4 ms·

That was a brief summary and one can say it more carefully. Most importantly, immorality is not a boolean thing. If you aren't accomplishing a goal, it'd be an

by curi 19y ago

That was a brief summary and one can say it more carefully. Most importantly, immorality is not a boolean thing. If you aren't accomplishing a goal, it'd be an improvement (more moral, a better way of life) to either change your approach, or change your goal. It is less moral (a worse way of life, immoral) to continue with a lifestyle that is failing by its own criteria of success and failure. That needs the caveat that we only mean goals you actually intend to accomplish. We don't mean vague goals, and we definitely don't mean the sort of goal you would be happy to partially achieve -- in that case, the real goal is just making progress towards ... your "goal". (It's the same word, but it's a different concept than the one I mean). Back to your points, you say that even if you fail by your own standards, you might help others, and the net effect of your life may be positive. That's absolutely true. However, it'd be even better (more moral) if you did the same actions, but had wiser goals, which those actions were achieving. Then you'd help others, but also consider your own life successful.

lg 19y ago
I was saying that failing to achieve your goals can be moral. I'll add that it can be morally better than succeeding at them. Now you say, well yes but it'd be better if you had better goals in the first place. So I think the lesson is: it's not consistency between goals and outcomes that matters for morality; what matters is the morality of those goals and outcomes.
- curi 19y ago
  I think we are talking past each other. You are talking about morality, in the common sense semi-religious meaning. I am talking about "morality" referring only to the propositions I'd just put forward about how to live. When you say "failing to achieve your goals can be moral" you are not using the word in the way I did. As far as consistency, can you give one good reason it would be a good way to live to make choices in a way that won't achieve the results you are hoping for? If not, then that is my point: that is a bad way of life. It might, by good luck, turn out well, but it doesn't work reliably, and better ways of life are available.
yters 19y ago
Mustn't goals themselves be good or bad, regardless of whether they're achievable? Or would you say that goals, such as Hitler's, were bad only b/c eugenics ultimately would be bad from an evolutionary point of view? Then, there is a the problem of heroism, which is defined by a person's courage to pursue a noble goal even if its achievement is very unlikely. Finally, by your definition, I could be one of the most moral people by making my goal "do whatever I want." Everyone is always doing whatever they want, at least at some level. This would pretty much render all talk of morality pointless. But, I suppose I'm being too literal with your definition.
- curi 19y ago
  These are just starting points. I do think goals are themselves good or bad, but it's much harder to explain how you can objectively make assertions like that, so I wanted to make the lesser claim, for now: there are ways to explore morality objectively. I'm definitely not claiming consistency of this sort is the only criterion of morality. Only that it's an important and objective one. I don't mean to be a tease, but if I say too many things at once, I won't be understood as well. On the other hand, threads here go stale fast (usually in under a day), so I'm not sure how to ever get very far in explaining, here. By contrast, on another forum, I am in a thread that has been going for 4 years. And it's only 180 comments long -- so around 1 comment per 8 days. I'll keep posting here if anyone replies. Or contact me, curi42 on AIM or curi@curi.us So for depth, my best idea so far is to link longer, external writing. Here are two things I wrote about morality which explain my views a bit more: Essay: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii Dialog: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality
  - yters 19y ago
    Ah, good. I figured I wasn't getting the whole picture. Something similar to objectivism makes sense to me. I think there is such a thing as human nature, so everyone is ultimately made happy by the same things, at a certain granularity. Morality's objectively good goal, in your framework, is to maximize happiness. However, at this point I have to veer into territory considered "religious," because such a claim requires at least an element of non-materialism to make sense of our moral intuitions. At any rate, my views are not rigorously defined enough, and I'd benefit from critical, constructive discussion. I'll check out your links and see if I can participate.
bishopdante 18y ago
morality is not a boolean thing. Now that is absolutely bang on. You see, a moral is extracted from a story, it is interpretation. Good stories don't have to spell it out. Some stories have many morals. Some stories the moral of the story is it's hard to find the morals, or the boundaries.

by curi 19y ago

lg 19y ago

I was saying that failing to achieve your goals can be moral. I'll add that it can be morally better than succeeding at them. Now you say, well yes but it'd be better if you had better goals in the first place. So I think the lesson is: it's not consistency between goals and outcomes that matters for morality; what matters is the morality of those goals and outcomes.

curi 19y ago
I think we are talking past each other. You are talking about morality, in the common sense semi-religious meaning. I am talking about "morality" referring only to the propositions I'd just put forward about how to live. When you say "failing to achieve your goals can be moral" you are not using the word in the way I did. As far as consistency, can you give one good reason it would be a good way to live to make choices in a way that won't achieve the results you are hoping for? If not, then that is my point: that is a bad way of life. It might, by good luck, turn out well, but it doesn't work reliably, and better ways of life are available.

yters 19y ago

Mustn't goals themselves be good or bad, regardless of whether they're achievable? Or would you say that goals, such as Hitler's, were bad only b/c eugenics ultimately would be bad from an evolutionary point of view? Then, there is a the problem of heroism, which is defined by a person's courage to pursue a noble goal even if its achievement is very unlikely. Finally, by your definition, I could be one of the most moral people by making my goal "do whatever I want." Everyone is always doing whatever they want, at least at some level. This would pretty much render all talk of morality pointless. But, I suppose I'm being too literal with your definition.

curi 19y ago
These are just starting points. I do think goals are themselves good or bad, but it's much harder to explain how you can objectively make assertions like that, so I wanted to make the lesser claim, for now: there are ways to explore morality objectively. I'm definitely not claiming consistency of this sort is the only criterion of morality. Only that it's an important and objective one. I don't mean to be a tease, but if I say too many things at once, I won't be understood as well. On the other hand, threads here go stale fast (usually in under a day), so I'm not sure how to ever get very far in explaining, here. By contrast, on another forum, I am in a thread that has been going for 4 years. And it's only 180 comments long -- so around 1 comment per 8 days. I'll keep posting here if anyone replies. Or contact me, curi42 on AIM or curi@curi.us So for depth, my best idea so far is to link longer, external writing. Here are two things I wrote about morality which explain my views a bit more: Essay: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii Dialog: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality
- yters 19y ago
  Ah, good. I figured I wasn't getting the whole picture. Something similar to objectivism makes sense to me. I think there is such a thing as human nature, so everyone is ultimately made happy by the same things, at a certain granularity. Morality's objectively good goal, in your framework, is to maximize happiness. However, at this point I have to veer into territory considered "religious," because such a claim requires at least an element of non-materialism to make sense of our moral intuitions. At any rate, my views are not rigorously defined enough, and I'd benefit from critical, constructive discussion. I'll check out your links and see if I can participate.

bishopdante 18y ago

morality is not a boolean thing. Now that is absolutely bang on. You see, a moral is extracted from a story, it is interpretation. Good stories don't have to spell it out. Some stories have many morals. Some stories the moral of the story is it's hard to find the morals, or the boundaries.