'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note in philosophy, 'vulgar' [archaic] = the common view.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vulgar?s=t

Why could I be held morally responsible?

Morally responsible to who?
It is likely you are caught in the very common pseudo-sense of vulgar-morality where you can be held to be morally responsible to others. That is not what is morality-proper is about.

In morality-proper you are only held morally responsible to yourself and never to any others nor authorities.
If you are responsible to any authority, that would be politics [laws] and that is independent of morality-proper. It is the same with rules of any group - that is not morality-proper.

In morality-proper, the moral standards [justified true moral facts] are inherent within your own brain/mind and it is natural to align and flow with them spontaneously.
In this case, one has to activate one's moral function and moral competence continuously and progressively.

In a way, within natural morality-proper each of individuals are their own legislature, police, prosecutor, jury, and judge to facilitate your own moral progress.
The collective will facilitate and assist in the above.

The above is a totally contrasting paradigm to what the majority understood as 'what is morality' which is vulgar-morality and which in a way was corrupted by Hume.
As such it would be a good idea to research into the history of the subject of morality since Hume or prior?
Else the vulgar-moralists will keep talking pass those whose views are of morality-proper - till the cows come home.

That's 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper.

Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes to the above,

What is Morality-proper?

Morality (from Latin: moralitas, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]
Morality can be a body of standards or principles ..... ... derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

Morality-proper is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
Morally [& ethically] meant doing what is good which is avoiding what is evil.
Evil is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity.
viewtopic.php?p=469799#p469799

Whatever that is 'good' or 'evil' must be based on moral facts that are verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral framework and system.

[DPMartin]

Note in philosophy, 'vulgar' [archaic] = the common view.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vulgar?s=t

Why could I be held morally responsible?

Morally responsible to who?
It is likely you are caught in the very common pseudo-sense of vulgar-morality where you can be held to be morally responsible to others. That is not what is morality-proper is about.

In morality-proper you are only held morally responsible to yourself and never to any others nor authorities.
If you are responsible to any authority, that would be politics [laws] and that is independent of morality-proper. It is the same with rules of any group - that is not morality-proper.

In morality-proper, the moral standards [justified true moral facts] are inherent within your own brain/mind and it is natural to align and flow with them spontaneously.
In this case, one has to activate one's moral function and moral competence continuously and progressively.

In a way, within natural morality-proper each of individuals are their own legislature, police, prosecutor, jury, and judge to facilitate your own moral progress.
The collective will facilitate and assist in the above.

The above is a totally contrasting paradigm to what the majority understood as 'what is morality' which is vulgar-morality and which in a way was corrupted by Hume.
As such it would be a good idea to research into the history of the subject of morality since Hume or prior?
Else the vulgar-moralists will keep talking pass those whose views are of morality-proper - till the cows come home.

That's 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper.

Views??

as i understand it one isn't qualified to be their own judge of themselves, but one can have accurate and inaccurate expectations of one's self.


take a simple guilt trip over eating a nice thick greasy chess burger with all the fixens with fry's and a tall beer that isn't on one's diet that one has committed to.

what is the correct expectation when one made the commitment in the first place? and if it was correct then there would be no disappointment or guilt.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note in philosophy, 'vulgar' [archaic] = the common view.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vulgar?s=t

Why could I be held morally responsible?

Morally responsible to who?
It is likely you are caught in the very common pseudo-sense of vulgar-morality where you can be held to be morally responsible to others. That is not what is morality-proper is about.

In morality-proper you are only held morally responsible to yourself and never to any others nor authorities.
If you are responsible to any authority, that would be politics [laws] and that is independent of morality-proper. It is the same with rules of any group - that is not morality-proper.

In morality-proper, the moral standards [justified true moral facts] are inherent within your own brain/mind and it is natural to align and flow with them spontaneously.
In this case, one has to activate one's moral function and moral competence continuously and progressively.

In a way, within natural morality-proper each of individuals are their own legislature, police, prosecutor, jury, and judge to facilitate your own moral progress.
The collective will facilitate and assist in the above.

The above is a totally contrasting paradigm to what the majority understood as 'what is morality' which is vulgar-morality and which in a way was corrupted by Hume.
As such it would be a good idea to research into the history of the subject of morality since Hume or prior?
Else the vulgar-moralists will keep talking pass those whose views are of morality-proper - till the cows come home.

That's 'Vulgar'-Morality versus Morality-Proper.

Views??

as i understand it one isn't qualified to be their own judge of themselves, but one can have accurate and inaccurate expectations of one's self.

take a simple guilt trip over eating a nice thick greasy chess burger with all the fixens with fry's and a tall beer that isn't on one's diet that one has committed to.

what is the correct expectation when one made the commitment in the first place? and if it was correct then there would be no disappointment or guilt.

At the present phase of human evolution and the current moral state of the majority, humans are definitely not effectively to a good judge.

In any case, I am not referring to making moral judgments and decisions.

What I am proposing is,
in the case of morality-proper it is for the future when we have strived to increase the moral competency of the average person from the present towards 1000%.

then all moral actions will be spontaneous good rather than decided deliberately.

• E.g. in your cheese burger, those who are matured [nutritiously] will not even think of eating a cheese burger. They will be well informed of the negatives of eating cheese burgers and they are in a state of indifference to cheese burger because it is potentially not good to one health if eaten regularly.

In the case of morality, not all humans progressing morally will be perfect, as such a developed conscience will trigger one to take corrective actions.

[Terrapin Station]

That is not what is morality-proper is about.

In morality-proper you are only held morally responsible to yourself and never to any others nor authorities.

Morality "proper" per? What makes whoever's definition you have in mind the "proper" definition?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is not what is morality-proper is about.

In morality-proper you are only held morally responsible to yourself and never to any others nor authorities.

Morality "proper" per? What makes whoever's definition you have in mind the "proper" definition?

I have reviewed loads of definitions of morality;

Is There a Definitive Definition of Morality?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29737
[you going to complain I am referring to threads again?]

Since there are so many contentious definitions, I have to come up with a proper definition of what is morality, i.e. Morality-proper as defined;

Generally;
Morality is basically 'how humans ought to act morally'.
Morally [& ethically] meant doing 'what is good' which is avoiding 'what is evil.'

'Evil' is any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom to humanity. Here we need to list every act within a taxonomy that is known to be 'evil'
What is Well-Being?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30983
[you going to complain I am referring to threads again?]

'Good' is a very loose term.
What is 'good' re morality in this case is in contrast to what is 'evil' as defined above.

There are other features that are specific to what is morality and the need for a moral framework and system, I will not go into that since the above is sufficient to define what is morality.

As far as 'virtues' [basically good] are concerned, that is a separately dealt within 'virtue ethics' which is quite separate from morality.

[Age]

Just because you add the word 'proper' here, this in NO WAY infers that 'whatever' is said to be 'proper', is in relation to thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Your use of the word 'proper' is just ANOTHER form of DECEPTION. And, the ONLY one that you are Truly DECEIVING is 'you', ALONE.

Obviously 'morality' is NOT something that can be decided and judged individually, 'properly'.

[Terrapin Station]

I have reviewed loads of definitions of morality;

An answer to "proper per?" Would tell us per what are you claiming that there is a "proper" definition. You didn't do that. You need to say the what or the whom, if the answer would be a whom, and then you'd need to try to justify what makes it proper versus improper.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have reviewed loads of definitions of morality;

An answer to "proper per?" Would tell us per what are you claiming that there is a "proper" definition. You didn't do that. You need to say the what or the whom, if the answer would be a whom, and then you'd need to try to justify what makes it proper versus improper.

What is not proper would be that morality-as-defined is not in alignment with what is inherent within human nature and vice-versa.

E.g. of morality that are not proper in alignment with human nature;

Note for example, Utilitarianism which
"prescribe actions that maximize happiness .."
is not proper nor effective as a definition of morality or ethics in alignment with what is inherent within human nature.

So is deontology,

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek: δέον, 'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study') is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

[Terrapin Station]

I have reviewed loads of definitions of morality;

An answer to "proper per?" Would tell us per what are you claiming that there is a "proper" definition. You didn't do that. You need to say the what or the whom, if the answer would be a whom, and then you'd need to try to justify what makes it proper versus improper.

What is not proper would be that morality-as-defined is not in alignment with what is inherent within human nature and vice-versa.

E.g. of morality that are not proper in alignment with human nature;

Note for example, Utilitarianism which
"prescribe actions that maximize happiness .."
is not proper nor effective as a definition of morality or ethics in alignment with what is inherent within human nature.

So is deontology,

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek: δέον, 'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study') is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

Still not addressing what I'm asking you . . . Proper per what or whom?

[DPMartin]

At the present phase of human evolution and the current moral state of the majority, humans are definitely not effectively to a good judge.

In any case, I am not referring to making moral judgments and decisions.

What I am proposing is,
in the case of morality-proper it is for the future when we have strived to increase the moral competency of the average person from the present towards 1000%.

then all moral actions will be spontaneous good rather than decided deliberately.

• E.g. in your cheese burger, those who are matured [nutritiously] will not even think of eating a cheese burger. They will be well informed of the negatives of eating cheese burgers and they are in a state of indifference to cheese burger because it is potentially not good to one health if eaten regularly.

In the case of morality, not all humans progressing morally will be perfect, as such a developed conscience will trigger one to take corrective actions.

morals will never be genetically inherent as you wish they would be. they are a inherently a decision to act accordingly in respect to what is agreed, and to agree to act according has to be a decision.

animals have no morals, hence the concept of its a jungle out there. all you're proposing is that there be no moral standard or agreement and live as the animals do then one's new definition of what morals are, can be inherent without agreement that no one can hold against you for offending.

you know, do what you like morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

An answer to "proper per?" Would tell us per what are you claiming that there is a "proper" definition. You didn't do that. You need to say the what or the whom, if the answer would be a whom, and then you'd need to try to justify what makes it proper versus improper.

What is not proper would be that morality-as-defined is not in alignment with what is inherent within human nature and vice-versa.

E.g. of morality that are not proper in alignment with human nature;

Note for example, Utilitarianism which
"prescribe actions that maximize happiness .."
is not proper nor effective as a definition of morality or ethics in alignment with what is inherent within human nature.

So is deontology,

In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek: δέον, 'obligation, duty' + λόγος, 'study') is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

Still not addressing what I'm asking you . . . Proper per what or whom?

I did address it but in an negative fashion, i.e.
"What is not proper would be that morality-as-defined is not in alignment with what is inherent within human nature and vice-versa."

Thus what is morality-proper is that proper-morality that is in alignment with [per] human nature and for the individual's moral progress.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At the present phase of human evolution and the current moral state of the majority, humans are definitely not effectively to a good judge.

In any case, I am not referring to making moral judgments and decisions.

What I am proposing is,
in the case of morality-proper it is for the future when we have strived to increase the moral competency of the average person from the present towards 1000%.

then all moral actions will be spontaneous good rather than decided deliberately.

• E.g. in your cheese burger, those who are matured [nutritiously] will not even think of eating a cheese burger. They will be well informed of the negatives of eating cheese burgers and they are in a state of indifference to cheese burger because it is potentially not good to one health if eaten regularly.

In the case of morality, not all humans progressing morally will be perfect, as such a developed conscience will trigger one to take corrective actions.

morals will never be genetically inherent as you wish they would be. they are a inherently a decision to act accordingly in respect to what is agreed, and to agree to act according has to be a decision.

Never??
You are merely making noises without justifications.

It is already evident there is an inherent moral function within each individual that is slowly unfolding.

Note morality impulses within babies;

• The Moral Life of Babies
  Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
  Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.

Slavery is a moral issue.
Since the prevalence of slavery 10,000 years ago and the condoning of slavery even by God [Christianity, Islam, etc.], the natural inherent moral progress has reach a point where ALL sovereign nations now has legally banned slavery.
Christianity and Islam with their immutable doctrines and holy texts are in principle still condoning slavery.

There is also a general trend in the decrease of violence and evil since 10,000 to 5,000 to 50 to the present which is due to the inherent moral function within all humans.

animals have no morals, hence the concept of its a jungle out there. all you're proposing is that there be no moral standard or agreement and live as the animals do then one's new definition of what morals are, can be inherent without agreement that no one can hold against you for offending.

you know, do what you like morality.

You are obviously ignorant with morality and animals.
Animals comprised a wide range of evolving living entities with humans at the apex.

Morality has been evolving within evolution where it is very notable within humans.
As such there would definitely be evidence of low grade morality with the higher animals like the primates and the likes.
See the below;

• Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
  https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html
  
  Grapes of Wrath: On Morality and Fairness in the Monkey House
  https://mappalicious.com/2014/03/30/gra ... key-house/

[Terrapin Station]

What is not proper would be that morality-as-defined is not in alignment with what is inherent within human nature and vice-versa.

E.g. of morality that are not proper in alignment with human nature;

Note for example, Utilitarianism which
"prescribe actions that maximize happiness .."
is not proper nor effective as a definition of morality or ethics in alignment with what is inherent within human nature.

So is deontology,

Still not addressing what I'm asking you . . . Proper per what or whom?

I did address it but in an negative fashion, i.e.
"What is not proper would be that morality-as-defined is not in alignment with what is inherent within human nature and vice-versa."

Thus what is morality-proper is that proper-morality that is in alignment with [per] human nature and for the individual's moral progress.

So all you'd have to say is "proper per human nature." Simple, right?

But note that you're saying that a definition is "proper per human nature." How would a definition be proper per human nature? Humans typically will define the same term, where "morality" is a good example of this, in all sorts of different ways. So per human nature, there are a bunch of different definitions, some of them incompatible. Yet you cited just one definition and said it was the "proper" one. There is a problem with this.

[DPMartin]

It is already evident there is an inherent moral function within each individual that is slowly unfolding.

Note morality impulses within babies;

• The Moral Life of Babies
  Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
  Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.

Slavery is a moral issue.
Since the prevalence of slavery 10,000 years ago and the condoning of slavery even by God [Christianity, Islam, etc.], the natural inherent moral progress has reach a point where ALL sovereign nations now has legally banned slavery.
Christianity and Islam with their immutable doctrines and holy texts are in principle still condoning slavery.

There is also a general trend in the decrease of violence and evil since 10,000 to 5,000 to 50 to the present which is due to the inherent moral function within all humans.


You are obviously ignorant with morality and animals.
Animals comprised a wide range of evolving living entities with humans at the apex.

Morality has been evolving within evolution where it is very notable within humans.
As such there would definitely be evidence of low grade morality with the higher animals like the primates and the likes.
See the below;

• Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior
  https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html
  
  Grapes of Wrath: On Morality and Fairness in the Monkey House
  https://mappalicious.com/2014/03/30/gra ... key-house/

your professor, does he find and proves, or does he argue as you say, also universities these days don't get grants and support for research unless special interests are paying the bill.

also anyone can redefine instincts for morals if they want to. instincts are inherent to the species and not the same throughout living things in the earth. if morals were inherent then they would be the same always. where as in the real world morals require an agreement that is ether kept or broken or renegotiated.

back in the day there were those societies that require sacrificing children in fire, or in roman days it was normal, what the society agrees as ok, moral, to give your child to a rich influential pedophile for advancement in society. they are what is known as morals. just as your example of slavery at one time societies seen it as a good part of their societies, and now its agreed in most societies it is not good. again you are proving my point.

all you are trying to do is say instincts are morals and they are not, nada, null, nix, no way jose.


FYI on Israelis back when using slavery, then they were tribal like many societies of the day therefore they had no prisons but if you stool and could not make restitution according to the law, then you made restitution via slavery for x amount of years. there's more to the adim of that but that's the jest of it. how that morphed into what it became in 1800's is just history. societies that had prisons to punish criminals had not real need for slavery except those who sot finical advantage, and they started to out law it.

i am sure there are more reasons for slavery back then but we weren't there.