I am trying to explain the inner conversation of a person with conflicting motives only 1 of which is their moral beliefs.
Maybe I can try to explain it in another method
Favorable option: The most valued option
Moral option: The option that coincides with the persons moral beliefs
Pleasurable option: The option that creates the most pleasure for the actor
For some people they occasionally value the pleasurable option more than the moral option. In these cases the favorable option in their mind is the pleasurable option not the moral option. In these cases the person voluntarily chooses the pleasurable option even if it is the immoral option.
You are trying to split them into 3 categories when they are not. Morals define pleasures, pleasures define needs, needs define morals. Altogether they are evaluated as a sum of the experience for known.
A person knows no lust until after they have been exposed.
I am sorry but those categories are distinct
I like food. It tastes good. I do not think eating is moral (neither do I find it immoral).
This is anecdotal evidence that the pleasurable and the moral are not 1:1. They do happen to overlap and in some people they are 1:1 however most people have examples where they are not 1:1.
When I was a child (that was still old enough to have opinions about right and wrong) I decided the gain from a small theft was more favorable than the little weight I gave morality at that time.
This is an an anecdotal evidence that the favorable and the moral are not 1:1. They do happen to overlap and in most people they are 1:1 however some people have examples where they are not 1:1.
Morals do not define pleasure. Electric impulses in the pleasure center define basic pleasure and pride (and other higher emotions) define more complex pleasures. One of these sources of more complex pleasures is the morals of the individual but not all.
Consider if Morals were the sole source of pleasures:
Does an apple taste good? Not unless there is a moral imperative attached to believing the apple tastes good.
Does pain hurt? Not unless the pain is not morally permissible.
I do not know about you but to me Apples taste good (aka cause pleasure) because they trigger chemical reactions that respond with my chemistry that tell me it tastes good. I also find all pain painful even morally permissible kinds like shaving.
I never said the relation was 1:1, I said that together they make a whole. Its is a combination of all three and more that give you conclusion to a choice.
When any choice is made, a result of oll the previous choices has to be evaluated. A coin that is flipped already has its result known if all variables can be made known. When we make a choice, we try to evalute things filling in unknowns with things we have known before. Eating an apple could be defined to us in sum a good thing so that when we need to evaluate eating an apple we do not need to evaluate all previous experiences but instead use the smaller summary of those. We call that instinct because it comes from experiences related to chemical predispositions in the body. Murder on the other hand is a Moral choice because we often have never experienced it and are choosing a result based on the perceptions of things that have occured in relation to murder and communicated to us through transition. When it comes for us to kill we evalute the perceptions of those Morals and again the other resulting experiences like instinct and come to a descision.
A person cannot ignore previous experience, only evalute it as incorrect when evaluating this choice. If it was previously Immoral to murder being that I have seen the results of others murder and that result is undesirable by default, I can knowingly still commit murder if the evaluation of those shared results is less than the other results I need to accomplish.
Let me try to explain it another way.
The result of dice rolled is already defined. The variables that affect its transition have already been set in motion before the dice even leaves your hand. If you could percieve all variables the right choice would be instantly apparent to you. Because you do not know all the varibles you can only make a choice on previous experience, Ie when the dice leaves the rollers hand a 6 is facing out followed by a 4, showing that a horizontal spin will predicate a more likely chance for 6,4,3,1 to be shown over a 5,2. Now if it is been passed to us via experience that it is unfair to have that knowledge when the dice is rolled we will come to decision whether to observe the motions or not, and then we will evaluate that need to win against or need to be respected and then that will be evaluated and so on in an infinitely complex length of choices. Being infinitly complex we need to reduce the amount of information to process, and this is done by pre-setting variables using past descions so we don't have to evaluate the full branch of that experience again. Morals are Ethical varibles pre-defined by social experience and suggested to us so that when we come to make a decision variables we have not known can be provided for us. Ie Cheating is wrong. When it comes for us to make the decision we evaluate the weight of the perception that cheating is wrong against that of the varables that say making the action we are doing is right and the result that is found and taken will be the right choice in that evaluation and never be wrong at that point.
