Not a simple answer.
But Let me try.
The** intention and the consequence **of an action define an action moral or immoral.
Furthermore in certain situations, it depends if the action qualifies to be generalized for everyone or not?
Going even further, in case the consequence of an action was harmful or bad, was there enough care taken while performing the action to avoid self harm or to anyone else?
Statistical morality can help.
Let’s say someone shares a joke and you further shared that joke with others. Others enjoyed the joke and appreciated you sharing it with them. However, you never appreciated the person who shared the joke with you in the first place. Is that moral on your part?
It will be immoral. Given that it can be statistically proven that such acts will adversely effect your ability to receive appreciation from others, which will in turn have negative effects on your well being. Basically statistical morality is evidence based and result oriented.
That’s a very good try :k: . But seems incomplete.
“The** intention and the consequence **of an action define an action moral or immoral.”
Agreed. But, **what **consequence or intention makes an act moral or immoral.
“Furthermore in certain situations, it depends if the action qualifies to be generalized for everyone or not?”
Are you saying, like Kant and his categorical imperative, that an action is moral if it can be made into a general law for everyone?
If so why have you qualified it with “in certain situations”? What are these “certain situations”?
“Going even further, in case the consequence of an action was harmful or bad, was there enough care taken while performing the action to avoid self harm or to anyone else?”
Agreed. But what is the definition of “harmful or bad”? That’s what the very question was in the first place (i.e. what is morality?)
Sorry, you are talking gibberish. Seriously.
Do not make me think you are on psycho and on medications who just posts online under the influence.
Please edit your post. I very strongly recommend. If not. Then let it be.
**No. Because, the intention was not to harm anyone.
And there is only an assumption on YOUR part that the person who shared the joke never appreciated it by me.**
You used “statistical”/ “statistically” words with no context to your statements above.
Please take care of yourself. Hope you feel good and stay safe.
**Learn statistics and it’s basics before using this word again to me. My humble advice. If you are a “statistician”, which you have not proven as of yet, then I am willing to learn from me on appropriate time. **
No idea what are you talking about.
Please go on and explain what you wrote.
@diwana
Let me clarify what I mean by statistical morality. One doesn’t have to be a statistician to follow statistical morality, college math will do just fine. As an example, say I want to decide between two retired batsmen of who is better. First I will lay down ground rules of what I mean by “better” in that context.
Better:
(In order of decreasing importance left to right and top to bottom)
1- Career average score in Test, ODI and T20.
2- Number of Tests, ODI and T20s.
3- Number of times awarded man of the match in Tests,ODIs and T20s.
4- Number of centuries in Test, ODIs and T20s.
5- Total runs scored in Test, ODIs and T20s.
Notice I’ve not assigned any importance to the number of children they had or their nationality nor their city as those things are not important to me and only me. Next I’ll compare the stats of both the players and the decision will be easy. I’m saying the same could be done to make moral decisions if our ground rules are precise, verifiable and numeric.
Thanks.
Great question.
Hence, I asked in the beginning define “good” and “bad”.
Also I also said, Humans cannot really come up with universal definition of Morality.
And, no, I am not talking about CI. Kant I believe still talked about “reasoning or rationality” by human beings. Correct me if I am wrong.
What I meant by certain situations which could be generalized is when a third party defines what is moral action or not!
I think this might be the time when I said earlier that later on I may extend the discussion further.
But first let’s see if you are getting my drift. 
We are talking about unmeasurable quality.
Morality is not about numbers.
What you talked about is something comparatively better than other in terms of numbers.
Well, if the definition of morality is not coming from humans then it must be coming from something non-human.
God?
Please do extend the discussion further. It is about time.
Bingo!
We purposefully may not be willing to adopt statistical morality because we will then not be able to justify our actions against something that is precise, verifiable and numeric.
Let’s consider two individuals who steal mobile phones for a living. Their morality is that they will not steal from someone who is poorer than themselves. If one of them follows statistical morality then he will have well defined morality such as:
Only steal from someone who:
1- Has travelled in a car.
2- Has a job.
3- Is wearing clean clothes.
4- Is eating at a restaurant.
5- Is shopping at a mall.
6- Bought anything new.
Let’s say each of those qualities have a weight of 1 point. Now this thief will know precisely when he does something immoral. On the other hand, the other thief will be free to make up justifications. As a result the first thief will likely have more guilt, than the second one despite being less guilty.
I hope you do elaborate further on this. Like, how does God communicate morality to us? Does he communicate moral principles or does he communicate specific moral actions?
You keep coming up with comparative morality or immorality or guilt which is not good way to look at things.
I think you need to read or better yet, think a little better.
But why are you asking this?
The thread is about morality.
Not about how God or supreme power or deity communicates human being.
I think I am sensing your question going other inter-related way but need confirmation.
That may not be a good way, but that is surely one way to look at things. What I was alluding to were two things:
1- Morality is essentially an individual thing.
2- Verifiable, numeric and precise morality is better than a morality that is open to interpretation depending on mood of the individual.
This is just a follow-up question to your earlier post where you said “Bingo” to the suggestion that definition of morality comes from God.
If I misunderstood that then please clarify what you meant.
Another form of morality is inspired by Nihilism. There is no name for this kind of morality, or at least I don’t know that. But the point is that there is no morality whatsoever. Just do what you are passionate about, what makes you happy, rich, spiritual, closer to God or whatever you want. Optimize your life in a way so you could do that for as long as possible and as much as you want. So if it is something illegal, no worries. Just don’t get caught. If you do drugs, no worries. Just don’t die way sooner.
https://i.ibb.co/0j4ck6R/Raees-Statistial-Morality.webp
Both of your statements contradict each other.
I am waiting for the time when your “statistical based Morality” will make sense. Thanks.
No. Morality is NOT essentially an individual thing.
If that were to be true then there would about of billions of Morality versions.
You filliped back when you said it’s open to the interpretation depending on mood of an individual.
**Make up your mind. **
How does God communicate was never the question on the table. (I said I am sensing where you are getting at so let’s hear it.)
My simple question was that why were you asking that question?
The talk is about Morality and it’s definition.
Ever heard of Hedonism?
Doesn’t the previous discussion naturally lead to this question?
IF
A. Humans cannot come up with the definition of morality
AND
B. The definition of morality comes from God
THEN
C. the question naturally arises that how is that definition known by humans?
Doesn’t C follow from A and B?