Morality

[Lucidus]

I've always been extremely intrigued by the topic of morality: from where people believe their moral compass is derived, the notion of objective morality absent a subjective starting point and societal differences in terms of moral standards / ethical applications.

I am a firm proponent of the idea that all moral judgements are completely and necessarily subjective until a foundation can be agreed upon to act as the guide for moral questions and dilemmas. Only after agreeing on a subjective foundation that takes all people into account, can objective moral truths be proclaimed.

In my opinion, the best and most inclusive foundation is the overall well-being of our species.

I have many thoughts on the subject of morality and hope to discuss further with anyone willing to have the conversation and offer their opinions on the matter.

[NATI BENGALS]

That’s why I like utilitarianism. Instead of needing to manipulate the language of stories from an ancient book to create rules so I can please some deity I can just think about the consequences of my actions and whether they promote happiness and prevent pain for my fellow humans. If I wasn’t such a selfish a hole I would probably make some morally decent decisions every now and then.

[treee]

I think moral absolutism largely stems from an innate human desire for logic to be straight forward and condensable. People sometimes are uncomfortable with the idea of taking large amounts of unknown variables into consideration to properly have a stance on a matter. People want to be able to easily categorize based on simple criteria, using simple definitions.

[Dill]

(06-11-2021, 02:00 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I've always been extremely intrigued by the topic of morality: from where people believe their moral compass is derived, the notion of objective morality absent a subjective starting point and societal differences in terms of moral standards / ethical applications.

I am a firm proponent of the idea that all moral judgements are completely and necessarily subjective until a foundation can be agreed upon to act as the guide for moral questions and dilemmas. Only after agreeing on a subjective foundation that takes all people into account, can objective moral truths be proclaimed.

In my opinion, the best and most inclusive foundation is the overall well-being of our species.

I have many thoughts on the subject of morality and hope to discuss further with anyone willing to have the conversation and offer their opinions on the matter.

Have you read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics?  I don't think he would have considered an "inclusive foundation" of the sort that "takes all people into account" as an important goal, if at all.  

Even though he wasn't Athenian, living in Athens as a "metic" (foreign resident unable to participate in the city's politics), he seems to think ethics--the blue print for morality--was pretty much the concern of male citizens, but not women or slaves. He also doesn't think discussion of ethics is suited for the young.

Further, it was a "practical" pursuit, not really to be deduced from first principles and the like. The good is determined from observation, agreement about the "virtue" of things/humans and actions appropriate to them, to the purposes for which they were designed. The ultimate goal was "happiness" and fulfilment of (free Greek male) humans' highest purpose, which involved political deliberation, which in turn required a polis, the highest form of human organization, which fostered such life. Well that's a clumsy late-night summary, but his ethics ends with a transition to his Politics, which is about creating the conditions for that ultimate good. Whether non-Greeks liked or agreed with what Greeks thought "good" was of no interest to Aristotle. Barbarians. Yet I find his argument compelling on many points--except the exclusion of non-Greek male humanity.

Seems to me you are heading in a Kantian direction*--an act is ethical, good, when it is the kind of act which would be good for everyone, if applied to anyone, a variation of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"--i.e, an act is morally good if it could be done to or for anyone, regardless of who, and without any ulterior motive, like money or favors or tribal affiliation. And he thinks we, as rational creatures, are duty bound to do such acts. 

Your "agreement" criterion will raise some interesting questions, since people from different classes, cultures, ethnic histories and the like are not likely to agree on a subjective foundation.  Kant, I think, was trying to get over that hump.

*Despite your Nietzschean signature.

[*michaelsean*]

What are you my college professor? I have no idea, but I will be interested in reading the responses.

I’ll say objective morality are common things you can find across many cultures over many years.

[Lucidus]

(06-12-2021, 01:21 AM)Dill Wrote: Have you read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics?  I don't think he would have considered an "inclusive foundation" of the sort that "takes all people into account" as an important goal, if at all.  

Even though he wasn't Athenian, living in Athens as a "metic" (foreign resident unable to participate in the city's politics), he seems to think ethics--the blue print for morality--was pretty much the concern of male citizens, but not women or slaves. He also doesn't think discussion of ethics is suited for the young.

Further, it was a "practical" pursuit, not really to be deduced from first principles and the like. The good is determined from observation, agreement about the "virtue" of things/humans and actions appropriate to them, to the purposes for which they were designed. The ultimate goal was "happiness" and fulfilment of (free Greek male) humans' highest purpose, which involved political deliberation, which in turn required a polis, the highest form of human organization, which fostered such life. Well that's a clumsy late-night summary, but his ethics ends with a transition to his Politics, which is about creating the conditions for that ultimate good.   Whether non-Greeks liked or agreed with what Greeks thought "good" was of no interest to Aristotle. Barbarians. Yet I find his argument compelling on many points--except the exclusion of non-Greek male humanity.

Seems to me you are heading in a Kantian direction*--an act is ethical, good, when it is the kind of act which would be good for everyone, if applied to anyone, a variation of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"--i.e, an act is morally good if it could be done to or for anyone, regardless of who, and without any ulterior motive, like money or favors or tribal affiliation. And he thinks we, as rational creatures, are duty bound to do such acts. 

Your "agreement" criterion will raise some interesting questions, since people from different classes, cultures, ethnic histories and the like are not likely to agree on a subjective foundation.  Kant, I think, was trying to get over that hump.

*Despite your Nietzschean signature.

I have many points of agreement and disagreement with Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics, with one area of contention being some of his launching points, or more accurately, the initial requirements he feels are best suited from which to derive the requisites for a good, ethical or virtuous life. But I would prefer not to go too deep in the weeds on the philosophical approaches of those like Aristotle, Socrates, Hume, Kant, etc. Instead, I was hoping for a more practical and pragmatic conversation as to how we can agree on a moral system that benefits the most while doing harm to the least; and how to derive objective moral truths from a necessarily subjective standard. 

For instance, what if we started with these four precepts [with the overall well-being of our species being the over-arching foundational goal]:

Life is generally preferable to death.
Pleasure is generally preferable to pain.
Wellness is generally preferable to sickness.
Flourishing in generally preferable to suffering. 

It seems to me that from those, we can make many determinations as to what is moral --- if we define morality as that which provides the most benefit and does the least harm --- and even derive objective truths, despite the foundational standards being purely subjective.

In situations where larger societal issues put people / cultures in conflict with one another, I think the "Veil of Ignorance" approach is a great supplemental tool to help determine what is or isn't moral. Take slavery for example. If a person who objects to slavery and a person who condones it are searching for the correct moral answer on the subject, they only need to both imagine themselves being born into a world where there's an exactly 50/50 chance they would end up being a slave. Would they both rather enter that world with said odds, or a world where slavery is outlawed altogether, so that there's zero chance they end up a slave?

[Benton]

I'd say there's already a moral foundation. Most major religions and societies agree on the basic (don't kill, lie, steal, cause harm).

[CKwi88]

(06-16-2021, 12:03 AM)Benton Wrote: I'd say there's already a moral foundation. Most major religions and societies agree on the basic (don't kill, lie, steal, cause harm).

It may sound rather juvenile, but the whole Golden Rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" covers a lot of morality, save for those with a flair for the masochistic I suppose.

That rule, coupled with the axioms Lud presents above could ideally cover most of morality I imagine.

[Dill]

(06-16-2021, 12:03 AM)Benton Wrote: I'd say there's already a moral foundation. Most major religions and societies agree on the basic (don't kill, lie, steal, cause harm).

AND YET--definitions of "kill, lie, steal, cause harm" seem to vary a great deal from and within religions/societies, once we descend from abstract principles down to earthly practices.  "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." 

In North America, plains tribes often not only sanctioned the killing of members of other tribes, but encouraged it. Also stealing from them. 

Some Hindus won't even kill bugs. The Devil's in the details.

[Dill]

(06-15-2021, 02:29 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I have many points of agreement and disagreement with Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics*, with one area of contention being some of his launching points, or more accurately, the initial requirements he feels are best suited from which to derive the requisites for a good, ethical or virtuous life. But I would prefer not to go too deep in the weeds on the philosophical approaches of those like Aristotle, Socrates, Hume, Kant, etc. Instead, I was hoping for a more practical and pragmatic conversation as to how we can agree on a moral system that benefits the most while doing harm to the least; and how to derive objective moral truths from a necessarily subjective standard. 

Sorry I am late getting back to you Lucidus. Thanks for your response. 

To the bolded, seems like you've already embraced one of those approaches--utilitarianism.  

(06-15-2021, 02:29 PM)Lucidus Wrote: For instance, what if we started with these four precepts [with the overall well-being of our species being the over-arching foundational goal]:

Life is generally preferable to death.
Pleasure is generally preferable to pain.
Wellness is generally preferable to sickness.
Flourishing in generally preferable to suffering. 

It seems to me that from those, we can make many determinations as to what is moral --- if we define morality as that which provides the most benefit and does the least harm --- and even derive objective truths, despite the foundational standards being purely subjective.

In situations where larger societal issues put people / cultures in conflict with one another, I think the "Veil of Ignorance" approach is a great supplemental tool to help determine what is or isn't moral. Take slavery for example. If a person who objects to slavery and a person who condones it are searching for the correct moral answer on the subject, they only need to both imagine themselves being born into a world where there's an exactly 50/50 chance they would end up being a slave. Would they both rather enter that world with said odds, or a world where slavery is outlawed altogether, so that there's zero chance they end up a slave?

Rawls?  When cultures conflict, as you posit here, it seems to me 

1. that it is unlikely the Veil of Ignorance would lead them to the same ethical standards, and 

2. that there can still be a power differential at work, such that one gets to enforce its standard on the other.

No society and no ethicist starts from a tabula rasa. I think it possible that some could say it is proper for women to be subordinate to men, even if that means the subject making the judgment would be subordinated if a woman. Others would not. Same for other kinds of class/social distinctions. I might believe that it is perfectly ok for me to be excluded from most of society if born a Dalit, because to reject that would be to reject beliefs about the progression of the soul, and that belief is more important than social status.

It is hard to judge how your precepts would work, once we move from the ethical to the political, and decide how resources are to be allocated.  If we presume the Veil of Ignorance would lead us to concoct equitable arrangements, can we be sure those would remain in place? 

Back to the power differential for a moment--if a militarily and economically powerful society comes in contact with a weaker, and doesn't like its ethical system/cultural practices (e.g., female circumcision), is it bound to a laissez-faire approach or duty bound to change/ oppose them? 

What question would be posed through the Veil of Ignorance then--do I want to live in a world (into which I could be born a woman) that allows female circumcision or do I want to live in a world that allows more powerful societies to impose their values on less powerful? 

*Just for the record, I have only read Books 1-III, VI and X (chaps. 5-10) of the Nicomachean Ethics, so I am not an expert. I just admire the way he sets up ethical questions, and then moves them into the political, the arrangement of the Polis to produce/incentivize the Good.