What's more important - being morally right or being happy?

A friend of mine asked me an interesting question today, the thread title. What do you think?

Personally, I think that while everyone WANTS to be morally right, being happy usually comes before that.

I go morally right 90% of the time.

I'd say being morally correct is a requirement for being happy

Most of the time being morally right makes me happy.

I win.

ray - I guess you're thinking of a particular situation where morality conflicts with happiness. Here's an example - let's say it would make me very happy if someone else was dead. Two options - prevent them from living and be happy, or let them live, and be unhappy.

You might suppose that everyone believes that "preventing someone from living" is an immoral act. But it's in the situation when morality conflicts with happiness that people, who would otherwise believe that killing is immoral, do an immoral act, in order to satisfy their desire for happiness. I would agree with most of the sentiments in this thread - most people think morality first 90% (quoting CoB). the problem is that the other 10% is where the crime is usually committed.

sorry, ignore me, too much talking.

Being morally correct is far more satisfying in the long run than inducing temporary euphoria that'll eventually fade off within a day (being content =/= being happy).

Not a lot of people can think for the long run though, myself included.

But yes, instant gratification != happiness;
I also properly separate social morality and that of my own, the latter of which I'm more extreme about.

I'm going to assume that you're trying to say that there is a moral dilemma. If we take two values: (a) morals and (b) happiness then here are some juvenile possibilities.

1. Perform moral good and attain happiness
2. Perform moral good and be unhappy
3. Forsake moral good and attain happiness
4. Forsake moral good and be unhappy

Instances 2 and 3 are examples of a moral dilemma. As you can see there is a conflict of interest between having both morals and happiness thus the "dilemma."

Second, I'm going to explain some general ideas behind moral thought. In Plato's "The Republic" Socrates and Thrasymachus have a long discussion about morality. Thrasymachus brings up an idea that is repeated by further philosophers of this notion that "might makes right." The idea reflects the notion that the conqueror establishes what is right or wrong. After all, in order to punish those who don't follow the rules, power is a prerequisite. Thrasymachus believed that morals were just a means to control a massive populace of people. By instilling those morals with power to punish, people would fall into line with the new leader and accept the morals imposed on them. In a sense, the victor determined what was right and wrong. Right and wrong really had no meaning except to signify the power of the victor.

My impression is that most ethical problems are approached from two major perspectives: (1) deontological and (2) consequentalist. An example of deontology is Kant's categorical imperative. Kant's "categorical imperative" notes that actions should be done for the sake of doing that action (no ulterior motives). An example of consequential thinking is Mill's "utilitarianism" which comes down to the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism gauges whether an action is moral or not based on the consequences. I'll give you an example: A doctor has five patients that have cancer in five different organs. They are all going to die. A patient comes in for a check-up and he is perfectly healthy. If the doctor kills him, then he can save the other five patients by splitting up his organs. What should the doctor do? Now a deontologist might say that it is inherently wrong to kill a patient, therefore the doctor should not do it. But a consequentalist might see the 5 for 1 trade off and decide that it would be the smart decision. Would you reconsider this question if the patient gave his permission that the doctor could murder him in order to save the other five? Again this is the modern embodiment of moral ethics that is being talked about in parties and social circles.

Deontology can be used to question things such as laws. For example, is it inherently wrong to drive on the wrong side of the road? How about killing someone? Is that inherently evil? Many other considerations are taking in political moral thought as committing certain actions in public and private have entirely different consequences. The most obvious is stripping naked. Again, this can be considered under a more political form of moral thought.

The major idea I want to pull across is that morals can often be varied and complex. It's hard enough to be "morally right" with so many contrasting forms of ideological opinion.

I apologize for this double post, but it was intentional. I wanted to separate my juvenile attempts at Philosophy 101 with my actual opinion. My actual opinion is that morals are garbage. There are so many people who cheat and insist it's not cheating. Lie and insist it's not lying. And wave around a banner or moral justice when they are just setting themselves up to become hypocrites when they cannot meet their own standards. When stuck between the choice of survival or a social norm, most people would cave-in as they turn back to feelings of self-preservation and sustainability. The reason I can talk about morals is because I have a home, I have a computer, I have an internet connection, and I have had the luxury of being pampered and spoiled by parents who encouraged my intellectual growth. John Rawls did not put dinner on the table. Neither did Socrates. Nor did my sense of moral justice. My parents provided me the funds or gave me the first steps to make self-sustainability possible. I cannot make other people happy if I cannot make myself happy. I cannot support other people if I cannot myself. I cannot hope to have a child with a strong moral background if I cannot feed that child enough in order to grow and survive. When you've been trampled on so many times, then reassessment is invaluable. If it makes anyone feel better, I am not normally a happy person. But I assume that this is already self-evident in the way I choose to portray myself. To me, happiness is success and success is survival. The terms to me are almost inextricable.

I apologize for this double post, but it was intentional. I wanted to separate my juvenile attempts at Philosophy 101 with my actual opinion. My actual opinion is that morals are garbage. There are so many people who cheat and insist it's not cheating. Lie and insist it's not lying. And wave around a banner or moral justice when they are just setting themselves up to become hypocrites when they cannot meet their own standards. When stuck between the choice of survival or a social norm, most people would cave-in as they turn back to feelings of self-preservation and sustainability. The reason I can talk about morals is because I have a home, I have a computer, I have an internet connection, and I have had the luxury of being pampered and spoiled by parents who encouraged my intellectual growth. John Rawls did not put dinner on the table. Neither did Socrates. Nor did my sense of moral justice. My parents provided me the funds or gave me the first steps to make self-sustainability possible. I cannot make other people happy if I cannot make myself happy. I cannot support other people if I cannot myself. I cannot hope to have a child with a strong moral background if I cannot feed that child enough in order to grow and survive. When you've been trampled on so many times, then reassessment is invaluable. If it makes anyone feel better, I am not normally a happy person. But I assume that this is already self-evident in the way I choose to portray myself. To me, happiness is success and success is survival. The terms to me are almost inextricable.

I'm going to agree with this because, as usual, Swerve has posted something that I totally agree with, but said much more eloquently.

-snip-

I also wondered if I should ask how the OP defines morality. However, we SPians (and lesser beings too ) often get up in arms about some injustice or other. Why are we so convinced that something is unjust if we personally don't know if it's right or wrong? For example, I don't think there is anyone in a common American society who would think it fair if they were given a speeding ticket and arrested when they do not know how to drive, and will not only feel angry, unjustly done by, and experience no guilt for speeding, but also will go to great lengths to prove their perceived innocence. Moreover, if they told their friends the situation, they could reasonably expect their friends to agree (rather than discuss the possibility of it being a fair ticket), suggesting that an understanding of objective right and wrong is also reasonably present in society generally.

(this was for Swerve's 1st post - obviously I took too long to post )

I also wondered if I should ask how the OP defines morality. However, we SPians (and lesser beings too ) often get up in arms about some injustice or other. Why are we so convinced that something is unjust if we personally don't know if it's right or wrong? For example, I don't think there is anyone in a common American society who would think it fair if they were given a speeding ticket and arrested when they do not know how to drive, and will not only feel angry, unjustly done by, and experience no guilt for speeding, but also will go to great lengths to prove their perceived innocence. Moreover, if they told their friends the situation, they could reasonably expect their friends to agree (rather than discuss the possibility of it being a fair ticket), suggesting that an understanding of objective right and wrong is also reasonably present in society generally.

(this was for Swerve's 1st post - obviously I took too long to post )

I respect the fact that you are open minded. It is extremely admirable. Unfortunately the car example brought up bad memories.

Even though I state that I would value happiness, success, and survival over most moral values, there is one that I would have a hard time compromising. Honesty. I'm hard pressed to tell a lie. Unless I'm being sarcastic or cynical. Then again, life is nothing but a hard press.

Oh! If I recall correctly, Fiel should be apt about philosophy. At least, I think I checked out a couple of links in his signature awhile ago.