Morality - Where I Stand

I’ve been interested lately in finding where I stand in terms of morality. As most probably know, I’m an idiot, and morality is an immensely complex subject. I’d like to see if I can establish a position from what it is I’ve gathered thus far.

Morality is a binding agreement that allows us to function and thrive in mutually beneficial groups. I think morality is essentially about protection from suffering. I believe moral statements do refer to presumably objective facts about the world. Such statements may be true or false. I believe we may increase our moral knowledge through inquiry into the natural world.

I’m not sure morality is about maximizing pleasure, so much as minimizing suffering wherever possible. I don’t believe morality is subjective or relative, but largely inter-subjective. That is, we agree upon, and maintain, moral tenets that may then be verified by presumably objective facts. The more facts we gather about the word, the more accurate we can be.

As best I can tell, I subscribe to something like ethical naturalism. What do you think? Have I said enough? Do you agree or disagree with any of what I’ve said?

A society kills 10% of its population every 10 years. This part of the population is considered an unproductive burden.

Is it moral or immoral? Can it be shown to be either? How?

Immoral as the act causes needless suffering. Not just for the victims, but also their families and friends. Even if the society does benefit as a result, it does so by compromising the protection of it’s own members. As such, the agreement is no longer binding and falls apart.

These killings are needed so that society as a whole may thrive.

If you look at the natural world, you see that thinning out a garden makes the remaining plants grow bigger and stronger. The same benefit can be seen when pruning a tree. Weeding gets rid of the useless weed plants which take away resources from the useful plants. Predators kill the weak and old animals, leaving more resources for the remaining members and improving the genetic pool.

Too abstract. Why do you stand where you stand [down on the ground] regarding a particular value judgment that comes into conflict with the value judgments of others?

In other words, where’s the part about dasein and political economy? And here, situating the “intersubjective” out in the world, is good place to start.

Or is that not real philosophy?

Correct. It is not real philosophy, because it doesn’t engage with what statik said. If I were to respond to you by saying, “yes, but what about Jungian archetypal psychoanalysis” --that would not be philosophy, because I haven’t given a reason to think it matters, makes a difference, or even to explain what I mean.

But the weeds and prey are not part of a binding agreement that guarantees, as best it can, their protection. Why can the society not thrive with those people? Why am I to believe killing them is the only option?

That’s a little general, don’t you think? If I understand your question, I’d say we evaluate the conflict using what relevant facts we have about the world.

I don’t know. I honestly can’t tell what you’re asking me.

Thanks for that. I’m kind of putting myself out there with this thread, and I don’t claim to be any sort of expert, so I really don’t want to get caught up in arguments that have no bearing on what I’m trying to do.

Yes, we very much disagree regarding where philosophy might begin and where [ultimely] it must end. It would seem incredulous to me to draw a sharp distinction between the wisdom of philosophers and the stuff of Jung and Freud and Reich. Logic is either applicable or not applicable in a particular context—one in which where one stands regarding morality comes into play “down here”.

After you claim to know what morality is it either is or is not useful regarding the lives we live. And in this respect it either does or does not implicate dasein and the machinations of political power.

That’s where I stand.

It may be natural and perhaps necessary for elements of the plant and animal kingdoms to be periodically pruned. But what has that to do with humans, who are able to consciously change the environment so that perhaps no one needs “pruning”? Is that not our higher goal?

Your observation (if I understood in correctly) that intersubjective morality involves largely protection seems astute; if we have another goal in mind, I’m not aware of it.

I reiterate that we humans have options the rest of nature does not seem to have; we are little gods. The days of human sacrifice for the future of the tribe are, hopefully, ended.

Now what am I missing?

Then let’s say it does not. I don’t care for “dasein”, I find it pretentious. Also, I’m not any authority on politics and “the machinations of political power” could mean just about anything.

I don’t think the natural world has anything to teach us about morality, the natural world is a savage place. Our morality must therefore come from higher ideals, from concepts of sacrifice and sacredness etc, regardless of the suffering involved. I guess love (especially of others) is at the heart of it.

Exactly. Plus, I think sickness, accidents, disasters, etc. kind of take care of the pruning in many ways. We have options for birth control if we find ourselves approaching some kind of Malthusian catastrophe.

Thanks. I guess we’ll have to see how my observation holds up.

In that case, wouldn’t you say the natural world teaches, and reminds, us what morality should not be? I am not advocating a return to some kind of Darwinian morality, to be sure.

I think your willingness to disregard suffering for ideals is a little ridiculous. The two should be carefully weighed against each other.

Yes, that is where you stand on morality. Fine. But I don’t agree with those who suggest that, to include elements like dasein and political power, is to steer the conversation away from philosophical discourse. And this becomes clear [to me] as soon as words about morality are fitted into the actual world we live in.

That’s where I want to steer philosophy. And it is certainly where I wish to steer discussions on morality. But those who disagree can readily ignore me. Or turn me into the proper authorities.

I just poke around occasionally for facsimiles.

Well, do you have a more specific question or example you’d like me to address? I didn’t mean to be insulting, I just don’t see what you’re getting at.

That identifies the first moral.
“Thou shalt gather in assistance of one another.”

Nobody signed an agreement. And there is no need to assume that an agreement extends to all people at all times. It may be considered null and void for prisoners, the very old and sick or for those on welfare, etc. IOW, when you stop contributing to society, then society has no obligation to keep you around. Seems perfectly logical.

It’s not the only option. But if someone goes on a podium and says that this is the way to have a moral society, how could you argue against it based on ‘objective facts about the world’?

Forget it. I don’t belong in this thread. Mo was right. I apologize.