What is Morality?

[CaptainFritz28]

Second, I apologize for the many posts which have gone unresponded to. This is my final semester in high school, so I have a lot of things to attend to. Hopefully I'll have the time sometime soon to make a sort of blanket post to cover all the topics I've missed.

You haven't caught the dreaded senioritis too badly, I hope? Do you have post graduation plans?

I have a university in mind where I am currently planning to go to, yes. I intend to study Mechanical Engineering. After that, I'm not too sure. I may go for a Master's in Business Administration (or Mechanical Engineering), or I may try to get into Officer Training with the Navy, or I may just go straight into the workforce. All I know is that any of those options sound good, and so I'm taking it one step at a time.

[learnedSloth]

Also, isn't it kind of the point that morality isn't natural. If people aspire to it and amend their behavior in an attempt to increase it, then it isn't the natural state of being for humans.

I would say that morality is natural in the sense that God created it, and it is the natural way that things should be. However, as you note, it is not human nature. Our nature, since the fall, has been to tend towards sin.

So I would say that natural law comes from morality, and thus morality is natural, but not that morality comes from natural law. It depends on your framing of it, but I think we agree on the principles themselves.

I would even say that the creation is designed to guide man to the right direction, but evidently people still manage to go astray. It seems to happen by hardening the heart, which seems to be something that God must remedy:

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
(Ezekiel 36:26)

[Johnny Big Horse]

Who would have thought there would be Christians playing diplomacy? This game teaches you to lie, cheat, and betray.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Fritz and I had a somewhat recent exchange on lying in Diplomacy: https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4964

A few interesting points from that thread:

- "Lying" seems to be context dependent. Is it still a "lie" if it's in a game centered around deception?

- Lying is probably the best possible press strategy in some circumstances and it would be disrespectful to your opponent if you don't try your best to win.

- That said, a default-to-truth strategy (i.e., always tell the truth and only lie by omission) can work surprisingly well in Diplomacy. I was surprised to learn that this is the approach taken by the CICERO bot.

- There are better and worse ways to play roguishly. However you do press, it's probably a bad idea to be so rude or annoying that no one would want to play another round with you in the future.

[Crazy Anglican]

- "Lying" seems to be context dependent. Is it still a "lie" if it's in a game centered around deception?

I don't think so, but even in everyday life there are lies, damn lies, and politics. To lie in a game where lying is a valid strategy and acceptable if not outright expected, isn't much of a problem that I can see.

Lying is probably the best possible press strategy in some circumstances and it would be disrespectful to your opponent if you don't try your best to win.

Knowing to whom you should lie is the biggest question that I find. I usually tell the truth to everyone, but the person whom I plan to attack and I try very hard to only have one target at a time.

That said, a default-to-truth strategy (i.e., always tell the truth and only lie by omission) can work surprisingly well in Diplomacy. I was surprised to learn that this is the approach taken by the CICERO bot.

Always telling the truth can be tricky and a lie of omission will usually garner the same result diplomatically as an outright falsehood. The victim of your betrayal will seldom be interested in bandying semantics over this issue.

There are better and worse ways to play roguishly. However you do press, it's probably a bad idea to be so rude or annoying that no one would want to play another round with you in the future.

That is true. I guess everyone will have a tactic that they find particularly annoying. I for one really hate it when other players make better moves than me

[Hanging Rook]

Fritz and I had a somewhat recent exchange on lying in Diplomacy:

- "Lying" seems to be context dependent. Is it still a "lie" if it's in a game centered around deception?

So some (moral) relativism after all?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Fritz and I had a somewhat recent exchange on lying in Diplomacy:

- "Lying" seems to be context dependent. Is it still a "lie" if it's in a game centered around deception?

So some (moral) relativism after all?

Nope lol, just the obvious recognition that "lying" isn't "lying" if both parties know they're playing a game based on deception...

[nerevarine9]

Morality (or more appropriately a moral system) is relative to the culture, point in history, and mode of production of a given society. Morality is also an evolutionary device for human beings, meant to promote cooperative and pro-social behavior. This is why many moral systems share similar characteristics, such as the agreement across cultures that the cold-blooded murder of someone who has not wronged you is unacceptable. Like religion, humans developed morality because the widespread adherence to a moral system helps to hold a society together and increase our collective well-being. However, morality is also shaped by the particular interests or values of a group of people. We often use the language of morality to justify those actions that we already planned on doing. Moreover, moral systems will often differ between groups that are in conflict or contradiction with each-other. The values espoused by factory workers might be different from those espoused by their bosses, as the workers complain of the unfairness of their working conditions while the bosses seek to justify holding onto the fruit of their investment. Whenever you hear a moral argument, ask yourself: who is best served by the consequences of this opinion? Because all philosophical positions are indelibly stamped with the mark of a certain class.

[nerevarine9]

Continuing from above to answer certain other questions about how to decide whose morality to side with, I encourage you to take the side that benefits the overwhelming majority of human beings. Racial and ethnic genocide is categorically wrong, because the consequences of believing otherwise would make it impossible for us to progress as a species. I follow Aurelius in saying that human beings were born to work together, and it's only ignorance and scarcity that compel us to fight. However, as long as human beings are dominated by the exploiting classes, our rulers will continue to plunge us into war and environmental ruin. In my view our moral imperative is to unite the masses of workers, overthrow the exploiters and warmongers, and create a more rational society where resources are allocated based on human need. My justification for this position is that the consequences of persisting on our current course could mean the end of human civilization. We have the technological and productive means to create a better society, but do we have the political courage?

[CaptainFritz28]

In my view our moral imperative is to unite the masses of workers, overthrow the exploiters and warmongers, and create a more rational society where resources are allocated based on human need.

Sounds great, sure. Otherwise known as Communism, and is responsible for about 100 million deaths.

[mOctave]

Continuing from above to answer certain other questions about how to decide whose morality to side with, I encourage you to take the side that benefits the overwhelming majority of human beings. Racial and ethnic genocide is categorically wrong, because the consequences of believing otherwise would make it impossible for us to progress as a species.

May I refer you to one of my earlier posts?: https://webdiplomacy.net/contrib/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=376615#p376615

In my view our moral imperative is to unite the masses of workers, overthrow the exploiters and warmongers, and create a more rational society where resources are allocated based on human need.

Sounds great, sure. Otherwise known as Communism, and is responsible for about 100 million deaths.

Perhaps what Fritz said is a bit harsh, but it is (mostly) true.

What you describe is almost exactly Marxist communism. Now, in a "primitive" (read, people mainly work as hunter-gatherers) culture, communism tends to work well. Each human being is necessary for the survival of each other human being.

Once you hit an agricultural society, though, this begins to fall apart. Because there is a calorie surplus, people are free to do other work besides taking care of their own survival. That sounds great, right? There's only one problem: there are now more people than are strictly necessary for the survival of the society as a whole. This means that any would-be dictator can kill off the people who oppose them without destroying the entire society.

Now, in a perfect world, we wouldn't have such people. Unfortunately, though, we do have many, many, would-be dictators. Most of them never come to power, and most of them are reasonably decent people when not in a position of power. This is why Marxist communism doesn't work, even if primitive communism does. Humans do not adhere to your moral code, and even those who do may see it differently and take different aspects of it more/less seriously than you do.

It is not communism itself that is responsible for so many deaths, but the fact that we are selfish beings. If even one person in a hundred has the desire and means to exploit a communist system, and there is enough calorie surplus and industry, that communist system becomes a dictatorship overnight.

Because all philosophical positions are indelibly stamped with the mark of a certain class.

Exactly.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Morality (or more appropriately a moral system) is relative to the culture, point in history, and mode of production of a given society. Morality is also an evolutionary device for human beings, meant to promote cooperative and pro-social behavior.

I'd be very curious if you could elaborate on these two points, which seem very contradictory.

Who determines what "culture" is and why is culture morally relevant? What happens in a moral conundrum where folks from two or more "cultures" meet? And how thinly can you slice "culture"? Am I Judeau Christian v. European descendent v. Anglophone v. settler North American v. Canadian v. Western Canadian v. WebDip player, etc., and how can you know which of these competing cultural identities is the morally relevant one?

Why is the mode of production morally relevant? Our mode of production feels like a uncontrollable consequence of our level of technology and our politics; what about that circumstance defines "good" or "bad" in a moral sense?

And how do you square your belief in moral relativism with what sounds like an appeal to an objective morality based on human survival, cooperation, and sociality? Couldn't you find some cultures, times in history, or modes of productions "wrong" on the basis of their inability to promote cooperation, sociality, etc.?

[Wusti]

In my view our moral imperative is to unite the masses of workers, overthrow the exploiters and warmongers, and create a more rational society where resources are allocated based on human need.

Sounds great, sure. Otherwise known as Communism, and is responsible for about 100 million deaths.

Hypocrisy again: Communism deaths (and even your attestation is debatable and proof-less) bad, religiously inspired deaths, glossed over.

Your world view is pretty skewed young man. Let's hope university opens your eyes.

[DarthPorg36]

In my view our moral imperative is to unite the masses of workers, overthrow the exploiters and warmongers, and create a more rational society where resources are allocated based on human need.

Sounds great, sure. Otherwise known as Communism, and is responsible for about 100 million deaths.

Hypocrisy again: Communism deaths (and even your attestation is debatable and proof-less) bad, religiously inspired deaths, glossed over.

Your world view is pretty skewed young man. Let's hope university opens your eyes.

Wusti, although this is deviating from the post's topic, what do you think would realistically happen after said violent overthrow of exploiters, warmongers, oppressors, etc?

[Wusti]

Not the point I was making, it was the differing treatment of political-economic organisation type and religions. The relevance is the constant (proofless) association of religion and morality. The clear value judgement CF places is very American.

The newer angle of tying morality to the most tenuous associations has been interesting, but unconvincing.

"Continuing from above to answer certain other questions about how to decide whose morality to side with, I encourage you to take the side that benefits the overwhelming majority of human beings." Is also irrelevant but tolerated on this thread - an yet it doesn't go to the original question posed - its outright barracking for a particular approach.

I note you didn't comment then. At least be consistent!

[Wusti]

You also need to draw a distinction between Marxism, Communism, Lenin and Stalinism and don't forget Maoism. Which strain is being referred to here?

I would say that the Marxist creed as originally expressed by good old Karl, is an admirable moral stance for organising an economy. We haven't seen a single instance of it yet.

I'm curious which particular flavour of "Communism" CF refers to with his 100 million deaths, his proof of the association, and why exactly it is the direct cause. Then he really should go on to explain why he can so easily gloss over the known millions of deaths cause by religion, but condemn those caused by "Communism".

Fair question isn't it?

Or do we only question those unaligned with the current groupthink?

[Hanging Rook]

You also need to draw a distinction between Marxism, Communism, Lenin and Stalinism and don't forget Maoism. Which strain is being referred to here?

That’s to quarrel about Marx‘s beard.
Any attempt to establish a completely planned economy in practice, must necessarily lead to an brutal dictatorship;
And it is not because people are not willing to work if they don’t get enough direct benefit in monetary form for it (Stalinism was certainly incentivizing to do one’s job properly) but rather because the information mechanisms that prices provide in free markets (the relative scarcity of things) is undermined making it impossible to take proper decisions for individuals and for the state.

And to quote Bastiat: Competition is merely the absence of oppression.

To suppress markets governments have to become increasingly oppressive.

[Jamiet99uk]

Shall we talk about the number of deaths attributable to unfettered capitalism?

(It's quite a few).

[Jamiet99uk]

And to quote Bastiat: Competition is merely the absence of oppression.

He was wrong of course. Absent of some form of intervention, what starts out as competition frequently tends towards monopoly over time.

[DarthPorg36]

"Continuing from above to answer certain other questions about how to decide whose morality to side with, I encourage you to take the side that benefits the overwhelming majority of human beings." Is also irrelevant but tolerated on this thread - an yet it doesn't go to the original question posed - its outright barracking for a particular approach.

I note you didn't comment then. At least be consistent!

The reason I have not commented on most of this thread, although I have popped in from time to time, is that this isn't particularly my area of expertise. I enjoy good philosophical debate, so I've been watching this thread, however at this point, as young as I am, I don't have a wealth of knowledge to adequately contribute to the thread in meaningful ways, and still not get caught in logical fallacies.

As such, however, I will comment on this like I believe you asked. I lean more towards CF view, I suppose, that religion and morality are tied. I think that having morality, which I believe all humans have a concept of, (although I don't know how universal the ideas are. I'm sure this has been talked about already though) and that once you adopt a moral compass, it almost drives you towards religion. Yet, I also do believe that agnostics and atheists can also be moral human beings in the absence of religion.

Regardless, my moral compass is with Christianity. I do think that it is the "correct" religion and has unequivocal "truth" about morality to it, but that does not mean other religions, or the complete absence of religions, do not have great wisdom to share with the world.

I know that this thread has talked about the Bible, and as I support a Christian lens of morality, I'll touch on it briefly. Even as someone who is a born-and-raised Christian, the Bible is confusing to even me. The core concepts (love God, love your neighbor, God is merciful, Jesus saved all of us with his sacrifice, etc) make sense quite quickly after reading through even the briefest portions of the Gospels, some other parts of the Bible seem to contradict themselves, and even I struggle with what to think with topics like God brutally annihilating various cities, supposed support of slavery, homosexuality, abortion, and other difficult topics circulating the church. I think these are all contradictions in the bible and so I read carefully and try to interpret for myself the best I can.

Anyway, there's my thoughts Wusti. For anyone else who may want to follow up on this, I don't mind. Shoot me responses and I'll try to more clearly share my thoughts