you live in an apartment and have an insect infestation, if you fail to control it (ie. kill) you will be sanctioned. If you hope to avoid eating dead animals in Parisian restaurants, you'll either mostly eat bread rolls and lettuce or try to convince yourself that ducks are actually a type of vegetable.

To be part of this system is to be a killer - to share in the system's killing of enemies in war, the neglect of the poor, the mistreatment of other species, destruction of wild areas. Then again, we are killers down to our cores, surviving only because the macrophages of our immune systems basically operate like rampaging murderous mini versions of The Blob.

This is a competitive reality that we live in. The generational lines that persist are the ones that tell the tale. We have evolved drives that thwart us in our aims to live in harmony within a group. Look at the news, it's basically a list of recent power struggles and impulse control failures.

To some extent our biological drives and limitations make a mockery of our lofty moral aims. Yet humanity has achieved considerable and intellectual moral progress over the past 10,000 years, a mere moment in evolutionary time scales. The advantage of seeking harmonious relations within group living is clear - peace, reduced conflict, help provided - so morality within a large cultural group has been naturally/culturally selected. Groups with internal cooperation are obviously more likely to succeed than those without. Yet there is no pressure on the groups (including the values that the group imposes on its members) to be moral. Rather, at a national/cultural level it seems that wealth, technology, ruthlessness and Machiavellian strategy are selected.

Is a kind and compassionate citizen of an amoral group moral if they are providing love, help and comfort to those engaged in amoral acts? Is a competing nation moral if it opts not to be ruthless and strategic at the expense of its people?

Sorry. I babbled too long.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by prof »

Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:46 pm
Is a kind and compassionate citizen of an amoral group moral if they are providing love, help and comfort to those engaged in amoral acts? Is a competing nation moral if it opts not to be ruthless and strategic at the expense of its people?
Yes, Greta, that citizen is moral (to a large degree) according to my understanding.

Thank you for your sensitive insights. Keep up the good work! Continue to write, for we ccan all learn from what you say.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by commonsense »

Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:05 am …I must admit that when I read people making very lofty moral pronouncements on forums, many seem to think nothing of unhealthily large slabs of steak into their faces without sparing a moment for the sentient being whose energy has been unwillingly donated to the human cause. A morality that starts and ends with humans is ungrounded IMO.
The morality of omnivores v. that of vegetarians is just one shade to examine on the palette of morality. I believe your sentiments are not only true here, but are also widely applicable in the realm of ethics.

Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:05 am At present, our hierarchies and priorities are fairly clearly represented in our laws - first priority are institutions, then citizens, non-citizens, trees, pet mammals, pet birds, farm mammals, farm birds, and the rest (note that some trees are rated highly due to their value to people).
I’m uncertain that any institutions would actually supersede any human beings (self, family, extended family, friends, acquaintances, strangers), however inasmuch as institutions may comprise human beings there could certainly be a place for them as well. Do you care to elaborate?

Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:05 am It's an interesting friction - the desire to cooperate, nurture and help vs the desire to kill and control…Then again, we are killers down to our cores…To some extent our biological drives and limitations make a mockery of our lofty moral aims.
Yes, we’re animals by birth and ethical beings by means of upbringing.

Had you babbled less, so much would have been missed. Your post reads like poetic oratory.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by Greta »

prof wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:35 pm
Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:46 pm
Is a kind and compassionate citizen of an amoral group moral if they are providing love, help and comfort to those engaged in amoral acts? Is a competing nation moral if it opts not to be ruthless and strategic at the expense of its people?
Yes, Greta, that citizen is moral (to a large degree) according to my understanding.

Thank you for your sensitive insights. Keep up the good work! Continue to write, for we can all learn from what you say.
Yes, if we're within a group all we can go is try to cooperate within our realm. Still, the ethics of, say, a doctor attending a killer raises the trolley problem. What does the greatest good?

Thanks for your generous comment. Hopefully there is something else left in this skull worth dumping.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by Greta »

commonsense wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:13 pm
Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:05 am …I must admit that when I read people making very lofty moral pronouncements on forums, many seem to think nothing of unhealthily large slabs of steak into their faces without sparing a moment for the sentient being whose energy has been unwillingly donated to the human cause. A morality that starts and ends with humans is ungrounded IMO.
The morality of omnivores v. that of vegetarians is just one shade to examine on the palette of morality. I believe your sentiments are not only true here, but are also widely applicable in the realm of ethics.
Yes, our non-human roots extend to the present and we will repeat mistakes if we don't acknowledge it. Consider the saying that we are only ever seven meals from anarchy. Consider your nice neighbours. Now imagine them after a few days without food and competing with others to feed their family. Dishevelled hair, wild eyed, dangerous. I think we humans have two selves - our regular self and our animal self, that emerges with fight or flight. That's what anxiety is - a bit of the wild animal within remaining untamed; if the "vehicle" isn't controlled then the ride will be hairy!

In context, impulse control is key. I think we are all aware that, on some levels we can be real bastards - Lord of the Flies and all that. That's our animal self - insecure, fearful, temperamental, selfish, greedy, pushy, aggressive etc. The expectation in civilised society is not to be a saint, a lost cause given our atavistic animal impulses, but to tame those impulses.
commonsense wrote:
Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:05 am At present, our hierarchies and priorities are fairly clearly represented in our laws - first priority are institutions, then citizens, non-citizens, trees, pet mammals, pet birds, farm mammals, farm birds, and the rest (note that some trees are rated highly due to their value to people).
I’m uncertain that any institutions would actually supersede any human beings (self, family, extended family, friends, acquaintances, strangers), however inasmuch as institutions may comprise human beings there could certainly be a place for them as well. Do you care to elaborate?
Institutions, as per utilitarianism, are more important than people. So, if you make a representation to a local politician it will be received differently to a representation by a corporation. Your letter will be filed with a stock reply, and somewhere, a "1" will be added to a database. By contrast, the corporation's representatives will have the politician's ear.

While institutions are comprised of people, they are entities unto themselves, with their own interests that may or may not coincide with those of humans. Consider the actions of fossil fuel companies, pushing to squeeze as much out of their increasingly outdated infrastructure as they can while they can - at the expense of humans everywhere.

Our institutions have grown out of our control and suit themselves at our expense, being a law unto themselves. What advantage is it to institutions to behave morally? They have their own tensions, eg. between staff morale/productivity and rationalisation, or between reputation and expediency.

commonsense wrote:
Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:05 amIt's an interesting friction - the desire to cooperate, nurture and help vs the desire to kill and control…Then again, we are killers down to our cores…To some extent our biological drives and limitations make a mockery of our lofty moral aims.
Yes, we’re animals by birth and ethical beings by means of upbringing.

Had you babbled less, so much would have been missed. Your post reads like poetic oratory.
... "animals by birth and ethical beings by means of upbringing", yes, that's it in a nutshell.

Thanks for the compliment, appreciated. That was probably Mum coming out in me; she was a short story writer and reviewer.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by Belinda »

Greta wrote:
.. "animals by birth and ethical beings by means of upbringing", yes, that's it in a nutshell.
But other mammals and birds are as moral as we are, if not more so. It depends what is meant by 'ethics'. If ethics are rules of morality which are set down in language, then other mammals although they are moral beings don't have language- mediated cultures of ethics,

Moreover some morals are bad morals e.g. female genital mutilation , cutting off thieves' hands, capital punishment, racial cleansing, and burning widows on their dead husbands' pyres.

Greta, I think that cooperation is a more durable default than competition although it's true that we compete in specific areas such as food and reproductive efficiency.

In sociology and social psychology, an ingroup is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an outgroup is a social group with which an individual does not identify.
haribol acharya
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:35 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by haribol acharya »

That man is by nature good and compassionate is evident from certain human traits and characteristics observable in his day-to-day dealings with the rest of his fellow beings. Some of the aspects of morality emanate from religious sentiments but even keeping religion out-of-the-way man is still ethical, though not always. Of course a hungry man is an angry man and his belly undoubtedly is his priority to the rest of others but nevertheless he can feel for the rest as well if they are hungry. This good sentiment is keeping at bay all his negative emotions. This civilization of which we are proud has sprung from his ethical predispositions
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by commonsense »

Greta wrote: …I must admit that when I read people making very lofty moral pronouncements on forums, many seem to think nothing of unhealthily large slabs of steak into their faces without sparing a moment for the sentient being whose energy has been unwillingly donated to the human cause. A morality that starts and ends with humans is ungrounded IMO.
commonsense wrote: The morality of omnivores v. that of vegetarians is just one shade to examine on the palette of morality. I believe your sentiments are not only true here, but are also widely applicable in the realm of ethics.
Greta wrote: Yes, our non-human roots extend to the present and we will repeat mistakes if we don't acknowledge it. Consider the saying that we are only ever seven meals from anarchy. Consider your nice neighbours. Now imagine them after a few days without food and competing with others to feed their family. Dishevelled hair, wild eyed, dangerous. I think we humans have two selves - our regular self and our animal self, that emerges with fight or flight. That's what anxiety is - a bit of the wild animal within remaining untamed; if the "vehicle" isn't controlled then the ride will be hairy!

In context, impulse control is key. I think we are all aware that, on some levels we can be real bastards - Lord of the Flies and all that. That's our animal self - insecure, fearful, temperamental, selfish, greedy, pushy, aggressive etc. The expectation in civilised society is not to be a saint, a lost cause given our atavistic animal impulses, but to tame those impulses.
commonsense wrote:Well said.
Greta wrote: At present, our hierarchies and priorities are fairly clearly represented in our laws - first priority are institutions, then citizens, non-citizens, trees, pet mammals, pet birds, farm mammals, farm birds, and the rest (note that some trees are rated highly due to their value to people).
commonsense wrote: I’m uncertain that any institutions would actually supersede any human beings (self, family, extended family, friends, acquaintances, strangers), however inasmuch as institutions may comprise human beings there could certainly be a place for them as well. Do you care to elaborate?
Greta wrote: Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:05 am Institutions, as per utilitarianism, are more important than people. So, if you make a representation to a local politician it will be received differently to a representation by a corporation. Your letter will be filed with a stock reply, and somewhere, a "1" will be added to a database. By contrast, the corporation's representatives will have the politician's ear.

While institutions are comprised of people, they are entities unto themselves, with their own interests that may or may not coincide with those of humans. Consider the actions of fossil fuel companies, pushing to squeeze as much out of their increasingly outdated infrastructure as they can while they can - at the expense of humans everywhere.

Our institutions have grown out of our control and suit themselves at our expense, being a law unto themselves. What advantage is it to institutions to behave morally? They have their own tensions, eg. between staff morale/productivity and rationalisation, or between reputation and expediency.
commonsense wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:13 pm You’ve characterised institutions beyond any uncertainty for me. Your comments also remind me of the expression “money talks” (i.e. while the rest of us have little representation to speak of).
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by prof »

The discussion so far on this thread has been of excellent quality :!: It's been a joy to read and learn from your posts.

Announcement for one and all:

8) I can nform you that Dr. Katz has for your convenience reduced the price of his new ethics book to under One Dollar U.S. Here is a link to https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... B01NBKS42C
The publishers would not permit the author to make it free of charge altogether. So he did the next best, and priced it at less than a dollar. ....Lots of Philosophy in it @!!! Moral Philosophy - and research ...working on transitioning Ethics into a science. Everyone (except Spinoza, Locke, Bentham, Mill) says a Science of Ethics is impossible. What say you? :?:

:idea: After reading that book, downloading it to a free Kindle on your computer, I'd love to get your impressions. Was it worth it? Did you learn anything valuable? I believe your responses will be affirmative.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by Belinda »

Greta wrote:

Yes, our non-human roots extend to the present and we will repeat mistakes if we don't acknowledge it. Consider the saying that we are only ever seven meals from anarchy. Consider your nice neighbours. Now imagine them after a few days without food and competing with others to feed their family. Dishevelled hair, wild eyed, dangerous. I think we humans have two selves - our regular self and our animal self, that emerges with fight or flight. That's what anxiety is - a bit of the wild animal within remaining untamed; if the "vehicle" isn't controlled then the ride will be hairy!
When fear rules the in-group / out-group division becomes stronger. That is to say, people become more tribal .
Some fears like the one Greta describes are natural: some fears are artfully generated for political gain.

This is why right-wing propagandists of certain newspapers tell lies about how strangers are taking jobs, doing crimes, and planning terrorism. Fear and despondency persuade readers of those lies to vote for the powerful elite .

The advantages to poorer voters of behaving morally by informing ourselves by way of free and impartial media is that we poorer voters can thus make our country fairer and more viable . If this sounds strange to say that the media we choose is a moral choice the principle I am invoking is the self esteem and freedom of the individual.
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by commonsense »

prof wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 1:29 am
8) I can nform you that Dr. Katz has for your convenience reduced the price of his new ethics book to under One Dollar U.S. Here is a link to https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... B01NBKS42C
The publishers would not permit the author to make it free of charge altogether. So he did the next best, and priced it at less than a dollar. ....Lots of Philosophy in it @!!! Moral Philosophy - and research ...working on transitioning Ethics into a science. Everyone (except Spinoza, Locke, Bentham, Mill) says a Science of Ethics is impossible. What say you? :?:
WOW!
commonsense
Posts: 5116
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by commonsense »

Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:05 am
When fear rules the in-group / out-group division becomes stronger. That is to say, people become more tribal .
Some fears like the one Greta describes are natural: some fears are artfully generated for political gain.

This is why right-wing propagandists of certain newspapers tell lies about how strangers are taking jobs, doing crimes, and planning terrorism. Fear and despondency persuade readers of those lies to vote for the powerful elite .
So very true—all of the above, Belinda, and well said.
Belinda wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:05 am
The advantages to poorer voters of behaving morally by informing ourselves by way of free and impartial media is that we poorer voters can thus make our country fairer and more viable . If this sounds strange to say that the media we choose is a moral choice the principle I am invoking is the self esteem and freedom of the individual.
I agree. Please allow me to share some additional thoughts.

I think it takes some degree of intelligence to identify free and impartial media. Intelligence and intellectual growth are spurred by education. To the extent that less education is associated with less income, one might predict that identifying free and impartial media is a more difficult task for the poor than for others.

I believe there are people who make emotional decisions rather than cognitive ones, perhaps because it is easier for them to "think" with their heart or their gut. My guess is that this may be especially applicable to those with less intellectual growth, less education and less income.

I suspect that all of this is to the advantage of those media outlets that are shouting outrageous and salacious interpretations of actual events if not alternative facts per se.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by Belinda »

Commonsense wrote:
I believe there are people who make emotional decisions rather than cognitive ones, perhaps because it is easier for them to "think" with their heart or their gut. My guess is that this may be especially applicable to those with less intellectual growth, less education and less income.
The book that Prof recommends claims, says Prof, that Spinoza is among those who argue for a science of ethics. Spinoza's argument is based upon respect for reason. I see no reason for not grafting on to Spinoza's Ethics, and reason, the claim of David Hume, that human sympathy is a natural fact and a component part of morality.

Prof had written:
Everyone (except Spinoza, Locke, Bentham, Mill) says a Science of Ethics is impossible. What say you? :?:
Recent advances among educationists is emotional education. Religions are not the best metiers for emotional education, mostly due to significant numbers of religionists' own emotional reactions to emerging facts about such as human sexuality.

At this juncture I refer to Greta's observations on the political weight accorded by our rulers to institutions . Religions are mostly institutionalised either through old traditions or through new money . Such as Quakers are honourable exceptions to the institutionalisation of religions.
prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: What are the advantages to behaving morally?

Post by prof »

uwot wrote: Wed May 17, 2017 11:39 amVegetarian taxidermy wrote:
Being considerate of others is what holds society together.
...I accept that being considerate is socially cohesive, but you haven't really addressed the question; who decides what is socially acceptable?
Living successfully, living ethically, is acceptable in the main. There are some who might object, "You're killing me with kindness :!: " but even they have every reason to be grateful.
See this book that just came out this year https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... B01NBKS42C

Then, after studying it, tell us if you have an idea as to the acceptable way for people to conduct themselves. Or, at least, give us your review of the document: ought the concepts in it find their way, somehow, into the school system? They will, if you help get them there! Should this knowledge be exposed to educators?

Thanks for giving us your impressions on these topics.
Post Reply