I ask this as a genuine question:
what motivation is there for me to have a moral conscience? I fully get the idea that it would all be very nice, co-operative and reciprocal if we all did have some kind of moral obligation to some hazily-defined 'society', but since this is not innate, what underpins the moral duty you describe?
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 11:38, 2 replies)

What is the motivation to be good?
Isn't that a bit of a sociopathic question? (Not saying you are a sociopath, just that I'm skipping the answer that most people would take as read)

But for ignoring a sense of right and wrong there is still the carrot and stick:- (Appear to) behave well and generally people will have a higher opinion of you and life will be easier. Behave badly (and get caught) and there is likely to be punishment.

If it works this way most of the time then society forms ... erm, the behavioural equivalent of an evolutionarily stable system, which I can't remember the term for. So the strategy "I'll be quite nice" will generally give a better outcome than "I'll mug grannies".

So - the reason "a society protects itself" is sufficient reason to behave well. There are others.
(teebie jeebie, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:15, closed)

Not necessarily.
One might argue that a degree of private vice is a necessary component of public good. (Think of the Borgias.)

You're also running together goodness and rightness, and making a claim about getting caught - which has nothing to do with the moral question.

EDIT: Your last sentence doesn't make any sense at all.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:24, closed)

See where I say "ignoring a sense of right and wrong"
...That's me saying "I think saying you should behave morally can be taking as read. If you don't then there are other reasons to do such. Here's a statistical one".

(Nature has several examples where an organism benefits from altruism. Because under some circumstances the creatures displaying altruistic behaviour have done better than those that didn't.)

I've used goodness and rightness to mean the same thing because, in the context I used them, they do.
(teebie jeebie, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:57, closed)

Humptyism.
It's clear to anyone who's used the words that there's a huge difference between them. You can't be a Humpty Dumpty and ignore that.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 13:25, closed)

What do you mean by "moral" here?
I'm not sure that a moral conscience is something that needs motivation. It's incomprehensible that someone should act in a way that they think neither right, good, nor justified. It simply doesn't make sense.

On this basis, I think we're entitled - forced - to think that everyone's actions are based on an account of the good. Of course, some people might misidentify the good, or misatribute goodness to their means of achieving it. But that means we're talking about a false moral belief - motivation has dropped out of the account.

"Moral" doesn't mean nice, cooperative or reciprocal. Why should it?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:21, closed)

I see your point,
if your point is that whatever I chose, I'm choosing it on the basis that I consider it moral, whether it is widely accepted as 'good' or not.

So, bearing in mind that I am not a philosopher and I don't even play one on the Internet - er, what's the point of having a moral obligation if there's no definition of morals?

No, I don't get it. I don't see how how you can make the assumption that everyone acts in a way that is right, good or justified. Sure, they can act in a way that they feel is right, good and justified, but that might conflict with everyone else's ideas of what is right, good or justified, therefore if you can't establish a fundamental definition of what is morally acceptable and what is not, why bother talking about morals at all?

I'm a bit RIS. We don't get to do this sort of shit in computer science.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:31, closed)

Well...
The fact that noone can agree on the right thing isn't going to demonstrate that there's not a right answer to be had in principle: "can't agree" in this sense simply means that there's an ongoing dispute, not that its irresolvable. Indeed, if everyone did agree, they might still be wrong - unless you think that morality is simply a matter of consensus. (I don't.)

So how would we resolve the debate? Well, in this case, there'd be a second-level argument - some people might look to the outcomes and hope to be able to say that the world is objectively better or worse for this or that action, or for this or that kind of action (and there's a third-level debate for you...). Others might think that outcomes are irrelevant, and that some things are just right or wrong.

What I meant by my claim about people's actions is pretty much as you say. Imagine the opposite: it doesn't make sense. Not just would we have to imagine someone acting wrongly, but someone acting because it's wrong or admittedly not worth doing. (A terrorist planting a bomb might think his action is wrong, and do it with regret, but think that it will be worth it in the long run. In this case, the dispute is about his beliefs concerning justification. Still, that he thinks his action is justified seems indisputable.)

The point is, I suppose, that talking about this stuff is indicative of a belief that there is an aswer to be had. Were we to abandon that belief, then we'd also have to relinquish a lot else besides - the very idea that people act for a scrutable reason would seem to be in danger. That seems like a very high price to pay.

There are problems with my account - it's hard to see how Hitler could have misidentified the good so radically, for example. But this is a problem that I share with everyone else and every other account, so it doesn't bother me all that much.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 23 Dec 2008, 12:41, closed)