Morality Short Notes

These are thoughts, mostly from discussions, but other sources too, on the nature of morality as a true and real thing. If we accept that it is, then how does it actually work? That's my slow going hobby. What follows is what I've put together so far as just a guide. It represents many years of serious thought, but I only started to actually jot note down  in the last 7 months or so (as of June 30, 2019)  because the things I need to dive into keeps expanding. Could not reliably hold it all in memory any more. 

If something doesn't make sense but you want to understand, ask and I'll try to re word it, explain it as best I can. You are also more than welcome to challenge me on any of this as well. Iron sharpens iron as they say. 

Otherwise, I'll add to this and re-post as needed. 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Morality Short notes

CORE

Some moral philosophers say it is intentions that matter, that make an action moral or immoral. Some moral philosophers say that your intentions do not matter at all, the consequences of what you do is what makes an act moral or immoral.

And here I am, thinking to myself, why not both? Fact of reality is, that is exactly how we actually live in societies as people. We account for both. This is why there is a difference between murder in the first degree, second or third degree, and manslaughter. All of them are crimes with penalties, because we recognize they all have the same end result, a dead human being.

However, we recognize that your intentions matter, not just the end result. So, it's not either or, it's this and that…

+++++++++++++

As much as I've always fought the notion, one does have to consider the possibility that all morality to some degree is in fact situational. If we assume that morality is measured and judged on both intent and consequence in tandem together, then it is of necessity somewhat situational because the intents and the consequences can end up fitting together in different ways.

And personally, I'm currently operating with the presupposition that if I think morality is a real thing, then any theory I come up with about it has to match how we actually engage morality in the real world, outside of our thought experiments and idealized principles. And given I believe if we look at how societies function, we do in fact account for and measure both intent and consequence when we consider the morality of actions.

Though to be fair, so far, my strong evidence for this is restricted to criminal justice, and I'll need to look for conformation from a few more angles as I'm not prepared to say criminal justice is the whole of morality.

+++++++++++

Gray is an illusion

Gray is an illusion, meaning right and wrong are mutually exclusive propositions. Where we see gray, is where we see degrees, but ultimately something is either right or wrong, because they are in fact mutually exclusive terms. Degrees is where we attempt to mix the two, when the two can’t mix.

Reasons- Cognitive dissonance? Naivety? Blindness to moral concepts? Acceptance of post modern and/or nihilism?

Sources of Gray

We don’t know- if we don’t know, it can appear gray, but appearance can be deceiving, ultimate reality is right and wrong are mutually exclusive.

Don’t want to admit- we mistake sympathy for justification, we do not want to condemn ourselves, we do not want to do something we know we ought to, we do not want to give credit for a good deed, ect… essentially when we fool ourselves for whatever reason.

Gap between consequences and intentions- needs exploring still. Off the top, a matter of perception verse reality. If it is a matter of perception, does this then fall into the “we don’t know” bucket?

Gap between crime and punishment- Needs exploring still. May also fall under “we don’t know”, but take care that doesn’t become a lazy catch all.

Gap between subjective and objective – needs exploring. Can inherently subjective beings even conceptualize objectivity outside of quantities?

Moral neutrality- needs exploring still. Does it exist, if so, does that prove “gray” in a true sense? If so, does that destroy my argument?

+++++++

No, I don’t think so, we can still see far more gray in the world than there really is. Being real and being an illusion are not mutually exclusive in that illusions can be of real things. So, exploring this is really more just flushing out and grounding than essential to the core of morality.

If, however, it turns out there is such a thing as true gray morality, it does mean we have to take extra precautions to not call something real an illusion, and it’s all the more reason we want to explore any gray that appears to us, to authenticate it.

++++++++