Morality is an oxymoron

[hmkpoker]

An oxymoron is an X that possesses a quality that cannot be possessed by X. (for example, all shrimp are small, no shrimp are jumbo, therefore jumbo shrimp is an oxymoron)

All morals are imperatives.

All imperatives have ends.

Morals are imperatives with no ends.

Therefore, morality is an oxymoron.

[FortunaMaximus]

Carbonmorons need oxymorons. It fills the spaces that would be otherwise occupied by rational thought.

[guesswest]

Imperatives don't have to have ends and moral imperatives frequently do have ends. No complaints about the rest /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[hmkpoker]

How can an imperative exist without an end? What makes it imperative?

[guesswest]

Well the idea is not so much that an imperative doesn't require an end, rather that it can be an end in itself.

The bigger objection is the other one - morality is frequently argued to have ends. For instance the moral imperative 'don't steal' services an end in so far as it's to the detriment of the individual if that principle was not universalizable - it's social contract.

Moral relativists would argue that we should obey moral dictates because they do have an end. Moral absolutists would argue that they're an end in themselves. Neither would accept your argument.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The bigger objection is the other one - morality is frequently argued to have ends. For instance the moral imperative 'don't steal' services an end in so far as it's to the detriment of the individual if that principle was not universalizable - it's social contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that defeats any purpose that morality could have. It is like saying that the tit-for-tat strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma is done on moral grounds. If it is done with an end in mind, it's just a strategy.

It is noteworthy that many of our morals are supplemented with direct incentives. There are very good personal incentives not to kill, steal or rape, as they tend to get you punished harshly. Abstinence from those activities cannot count as moral if they are done because they are deterred by punishment.

[soon2bepro]

What do you mean by imperatives? Kant's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative)?

What do you mean by ends? Purpose?

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that defeats any purpose that morality could have. It is like saying that the tit-for-tat strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma is done on moral grounds. If it is done with an end in mind, it's just a strategy.

It is noteworthy that many of our morals are supplemented with direct incentives. There are very good personal incentives not to kill, steal or rape, as they tend to get you punished harshly. Abstinence from those activities cannot count as moral if they are done because they are deterred by punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a strategy is exactly what many people think morality is, that idea is certainly the basis of moral relativism, and the majority of ethicists would identify as relativists of one kind or another. If morality in this analysis is distinct from the kind of strategy you suggest it is perhaps only that the purpose has evolved over time in such a way that we are not conscious of it.

But that doesn't somehow make this behaviour 'not morality' or 'pointless'. There can be no claim that morality does not exist, it's evident that it does. The debate concerns itself with what morality is.

[hmkpoker]

By imperatives, I mean something that is necessary, mandatory, etc. In order to qualify anything as such, there must be a stated end (mandatory for what purpose? necessary for what purpose?)

Morals are inherently deontological; they are done for their own inherent correctness, not because someone is acting toward personal end.

I'd actually go as far as to say that because human beings necessarily act toward ends, the only condition under which he is acting "morally" is one which coincides with those ends, thus making morality completely meaningless.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Morals are inherently deontological; they are done for their own inherent correctness, not because someone is acting toward personal end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when? This seems to be the crux of your claim and I'd argue that it's just factually incorrect - the vast majority of people don't define morality this way. Even many so-called absolutists don't think this in so far as they have an end in sight; pleasing god, getting into heaven etc.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Morals are inherently deontological; they are done for their own inherent correctness, not because someone is acting toward personal end.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when? This seems to be the crux of your claim and I'd argue that it's just factually incorrect - the vast majority of people don't define morality this way. Even many so-called absolutists don't think this in so far as they have an end in sight; pleasing god, getting into heaven etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. My OP should have specifically referred to deontological actions.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
Morals are inherently deontological; they are done for their own inherent correctness, not because someone is acting toward personal end.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely disagree. Morals in society serve the purpose of a detering mechanism for behaviour that damage society.

The concepts on what is right and wrong in morality are based on the expected general interests of human beings. From here it is easily deduced why most if not all individuals have their own unique set of moral rules. They believe others feel the same way they do, about everything.


[ QUOTE ]
I'd actually go as far as to say that because human beings necessarily act toward ends, the only condition under which he is acting "morally" is one which coincides with those ends, thus making morality completely meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I got this right, I agree, but it looks like it contradicts your previous statement.