So, let’s look at a specific instance, just to be clear on what we’re saying.
Suppose I believe that it’s bad for people to suffer, and it’s good for people to live fulfilled and happy lives.
I would say that’s a moral belief, in that it’s a belief about what’s good and what’s bad. Would you agree?
Suppose further that, when I look into how I arrived at that belief, I conclude that I derived it from the fact that I enjoy living a fulfilled and happy life, and that I anti-enjoy suffering, and that my experiences with other people have led me to believe that they are similar to me in that respect.
Would you say that my belief that it’s bad for people to suffer is arbitrarily invented and built on blind faith?
And if so: what follows from that, to your way of thinking?
I would say that’s a moral belief, in that it’s a belief about what’s good and what’s bad. Would you agree?
I would.
Would you say that my belief that it’s bad for people to suffer is arbitrarily invented and built on blind faith?
Yes, because you’re using a rationalization to justify how you believe the world should be. And no rationalization for a moral is more valid than any other.
You could equally say that you think other people should work and suffer so that your life is fulfilled and happy. How do we determine whether that moral belief is more correct than the idea that you should prevent other people’s sufferings? The answer is that we cannot.
Obviously, we can believe in whatever moral philosophy we like, but we must accept there is no rational basis for them, because there is no way to determine the validity of any rational explanation we make. There is no correct morality.
In my opinion, a person’s particular moral beliefs usually have more to do with the beliefs of their parents and the culture they were brought up in. If they were brought up in a different culture, they’d have a different moral philosophy for which they would give similar rational justifications.
Can you clarify what rationalization you think I’m using, exactly? For that matter, can you clarify what exactly I’m doing that you label “justifying” my beliefs? It seems to me all I’ve done so far is describe what my beliefs are, and speculate on how they got that way. Neither of which, it seems to me, require any sort of faith (including but not limited to blind faith, whatever that is).
Leaving that aside, and accepting for the sake of discussion that “using a rationalization to justify how I believe the world should be” is a legitimate description of what I’m doing… is there something else you think I ought to be doing instead? Why?
I agree with you that family and cultural influence have a lot to do with moral beliefs (including mine).
Can you clarify what rationalization you think I’m using, exactly? For that matter, can you clarify what
exactly I’m doing that you label “justifying” my beliefs?
You said “Suppose I believe that it’s bad for people to suffer”. I’d say that’s a moral belief. The rational justification you provided for that belief was that “I derived it from the fact that I enjoy living a fulfilled and happy life, and that I anti-enjoy suffering, and that my experiences with other people have led me to believe that they are similar to me in that respect”.
is there something else you think I ought to be doing instead?
Not really. The main point I’m making is that there is no way to determine whether any moral is valid.
One could argue that morality distorts one’s view of the universe and that doing away with it gives you a clearer idea of how the universe actually is because you’re no longer constantly considering how it should be.
For example, you might think that your computer should work the way you want and expect, so when it crashes you might angrily consider yourself the victim of a diabolical computer and throw it out of your window. The moral belief has distorted the situation.
Without that moral belief, one would simply accept the computer’s unwanted and unexpected behavior and calmly consider possible actions to get the behavior one wants. There is no sense of being cheated by a cruel universe.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that “it’s bad for people to suffer” is a moral belief, but I disagree that “I derived it from...” is any sort of justification for a moral belief, including a rational one. It’s simply a speculation about how I came to hold that belief.
I agree that there’s no way to determine whether a moral belief is “valid” in the sense that I think you’re using that word.
I agree that it’s possible to hold a belief (including a moral belief) in such a way that it inhibits my ability to perceive the universe as it actually is. It’s also possible to hold a belief in such a way that it inhibits my ability to achieve my goals. I agree that one example of that might be if I held a moral belief about how my computer should work in such a way that when my computer fails to work as I think it should, I throw it out the window. Another example might be if I held the belief that pouring lemonade into the keyboard will improve its performance. That’s not at all a moral belief, but it nevertheless interferes with my ability to achieve my goals.
Would you say that if choose to simply accept that my computer behaves the way it does, and I calmly consider possible actions to get the behavior I want, and I don’t have the sense that I’m being cheated by a cruel universe, that it follows from all of that that I have no relevant moral beliefs about the situation?
Would you say that if choose to simply accept that my computer behaves the way it does, and I calmly consider
possible actions to get the behavior I want, and I don’t have the sense that I’m being cheated by a cruel
universe, that it follows from all of that that I have no relevant moral beliefs about the situation?
OK. Given that, I’m pretty sure I’ve understood you; thanks for clarifying.
For my own part, it seems to me that when I do that, my behavior is in large part motivated by the belief that it’s good to avoid strong emotional responses to events, which is just as much a moral belief as any other.
For my own part, it seems to me that when I do that, my behavior is in large part motivated by the belief that
it’s good to avoid strong emotional responses to events, which is just as much a moral belief as any other.
There are situations where emotions need to be temporarily suppressed—it needn’t involve a moral belief. Getting angry could simply be unhelpful at that moment so you suppress it. To do so, you don’t need to believe that its inherently wrong to express strong emotions.
That particular moral would come with its disadvantages. If someone close to you dies, it is healthier to express your sorrow than avoid it. Some people don’t change their behavior unless you express anger.
Many think that morality is necessary to control the evil impulses of humans, as if its removal would mean we’d all suddenly start randomly killing each other. Far from saving us from suffering, I’m inclined to think moral beliefs have actually caused much suffering: for example, some religious belief is evil, some political belief is evil, some ethnic group is evil.
I agree with you that there are situations where suppressing emotions is a useful way of achieving some other goal, and that choosing to suppress emotions in those situations doesn’t require believing that there’s anything wrong with expressing strong emotions, and that choosing to suppress emotions in those situations without such a belief doesn’t require any particular moral belief.
I agree with you that the belief that expressing strong emotions is wrong has disadvantages.
I agree with you that many people have confused beliefs about morality.
I agree with you that much suffering has been caused by moral beliefs, some more so than others.
So, let’s look at a specific instance, just to be clear on what we’re saying.
Suppose I believe that it’s bad for people to suffer, and it’s good for people to live fulfilled and happy lives.
I would say that’s a moral belief, in that it’s a belief about what’s good and what’s bad. Would you agree?
Suppose further that, when I look into how I arrived at that belief, I conclude that I derived it from the fact that I enjoy living a fulfilled and happy life, and that I anti-enjoy suffering, and that my experiences with other people have led me to believe that they are similar to me in that respect.
Would you say that my belief that it’s bad for people to suffer is arbitrarily invented and built on blind faith?
And if so: what follows from that, to your way of thinking?
I would.
Yes, because you’re using a rationalization to justify how you believe the world should be. And no rationalization for a moral is more valid than any other.
You could equally say that you think other people should work and suffer so that your life is fulfilled and happy. How do we determine whether that moral belief is more correct than the idea that you should prevent other people’s sufferings? The answer is that we cannot.
Obviously, we can believe in whatever moral philosophy we like, but we must accept there is no rational basis for them, because there is no way to determine the validity of any rational explanation we make. There is no correct morality.
In my opinion, a person’s particular moral beliefs usually have more to do with the beliefs of their parents and the culture they were brought up in. If they were brought up in a different culture, they’d have a different moral philosophy for which they would give similar rational justifications.
A few things:
Can you clarify what rationalization you think I’m using, exactly? For that matter, can you clarify what exactly I’m doing that you label “justifying” my beliefs? It seems to me all I’ve done so far is describe what my beliefs are, and speculate on how they got that way. Neither of which, it seems to me, require any sort of faith (including but not limited to blind faith, whatever that is).
Leaving that aside, and accepting for the sake of discussion that “using a rationalization to justify how I believe the world should be” is a legitimate description of what I’m doing… is there something else you think I ought to be doing instead? Why?
I agree with you that family and cultural influence have a lot to do with moral beliefs (including mine).
You said “Suppose I believe that it’s bad for people to suffer”. I’d say that’s a moral belief. The rational justification you provided for that belief was that “I derived it from the fact that I enjoy living a fulfilled and happy life, and that I anti-enjoy suffering, and that my experiences with other people have led me to believe that they are similar to me in that respect”.
Not really. The main point I’m making is that there is no way to determine whether any moral is valid.
One could argue that morality distorts one’s view of the universe and that doing away with it gives you a clearer idea of how the universe actually is because you’re no longer constantly considering how it should be.
For example, you might think that your computer should work the way you want and expect, so when it crashes you might angrily consider yourself the victim of a diabolical computer and throw it out of your window. The moral belief has distorted the situation.
Without that moral belief, one would simply accept the computer’s unwanted and unexpected behavior and calmly consider possible actions to get the behavior one wants. There is no sense of being cheated by a cruel universe.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that “it’s bad for people to suffer” is a moral belief, but I disagree that “I derived it from...” is any sort of justification for a moral belief, including a rational one. It’s simply a speculation about how I came to hold that belief.
I agree that there’s no way to determine whether a moral belief is “valid” in the sense that I think you’re using that word.
I agree that it’s possible to hold a belief (including a moral belief) in such a way that it inhibits my ability to perceive the universe as it actually is. It’s also possible to hold a belief in such a way that it inhibits my ability to achieve my goals.
I agree that one example of that might be if I held a moral belief about how my computer should work in such a way that when my computer fails to work as I think it should, I throw it out the window.
Another example might be if I held the belief that pouring lemonade into the keyboard will improve its performance. That’s not at all a moral belief, but it nevertheless interferes with my ability to achieve my goals.
Would you say that if choose to simply accept that my computer behaves the way it does, and I calmly consider possible actions to get the behavior I want, and I don’t have the sense that I’m being cheated by a cruel universe, that it follows from all of that that I have no relevant moral beliefs about the situation?
I’d say so, yes.
OK. Given that, I’m pretty sure I’ve understood you; thanks for clarifying.
For my own part, it seems to me that when I do that, my behavior is in large part motivated by the belief that it’s good to avoid strong emotional responses to events, which is just as much a moral belief as any other.
There are situations where emotions need to be temporarily suppressed—it needn’t involve a moral belief. Getting angry could simply be unhelpful at that moment so you suppress it. To do so, you don’t need to believe that its inherently wrong to express strong emotions.
That particular moral would come with its disadvantages. If someone close to you dies, it is healthier to express your sorrow than avoid it. Some people don’t change their behavior unless you express anger.
Many think that morality is necessary to control the evil impulses of humans, as if its removal would mean we’d all suddenly start randomly killing each other. Far from saving us from suffering, I’m inclined to think moral beliefs have actually caused much suffering: for example, some religious belief is evil, some political belief is evil, some ethnic group is evil.
We seem to be largely talking past each other.
I agree with you that there are situations where suppressing emotions is a useful way of achieving some other goal, and that choosing to suppress emotions in those situations doesn’t require believing that there’s anything wrong with expressing strong emotions, and that choosing to suppress emotions in those situations without such a belief doesn’t require any particular moral belief.
I agree with you that the belief that expressing strong emotions is wrong has disadvantages.
I agree with you that many people have confused beliefs about morality.
I agree with you that much suffering has been caused by moral beliefs, some more so than others.