Big Think

Jason Browning on February 28, 2008, 6:46 PM

In a recent discussion with co-workers, the question was raised “what are morals”. It turns out that I define morality on what is generally acceptable in a society, which is driven by utility. What is useful in a society is typically morally acceptable. An example would be eating certain types of meat (cow, horse, monkey brains). It may be morally acceptable in one region, because there is utility in doing so, but unacceptable in another. So, on the question of morality vs. expediency, it can be rephrased as expediency for society vs. expediency to an individual. The morally good choice would be, by definition, the most expedient for society. An immoral choice would be, by definition, not expedient for society, but potentially expedient for the individual.

Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 7:14 PM

I would disagree with your definition of morality to begin with. I think morality is not something driven by society or utility. Morality is not what is useful. What is moral, is right. Our morals are essentially conscience intertwined with our own philosophical beliefs. Societies have changed, cultures have become immersed with others, yet still much of the general idea of morality has stayed the same. What the society deems acceptable is not morality, but political correctness. It is often that what a society believes is acceptable or useful can be immoral.

Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 7:15 PM

that response was directed to AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs

William Sellers on February 28, 2008, 7:26 PM

If the moral choice was almost always the expedient choice, then it would almost always be easy to be moral.

johan hendrick on February 28, 2008, 8:31 PM

we have a clear choice to do good things [or to think of excuses to do bad things]…
clearly good [truelly good people do the good thing with rightiousness ,they walk thier talk ,revealing thier very devotion to goodness by doing good things…

just as clearly there is in this world people who love top do evil things ,[this is clear by the things they do] then we see them explaining how good will come [after i just do a few more bad things]..

jesus said by thier deeds will we know if they are serving life or death ,those who serve life hold all life god alone gives to live sacred
those serving death [vile evil , veil thier evil under some delusioned cloak of good[but under the veil of good is revealed the vile]..
we must judge by peoples deeds [that they do ] not why they are doing it , killing , stealing.. raping murder of the unborn, are all very clearly evil ,.
even the killing of an evil person, is inherantly evil [we all ;even the evil are given to live from god himself ,only the truelly evil think they know better than god…

evil will allways find a reason to do its evil ,good will only try to serve good ,god is love [live with it]god loves a repentant sinner , who turns from thier evil to do only that clearly and unambigiously to gods good [pre-serving life , not killing it , healing not hurting ,making better for all, not casting blame , and saying only a few more dead and it will be perfect]

life is perfect good can only make it better , let ye without sin cast the first stonner ,when its good we know its good[if it feels bad it is bad]
…serve the loving living life giver
or the life taker ,man cannot serve two masters

Evan Wagner on February 28, 2008, 8:43 PM

I think that the way this question is worded contributes largely to the problem, namely that you’re saying there’s a moral and immoral choice. By saying this you’re automatically implying that morality exists and therefore are basically strategizing: you assume that your question’s implied truth of morality will sway the careless and apathetic reader to agree with you that there even is a morality, and will give those who were predisposed to that belief fuel to passive aggressively implement their metaphysical opinion. Odds are that this group of people will be much bigger than the group ignited by the manipulative undertones, therefore if anyone tries to challenge you, you have sufficient backing to quiet or at least mock the nay-sayer. This wasn’t all hot air, what I’m trying to get at is this: instead of asking about the expedience of the morally good choice, ask if there is a moral good, and ask people to explain themselves. Chances are you will get answers like “Being morally good is stopping genocide. The reason genocide is bad is because it kills people— which is bad.” This implies that murder is intuitedly bad, when really the explanation just repeats the question. As for your original question, by societal standards of morality it is very frequently more expedient to make the immoral decision.

Andrew Cassidy on February 28, 2008, 8:43 PM

To do act morally is to burden yourself, since it takes work. If all participants burden themselves as well, the greater good is served. If some people cheat and act immorally, they potentially have an advantage. Under those circumstances, the moral must become immoral to survive and compete. Everyone loses, but the [preferred moral] player survives to play a more positive role, later. If later doesn’t happen, everyone loses since the moral are indistinguishable from the immoral.

This is why things like environmental laws exist and must be enforced. Otherwise, places like China degrade their environment since environmental responsibility is expensive, and people find themselves without healthy air or water.

Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 8:50 PM

I will offer my own beliefs on this idea:

I think, that the morally good choice is always the most expedient. I myself want to be a moral person and a good person. Therefore, the most expedient way to reach that goal would never be to act in an immoral or morally questionable manner. I think the “pernicious error” is something committed by many today. Buddhism addresses this same idea in the Four Noble Truths. Pain and suffering are caused when we seek the wrong things, or when we seek the right things in the wrong way. I think too often do people lose sight of what they really desire. The father wants to provide for his children, but he forgets his original desire to be a good father. Machiavelli’s “Prince” was a book centered around this error. This was a book in which the goal of the person was never to lead a good life or to become a good person, it was power. I believe that if you want a good life or want to be a good person, the quickest way to do so is to make morally righteous choices. It is not a question of good and evil, it is not a question of utility. The question is, What do you really want?

Evan Wagner on February 28, 2008, 8:56 PM

Penguin, I would have liked you to have responded to my answer to your question, but again your explanation supports my answer. By saying that the more expedient the choice is the more moral it is, you’re assuming that morality transcends society, which again undertones the truth of universal morality. If you would, I’d like you to reply to my post.

Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 9:10 PM

EDW7690,

First of all, I am confused about my manipulative wording. I don’t think the question leans in a specific direction, as you can see there have been an even number of responses. There are people in the world that think you should always be moral, there are also people in the world that think morality is not relevant in some situations and also an impediment. Yes, I believe morality exists… That is an easy assumption. You brought up the idea of killing and genocide, do you think it is moral to kill? No. Do you think it is moral to Lie? That is a trickier question, yet the fact that it is more difficult to answer does not mean that morality doesn’t exist. Morality is conscience in action. When you encounter a choice, to approach it morally would be to ask “What is the right thing to do?”. Although many do not ask that question, that is not an argument against the existence of morality. There is still the truth that there are things that are right to do, as well as wrong. To figure out what is right to do is not the difficult part, what is hard is to act. You said that, in the deffinition and explanation of morality are often the same. I am not saying that killing is bad, I am saying it is wrong. For a quick moral compass, ask yourself what you believe in, (your philosophy), then examine the situation. After that, ask yourself what is the right thing to do? Morality is not something completely absolute or passive. Something can be moral in one situation but immoral in another. I am not manipulating people in the question. I am curious, because it is my theory that people have become amoral over the years. Like you yourself who questions the very existence of morality.

Evan Wagner on February 28, 2008, 9:18 PM

Your entire question presupposes the existence of morality passively, but you explicitly say it at the end: “Do you believe that The morally good choice is always the most expedient, or are there times when you should divert from morality?”— how is that not leaning? And second of all, you asked me if i think killing is moral, then you answered for me “no.” You’re saying there’s a right and wrong, my question to you is how do you know that? it might be wrong to you- that’s fine, but to suppose it’s wrong to anyone else is presumptuous. I don’t think it’s wrong or right, good or bad— i have no evidence either way! Lastly, you say "I am not manipulating people in the question. I am curious, because it is my theory that people have become amoral over the years. " Isn’t that a contradiction— you say you are not manipulating people in the question (meaning you’re saying that you’re not implying the existence of morality) and then you continue to say that people have acted very amoral of late— which can only exist in the presence of morality.

Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 9:35 PM

I don’t see what you have against morality, or me…
YES, the question presupposes the EXISTENCE of morality. That does not manipulate people to answer in one direction. All questions must presuppose something, why don’t you post that on every question on this site? Those questions that ask what is human nature presupposes that there is human nature! Why don’t you go tell them how they are manipulating everyone because they are answering what human nature is. Come on. You leave no room for thought.
How does morality not exist? You are saying that there is not a right choice? Nothing is right? It’s all just opinion? That’s just relativism which I don’t feel has a place in genuine thought. You said I was relying on the mobs that would agree with me? I don’t care if you disagree with my opinion. People can believe morality is an impediment, in fact I applaud that thought. There is actual evidence of thought in that belief. But you are just accusing me of manipulating people by asking their opinion? HOW? You can try your hardest to give me some ridiculously morally ambiguous situation, I assure you there is still a right decision. You said that there is not evidence of right and wrong. Sure, I’ll give you that. Therefore, nothing can be true because we have no evidence right? What we think now could be disproved centuries later, so we must know nothing…
Look at the reality, generally do people oppose killing? YES! That is not why it is immoral or can be immoral, the reason is, it hopefully contradicts your philosophy. Now of course I will concede the point if you find a man who truly believes Killing and Genocide are the right thing to do. Just because they exist in this world does not disprove the existence of morality. Immoral actions occur when people ignore their philosophy and their conscience. So, tell me, if I am so manipulative to believe morality exists. Tell me how it does not.

Evan Wagner on February 28, 2008, 9:47 PM

Everything you say in a mocking tone – “there is no right choice” “everything is just opinion” etc. I agree with. You say that there is no room for thought because i doubt the existence of absoluteness, but really, if there pre-exists morality, aren’t our thoughts already decided for us? If you ask me, the absence of morality or metaphysical truths open the gate for thought more than anything else. In this way each person can develop his own code of ethics, and our society will have varying thoughts, rather than a herd mentality. your question is manipulative because it is a lead in question. you ask if morality exists, therefore all answers assume the existence of morality. if that’s not a lead in nothing is. You can find a “right” answer in a morally ambiguous situation— that’s great for you— it’s good that you have your own code of morality so thoroughly figured out, but it is passive aggressive to imbue it on the world by calling it a universal truth. and to your first question, a question that does not suppose anything would be “does morality exist?”

Evan Wagner on February 28, 2008, 9:52 PM

Sorry, i had a type-o, and i’ll correct it that way my argument doesn’t get lost in technicalities. when i said your question was, does morality exist, i meant to say “is the moral choice the most expedient?” and also, your question “How does morality NOT exist” is a copout— and you know it. It exists to the individual, but in that way general morality is void.

Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 10:06 PM

What i said in “mocking tone” was the description of relativism. Relativism does not allow for thought. It is saying we are not able to know anything for certain, therefore we no absolutely nothing. Once again, yes my question pre-supposes morality exists. If you disagree with that, then don’t answer the question, or answer by saying that it doesn’t exist. I don’t care if you think it does or does not. I am not manipulating anyone by asking a question about morality. Just because it is not proven, does not mean we should not ask questions about it.
I am not defining an absolute morality, I gave you a way in which you can find your own. Not everyone has the same moral codes, but I believe everyone does have them. If you disagree with that, explain to me then how you justify your actions. What are your choices based on? “Tell me how morality does not exist.” is not a copout, You said the question I should have asked is, “Does morality exist?” Ok, here you go. Answer it. I assumed you believe it doesn’t exist because you seem to be taking offense to my belief in it.
Lets turn this around, forget morality. What do you base your choices on? Do you have philosophy? Do you have a conscience?
I don’t understand what you have against the question I asked, most questions on this sight presuppose the existence of things. Why is mine apparently so inflammatory? Why don’t you accuse those who answer what human nature is of being manipulative. Are they not answering for the people as a whole? Doesn’t the question presuppose the idea of human nature? I am not manipulative, I am being inquisitive. I want to know peoples opinions, I only gave my own because the first answers were not relevant to the question in my opinion…

Evan Wagner on February 28, 2008, 10:17 PM

You say relativism doesn’t allow for thought because it says nothing’s for certain. Why can thought only exist in the presence of fact? I think that’s a lie, and I bet you think it’s a lie too. I agree that we should ask questions about morality, i enjoy nothing more than asking questions about it! But let’s not ask if morality is the most expedient choice because in order for it to be the most expedient choice it has to be consistent throughout all peoples— which it is clearly not. I don’t have to justify my actions because there’s no one i have to confess to. i can do whatever i want. but if someone asks me to site their cause, i’ll explain my motivations in the form of circumstances and emotions. I do have a philosophy but i don’t have it bundled up in a nice little package because i understand it is circumstantial. and i do have a conscience in that i’m conscious of my actions. if you think i’m attacking you specifically i am not. this is the first question i’ve looked at on this site. i don’t mean to bully you and i don’t think i am. this isn’t meant to be personal- i’m trying to bring to light the nature of an entire group. if you associate yourself directly with that group, i suppose it is personal.

Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 10:33 PM

I understand you reasoning against the question. You feel that since people have different stances of morality, we should not ask whether following morality is most expedient or not. But this is where I depart. I am not asking people to adopt my morals in answering this question. Use your own. Ask yourself, if you follow them, will you reach your goal fastest. Or can you reach your goal faster without morality. Cicero believes in the former and Machiavelli in the latter. The reason I think it’s important to ask this question is, at some point we all tend to make a choice between the two philosophies. They cannot coexist and I am simply wondering how many people fall under either category.
So, if you would, answer the question: Do YOU believe that (your) morality is the most expedient means of choice and action?

Evan Wagner on February 28, 2008, 10:37 PM

I mean I don’t know if I have a particular goal. I am definitely not looking for expedience in my life- i anticipate and hope to be caught in despair. I don’t have a real morality yet because i don’t have emotions towards things that would connotate morality. I more have feelings towards philosophies, and these feelings are directly correlated with their ends, so if we could readjust the question to fit that, then i’d say that my philosophy is the most expedient vehicle for my action.

Patrick Regan on February 28, 2008, 10:42 PM

AHA! And so it has been answered. I didn’t mean to ruffle your feathers or get into an argument of semantics. That is the kind of answer I was looking for and wanted to hear. I am honored that my question was the first you read on the site and hope you will answer many more, and many more of mine.

Evan Wagner on February 28, 2008, 10:52 PM

I really appreciate your concessions. I would love to answer more of your questions and any others. if there’s a way to message on this thing, feel free to.

James Randazzo on February 29, 2008, 12:29 AM

It may be more useful to ponder this question beyond the limit that is inherent in a dualistic form.One factor we may not recognize can be made more visible when we view morality as an aquired condition of culture, changing according to time and enviorment. Another may be that “moral” values are often intellectual interpretations of emotional feelings. In this,morality in its lowest form denies the rightful role of conscience (which may “always” be in the moment directing right action). A third tangent to our cognition may be that words are not the feelings and we often fail to notice the dichotomy.

Robert Landbeck on February 29, 2008, 7:25 AM

Morality is nothing but subjective ‘shifting sands’ and this perpetual moral maze exists because whatever human nature is, its moral competence is limited. We do not bounce from our mothers womb knowing the difference between right and wrong. Nothing shows this up more that the looming environmental crisis. No species that destroys the earths capacity to sustain itself and destroys others in the process has the right to call itself moral?

Donal McNally on February 29, 2008, 10:20 AM

The most casual examination of human behavior shows that the moral choice is not always the most expedient one and that many have obtained great advantage from not making this choice. Or was that really your question?

christina pirello on February 29, 2008, 11:36 AM

sorry, i have come late to this conversation so i may be breaking with thought.

i think that the moral choice is always more expedient. the problem with today’s world is that it has become ‘okay’ and the norm to use whatever means possible to achieve an end. and whether that end is moral, good for society or not, the path to get there is just as important as the outcome. we have made it far too easy to take less than moral actions and suffer no consequences. we see it every day in our pop culture with people going to prison and coming out to stardom. our moral compass has become a bit misguided. it’s always easier to take the moral high ground. you have fewer worries about being caught in a lie, losing credibility. so while it may not always be the most expedient, we need to suck it up and always try to do the right thing.

Rebecca Hastings on February 29, 2008, 12:23 PM

To allow your own core morality to shift with current events is a dangerous game, and I think should be guarded against.
Only required actions need to shift with current events. The reasons behind those actions may or may not be moral.
Is it immoral to be motivated by profit in successfully finding a way of reducing your personal or company carbon footprint? No.
Is it immoral to restrict human rights without trial in the %u201Cwar on terror%u201D? Yes.

Jason Browning on February 29, 2008, 1:10 PM

You say what is moral is “right”. Right for whom? Right for you? Or right for society? I agree that morals are intertwined with our conscience. I am saying that an individual’s conscience is, to a large extent, learned behavior. We learn it from societal influences. Our moral compass is typically guided by what society finds acceptable. And different societies find different things acceptable (although most societies have many similarities). And finally, the difference between what different societies find acceptable is most frequently defined by what is necessary or useful in that society. There are all sorts of tangents you can get into regarding WHY something becomes useful or necessary in a society, and the acceptance of an activity tends to survive past the original utility of the activity.

Evan Wagner on February 29, 2008, 5:12 PM

Gaia, why is it moral or immoral to restrict human rights? Who could make that judgment- you? That’s a blanket assessment. If your response is “It is immoral because restricting human rights limits the people’s ability to live for themselves”— or anything like that (I am using it as an example and I want that to be clear since it would be a waste to get caught up on semantics) that doesn’t really explain anything because it brings us back to our original plea of morality. I’m glad that you think limiting human rights is immoral, but that doesn’t mean it’s universally immoral. If you have serious proof of its immorality, I’d love to hear it.

Tony Purdom on March 1, 2008, 5:14 PM

I think that when you do bad things that you believe that people are doing bad things to you. If you steal you will think that people are stealing from you. If you intimidate people you will feel that people are trying to intimidate you. I think that this process can lead to hell on earth, and even if it looks like these immoral people are finding success through robbery, I promise you that their life will be filled with less happiness, than their moral counterpart.

Robert Graham on March 3, 2008, 12:59 PM

One problem I have always had with philosophical discussions is that they tend to avoid practical examples and tend to speak about concepts that are difficult to define. So, let’s speak in a practically. I have a cousin who is in prison. When he committed his first armed robbery, he was staying with me off and on. He got a ten year probated sentence for that first one. I consider it immoral to pull a gun on someone and demand money. I also consider it cowardly. So, one day as we sat at the kitchen table, I asked him, in what might have been considered an aggressive manner, what he thought why he did what he did. He didn’t have a good answer but I’m sure he considered it expedient. It is also expedient to blame immorality on the abuse of others, or on capitalism or on lack of religion, but a better explanation is that quite few are born with brains that are not that smart and/or not able to concentrate and/or with characters that are not willing to work hard and will do things, such as what my cousin did, for those reasons. If one argues expediency over morality, then one opens the door for such people. The more difficult question, in a moral sense, is how a society is to handle such people. Though it may be difficult to define morality in a philosophical sense, it is not difficult to define morality in a practical sense. Practical morality is preferable to expediency.

Robert Graham on March 3, 2008, 1:01 PM

I noticed a typo. In the second sentence I meant to write – so let’s speak practically.

Diana Cryder on March 6, 2008, 7:15 PM

When expediency is chosen over morality we often end up with regrets. The moral choice is rarely the easy one but a little effort goes a long way towards creating future happiness and good relationships with others.

Robert Graham on March 9, 2008, 4:59 PM

Ralph, I was not blaming immorality on how people are born. Rather, I was giving a specific example that I am quite familar with and then pointing out how that example might apply to the issue at hand. A person’s character is based on genetics and environment. The environment is very important. However, two people can be raised in the same family and therefore have very similar experiences and yet be quite different. There is no valid scientific way to sort out the contributions of environment vs. genetics for any given person, or for people as a whole. Consider what you wrote when you worte “selfish self-interests”. Isn’t that redundant? Why can’t you see that such a statement is redundant? Is it because of environment or genetics that you have such a block? The other term you used when referring to self-interests -i.e., “illogical” – is, itself, illogical in that context. How can you judge whether another person’s self-interest is illogical? Self-interests often involve emotions, obligations, etc. Logic may or may not be a component and it is often not an issue in that context. Rather than using words that have emotional appeal -i.e., capitalism, inequalities in wages, illogical, selfish, etc. -I suggest that you think of specific examples that have bearing in the real world. You could start by analyzing why you wrote “selfish self-interests”. Figure that out in an honest fashion and you will learn something about the world and something about yourself. Perhaps there might even be insight into morality through such an endeavor.