The amorality of badness

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

The morality of goodness has been done to death so that everyone knows on some level what it means to be good and why we should pursue goodness. However very little is discussed on the nature of badness and why is bad to be bad, or whether it is always bad to be bad, or even what the nature of badness is in the first place.

As a Hedonist, my morality is not derived from theist concepts of goodness and badness... I suspect they don't exist except with in the realm of social constructs... making it like law in many ways... not real, but a good working model to apply to ensure social cohesion for most people.

As a Hedonist, my morality is formed from the notions of pleasure and pain which can be physical or psychological. Badness then equates as pain in my world. However, there are many behaviours deemed bad which result in no pain but rather pleasure and for the life of me, I cannot understand why they are deemed in the social realm as bad in the first place.

Take for example the employee who works for a corporation who is notorious for using their sick leave when they are not sick. This is deemed bad. But why? No one is harmed?

This thread then aims to explore the nature of badness... what is it... why is it... how does it manifest.

[Mattus]

Taking a sickie requires lying. Is lying morally obnoxious? My mother always told me not to lie. Apparently it makes Jesus cry. I'm not sure what other moral compass to go by. I don't like to be thought of as a liar, I guess. So I don't lie to obtain a sickie. It's not worth squandering the goodwill with my employer. So perhaps that's self interest, rather than respecting the morality of good. On the other hand, it kinda feels wrong, but perhaps that's my mother-Jesus whispering in my ear again.

I think I read that you're interested in science, field which is based on honesty. If a scientist lies about his research, for example if he exaggerates the speed of neutrinos, because it feels good to be in the papers and be told your research is earth shattering. To be up there with Einstein, and it doesn't really hurt anyone, is that okay?

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Taking a sickie requires lying. Is lying morally obnoxious? My mother always told me not to lie. Apparently it makes Jesus cry. I'm not sure what other moral compass to go by. I don't like to be thought of as a liar, I guess. So I don't lie to obtain a sickie. It's not worth squandering the goodwill with my employer. So perhaps that's self interest, rather than respecting the morality of good. On the other hand, it kinda feels wrong, but perhaps that's my mother-Jesus whispering in my ear again.

Applying this to a corporation, because my example was specific to corporations... You claim that you do not want to squander the goodwill of your employer and that this is why you dont lie to take a sickie. But who is your employer Mattus... the person to whom you report or the corporation Itself? I put it to you that it is the corporation that employs you and the person to whom you report is a representative of that corporation and as such employed by the self same non human legal entity that you are employed by.

This sad state begs the question then... Why on earth are you applying morality to your behaviour when dealing with a non human construct that Itself has no morality? The morality of goodness and the amorality of badness apply to human interactions and not human/non human interactions. That corporation will not act morality towards you... It has no moral accountability towards you, so why give to It what it cannot give to you? The corporation is a legal construct that is accountable to various laws... and even then, It will look for loop holes so as to avoid legal consequence to get what It wants... and what It wants is to get bigger profit and that is all It wants.

Yet you will do the right thing by It, in the hope that It will recognise your goodwill... I don't get it.

I think I read that you're interested in science, field which is based on honesty. If a scientist lies about his research, for example if he exaggerates the speed of neutrinos, because it feels good to be in the papers and be told your research is earth shattering. To be up there with Einstein, and it doesn't really hurt anyone, is that okay?

Science is the pursuit of knowledge. Knowledge is deemed valuable to and for humans for intrinsic reasons and for its applications to human endeavour and health. Because it is a human pursuit aimed at bettering humanity in various ways, it has moral imperatives just like all humans do for one another.

In the hands of a corporation however... all sorts of amoral monstrosities can result, which I shouldn't need to spell out since we can all bring to mind a scientific abuse resulting from corporate involvement... and again... this is because corporations are not moral entities and owe no moral consideration to humans.

EDIT: I really should proof read my posts before publishing them.

[AiA in Atlanta]

What comes to mind immediately is badness is related to one's intent. Yet that can't be the whole story. We are all conditioned by our upbringing and are generally unaware of it. So, my intent may be good (or not bad) yet I hurt those around me because of my unconscious conditioning. If one does become even somewhat conscious and really wants to change then he would have to take responsibility not only for his actions but his unconscious conditioning as well. In other words, in addition to intent, responsibility is also related to badness.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

What comes to mind immediately is badness is related to one's intent. Yet that can't be the whole story. We are all conditioned by our upbringing and are generally unaware of it. So, my intent may be good (or not bad) yet I hurt those around me because of my unconscious conditioning. If one does become even somewhat conscious and really wants to change then he would have to take responsibility not only for his actions but his unconscious conditioning as well. In other words, in addition to intent, responsibility is also related to badness.

Morality and amorality of goodness and badness respectively is a lot like a sentence... There is the actor, the action and that which is being acted upon. The first consideration of morality is to decide what is being acted upon.

[AiA in Atlanta]

Morality and amorality of goodness and badness respectively is a lot like a sentence... There is the actor, the action and that which is being acted upon. The first consideration of morality is to decide what is being acted upon.

Wouldn't "to decide" first need someone wise enough to recognize his intent and to take full responsibility?

[boxy]

Humans are social monkeys. Our individual success is reliant upon our ability to convince others to work with us towards common goals. To convince others that you are worth working with, you need to be able to show that you agree to a set of common beliefs... hence the set of socially agreed upon rules (or morals) that all societies come up with.

Even in the corporate setting, some people provide the capital, some the business plan, and others the labour. It is still a collective of individuals, working towards a mutually beneficial goal, within an agreed upon moral framework. Taking a sickie (without being sick) is a breach of your agreement... not a big one, and maybe you're fine with being a little bit naughty.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Morality and amorality of goodness and badness respectively is a lot like a sentence... There is the actor, the action and that which is being acted upon. The first consideration of morality is to decide what is being acted upon.

Wouldn't "to decide" first need someone wise enough to recognize his intent and to take full responsibility?

No. My intent can be equally violent when seeking to smash the bejesus out of something. If it is a human, then the action is amoral, but what if it is a rock?

Therefore, first, it must be know what has been acted upon.

[The Artist formerly known as Sappho]

Even in the corporate setting, some people provide the capital, some the business plan, and others the labour. It is still a collective of individuals, working towards a mutually beneficial goal, within an agreed upon moral framework. Taking a sickie (without being sick) is a breach of your agreement... not a big one, and maybe you're fine with being a little bit naughty.

Share holders provide the capital. Representatives contracted by the corporation provide the business plan. Representatives contracted by the corporation provide the labour. Providing the business plan by the way... is of itself labour also... intellectual labour. The business plan of a corporation always has the same goal once that which it has been incorporated to achieve has been achieved... and that universal goal is to get bigger.

Those contracted to ensure the corporation get bigger are not necessarily beneficent of that goal... indeed they can suffer for it and our current global climate is an example of the kind of suffering that humans must endure as a result of a failed attempt by the corporation at getting bigger.

Indeed the whole idea of perpetual growth which is the primary goal of a corporation once it has achieved that which it has been incorporated to achieve is logically flawed. Nothing can grow perpetually.

There is no agreed upon moral framework, rather there are contractual obligations. The corporation seeks loopholes in that contractual obligation and quite commonly will abuse contractual obligations... but by your reasoning boxy... a human contracted to that corporation must not act as the corporation would act?

[boxy]

Morality and amorality of goodness and badness respectively is a lot like a sentence... There is the actor, the action and that which is being acted upon. The first consideration of morality is to decide what is being acted upon.

Wouldn't "to decide" first need someone wise enough to recognize his intent and to take full responsibility?

No. My intent can be equally violent when seeking to smash the bejesus out of something. If it is a human, then the action is amoral, but what if it is a rock?

Therefore, first, it must be know what has been acted upon.

Let's take the example of a stone wall in a public space.

You want to spray paint on it.

It can either be morally good, bad or indifferent, depending upon your intent.

Good - you paint it with the intention of enhancing it's appeal for yourself and others.
Indifferent - you add your own graffiti to please yourself without making it worse for others.
Bad - you scrawl paint on it to simply mark your territory, with the full knowledge that it is ugly and annoying to the great majority of your fellow citizens.

What you are acting upon has less affect on the morality of an action, than who the stakeholders are, and how your actions affect their respective rights.