[Guest]

got me wondering about the justifications for moral frameworks. I believe there are moral absolutes, but after thinking about it it doesn't seem logical/reasonable to believe that. Reason seems to only support subjective morality.

So, my question is this: How does one justify morals using logic and reason?

[Guest]

no, it just stops all current pain, joy and happiness. (if there are no more humans there can be no more future pain for humanity.) but I'll grant, without anyone to morn our loss its hard to say who this would hurt except perhaps God. I was merely giving one example as to how you might go about trying to formulate ethical guidelines.

...and it's not a bad one. Most of these counterexamples (including a couple of my own) could be answered by saying that you commit an immoral act by depriving people of future happiness. However, I don't think that's the whole story. The example I gave of the drugged child goes against that.

Also consider the case of someone with a terminal illness who does not want pain relief. They choose to suffer to the last because pain relief would dim their sensations and, since their death is all that remains of their life, they don't want to miss it. In my opinion it would be immoral to administer pain relief against their wishes, precisely because it is against their wishes. Which brings me to a moral principle I was advocating in the "abortion" topic, which I'll now put forward as a general moral system:

The "platinum rule": "Do unto others as they would want you to do". This is not the final say in morality, though I do think it improves upon the principle of maximising happiness and minimising pain, which often agrees with the platinum rule, but when it doesn't, the platinum rule trumps it. It also suggests a means of quantifying morality based on the strength or clarity of will of the recipient of your actions, which is relevant when considering animals and unborn foetuses, for example.

However, I'll mention straight up a couple of problems with the platinum rule:

1) What if what a person wants is not what is best for them? Consider the counterexample I gave a few posts back about a patient who wanted pain relief (which would kill him) rather than face the pain necessary to overcome his illness. After being forced to endure the pain he changed his mind and was glad he didn't have the pain relief. It's not unusual for people to change their minds so when giving people what they want it's probably best to consider also what they will want if you consider them to have temporarily impaired judgement. A parent who always gives their children what they want is not a very good parent at all. Perhaps if you consider a person's judgement to be permanently impaired, you should consider what they would want if they were wiser.

2) Then there is the case of people who are distracted/sleeping/comatose and who can not be considered to currently have a will regarding the matter at hand. My approach to this is to again use the "would" clause to invoke what their wishes would be if they were on the ball and, if necessary, wiser. Their strength of will on the subject may be relevant if you are comparing the value of a comatose person's life vs. that of an unborn foetus, for example. My approach would be to assess the current condition of the person and assess them in terms of "current potential". In other words, a comatose person with 50% chance of quick recovery and 50% chance of permanent coma would have 50% of the value of a healthy person. Cases in between (say, recovery in 10 years) would be factored in based on how much the person would (if conscious and wise) value their life based on that. The value of the foetus is potential in a different way, since placing a high value on it depends on valuing it not on what it is, but on what it may become, if nurtured and grown. In my opinion you should value it only based on what it currently is. A seed is not worth the same as a tree.

As for your (phillip1882) questions regarding God, that doesn't come into it as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe in God, and consider morality to be something that has come about as a result of humans being social animals, and therefore needing rules of conduct. That being the case, it's hardly surprising that it is difficult to formalise morality, since it exists for purely pragmatic reasons.

[Guest]

I generally agree with your definition of the Platinum rule octopuppy, but you're caveats for lack of judgment capability do lead to potentially intractable difficulties (to play devil's advocate). "What they would do if they were wiser" -- How do we decide what anyone else would do? You may have one opinion on the best course of action in a situation and I may have a different idea of what the "wise man" would do in the same situation. If a third person is out of commission, how would we resolve the situation for that person if we have a different idea of what that person should do?

Who is most qualified to make that call? A close relative, the state, written instructions? I think that the Platinum rule would likely work well in cases where all parties possess their own faculties, but the "wise man" clause means someone has to make the call for the person and the definition of a wiser man is not always clearly defined.

A case study that comes to mind is Terri Sciavo here in America. Back in 2001, she'd been in a persistent vegetative state for 7 years and her husband wanted to take her off life support since it seemed that she was braindead after a serious accident. Her parents sued to keep her alive and so politicians decided it was worth grandstanding about her "right to life" and sided with the parents. Eventually, the husband won out and she was allowed to die. An autopsy revealed that in spite of what the parents had said about her still being responsive, her brain had atrophied and she would never have recovered (which was the point of contention). The husband and the parents both had claims over what she would have wanted, but they disagreed on which course was right. In similar situations, who should have the power to make the decision when the third party cannot?

On a related note, the law here in the US (and I think Great Britain) allows for certain defenses for defendants based upon what the reasonable man would do in the same situation. I think an example would be: A man bumps into you in the dead of night. He's drunk and seems dangerous. He's fumbling around for something in his pocket and you panic, pull a gun and shoot him. The defense is that the killing is not a serious crime on your part because a reasonable person in the same place would have done the same thing. That's what the defense will argue and the jury would have to decide if what you did was reasonable under the circumstances. I'm no law expert, so I'm not sure how valid this is as an example, but the concept of the "reasonable person" is an agreed upon construct under US law and is thus related to the question of what the "wiser" man would do.

The law chooses to allow for the "reasonable" man since that is the consensus view. If "most people" would have done the same thing, then it's probably justified under the law. It may not have been the "wise" choice, but because most people probably wouldn't be qualified to decide what the wise man would do, we can't really account for that under the law. In any case, it occurs to me to ask whether you think that the "reasonable" man would be an acceptable replacement for your concept of the "wise" man since I would define those two people differently. Who but a wise man would be qualified to decide what a wise man would do? Using the reasonable man means that we can decide based upon what a "normal" person would do, not necessarily a "smarter" person since that could become a point of contention.

I admit, I latched onto your use of the word "wiser" though you did clarify it with "if necessary," but I think that my question is still valid since it's difficult to say what another person specifically would want when they are unable to make the decision themselves. It's simpler to ask, "What would a reasonable person do in this situation?" That way, we're not putting ideas into their head or words in their mouth, we're merely saying that most people would probably want this, so it should be okay.

(As for my own opinion, I would be happy with the "wiser man, if necessary" deciding on my fate, but like I said, I don't think it's a, well, reasonable ( ) expectation for there to always be a consensus on what the person would want (whether wiser or not).)

[Guest]

I generally agree with your definition of the Platinum rule octopuppy, but you're caveats for lack of judgment capability do lead to potentially intractable difficulties (to play devil's advocate). "What they would do if they were wiser" -- How do we decide what anyone else would do? You may have one opinion on the best course of action in a situation and I may have a different idea of what the "wise man" would do in the same situation. If a third person is out of commission, how would we resolve the situation for that person if we have a different idea of what that person should do?

Who is most qualified to make that call? A close relative, the state, written instructions? I think that the Platinum rule would likely work well in cases where all parties possess their own faculties, but the "wise man" clause means someone has to make the call for the person and the definition of a wiser man is not always clearly defined.

To clarify what I meant by "wiser", consider the case of a dying person who chooses not to have pain relief but to experience their death in full. Some people may consider this wise, others unwise. However, putting yourself in the position of a doctor who considers it unwise, would you override that choice and administer pain relief regardless? I would consider it immoral to do so, because the state of mind in which the person made the choice is pretty much the same state of mind in which they will be suffering to the last breath. It is unlikely that they would change their mind, so it is reasonable to respect their choice.

So here we don't invoke the "wiser" clause. How does this differ from a child who wants to eat chocolate for breakfast every day, or a patient who is unwilling to endure pain in order to recover from their illness? In the latter cases, there is clearly a strong chance that the person is making a poor choice strategically. They are not fully considering the consequences and are choosing short-term gratification (or comfort) without giving due consideration to the long-term cost. There are specific reasons why this would happen. In the case of a child it comes down to lack of knowledge and experience. In the case of the suffering patient, the pain and stress they are suffering is probably affecting their ability to see the bigger picture and to appreciate that life after the illness is both possible and worthwhile. By contrast, the decision of the dying person to experience death without pain relief is arguably not brought on by a specific failure to think clearly, and the consequences are fully considered. If we have good reason to believe that they have not considered the consequences (if we know the pain to be more excruciatring than anything they could possibly have imagined) it calls the matter into question, but otherwise there is no case for considering it unwise.

So to clarify, "wisdom" in this case is merely the capacity to assess and value the consequences of possible actions, and where a person lacks that capacity, we must do our best to take those consequences into consideration on their behalf.

So it is wrong to burgle the house of a sleeping person even though they don't care (because they are asleep). If they were aware of what was happening they would not want me to burgle their house.

If, on the other hand, I know that the world will end before that person wakes up in the morning, the burglary becomes less immoral because even though the person, if awake, would object, they would not know that my actions lack consequences.

If I know that person will die unless I take certain items from their house, I am morally obliged to steal those items and save their life. The victim of my burglary will think it immoral, but they lack the information to completely assess the consequences of my actions. So by stealing from them while they sleep, I am doing what they would want me to do IF they were able to form an opinion (awake, in other words) AND fully able to assess the consequences ("wiser").

The case of Terri Sciavo seems to come down to a difference of opinion. We have to make moral judgements based on our best attempts to assess what somebody would want and what the likely consequences are. Our capacity to do this is limited so differences of opinion arise, and we try to do what we think is right, given our limited powers and responsibilities. The question of who decides, and how, and how they enforce it, is a larger social matter and goes beyond the basic construction of morality. I'm just trying to put forward an algorithm for how we formulate a moral opinion.

What you mentioned about "reasonable" actions (say self-defense) seem to be along different lines, where "reasonable" is used in terms of risk assessment, and how we balance the conflicting considerations of protecting ourselves versus behaving in a socially acceptable way towards others. In this case it seems to be a test of whether a decision was made within acceptable parameters. As such it's pretty different from what I was proposing, which is more a model for making decisions on behalf of others.

[unreality]

one thing that often comes up in morality is society vs. the individual. For example, a case where a doctor makes (through long hours of ingenuity and hard work) a fantastic medicine that can cure some fatal condition. Should he be able to sell it? Or should he give it away for free?

[Guest]

2) Then there is the case of people who are distracted/sleeping/comatose and who can not be considered to currently have a will regarding the matter at hand. My approach to this is to again use the "would" clause to invoke what their wishes would be if they were on the ball and, if necessary, wiser. Their strength of will on the subject may be relevant if you are comparing the value of a comatose person's life vs. that of an unborn foetus, for example. My approach would be to assess the current condition of the person and assess them in terms of "current potential". In other words, a comatose person with 50% chance of quick recovery and 50% chance of permanent coma would have 50% of the value of a healthy person. Cases in between (say, recovery in 10 years) would be factored in based on how much the person would (if conscious and wise) value their life based on that. The value of the foetus is potential in a different way, since placing a high value on it depends on valuing it not on what it is, but on what it may become, if nurtured and grown. In my opinion you should value it only based on what it currently is. A seed is not worth the same as a tree.

I am not trying to be ugly here for the sake of shock value. I just want to use examples that evoke emotions so it becomes difficult to stand by any specific moral tenet.

1. The case of the sorority girl(SG). SG has never turned down a sexual encounter. She always follows through on a promise of sex. This is widely known. SG goes to foolish guy's(FG) house with specific and stated intent to have sex. SG and FG drink to excess. SG passes out. FG has impaired judgement and inhibitions and has intercourse with SG. My verdict: rape. Yours? Does it depend on how SG reacts when she becomes aware of what happened? What if she never finds out?

2. The case of a comatose person(CP). CP has a life partner with which they have been for sufficient time that the healthy partner(HP) profoundly understands the desires of the CP. The HP engages in sexual activity with the CP based on these facts. a)The couples sexual activity was consensual, long-term consistent, and very frequent. b)The CP expressed a strong desire that their partner never engage in sexual activity with another person. c)The CP had an unfailing desire to meet the sexual needs of the healthy partner. My verdict: rape. What's yours? Does it depend on whether or not CP recovers/wakes from the coma? If CP awakens, does it depend on any personality changes?

[Guest]

I am not trying to be ugly here for the sake of shock value. I just want to use examples that evoke emotions so it becomes difficult to stand by any specific moral tenet.

1. The case of the sorority girl(SG). SG has never turned down a sexual encounter. She always follows through on a promise of sex. This is widely known. SG goes to foolish guy's(FG) house with specific and stated intent to have sex. SG and FG drink to excess. SG passes out. FG has impaired judgement and inhibitions and has intercourse with SG. My verdict: rape. Yours? Does it depend on how SG reacts when she becomes aware of what happened? What if she never finds out?

2. The case of a comatose person(CP). CP has a life partner with which they have been for sufficient time that the healthy partner(HP) profoundly understands the desires of the CP. The HP engages in sexual activity with the CP based on these facts. a)The couples sexual activity was consensual, long-term consistent, and very frequent. b)The CP expressed a strong desire that their partner never engage in sexual activity with another person. c)The CP had an unfailing desire to meet the sexual needs of the healthy partner. My verdict: rape. What's yours? Does it depend on whether or not CP recovers/wakes from the coma? If CP awakens, does it depend on any personality changes?

Thanks for the scenarios SR! These are fun

1. OK, I agree totally on your verdict, and I don't think it should depend on how she reacts or anything else that occurs after the event, either morally or (in theory) legally. Rape is as much about power as it is about sex, and by having intercourse with passed-out SG, FG has deprived her of the power to choose with whom she has sex and when. It doesn't matter whether she ever exercises that power. That said, the issue is not entirely black and white. As you've described it, I'd consider the act an immoral one, but since it would appear that SG would never have objected to the sex, the moral question comes down to whether she would have objected to the loss of power. By default, you'd have to say that she would, but (getting even uglier I'm afraid) you could envisage a situation where she is known not to object. What if SG clearly expressed a desire to have that choice taken from her, in situations such as these? I'm in dangerous territory here since the assumption that a woman wants that power taken from her may often be the delusion of a rapist*. However, you couldn't say categorically that there could never be a situation in which this would be the case (the Story of O, while being purely fiction, asks that question pretty searchingly).

2. I do not consider the case of HP and CP to be rape, as you've described it. The main reason why not is your statement that HP "profoundly understands the desires of CP". As I mentioned above, there are circumstances in which a person could consent generally to non-consensual sex, and this may be one of those cases. I don't know precisely how much understanding there was between CP and HP, but at one extreme, it could be that they have discussed this exact scenario and that CP expressed a desire to continue to meet the needs of HP, in which case this is clearly not rape. That's unlikely, but it is more likely that they had a level of understanding in which either could be certain of what the other would want in such a situation, allowing for the fact that it involves the loss of the power to choose. In some ways it is analogous to signing a legal contract. One person cannot generally make a contract on another's behalf, and rightly so. It would be a violation of a person's right to self-determination. But if a person is unable to make such decisions, their desire would generally be that those decisions be made on their behalf by someone they trust who knows them well, and who is thus well qualified to act in their stead (representing their values and wishes). It's the lesser of two evils. Losing the power to make decisions on your own behalf is bad, but having decisions made for you by someone who knows you well is probably the best outcome in that case.

As before, what happens afterward is beside the point. If CP wakes up with a changed personality and is horrified at having been used as a sex object while comatose, that's an unfortunate outcome but as long as it could not realistically be foreseen, doesn't factor into the morality of what goes before. The possibility that it may happen is something to be considered beforehand, but it seems like a highly unlikely eventuality. Also, because it is a personality change, it is fair to say that HP acted in good faith to fulfill the wishes of the person CP had been up to that point. You can hardly take the future wishes of an unexpectedly changed personality into account.

*These cases bring into relief another moral question: If a rapist believes that all women secretly want to be raped, is he committing an immoral act by doing so? This is maybe a semantic trick since it plays on the distinction between subjective morality and our collective moral consensus. According to his own subjective morality, maybe the rapist is acting morally (though to be honest I think the scenario is a little simplistic and such "belief" in rapists is not completely sincere). The al-Qaeda hijackers of September 11th may have felt that they were acting morally too. The moral consensus would condemn both actions unequivocally, but in both cases, the individuals are acting morally within their own moral frameworks. The problem is that those moral frameworks are based on delusion, but it's worthy of note because the distinction between such a rapist and the case of CP and HP is mainly that the rapist is wrong in his opinions, and HP is probably not.

[Guest]

Good points octopuppy. I haven't read that book. I'll check it out.

It seems that many(maybe most, if not all) cases of people acting "morally"(within their own subjective moral framework) but outside of the moral consensus can be attributed to some form or amount of mental illness. ie delusions, sociopathy, OCD. I think it's telling that we usually label non-normative behavior as immoral, amoral, or due to mental illness. Does this mean that it's acceptable, from a pragmatic perspective, to enjoin a "different from most of us equals bad/wrong" type of morality?

[Guest]

It seems that many(maybe most, if not all) cases of people acting "morally"(within their own subjective moral framework) but outside of the moral consensus can be attributed to some form or amount of mental illness. ie delusions, sociopathy, OCD. I think it's telling that we usually label non-normative behavior as immoral, amoral, or due to mental illness. Does this mean that it's acceptable, from a pragmatic perspective, to enjoin a "different from most of us equals bad/wrong" type of morality?

*sharp intake of breath* Whether it's pragmatic to turn conformity into a moral issue kind of depends on what you're trying to accomplish, it certainly wouldn't be conducive to the sort of society I'd like to live in.

I think it's really interesting the kind of confused muddles we can get into by thinking like that (such as the muddle I created by asking whether a rapist with non-normative morality was "immoral"). It's probably more constructive to view things as they are and accept that morality varies. It's pragmatic to lock up rapists because most of us don't want to live in fear of being raped. It really doesn't matter if they think they are immoral or if we do. Conversely if there is an activity which 90% of people think is immoral, but which harms nobody, why not just let the other 10% get on with it? Why should we judge?

Unfortunately it does occur, we even confuse judging people with acknowledging that their non-conformity is due to mental illness. Consider how phrases such as "you're sick", or even "you need help"(!) are often used in a judgmental context. It saddens me.

[Guest]

It's probably more constructive to view things as they are and accept that morality varies. It's pragmatic to lock up rapists because most of us don't want to live in fear of being raped. It really doesn't matter if they think they are immoral or if we do.

I see your point, and I agree. Furthermore, the fact that law and morality often converge does not require laws to be based on morality.

Conversely if there is an activity which 90% of people think is immoral, but which harms nobody, why not just let the other 10% get on with it? Why should we judge?

How very libertarian of you. (It's a good thing!)

Unfortunately it does occur, we even confuse judging people with acknowledging that their non-conformity is due to mental illness. Consider how phrases such as "you're sick", or even "you need help"(!) are often used in a judgmental context. It saddens me.

I think people too often personalize things. Saying "you're sick" does not accurately convey their thoughts, but "your behavior/words/attitude are non-normative and possibly indicative of mental illness" is a little too wordy. That said, it saddens me too, because usually the choice of words is not due to a desire for brevity. It's due to a desire for edginess or even hurtfulness. (if that's a word)

[Digression=About judging]

Judging is useful as a survival tool.

It's not wrong when it hurts no one, and even sometimes when it does.

eg Rough-looking person is approaching you as you walk down the street. You clearly see he has a handgun tucked into his waistband as his jacket sways open while he walks. He calls out to you. You take evasive action and avoid contact. Whether he is a thug trying to rob you or an undercover police officer in dire need of assistance. You did the prudent thing based on the information available to you.

Examples abound so I won't belabor the point.

IMO judging injudiciously is suboptimal though.

But who am I to judge?

[/corny catch phrases]

BTW would you classify judgement grounded in irrational beliefs as being immoral?

[/digression]

Edit: some very bad grammar

Edited February 25, 2010 by Semper Rideo

[Guest]

[Digression=About judging]

Judging is useful as a survival tool.

It's not wrong when it hurts no one, and even sometimes when it does.

eg Rough-looking person is approaching you as you walk down the street. You clearly see he has a handgun tucked into his waistband as his jacket sways open while he walks. He calls out to you. You take evasive action and avoid contact. Whether he is a thug trying to rob you or an undercover police officer in dire need of assistance. You did the prudent thing based on the information available to you.

Examples abound so I won't belabor the point.

The avoidance of a rough-looking person with a gun is a decision based on incomplete information. While that may be "judging", it's probably not a moral judgement, which is the sort of judgement I was referring to. Passing moral judgement is generally a bad idea, I'd say, simply based on the fact that morality varies from one person to another. That doesn't mean that punishment or reward is out of the question, I just think that as a society we can do better than basing such things on moral criteria.

BTW would you classify judgement grounded in irrational beliefs as being immoral?

Immoral according to whose morality? Judgement based on irrational beliefs might not go against the morality of the person doing it. Unfortunately, it may not even go against the morality of the society in which they live. The latter is often the case where the judgement is based on the dictates of religion or the norms and traditions that grow up around it.

Even based on my own morality, I don't consider a person to be immoral by doing what they sincerely believe is right, however foolish their beliefs are. What's the point in passing moral judgement on someone for not knowing that their beliefs are irrational? On the other hand, it is sometimes the case that people's irrational beliefs are not so sincere, but an excuse to not hold themselves accountable, for reasons of personal gain, conformity, fear, laziness or spite. In which case I would consider it immoral by my own morality. But my moral opinion of someone else's actions doesn't matter. What matters is that it's suboptimal, as you put it.

[Guest]

I think I see your point. It's very disheartening that, probably due to the nature of being high profile public figures, politicians are some of the first examples that come to mind when you mention insincerity in beliefs(irrational or not).

[Guest]

I haven't read every post, but i would like to say something.

I think all drugs should be legal. I do not do any drugs(I am 14), but I think this would solve a lot of problems. Gangs get most of their money from Drug sales. Violence from gangs mostly comes from "turf wars" over the "right" to sell drugs at a certain location. Many people would consider this immoral, but I think the world would be better off. Amsterdam has employed this and they have had very good results. All drugs are legal, but if you endanger anyone else, then strict penalties will follow.

Thats just my opinion.

[unreality]

p4p - I agree with you 100% (well 99% but yeah haha)

[Izzy]

I'm gonna be honest, I haven't read this thread in a while, but in regards to P4P's drug post:

I agree with you aside from nine words haha.

My thoughts can pretty much be summed here in a post I wrote May of '09. I haven't reread the entire thread (just my initial post and some others of my own), but my feelings are essentially the same. Aside from the bits about the government. Now I could careless what they do. I want the right to produce my own drugs in my own legal lab and to distribute at will. Purity insured, haha.

[Guest]

I'm gonna be honest, I haven't read this thread in a while, but in regards to P4P's drug post:

I agree with you aside from nine words haha.

My thoughts can pretty much be summed here in a post I wrote May of '09. I haven't reread the entire thread (just my initial post and some others of my own), but my feelings are essentially the same. Aside from the bits about the government. Now I could careless what they do. I want the right to produce my own drugs in my own legal lab and to distribute at will. Purity insured, haha.

which 9

[Izzy]

Well, hint hint I'm not 14. That leaves six for you to guess.

Better living through chemistry, bro? Haha.

[Guest]

When I make decisions, I seem to see a trend:

I begin by considering the logistical implications. What is my gain? What will I lose? Who will be affected? Who will be effected. I place value on raw data vs. my "heart"

Next, I have to consider the "heart", or "morality". There is an issue with defining "morality". I keep it in quotes, because it seems like more of a myth to me, than a word with true definition. I see "morality" as more of a goal than reality.

Anyhow, if I were to put a number on the weight of consideration these factors play in my eventual conclusion...it is easily Logic = 80%, Morals = 15%, Plus/Minus = 5%.

[Guest]

When I make decisions, I seem to see a trend:

I begin by considering the logistical implications. What is my gain? What will I lose? Who will be affected? Who will be effected. I place value on raw data vs. my "heart"

Next, I have to consider the "heart", or "morality". There is an issue with defining "morality". I keep it in quotes, because it seems like more of a myth to me, than a word with true definition. I see "morality" as more of a goal than reality.

Anyhow, if I were to put a number on the weight of consideration these factors play in my eventual conclusion...it is easily Logic = 80%, Morals = 15%, Plus/Minus = 5%.

Welcome to another moral skeptic. Do you believe anything to be universally wrong? Murder, rape, double parking?

[Wilson]

Help me out here guys, I'm just a simple grunt.

Morality and logic/reason... are they not one and the same?

True morality surely shapes the society that we live in, gives laws that should punish

those who operate outside of that framework, thus providing protection/security.

No morals or flawed morals would leave most of us f****d.

Seems like logic/reason to me.

[Guest]

Help me out here guys, I'm just a simple grunt.

Morality and logic/reason... are they not one and the same?

True morality surely shapes the society that we live in, gives laws that should punish

those who operate outside of that framework, thus providing protection/security.

No morals or flawed morals would leave most of us f****d.

Seems like logic/reason to me.

The topic boils down to something similar to those exchanges between a parent and 3 year old child.

Tot: Why is helping the poor good?

Parent: Because they are disadvantaged and unable to take care of themselves. If we don't help they would die.

Tot: Why is preventing someone's death good?

Parent: Because life is precious?

Tot: Why is life precious?

Parent: ...because it is.

Just one aspect of morality. Taken to the ends of the argument, there is no intrinsically logical/reasonable basis for any particular moral code. Of course, we must assume there is no logical basis for the existence of a moral arbiter. We basically come to a point where we take on the role of arbiters and choose what is most personally advantageous/stomachable/practical/etc. In other words, sans God there is no right or wrong and no good or bad.

[Wilson]

"In other words, sans God there is no right or wrong and no good or bad. "

Nah, I'm not wearing that!

With or without a god , good and bad do exist (ask those on the receiving end).

Is it not therefore logical/reasonable that we have morality to help keep the bad in check?

As for the Parent/Tot....kids have to learn to be truly bad not vice versa.

[Guest]

"In other words, sans God there is no right or wrong and no good or bad. "

Nah, I'm not wearing that!

With or without a god , good and bad do exist (ask those on the receiving end).

Is it not therefore logical/reasonable that we have morality to help keep the bad in check?

As for the Parent/Tot....kids have to learn to be truly bad not vice versa.

Of course, the presence of a god (or gods) doesn't necessitate morality either...

I think that the problem with a developing a logical basis for morality is that to build a logically consistent framework, you need some kernel of unequivocal truth from which to start. A god can potentially provide that starting point, but even that can be hairy since someone (other than the god(s)) will have to interpret the god(s)' message. Sans a god, how can we determine the underlying truth?

I think that the next question posed to you by the "nothing is true; everything is permitted" ( *) crowd would be to define what you mean by "good and bad". I'm sure by your statement that you have a definition in mind, but if someone else here disagrees with your definition, who decides which definition is correct? We can build a model of morality off of an assumption, so long as we continue to maintain that the assumption is true and no one finds a counter-example that renders the assumption false. If/When that happens, the entire morality system based upon that assumption will collapse. Without some objective truth or an airtight assumption, we can't have a logically-based morality as much as someone like you or I (or most of the posters on this thread) might like to find one.

For centuries, the logical basis for morality came from the gods: So it is written, so it shall be (even before anything was written! ). Now that we've found that insufficient as a model, we've had to find a new basis for morality in the "Social Contract," the idea that we can create some kind of morality from group consensus and establishing rules for the group to obey and utilize. The assumption is that the group can reign in the excesses and abuses of the fringes and lead to a better existence for all. Of course, no where does any of that mention good and evil because it is basically impossible to enumerate such a list from a social contract, which is much more flexible than "Divine Edict," the basis of the original model.

The SC is not a logically consistent basis for morality in part because it cannot serve everyone's needs and rights, although it tries to do the best it can. Additionally, if someone can find a way to show that such a contract violates its own code, then the entire system is brought crashing down. So what Semper and the others are arguing is that neither the DE nor the SC morality model can really provide a completely logical moral code. The first relies on the assumption of some god(s) establishing right from wrong, while the second relies on a reasonable body politic, which is by no means guaranteed. Neither is built from an objective truth, but if you have such a truth, please enlighten us so that we can start building the truly objective, logical moral code now!

(As an aside, I'm pretty sure that some of my statements are not in themselves logically sound, but I think that they convey the point that I'm trying to make. )

*

Quote is completely off-topic Assassin's Creed game reference. Quote not attributable to any of the posters here.

[Guest]

Of course, the presence of a god (or gods) doesn't necessitate morality either...

Touché.

I think that the problem with a developing a logical basis for morality is that to build a logically consistent framework, you need some kernel of unequivocal truth from which to start. ... Sans a god, how can we determine the underlying truth?

I believe in a God who will confirm those underlying truths to anyone who asks. Each individual person.

The first relies on the assumption of some god(s) establishing right from wrong, while the second relies on a reasonable body politic, which is by no means guaranteed.

I loled

(As an aside, I'm pretty sure that some of my statements are not in themselves logically sound, but I think that they convey the point that I'm trying to make. )

You put my thoughts in words quite splendidly!

*

Quote is completely off-topic Assassin's Creed game reference. Quote not attributable to any of the posters here.

I would have to say that quote succinctly expresses my understanding of a world without God. At least to the extent of moral truth. Mathematical, logical, and descriptive truths are unassailable except to solipsism and other philosophies which undermine the entire discussion or even the need for a discussion about morality.

My thoughts on SC theory: I believe in a world where freedom prevails the SC is the only way to go. My only qualm is with the threat of the tyranny of the majority. More on that after treating Wilson's remark.

"In other words, sans God there is no right or wrong and no good or bad. "

Nah, I'm not wearing that!

With or without a god , good and bad do exist (ask those on the receiving end).

Is it not therefore logical/reasonable that we have morality to help keep the bad in check?

As for the Parent/Tot....kids have to learn to be truly bad not vice versa.

First, let me reiterate that I am in no way trying to discredit or destroy anyone's beliefs. I just want to know the nitty gritty if you feel so inclined to share.

So you believe in some moral absolutes. Also you believe most people are inherently good. I am with you on the first and mostly with you on the second.

Now going back to the tyranny of the majority. Wilson says "ask those on the receiving end [of bad actions]." I think we would all tend to agree on one universal piece of morality. Namely murder is bad/wrong/evil.

But without any unequivocal truth we are left only with the descriptive truth of evolution. Which brings us to: Why is murder wrong? Because we have evolved an instinct to survive and reproduce. Evolutionary theorist even have explanations for believing in God and altruistic behaviors(to the point of sacrificing one's life).

Still that gives no moral imperative for a right to life. It only explains why a social contract would invariably include a right to life or a restriction on killing. It has nothing but concensus of DNA driven sentiment to support a statement of murder is wrong.

Which is why in such a world the sociopath who kills all rivals to his/her procreative access to the fittest mates to ensure the survival of their offspring and continuation of their genetic legacy is neither better nor worse morally than the sociopath who kills for pleasure or the social contract conformist/enforcer who ends/prevents the sociopaths agendas. There is no basis to make moral judgements.

Edit: Holy wall of text Batman! Maybe I should just let this topic die. I really would like to hear your thoughts though.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Semper Rideo

[Guest]

I believe in a God who will confirm those underlying truths to anyone who asks. Each individual person.

The challenge to define morality remains, even if you think the answers are coming from a different source. Can you tell us any of those underlying truths?

Without a clear moral code, an unreligious person must determine the moral course through ad hoc introspection. But without a clear definition, are you not left in a similarly ambiguous position? You must also do it in an ad hoc fashion, perhaps also through introspection, or prayer.

IMO the difference amounts to an assertion that there is a definitive moral code (since God's opinion would be the only one that matters), but what is the definitive moral code?

(can't resist noting the similarity with the meaning of life; religion promises us meaning, but fails to tell us what the meaning actually is )

I would have to say that quote succinctly expresses my understanding of a world without God. At least to the extent of moral truth.

To some extent I agree that "moral truth" doesn't mean anything without God. But that doesn't mean you can't say anything useful about it, and "nothing is true; everything is permitted" certainly doesn't represent my point of view.

By way of analogy, if you take photos of a large random sample of women, and average out their features to create a composite face, you end up with a face that would statistically score very highly in men's estimation of beauty. So would I be correct in calling that the perfect female face? Absolutely not, there is no such thing! Each man has his own idea about what the perfect female face would be. We do generally consider average features to be beautiful, but there are also significant variations in taste. Consequently you could never draw up a definitive recipe for female beauty. Even a statistical average would vary regionally and over time, so there is no "perfect" standard. The same applies to our perception of morality. The term "moral truth" is no more meaningful than "perfect beauty". It implies a fixed standard that does not exist, and thinking that it does may make us intolerant.

However, even though everything in the previous paragraph may be true, the fact remains that you could create a general formula for female beauty, provided it did not have to be considered perfect in everyone's eyes, and may be subject to change. At the very least you can apply clear principles like "thou shalt have two eyes, no more, no less, of roughly equal size", and obviously you could go a lot further. Likewise we have strong correlations in our moral opinions which can be formalised to some extent, even though the finer points may vary.

Social Contracts: I'm not sure about the relevance of this. I consider a Social Contract to be a wrapper that exists around morality, incorporating law and other effective rules of conduct. Human beings are living in circumstances other than those in which we did most of our evolution, necessitating the creation of large scale social structure that accomodates our morality while allowing moral variation to an extent. In most cases societies do not seek to define the morality of their inhabitants, only to keep it within acceptable bounds, which may be the bare minimum for the protection of that society. When we exceed those bounds, the collective morality of the Social Contract takes over, but otherwise the construction of morality lies with the individual. Individual morality may not yield a logically consistent model in the sense of having one single formula for all, but that doesn't make morality trivial or non-existent, any more than my earlier statements could demonstrate the non-existence of beauty.

...I think we would all tend to agree on one universal piece of morality. Namely murder is bad/wrong/evil... But without any unequivocal truth we are left only with the descriptive truth of evolution. Which brings us to: Why is murder wrong? ...It only explains why a social contract would invariably include a right to life or a restriction on killing. It has nothing but concensus of DNA driven sentiment to support a statement of murder is wrong.

Which is why in such a world the sociopath who kills all rivals to his/her procreative access to the fittest mates to ensure the survival of their offspring and continuation of their genetic legacy is neither better nor worse morally than the sociopath who kills for pleasure or the social contract conformist/enforcer who ends/prevents the sociopaths agendas. There is no basis to make moral judgements.

I see no need to distinguish between the moral status of sociopaths that kill for reasons of procreation or for reasons of pleasure. Both behaviours exceed the moral boundaries of society, and it becomes a legal matter. Whether it is right for some enforcer to kill is another matter, and more ambiguous. It largely boils down to what sort of society we want to live in.

Which brings me to the explanation for why murder is wrong. On a social level, all you really need to know is that we have evolved to have social groups and a degree of self interest. When a bunch of self-interested people discuss what rules should apply within their group, murder is one of the first things you would all want to outlaw since the fear of being a victim outweighs the potential benefits of murdering other people. On a moral level, natural selection would favour genes which cause individuals to believe in a "right to life", because the carriers of those genes are statistically more likely to have families carrying the same genes, and are therefore much less likely to be murdered by siblings and members of their wider family. This is particularly true in creatures intelligent enough to gauge each other's character, who would single out the most murderous members of their own group as being a greater threat. If killing your own kind is a bad strategy, then nature selects against it, and for social animals it generally is a bad strategy.

[Guest]

Let's play with the idea of the source of morality, not as an absolute, but as something intrinsic to the particular reality/universe that allows life to exist and allows living things to develop enough mental accuity to recognize the concept of morality.

Step 1: Posit nothing coherent about the outer shell of reality: indifferent, random chaos, paradox and contradiction rule.

Step 2: Having no agenda, chaos cares not to prevent *emergent* order. In biology, DNA is an example of meaningful information emerging from meaningless data and becoming self-perpetuating (holding back the chaos).

Step 3: The meaning of life in this context is its own perpetuation, including shaping the environment to make it favorable for survival. By extension, given that science has discovered no intrinsic reason for the 'fine tuning' of our universe, it is plausible to posit that its observed properties were emergent. Given that the vast majority of possible universes cannot support life, or even matter, it is plausible to posit that the purpose of the universe and the purpose of life are *co-emergent*.

Step 4: Derive morality from those tenets that favor life's perpetuation and the perpetuation of a universe that is life-friendly.

Edited April 14, 2010 by seeksit