How to make people act morally

[Scholar]

So, I have tried to explain to a friend why I think many people struggle with discipline in regards to moral behaviour and they seemed to not understand it at all. I am not sure if I am communicating it effectively, so I want to run it by you guys to check if I am the crazy one and just babbling incoherent nonsense without realizing it.

My friend was arguing that, another friend, who is a vegetarian, struggled to go vegan because of discipline issues. I tried to explain to him that I do not believe this to be the case, rather that I think it's about how she relates to animals that is the problem. I view animals more or less as humans, and to me, there is no temptation to consume animal products whatsoever. That option does not even exist in my mind, and therefore, I require not discipline to uphold this behavior.

I was making the case that our friend, who still makes a clear distinction between animals and humans, and resists the idea that they are basically both conscious individuals with slightly different traits, is actually unable to let go of these products because her concern for animals is not as deep as mine. If it was as deep as mine is, by recognizing that animals are basically humans with different minds and bodies, she would not struggle at all to let go of these products.

Note that she is a person who is very aware of the ethics, and what happens to animals, and is intellectually on board with the morality.

He then argued that no, she simply had difficulty with discipline, which I once more disagreed with, giving the following example:

 I might really, really want to have sex with a certain person, even more so than I would like to consume a certain food, but I would not struggle whatsoever not to rape them. There might be a desire, but there is no true temptation, because of my concern for that individual. I don't need discipline to keep myself from raping that person, that would only be the case if I had no concern for that person, or if the desire was absurdly great.

My argument therefore is that instead of trying to moralize as much to people about veganism, and to attempt to discipline them to behave morally, I propose that it is more effective to change the way they view animals. I think what keeps people from acting morally in regards to animals is because of the way they perceive animals. They do not truly recognize the individual within those animals. If that is recognizing, the moral arguments will flow naturally, and discipline will not be as much of an issue anymore.

 

My friend did not understand this argument, and to me it is very clearly formulated. I tried to reframe it, by explaining that it is more effective to focus on internal motivation rather than attempting to resist internal desires by means of discipline. There is a reason why some people struggle with veganism for example, and in my opinion it's because the way they are motivated. If someones dog died if they ate an animal product, for most there would be no longer a true temptation to consume those products, they might desire it, but suddenly in their mind the option would disappear, and there would be no longer internal resistance. Their behavior would be enforced in a way that is stable. On the other hand, if I am not internally motivated, I will have to constantly resist those desires, it becomes a temptation, and usually unsustainable for me to enforce through discipline.

I argued that discipline in this way is ineffective in affecting long term behavior, and that we should first focus on changing our internal motivation, by for example increasing our concern for others, and recognizing the Self in others.

 

 

Is the way I explained this coherent?

[Rokazulu]

Stuff like morality and what should and shouldn't be the standard of behavior are terms of convenience; ways of controlling others.

I, of course, am not saying you should or shouldn't engage in this way, but you have to understand that you can't inherently make anyone do anything. Not even a threat of violence can physically make one behave the way you desire. Only perhaps through coincidence they will change their behavior in accordance to your preference. This is just an observation.

That said, what you say is coherent to me, of course. But, everyone has their own way of interpreting reality. You could say a statement like 1+1=2 and many would not be able to understand what you mean. In their way of perceiving reality, they will continue to write out 1+1=4.

What can change this? Maybe nothing, maybe anything.
I feel emphasizing the first part of this post would be the ideal way to go about it. Since it is only an explanation of what is unconditional in reality and not a forcing of any perspective.


 

Edited June 12, 2022 by Rokazulu

[Razard86]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

So, I have tried to explain to a friend why I think many people struggle with discipline in regards to moral behaviour and they seemed to not understand it at all. I am not sure if I am communicating it effectively, so I want to run it by you guys to check if I am the crazy one and just babbling incoherent nonsense without realizing it.

My friend was arguing that, another friend, who is a vegetarian, struggled to go vegan because of discipline issues. I tried to explain to him that I do not believe this to be the case, rather that I think it's about how she relates to animals that is the problem. I view animals more or less as humans, and to me, there is no temptation to consume animal products whatsoever. That option does not even exist in my mind, and therefore, I require not discipline to uphold this behavior.

I was making the case that our friend, who still makes a clear distinction between animals and humans, and resists the idea that they are basically both conscious individuals with slightly different traits, is actually unable to let go of these products because her concern for animals is not as deep as mine. If it was as deep as mine is, by recognizing that animals are basically humans with different minds and bodies, she would not struggle at all to let go of these products.

Note that she is a person who is very aware of the ethics, and what happens to animals, and is intellectually on board with the morality.

He then argued that no, she simply had difficulty with discipline, which I once more disagreed with, giving the following example:

 I might really, really want to have sex with a certain person, even more so than I would like to consume a certain food, but I would not struggle whatsoever not to rape them. There might be a desire, but there is no true temptation, because of my concern for that individual. I don't need discipline to keep myself from raping that person, that would only be the case if I had no concern for that person, or if the desire was absurdly great.

My argument therefore is that instead of trying to moralize as much to people about veganism, and to attempt to discipline them to behave morally, I propose that it is more effective to change the way they view animals. I think what keeps people from acting morally in regards to animals is because of the way they perceive animals. They do not truly recognize the individual within those animals. If that is recognizing, the moral arguments will flow naturally, and discipline will not be as much of an issue anymore.

 

My friend did not understand this argument, and to me it is very clearly formulated. I tried to reframe it, by explaining that it is more effective to focus on internal motivation rather than attempting to resist internal desires by means of discipline. There is a reason why some people struggle with veganism for example, and in my opinion it's because the way they are motivated. If someones dog died if they ate an animal product, for most there would be no longer a true temptation to consume those products, they might desire it, but suddenly in their mind the option would disappear, and there would be no longer internal resistance. Their behavior would be enforced in a way that is stable. On the other hand, if I am not internally motivated, I will have to constantly resist those desires, it becomes a temptation, and usually unsustainable for me to enforce through discipline.

I argued that discipline in this way is ineffective in affecting long term behavior, and that we should first focus on changing our internal motivation, by for example increasing our concern for others, and recognizing the Self in others.

 

 

Is the way I explained this coherent?

You are correct, nobody lacks discipline. The lack of discipline is a myth. Every human action is in alignment with their beliefs. The only reason discipline is hard is the human is attempting to act outside of their beliefs and therefore there is resistance. Whenever a human's actions are completely in alignment with their beliefs then there is no resistance.

For example when you face a fear, there is resistance. What is the resistance? The fear. You believe something is more powerful than you are and as a result you fear it. To face the fear you have to overcome your resistance. So the reason a fat person might stop working out might be fear of physical pain. That pain could be mild discomfort, or outright pain from exercise. Whatever the issue, until they can overcome that fear, that fear will be an obstacle. It took me many years to learn this truth. 

But it is very simple to figure out actually and it makes me laugh how I didn't see it. Look at your life, certain things you are VERY DISCIPLINED IN. Nobody has to pressure you to do it, or motivate you to do it. You just do it. Notice there is no resistance between you and that thing. Now compare that thing to the other things and you will notice you have a thought, an emotion that creates resistance. 

So you are correct. But hey your friend will learn this truth on their own time.

Edited June 12, 2022 by Razard86

[UnbornTao]

First off, you seem to want to manipulate another's behavior. Nothing wrong with that, but look into the motivation behind it.

Is it moral? Well, in terms of morality, it is a human invention. An individual's preferences determine, in this case, her diet.

Sounds like she doesn't really have the intention to adopt a new diet. No matter how convincing an argument may be, even if he's intellectually on board and loves animals, if the intention isn't there, the behavior will stay the same. Make sure she's honest about her intention, or just arguing for its own sake.

All in all, transforming your relationship and therefore disposition towards such matters is the effective route to take, but only if the other actually intents to do it. Superficially adopting a new belief system won't cut it. Emotion plays a bigger role in diet than cold reason and logic.

It sounds like she simply wants and enjoys meat, so no matter what she's told, she will keep eating it. That's why there are still many sensitive and compassionate people who love certain animals but still eat meat.

Edited June 12, 2022 by UnbornTao

[Scholar]

25 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

First off, you seem to want to manipulate another's behavior. Nothing wrong with that, but look into the motivation behind it.

Is it moral? Well, in terms of morality, it is a human invention. An individual's preferences determine, in this case, her diet.

Sounds like she doesn't really have the intention to adopt a new diet. No matter how convincing an argument may be, even if he's intellectually on board and loves animals, if the intention isn't there, the behavior will stay the same. Make sure she's honest about her intention, or just arguing for its own sake.

All in all, transforming your relationship and therefore disposition towards such matters is the effective route to take, but only if the other actually intents to do it. Superficially adopting a new belief system won't cut it. Emotion plays a bigger role in diet than cold reason and logic.

It sounds like she simply wants and enjoys meat, so no matter what she's told, she will keep eating it. That's why there are still many sensitive and compassionate people who love certain animals but still eat meat.

This kind of response makes me believe that what i wrote is incoherent, because it doesn't seem like you even understood what i wrote, or intended to communicate. You reiterated what I said in a less nuanced way basically.

[zurew]

@Scholar

I think even though  the perception would be different the desire would still be there. I think that if the concern for something outweighs the temptation or the desire, then that particular action most likely won't be taken. I think the 'concern' part can be affected by internal and external factors as well.

For instance, using your rape analogy, you could say that you wouldn't rape that particular person, because of your perception of them and because of your internal moral system. But thats just the inner part, there is an external factor to this, because there are laws. Other external factor could be friends and culture. But of course the culture part is almost irrelevant here, because most people eat meat so the culture part just makes it harder. Your internal moral system and how you view things internally of course can be affected by external factors. 

I think most people who eat meat wouldn't eat it, if they had to the butchering and killing themselves, because they actually somewhat recognise that some animals seem to be conscious. But even though they recognise that, they still eat meat, because there is a  system that does the heavy lifting of butchering the animals and providing them consumeable products. 

I think you are totally right ,when you say, that the perception part is the most important part here. Because there are arguments on the meat eater side like (but meat is more cheap | meat is more nutritious | based on these 2 articles a human must consume meat, because if they don't , then they won't be healthy | only eating vegetables won't give me enough energy | The place where i live, i can't access enough vegetables | meat is more delicious | vegetables nutritional value is declining rapidly compared to the past, so i have  to eat 9 orange now, to get the same nutritional value, that i got from eating one orange in the past|etcetc) even if you were to debunk all of those above, most of them would still eat meat, because of the perception part  . There might be a small number of people who would change their mind based on your debunking of those arguments, but most of them wouldn't.   Because of this, i think the most you can do is to target the younger generation who are open enough to change their view on animals or open and receptive enough to create a more righteous perception of animals.

If you want to target adult people, then the question is, how could you give them the desire or a reason, to be willing to change their perception of animals. I think that particular desire will have to be greater than the desire  to consume meat. Without giving them the desire to change, i think there will be no change, unless you can do it in a sneaky way. 

Edited June 12, 2022 by zurew

[UnbornTao]

7 hours ago, Scholar said:

This kind of response makes me believe that what i wrote is incoherent, because it doesn't seem like you even understood what i wrote, or intended to communicate. You reiterated what I said in a less nuanced way basically.

I didn't give much thought to my response and glanced over your post without much consideration either. Sorry 'bout that.

You could delete the disclaimers about your worry to be coherent and work on clarifying your concern if possible.

[Yog]

You can't make them.

In order for that to happen they would have to be willing to buy your package of distinctions.

Which they probably wont be, since they got their own and are working overtime to keep them.

[BlueOak]

Encourage their development, which is part of education, being a good parent or teacher. Every interaction changes your consciousness and theirs. What values they take on will be from their starting consciousness, parents, society, then experience and choices. 

Usually you can't help anyone do anything directly unless you've established trust, they've left their ego at the door (a comedian for example), or they've come to you seeking your help or advice. That doesn't mean this interaction here for example is wasted, you'll take what makes sense to your conscious life experience and use or not use it. Sometimes something that has been said will come back to mind, even if you didn't accept it the first time, and all of it is now in your subconscious to help you relate and form references in the future. Nothing heard is ever completely wiped from experience even if it's heavily suppressed or avoided, everything even what you hate has a purpose.

But then you are probably more open to this than most, because you are on a personal development forum and have come to among other things learn or better yourself perhaps. You are not completely cutting yourself off from learning from other perspectives, otherwise you'd probably leave here and go live in a comfortable bubble. You could focus on learning with a child. Leo and others have for example said to fall in love with learning, if a child or someone who trusts you can begin to do that, in their own way, they will be set for life of personal or professional development and adaptation.

I don't distinguish morality from experience to be clear. Experience often forms morality even if it has to drag you across it the hard way. Everyone grows painfully or peacefully.

[Carl-Richard]

22 hours ago, Scholar said:

I argued that discipline in this way is ineffective in affecting long term behavior, and that we should first focus on changing our internal motivation, by for example increasing our concern for others, and recognizing the Self in others.

Is the way I explained this coherent?

Yup. Intrinsic motivation is one of the most stable drives of behavior. I guess the challenge is to get somebody to actually change how they think or feel, because I suspect it's not just about one belief. It's a whole system of beliefs that needs to be deconstructed. One belief gets justified by another which gets justified by another etc. It's not a coincidence that veganism is sometimes called a lifestyle or a worldview.

[Leo Gura]

Suffering is the greatest teacher.

Or maybe love

[VioletFlame]

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Suffering is the greatest teacher.

Or maybe love

Yes! Thank you @Leo Gura

[Carl-Richard]

50 minutes ago, Fearey said:

Morality is nothing more than a fictional story you tell yourself about what is and isn't good.

That is so besides the point.

[BlueOak]

2 hours ago, Fearey said:

Morality is nothing more than a fictional story you tell yourself about what is and isn't good.

Every word is a stored duality you then tell to others or yourself. 

In this case it's a biased shared set of behaviors for people to, hopefully, collectively have a better quality of life.

The individualist in me also chuckled when I read the title. Because to the individual ego to be told to act counter to itself in someone else's bias, is naturally resisted, for the collective to be healthy it's very important to have a collective set of morals. It helps mend disagreement, or avoid conflict in the first place.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Fearey said:

Morality is nothing more than a fictional story you tell yourself about what is and isn't good.

Yes, but i suspect you care about not getting raped, tortured or killed. A collectively agreed upon, well thought out moral system can give you a relatively safe  and a better quality of life.

[BlueOak]

1 minute ago, Fearey said:

If someone thought their morals were bad, these moral values would ceise to be. To add, acknowledging that one's own moral system is, or could be flawed requires a level of open-mindedness that the vast majority of people simply don't have.

Why would they cease to exist automatically? 

I also think you underestimate people's awareness of their own more obvious flaws. At least where I live you won't find anyone saying they are perfect. If you recognize you are flawed, and everyone is, it doesn't fix your flaws without a great deal of effort that most people won't put in.

[integral]

The issue with discipline is this person is being bombarded with delicious food options everywhere. it's a lot easier to justify eating something that is socially accepted, then raping someone. picking up a piece of food and putting it in your mouth is easy,  the barrier to entry is lower. 

People are immature, it's not all about one sense of morality, that's just one line of development.

I don't want to kill my mother some of the time. lol

Edited June 14, 2022 by integral

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, integral said:

The issue with discipline is this person is being bombarded with delicious food options everywhere. it's a lot easier to justify eating something that is socially accepted, then raping someone. picking up a piece of food and putting it in your mouth is easy,  the barrier to entry is lower. 

People are immature it's not all about one sense of morality.

I don't eat ice cream, because I feel better when I don't eat it. I never get cravings for it either. Internal motivation is a strong force.

[integral]

@Carl-Richard  I agree with that.

So there's morality internal motivation, well being internal motivation, values...

I don't value animals more than I do my own health or the health of the people around me. but I still see animals as my equal. One moral value is greater than another.

People value their own short-term gratifications more than they value animals. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by integral

[integral]

I think everyone is assuming people relate to other people the same way they do. and if they have a profound experience connecting with a living thing that then they will have no desire to eat it. Maybe that's an assumption?

Edited June 14, 2022 by integral