Can We Please Differentiate Morals and Aesthetics?

[Provalone]

I keep reading Joker’s threads about how morals are complete and utter delusions and to a great extent I agree with him.

Then I read the responses of others who say that morality is a result of evolutionary necessity. I agree with them as well in that our psyches are undeniably constructed from an evolutionary blueprint.

I think these two arguments can easily be synthesized or at least purged of convoluted semantics through the introduction of a simple concept: aesthetic taste. Let’s set some ground rules first.

• Aesthetics is the unconscious, taste or preference that an individual or individuals have, usually being determined by evolutionary devices. It is often characterized by the dichotomy of pleasing/displeasing.
• Morality is a conscious, systematized hierarchy of values that a group of individuals share, usually being determined and/or manipulated by specific individuals’ devices. It is often characterized by the dichotomy of right/wrong.

When these premises are put forth, one can see where evolution begins and where it ends. I mean let’s be honest here, Joker’s right in terms of how morality is a.) a socio-economic order manufactured for self-induced delusion and b.) manipulated by certain amoral people to accommodate their selfish drives.

What can’t be denied, however, is the pertinence of taste. Human beings are hardwired to have certain feelings evoked when confronted with another human face. So much so, in fact, that we have an uncanny ability to interpret face-shapes in clouds and other inanimate objects. The reason being that it is evolutionarily important to be able to recognize faces both generally speaking and on an individual basis.

Does that mean that faces, all faces are ethically righteous and good? No. If a face is missing an eye or teeth or is just plain ugly, it’s usually considered displeasing or distasteful. In fact, to a profoundly brutal mind, such ugly faces are all that much more easy to kill. Hell, the only reason why King Kong didn’t eat that blond chick like he did all the other sacrifices is because he found her beautiful, not because he came to a moral epiphany.

Then again, that doesn’t justify outright murderous rampages. It does justify selfishness to the extent that it is selfish to want to keep aesthetically pleasing objects (including people) in your immediate surrounding. I love my mom. I would never want anything to happen to her. Why? It’s not a matter of morality. She could be put to death for murdering 34 kindergarteners and my moral standing (of which is nonexistent, mind you) would pail in comparison to my selfish, aesthetic preference for her not to die. Evolution ingrains us with a motherly aesthetic which is appealed to by my own mother.

Now, some moralists would step in and contend that this just proves that our innate taste is/was the basis for the creation of morality. I would agree halfway. I’ll admit that we feel stress and anxiety when confronted with human viscera (especially of relatives and loved ones) which gives us a tendency to disdain an excess of such viscera. That isn’t to say that we still don’t wage senseless wars, though. In fact, it is probably morality itself which overrides this aesthetic preference against gore to allow for soldiers to justifiably commit such acts. After all, most wars have been waged over religion.

Then again, the second largest contributing factor for war is resources. This evokes a more primordial aesthetic preference which may subvert the aesthetic contempt for carnage. Call it blood-lust, call it a love for flesh, call it what you will, there’s no denying that we find a certain sense of beauty in the slaughtering and the apportioning of meat. The reason why we find such food so delicious and bountiful is because of the nutritious benefit that is gained from it. Thus, the beauty of self-preservation overrides all morals and even other aesthetic preferences.

All in all, I think what we need to agree on is that morality and aesthetics are entirely separate fields of philosophy for a damned good reason. I think we can all agree on the beauty of a naked woman (or man ), something determined by aesthetic taste, but it is only by the fervor of morality that such a thing can be deemed evil and vile.

[realunoriginal]

I will definitely be contributing to this thread after I read it.

Very interesting so far Prov.

[Xunzian]

To the topic: not if we do it correctly.

I think it is interesting from a philological point of view, in most languages the words we use for morality (good, evil, ect.) are shared with the words we use in aesthetics (good, bad, ect.) because, at their root, they are the same. The word for “evil” started out meaning something like “ugly”. Same in other languages (or at least German and Chinese).

Morality is an outgrowth of aesthetics.

[realunoriginal]

@Provalone

All in all, I think what we need to agree on is that morality and aesthetics are entirely separate fields of philosophy for a damned good reason. I think we can all agree on the beauty of a naked woman (or man ), something determined by aesthetic taste, but it is only by the fervor of morality that such a thing can be deemed evil and vile.

Great post Provalone, although it is not extremely extensive–you’d have to spend so much more time of course…

I like your explanation for comparing morality from aesthetics and the other way around. I have not thought a lot about this subject personally, so I cannot comment on its full implication. However, there are definitely parallels in place, stemming back from before recorded history. Science is stumbling upon these observations now. Though, nobody knows where to take the answers that we will indeed find…

So, let’s think about it.

Morality and aesthetics are not entirely separate fields of philosophy, because there is actually no disconnection between anything at all. Mortality and aesthetics developed together, probably for reasons we cannot even comprehend yet. Like I said, we are just stumbling upon these observations “recently” in history.

The fact of the matter is this: Morality is a delusion. Aesthetics are also delusions. They probably coincide very closely due to the metaphorical language developed though them (i.e. your example of good & bad–beautiful & ugly vs. good & evil).

Prov, have you considered this (and I urge you to), that there is no such thing as “good”, “beautiful”, “bad”, “ugly”, or “evil”–that things just are? When you realize this, then a picture becomes clear. It’s not that I find the women I’m attracted to ‘beautiful’, it’s just a metaphor. I am attracted to them, because I am attracted to them. I tell them, “you are beautiful”, not because they are beautiful, but only to elicit certain emotions from them!!! Is it somehow, magically, true that they are beautiful? No, not even close, I simply have a feeling–an emotion–and I attempt to describe that emotion through our limited usage of human language. I entice the woman and seduce her, because I “love” her like a “man loves a woman”. If she reciprocates my emotions through language, then she will “love” me like a “woman loves a man”.

[Provalone]

@realunoriginal

Great post Provalone, although it is not extremely extensive–you’d have to spend so much more time of course…

Thanks. At first, after making the OP, I thought I got too carried away. But then I reread it, and realized that there is much, much more to be said on the topic.

I like your explanation for comparing morality from aesthetics and the other way around. I have not thought a lot about this subject personally, so I cannot comment on its full implication. However, there are definitely parallels in place, stemming back from before recorded history. Science is stumbling upon these observations now. Though, nobody knows where to take the answers that we will indeed find…

So, let’s think about it.

Morality and aesthetics are not entirely separate fields of philosophy, because there is actually no disconnection between anything at all. Mortality and aesthetics developed together, probably for reasons we cannot even comprehend yet. Like I said, we are just stumbling upon these observations “recently” in history.

Well, the main purpose of this thread was to sort of quell the arguments between Joker and evolutionary psychologists like Cyrene. I tend to agree with both and when looking at their arguments, I saw it as a mere matter of semantics. One was saying that there was evolutionary purpose to morality, the other was saying that there was an evolutionary purpose to selfishness. I completely agree that they both stem from one another.

The fact of the matter is this: Morality is a delusion. Aesthetics are also delusions. They probably coincide very closely due to the metaphorical language developed though them (i.e. your example of good & bad–beautiful & ugly vs. good & evil).

One fine difference between them, though, is, I think, that aesthetics is self-admittedly a delusion. Morality insists on its ontological presence.

Prov, have you considered this (and I urge you to), that there is no such thing as “good”, “beautiful”, “bad”, “ugly”, or “evil”–that things just are? When you realize this, then a picture becomes clear. It’s not that I find the women I’m attracted to ‘beautiful’, it’s just a metaphor. I am attracted to them, because I am attracted to them. I tell them, “you are beautiful”, not because they are beautiful, but only to elicit certain emotions from them!!! Is it somehow, magically, true that they are beautiful? No, not even close, I simply have a feeling–an emotion–and I attempt to describe that emotion through our limited usage of human language. I entice the woman and seduce her, because I “love” her like a “man loves a woman”. If she reciprocates my emotions through language, then she will “love” me like a “woman loves a man”.

Oh, most definitely. If there’s one thing my parents have always instilled in me is that there is no black and white in the world, ever. Dichotomies amount to nothing, that’s pretty well established.

As for the beautiful woman, let’s just contend that a woman as such does appeal to some sort of attraction-determining aspect of our brains. That’s a pretty unconscious level of thought but it’ll eventually climb its way up to consciousness in the form of “beauty”. Granted, this beauty might have some underlying motives in its very definition so as to seduce the woman, but such motives are in themselves unconscious and harboring aesthetic preference.

Which brings me to my next point. I stated in the OP that aesthetic preference was unconscious whereas morality was conscious. So sure, as Xunzian stated, morality could have partially sprung out of aesthetic preferences, but they are also conscious concepts which makes them sitting ducks for sociological manipulation. I think most of morality has spent far too long being tainted and warped by consciousness to be reflective of their original forms.

One small point I’d like to make before finalizing this post: if aesthetic preferences were somehow formulated into causal orders, they themselves would become conscious moralities. This means that no established philosophy can be manifested from aesthetic preference (as so many art movements have attempted in the past).

On to my last point. What I’m trying to assert here is that there has been some misunderstanding between these two modes of thought. I think morality may have some far-reaching origin in aesthetic preference, but it has little significance today. It’s like saying that mankind’s African heritage makes us all African in a geo-political sense; our genes have changed so much over the centuries, it doesn’t really matter anymore.

[realunoriginal]

@Provalone

One small point I’d like to make before finalizing this post: if aesthetic preferences were somehow formulated into causal orders, they themselves would become conscious moralities. This means that no established philosophy can be manifested from aesthetic preference (as so many art movements have attempted in the past).

I believe that philosophy originated from the roots of human consciousness from the beginning. That’s why I have chosen to pursue philosophy over religion and science throughout my life thus far.

In my opinion, philosophy lived and died with Socrates. (I can’t really go into that topic here though)

@Provalone

On to my last point. What I’m trying to assert here is that there has been some misunderstanding between these two modes of thought. I think morality may have some far-reaching origin in aesthetic preference, but it has little significance today. It’s like saying that mankind’s African heritage makes us all African in a geo-political sense; our genes have changed so much over the centuries, it doesn’t really matter anymore.

I definitely agree.

As for the disagreement between morality and aesthetics–good luck in your endeavors to ponder it! I have other interests to pursue first.

[Pandora]

@realunoriginal

I tell them, “you are beautiful”, not because they are beautiful, but only to elicit certain emotions from them!!! Is it somehow, magically, true that they are beautiful?

No, not even close, I simply have a feeling–an emotion–and I attempt to describe that emotion through our limited usage of human language. I entice the woman and seduce her, because I “love” her like a “man loves a woman”. (?!)

In other words, I lie to her to get her into bed with me.

[realunoriginal]

@Pandora

In other words, I lie to her to get her into bed with me.

Pretty much–but at least I know there’s more to life than just sex with a woman.

I only engage in meaningful relationships in my life, which means that if I’m with a woman, she will be my companion through hell or high-water.

[Provalone]

You know, I made this post so as to have guys ike Joker and Cyrene weigh in on the issue, and yet there hasn’t been a peep from either one. This is fresh ground here, ripe for juicy arguments. I’m tired of the same old nihilism discussions.

[realunoriginal]

@Provalone

You know, I made this post so as to have guys ike Joker and Cyrene weigh in on the issue, and yet there hasn’t been a peep from either one. This is fresh ground here, ripe for juicy arguments. I’m tired of the same old nihilism discussions.

That’s the current state of society though Provalone–nihilism. It’s hard to get around it when it defines the “now” in our culture/philosophy.

[Joker]

@Provalone

I keep reading Joker’s threads about how morals are complete and utter delusions and to a great extent I agree with him.

Then I read the responses of others who say that morality is a result of evolutionary necessity. I agree with them as well in that our psyches are undeniably constructed from an evolutionary blueprint.

I think these two arguments can easily be synthesized or at least purged of convoluted semantics through the introduction of a simple concept: aesthetic taste. Let’s set some ground rules first.

• Aesthetics is the unconscious, taste or preference that an individual or individuals have, usually being determined by evolutionary devices. It is often characterized by the dichotomy of pleasing/displeasing.
• Morality is a conscious, systematized hierarchy of values that a group of individuals share, usually being determined and/or manipulated by specific individuals’ devices. It is often characterized by the dichotomy of right/wrong.

When these premises are put forth, one can see where evolution begins and where it ends. I mean let’s be honest here, Joker’s right in terms of how morality is a.) a socio-economic order manufactured for self-induced delusion and b.) manipulated by certain amoral people to accommodate their selfish drives.

What can’t be denied, however, is the pertinence of taste. Human beings are hardwired to have certain feelings evoked when confronted with another human face. So much so, in fact, that we have an uncanny ability to interpret face-shapes in clouds and other inanimate objects. The reason being that it is evolutionarily important to be able to recognize faces both generally speaking and on an individual basis.

Does that mean that faces, all faces are ethically righteous and good? No. If a face is missing an eye or teeth or is just plain ugly, it’s usually considered displeasing or distasteful. In fact, to a profoundly brutal mind, such ugly faces are all that much more easy to kill. Hell, the only reason why King Kong didn’t eat that blond chick like he did all the other sacrifices is because he found her beautiful, not because he came to a moral epiphany.

Then again, that doesn’t justify outright murderous rampages. It does justify selfishness to the extent that it is selfish to want to keep aesthetically pleasing objects (including people) in your immediate surrounding. I love my mom. I would never want anything to happen to her. Why? It’s not a matter of morality. She could be put to death for murdering 34 kindergarteners and my moral standing (of which is nonexistent, mind you) would pail in comparison to my selfish, aesthetic preference for her not to die. Evolution ingrains us with a motherly aesthetic which is appealed to by my own mother.

Now, some moralists would step in and contend that this just proves that our innate taste is/was the basis for the creation of morality. I would agree halfway. I’ll admit that we feel stress and anxiety when confronted with human viscera (especially of relatives and loved ones) which gives us a tendency to disdain an excess of such viscera. That isn’t to say that we still don’t wage senseless wars, though. In fact, it is probably morality itself which overrides this aesthetic preference against gore to allow for soldiers to justifiably commit such acts. After all, most wars have been waged over religion.

Then again, the second largest contributing factor for war is resources. This evokes a more primordial aesthetic preference which may subvert the aesthetic contempt for carnage. Call it blood-lust, call it a love for flesh, call it what you will, there’s no denying that we find a certain sense of beauty in the slaughtering and the apportioning of meat. The reason why we find such food so delicious and bountiful is because of the nutritious benefit that is gained from it. Thus, the beauty of self-preservation overrides all morals and even other aesthetic preferences.

All in all, I think what we need to agree on is that morality and aesthetics are entirely separate fields of philosophy for a damned good reason. I think we can all agree on the beauty of a naked woman (or man ), something determined by aesthetic taste, but it is only by the fervor of morality that such a thing can be deemed evil and vile.

Then again, that doesn’t justify outright murderous rampages.

When I speak about morality justification is the illusion that I always call into question.

In nature there exists the absence of justification where absolute or any justification at all is non -existent.

When a man talks about justification of a action or activity it always comes about through relative feelings, emotions, preferences, aesthetics and opinionated perspectives. That is all.

In nature every beast beyond man never justifies it’s actions before acting. Wild beasts merely seize a opportunity out of selfish desire unconcerned about the aftermath of acting but instead focus only on the intermediate activity of what they are doing right away.

Wild beasts are largely unconcerned about the aftermath or justification of a action because they lack the ability to project the future as we do.

Now people will say that because we can project a rudimentary understanding of the future justification should be put into place and my only answer to such a ridiculous notion is, why?

For what reason does a person need justification of a action? My only answer to that would be that a person seeks justification for their own selfish motives and for a level of control which they come to embrace by a sort of symbolic permission from others outside of themselves.

It does justify selfishness to the extent that it is selfish to want to keep aesthetically pleasing objects (including people) in your immediate surrounding.

If we all agree that man’s inherent nature is one of extreme selfishness considering that we are all psychological egoists why exactly should one selfish ego justify itself in front of another?

As a selfish egoist would say in front of the judge: “Who are you to judge me that is any different than myself?”

[Joker]

( Double post.)

[Provalone]

@Joker

Then again, that doesn’t justify outright murderous rampages.

When I speak about morality justification is the illusion that I always call into question.

In nature there exists the absence of justification where absolute or any justification at all is non -existent.

When a man talks about justification of a action or activity it always comes about through relative feelings, emotions, preferences, aesthetics and opinionated perspectives. That is all.

In nature every beast beyond man never justifies it’s actions before acting. Wild beasts merely seize a opportunity out of selfish desire unconcerned about the aftermath of acting but instead focus only on the intermediate activity of what they are doing right away.

Wild beasts are largely unconcerned about the aftermath or justification of a action because they lack the ability to project the future as we do.

Now people will say that because we can project a rudimentary understanding of the future justification should be put into place and my only answer to such a ridiculous notion is, why?

For what reason does a person need justification of a action? My only answer to that would be that a person seeks justification for their own selfish motives and for a level of control which they come to embrace by a sort of symbolic permission from others outside of themselves.

I can agree with there being no need for justification. I would simply add that there is a difference between justification and reason. We can justify our actions until we are blue in the face but rarely does it ever actually match up with the true reasons for that action. I think that extends on the whole conscious/unconscious duality.

So if I understand you correctly, justification roughly equates to morality in that it is reflective of how we wish to portray ourselves and our actions on the surface. Thus, reason roughly equates to aesthetic preference in that it is unconscious and uninhibited. I could go on making a case for how aesthetic preference is a catalyst for many behaviors in animals, but I imagine that you could deduce that on your own.

I say that because I’m most curious about the naturalness of justification. Let’s face it, compared to animals we’re practically omniscient in our magnitude of intelligence. So of course, proportionately speaking, our aesthetic preferences become much more complicated in nature. What I mean is, is it possible that we naturally find justifications in all their intricateness aesthetically preferable in themselves?

After all, isn’t to justify an action unto itself? We certainly don’t justify justifications (at least I don’t think we do); that would result in an infinite regress. So couldn’t it be that just as it is natural for an animal to crap in the woods based on the unconscious aesthetic preferences it harbors for it, it is just as natural for a human being to justify its actions based on the unconscious aesthetic preferences it harbors for it?

It does justify selfishness to the extent that it is selfish to want to keep aesthetically pleasing objects (including people) in your immediate surrounding.

If we all agree that man’s inherent nature is one of extreme selfishness considering that we are all psychological egoists why exactly should one selfish ego justify itself in front of another?

As a selfish egoist would say in front of the judge: “Who are you to judge me that is any different than myself?”

Yeah, I can see where the term ‘justify’ can cause some iffiness. But I just want some validation here, you do agree that my aesthetic preference for my mother, which can be justified in the moral-language as ‘love’, is selfish? Despite it seeming selfless, doesn’t such an example actually allude to selfish egoism?

There is no real justification for one’s aesthetic preference for one’s own mother; society tries to justify it as ‘love’ but really it’s just instinct. Even by me saying it is instinct taints it with some form of justification. Instead, it just is what it is.

This is all fine and dandy, really, but there are still holes in the veneer. What we need to ask ourselves here is at point do our justifications cause our actions beforehand rather than imbue them with moral meaning afterwards? If take a bullet for my mother, is it because of compulsory aesthetic preference based on selfishness, or is it really me living up to the justification I’ve consciously fabricated as ‘love’?

[Cyrene]

One was saying that there was evolutionary purpose to morality, the other was saying that there was an evolutionary purpose to selfishness. I completely agree that they both stem from one another.

The point I argue with joker isn’t about whether theres evolutionary benefit to X or Z or Y, I don’t argue whether humans are primarily selfish/evil or good, what i argue with joker is this;that humans can from time to time experience nonselfishly motivated urges/actions.

Its not really a huge leap really. that somtimes people act nicely towards one another because they’d like to be helped in the same situation themselves. Joker says this can never ever happen. I say it can because of misfiring of adaptations to treat people nicely in hunter-gatherer groups.

Joker is wrong.

[Provalone]

@Cyrene

One was saying that there was evolutionary purpose to morality, the other was saying that there was an evolutionary purpose to selfishness. I completely agree that they both stem from one another.

The point I argue with joker isn’t about whether theres evolutionary benefit to X or Z or Y, I don’t argue whether humans are primarily selfish/evil or good, what i argue with joker is this;that humans can from time to time experience nonselfishly motivated urges/actions.

Its not really a huge leap really. that somtimes people act nicely towards one another because they’d like to be helped in the same situation themselves. Joker says this can never ever happen. I say it can because of misfiring of adaptations to treat people nicely in hunter-gatherer groups.

Joker is wrong.

Wouldn’t that in itself be selfish, though? I mean sure, it could be perceived from the outside as being selfless, but it usually results from selfish motivations.

Also, I’m curious, what exactly do you mean by misfiring?

[realunoriginal]

I don’t have a lot of time to post right now, but I’m just going to throw this observation into the mix:

There is a problem with regarding human beings as extremely selfish egos. It’s not true. It’s not true, because we are social–we depend on one another in fundamental ways.

A child will die without a caregiver. I don’t care who you are–it’s undeniable.

“Love” is just the aftermath that comes with suffering in our “loveless” world.

Based on my personal life and being, I believe in and enjoy love, because I have spent my life trying to learn and understand what ‘selflessness’ really is. When it comes down to it, “I am would not hesitate to die (sacrifice myself) for somebody I love,” whether they be a man/woman/child, whatever. If you ally yourself with me, then we will be true friends/companions.

That is how I define “selflessness”.

[Provalone]

Another thing to consider is actual ideas within aesthetics. For instance, sublimity and beauty. Guys like Kant and Schopenhauer avidly laid out their aesthetics with these two concepts.

Any thoughts on them?

[Cyrene]

[quote]
Wouldn’t that in itself be selfish, though? I mean sure, it could be perceived from the outside as being selfless, but it usually results from selfish motivations.[/uote]

Not all the time, theres a lot of instances where you can point out a person helping another person because it makes them feel good, because they’d like to be helped in the same situation. When someone finds another human dying and decides to help/nurse them back to help its not always to appear a hero to everyone else, its not always to indebt the person to them, somtimes just somtimes the person is compelled by COMPASSION.

When I talk about misfiring what i mean to say is that in hunter-gatherer groups, where we spent 99%+ of our time as a species, this compassion would have paid off because it’d be towards either a family member or someone you’d see again and again and again. It would without a doubt be beneficial.

Today we can do it for strangers. It may be motivated by genetic impulses for genetic propagation, but people are not consciously aware that its an adaptation misfiring.

[Joker]

I have some neat things to say to your last post Provalone but unfortunately today I don’t have much time to expound on them.

I’ll be around later on though.

[Joker]

@Cyrene

One was saying that there was evolutionary purpose to morality, the other was saying that there was an evolutionary purpose to selfishness. I completely agree that they both stem from one another.

The point I argue with joker isn’t about whether theres evolutionary benefit to X or Z or Y, I don’t argue whether humans are primarily selfish/evil or good, what i argue with joker is this;that humans can from time to time experience nonselfishly motivated urges/actions.

Its not really a huge leap really. that somtimes people act nicely towards one another because they’d like to be helped in the same situation themselves. Joker says this can never ever happen. I say it can because of misfiring of adaptations to treat people nicely in hunter-gatherer groups.

Joker is wrong.

what i argue with joker is this;that humans can from time to time experience nonselfishly motivated urges/actions.

Its not really a huge leap really. that somtimes people act nicely towards one another because they’d like to be helped in the same situation themselves. Joker says this can never ever happen. I say it can because of misfiring of adaptations to treat people nicely in hunter-gatherer groups.

Joker is wrong.

Every action perpetuated revolves around the self of the person acting, right?