What ought people to do?

[dilettante]

This is really more of a 'survey thread' than an 'news thread' or an 'argument thread', though of course people are free (and perhaps encouraged) to discuss responses. I've been thinking on and off about my own definitions of right and wrong/good and evil and such; I decided I'm curious to hear thoughts from others.

So, the essential question here is: What ought people to do in order to be good?

Some key clarifications:

First, this is a personal, subjective question and it is assumed that all answers are likewise personal and subjective; there is no assumption here about the existence of an absolute, objective, external moral order (though if that's your view, that's fine too). But when you think or state that people ought to behave in a certain way (or, alternatively, ought not to behave in a certain way), what precisely are those ways?
Examples might include: "People ought to treat others as they would like to be treated" or "People ought not to torture children"...etc.

Second, this is an intentionally broad question without a specific context; I'm looking for general answers and what might be called 'core imperatives'. E.G. If you believe people ought not to torture children, ought not to torture adults, and ought not to torture penguins, perhaps a core imperative would be that people ought not to engage in torture.

Third, I'm not terribly interested in justifications for these assertions. Why you feel/believe that people ought (not) to do this or that is, for the purposes of this inquiry, less important than what this and that are. Explanations and justifications are certainly welcome, but not required.

Finally (to emphasize some of the above, especially given the audience for this thread), this is not a question about the ultimate nature of good and evil. One can hold that "good" is merely a culturally constructed concept and that "ought" is merely a culturally and biologically induced sensation, each of which survives only because it perpetuates the society/species, and still feel and/or believe that people ought to be kind to the elderly or ought not to eat meat (or whatever).

I'll add my own answer a little later on when I have more time for thoughtful posting. Thanks.

[Non Sequitur]

"You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind. And you must love your neighbor as yourself." as i said on the other forum.

I should ask though, what do you mean by "good." The Bible also says, "There is only One who is good."

[SMadsen]

In order to do good people ought to avoid doing .. umm, evil?

Ok ok .. :)

People ought not to look at any ideology as a hobby. An ideology is merely one set of ideas and they can't be known to be the best of their kind before knowing and understanding all other sets.

[partofme]

Really when it boils down to it most people including myself base what they should and shouldn't do on emotional responses. Something my feel like it's right or wrong and usually we only use logic to find a way to advance those things.

[Michael]

I should ask though, what do you mean by "good." The Bible also says, "There is only One who is good."
Indeed, a very good point. From a philosophical perspective, I've been inclined to defend this viewpoint quite strongly - though I admit, I do tend to take an opposite conclusion to the one Non Sequitur is raising here. ;)

[dilettante]

Really when it boils down to it most people including myself base what they should and shouldn't do on emotional responses. Something my feel like it's right or wrong and usually we only use logic to find a way to advance those things.

Perhaps, but the question here isn't why people feel they ought to do something, but rather what you (tend to) feel you ought to do.

[Michael]

In order to do good people ought to avoid doing .. umm, evil?
How does this work when one merely is 'aware' of some evil existing. Lets assume that this one is not party to the evil act. But being aware of it, but not stopping it, is that evil too? Tricky position I think this one is.

People ought not to look at any ideology as a hobby.
I confess that looking at various ideologies is indeed, one of my hobbies. I've been doing it for years. I never realized that it was evil! :D

An ideology is merely one set of ideas and they can't be known to be the best of their kind before knowing and understanding all other sets.
That's true. And I respectfully submit that one can't know that any given ideology is good even with understanding all the other sets! :)

[Michael]

For 'content' of morality, I suppose I generally tend to value honesty, integrity, honor, principles and non-hypocrisy as 'morally good' things - a lack of them being 'evil'.

I am of course fully aware that clever philosophy types can usually construct an example whereby 'honesty' or 'integrity' isn't always the best policy, but those exceptions tend to prove the general rule by their rarity and uniqueness. ;)

[dilettante]

I should ask though, what do you mean by "good." The Bible also says, "There is only One who is good."

Indeed, a very good point. From a philosophical perspective, I've been inclined to defend this viewpoint quite strongly - though I admit, I do tend to take an opposite conclusion to the one Non Sequitur is raising here. ;)

I think that in order for the question to make any sense, the definition of good has to come from the answerer. I don't know anyone lives their life without the use of any moral terms or judgments; I'm just trying to feel those out, hopefully without getting mired down in loftier discussions about the nature of morality (though that might make an interesting thread as well).

[SMadsen]

I confess that looking at various ideologies is indeed, one of my hobbies. I've been doing it for years. I never realized that it was evil! :D
Maybe I have twisted ideas about hobbies :p

[Donkey]

I think that people ought to reject violence.

[Dominick]

I think that people ought to reject violence.
I don't agree. The French Résistance used violence against the Nazi occupiers, Castro used violence against Batista, the Bolsheviks used violence against the czars, etc. Generally speaking much good has been achieved by violence, like it or not.
Gandhi is a household name not because he achieved his goals through passive resistance but precisely because that is so rare. In that one case non-violence won the day, in almost all other cases non-violence is synonymous to submission.

[partofme]

I don't agree. The French Résistance used violence against the Nazi occupiers, Castro used violence against Batista, the Bolsheviks used violence against the czars, etc. Generally speaking much good has been achieved by violence, like it or not.
Gandhi is a household name not because he achieved his goals through passive resistance but precisely because that is so rare. In that one case non-violence won the day, in almost all other cases non-violence is synonymous to submission.

I agree about the French Resistance but Castro and The Bolsheviks just replaced one tyranny for another.

[Dominick]

I agree about the French Resistance but Castro and The Bolsheviks just replaced one tyranny for another.
True, but they were still an improvement, although marginal.
But I certainly could have picked better examples. Say a constantly abused woman that after years of torment kills her husband. And similar things.

[partofme]

True, but they were still an improvement, although marginal.
But I certainly could have picked better examples. Say a constantly abused woman that after years of torment kills her husband. And similar things.

I agree. I never set out to cause violence but if it's inevitable I would rather make sure it isn't happening to me.

[Donkey]

I don't agree. The French Résistance used violence against the Nazi occupiers, Castro used violence against Batista, the Bolsheviks used violence against the czars, etc. Generally speaking much good has been achieved by violence, like it or not.
Gandhi is a household name not because he achieved his goals through passive resistance but precisely because that is so rare. In that one case non-violence won the day, in almost all other cases non-violence is synonymous to submission.
I will concede that it is difficult to ethically escape from the cycle of violence. However, I will also assert that rejecting violence and abandoning violence are not the same thing.

I'm too distracted to wax on this right now, but I will try to come back to it.

[partofme]

Really when it boils down to it most people including myself base what they should and shouldn't do on emotional responses. Something my feel like it's right or wrong and usually we only use logic to find a way to advance those things.

I'm not always a fan of David Brooks but in portions of this he articulates what I was trying to say in this post in a much better way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html

[Michael]

I'm not always a fan of David Brooks but in portions of this he articulates what I was trying to say in this post in a much better way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html
I'm no fan of David Brooks as a journalist - even less so as a philosopher!

The End of Philosophy

Socrates talked. The assumption behind his approach to philosophy, and the approaches of millions of people since, is that moral thinking is mostly a matter of reason and deliberation: Think through moral problems. Find a just principle. Apply it.

This is a strawman argument. Socrates didn't "talk" like some lecturer or newspaper columnist, spouting off wisdom for the plebes to learn from. Socrates didn't just sit around deliberating about moral problems as Brooks asserts here.

On the contrary, Socrates inquired about these topics by asking others what they thought about them. The sublime wisdom of Socrates comes not from 'Socratic deliberation' but from acknowledging that most people aren't all that capable of defending their actions or judgements with coherent reason. Knowing the limitations of one's self or of human reasoning is the first step to wisdom.

On a related note, why is it that 'some conservatives' have such a passion for pronouncing "the end" of something? (i.e. History or Philosophy or Ideology, for example). I suspect it is the open ended nature of history, philosophy and ideology - or the fact that there is no single/correct answer to these topics - that must annoy some people and inspire them to seek out some 'end' to be rid of the ever present threat of uncertainty that characterizes these topics.

Think of what happens when you put a new food into your mouth. You don’t have to decide if it’s disgusting. You just know. You don’t have to decide if a landscape is beautiful. You just know.

Moral judgments are like that. They are rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain. Most of us make snap moral judgments about what feels fair or not, or what feels good or not. We start doing this when we are babies, before we have language. And even as adults, we often can’t explain to ourselves why something feels wrong.
In other words, reasoning comes later and is often guided by the emotions that preceded it.

This is just a restatement of the old 'anti-intellectualism' line of argument that has long been popular with US conservatives and also characterizes the political style known as 'populist'. Here it is asserted that moral judgements are nothing more than subjective whimsy - little different than a preference between choosing strawberry or chocolate. This is nonsense.

Witnessing a situation on the street - where some person is threatening assault upon another person (for example), your immediate reaction is to a) pretend you don't notice, or its none of your business and keep going because you're on your way somewhere else, or b) you get yourself involved in the situation and try to stop bad things from happening to some other person (with some risk to yourself or your family). The decision you make here may take only a fraction of a second. That decision certainly may have moral implications, but that snap decision is not really much in the way of morality at all. Rather, moral decisions are more often made in the endless hours of a sleepless night, pondering and considering that same split second decision - rationalizing and questioning it over and over - ever restless until the 'correct' answer is reached - and fearing that 'correct' answer will never be known. Morality is found not in the act, but in the justifications and explanations given for it, after the fact.

More often than not, in making split-second reactions to outside events, humans tend to respond with nothing more than instinct and/or training. That's not morality. Morality is found in the rationalization of the decision, in the justifications given - or denied. Morality can be determined as much by inaction as by action. It is more than just an instinctual preference for strawberry or chocolate, bravery or cowardice. The concept of
"moral intuition" is nonsense. There is nothing "moral" about a dog pissing on a fire hydrant - that's just instinctual behavior for an animal - it is neither right nor wrong. Human morality is much more significant than that.

[partofme]

I'm no fan of David Brooks as a journalist - even less so as a philosopher!



This is a strawman argument. Socrates didn't "talk" like some lecturer or newspaper columnist, spouting off wisdom for the plebes to learn from. Socrates didn't just sit around deliberating about moral problems as Brooks asserts here.

On the contrary, Socrates inquired about these topics by asking others what they thought about them. The sublime wisdom of Socrates comes not from 'Socratic deliberation' but from acknowledging that most people aren't all that capable of defending their actions or judgements with coherent reason. Knowing the limitations of one's self or of human reasoning is the first step to wisdom.

On a related note, why is it that 'some conservatives' have such a passion for pronouncing "the end" of something? (i.e. History or Philosophy or Ideology, for example). I suspect it is the open ended nature of history, philosophy and ideology - or the fact that there is no single/correct answer to these topics - that must annoy some people and inspire them to seek out some 'end' to be rid of the ever present threat of uncertainty that characterizes these topics.



This is just a restatement of the old 'anti-intellectualism' line of argument that has long been popular with US conservatives and also characterizes the political style known as 'populist'. Here it is asserted that moral judgements are nothing more than subjective whimsy - little different than a preference between choosing strawberry or chocolate. This is nonsense.

Witnessing a situation on the street - where some person is threatening assault upon another person (for example), your immediate reaction is to a) pretend you don't notice, or its none of your business and keep going because you're on your way somewhere else, or b) you get yourself involved in the situation and try to stop bad things from happening to some other person (with some risk to yourself or your family). The decision you make here may take only a fraction of a second. That decision certainly may have moral implications, but that snap decision is not really much in the way of morality at all. Rather, moral decisions are more often made in the endless hours of a sleepless night, pondering and considering that same split second decision - rationalizing and questioning it over and over - ever restless until the 'correct' answer is reached - and fearing that 'correct' answer will never be known. Morality is found not in the act, but in the justifications and explanations given for it, after the fact.

More often than not, in making split-second reactions to outside events, humans tend to respond with nothing more than instinct and/or training. That's not morality. Morality is found in the rationalization of the decision, in the justifications given - or denied. Morality can be determined as much by inaction as by action. It is more than just an instinctual preference for strawberry or chocolate, bravery or cowardice. The concept of
"moral intuition" is nonsense. There is nothing "moral" about a dog pissing on a fire hydrant - that's just instinctual behavior for an animal - it is neither right nor wrong. Human morality is much more significant than that.

Do you think there is a way of showing something is objectively moral or not?

[Michael]

Do you think there is a way of showing something is objectively moral or not?
Given that we are human, no.

All humans (and human enterprises) are subjective by definition - true objectivity is (alas) impossible.

I suppose having an omnipotent God popping out of the clouds and commanding obedience might demonstrate 'objective' morality...

[partofme]

Given that we are human, no.

All humans (and human enterprises) are subjective by definition - true objectivity is (alas) impossible.

I suppose having an omnipotent God popping out of the clouds and commanding obedience might demonstrate 'objective' morality...

I admit some people might act based on some moral thinking but for the most part I think people tend to rationalize their gut reaction. And even when they do base it on rational thought usually that is just a tool they use to figure out how to act in order to uphold values that they still have mostly based on emotion.

[Michael]

I admit some people might act based on some moral thinking but for the most part I think people tend to rationalize their gut reaction. And even when they do base it on rational thought usually that is just a tool they use to figure out how to act in order to uphold values that they still have mostly based on emotion.
Yes, I agree that emotion is common to the 'gut reaction' and to the 'moralizing' part that comes afterwards.

Rationalizing your 'gut feeling' is the moralizing. Going with 'gut feeling' in a spur of the moment decision is not morality. That is instinct (or training).

Very few people do the rationalizing BEFORE the action. Everyone always does it afterwards.

[The Aussie]

Perhaps, but the question here isn't why people feel they ought to do something, but rather what you (tend to) feel you ought to do.

Well if I ever go into the city of Perth I always go at lunch time because I can look at the office dames in the street from the big end of town.
I tend to feel when I perv on them that I would like to give some of them a good bang.

[dilettante]

Sorry I've taken so very long to answer my own question; I kept envisioning some sort of mythical "free time" in my future and it hasn't really happened yet.

So, the essential question here is: What ought people to do in order to be good?

People ought to practice/pursue love (in the agápē sense), truth and beauty, in that order.

At the moment, I think that concisely sums up (in a general, secular fashion) my general sense of "good" and of what people "ought" to do.



"You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind. And you must love your neighbor as yourself." as i said on the other forum.

I accept these as well, though I confess that I often have difficulty getting a solid mental hold on what the first half means practically, and terrible trouble in actually practicing the second half.



For 'content' of morality, I suppose I generally tend to value honesty, integrity, honor, principles and non-hypocrisy as 'morally good' things - a lack of them being 'evil'.

I also accept honesty, integrity and non-hypocrisy (I would lump them under 'truth', I think). I'm not sure what 'honor' really means.

I am of course fully aware that clever philosophy types can usually construct an example whereby 'honesty' or 'integrity' isn't always the best policy, but those exceptions tend to prove the general rule by their rarity and uniqueness. ;)

I suppose it depends on the criteria used for determining the 'best' policy.

[Americano]

Sorry I've taken so very long to answer my own question; I kept envisioning some sort of mythical "free time" in my future and it hasn't really happened yet.



People ought to practice/pursue love (in the agápē sense), truth and beauty, in that order.

At the moment, I think that concisely sums up (in a general, secular fashion) my general sense of "good" and of what people "ought" to do.





I accept these as well, though I confess that I often have difficulty getting a solid mental hold on what the first half means practically, and terrible trouble in actually practicing the second half.





I also accept honesty, integrity and non-hypocrisy (I would lump them under 'truth', I think). I'm not sure what 'honor' really means.

I have trouble accepting some of the definitions of honor, such as when applied to the US military's destruction of Iraq. The nation acted and soldiers served in an honorable manner?

I suppose it depends on the criteria used for determining the 'best' policy.

[Non Sequitur]

I accept these as well, though I confess that I often have difficulty getting a solid mental hold on what the first half means practically, and terrible trouble in actually practicing the second half.

Well the first half I have usually interpreted as a complete trust in God and not in myself. As for the second half, that's kind of the point. We cannot save our selves. Grace is a wonderful thing.

[SMadsen]

Well the first half I have usually interpreted as a complete trust in God and not in myself.
Isn't a complete trust in God a complete trust in yourself? It sounds like a complete trust that what you believe is so completely real that you can put your complete trust in it.

[Michael]

Isn't a complete trust in God a complete trust in yourself? It sounds like a complete trust that what you believe is so completely real that you can put your complete trust in it.
Indeed, a good question - a complete trust in God does appear to require, a complete trust in one's own conception of it all.

Is trust an "inner" or "outer" thing? I think the trust is predicated on the self.

For example, habitual liars generally won't trust anyone or anything. They can't trust themselves, thus, trust in outside elements is probably impossible.

[dilettante]

Isn't a complete trust in God a complete trust in yourself? It sounds like a complete trust that what you believe is so completely real that you can put your complete trust in it.

Indeed, a good question - a complete trust in God does appear to require, a complete trust in one's own conception of it all.


Couldn't the same question be raised about trust in anyone/anything?
It reminds me of the distinction SMadsen made earlier in the Metaphysics Model Thread (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6305&postcount=18)between trust in perception itself and trust in the object of perception.

[SMadsen]

Couldn't the same question be raised about trust in anyone/anything?
It reminds me of the distinction SMadsen made earlier in the Metaphysics Model Thread (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6305&postcount=18)between trust in perception itself and trust in the object of perception.
Sure the same question can be raised. But the dilemma only emerges when trust in the object of perception is claimed to be greater than trust in the perception itself. Or, in this case, as Michael correctly pointed out, conception rather than perception.