Morality - Where I Stand

[phyllo]

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?

How can you dismiss pruning based on objective facts? The case for pruning is rational and consistent with observations of the world. Isn’t a ‘higher goal’ just some delusional religious belief which is pulled out of some old book? What is the basis for a ‘higher goal’ in a material universe which has no purpose?

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.

At some point protection ends. It’s a question of how much and who should get protection. The answer is arrived at through politics, power, emotion, delusion. Maybe that’s a good thing and maybe it’s bad. Rationality may present an answer that we don’t want.

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.

And how do you select among those options?

[statiktech]

@phyllo

]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.

The agreement applies to all those who wish to participate, or can’t make the choice on their own. I don’t think the agreement should be rendered null and void, but those who refuse to honor it may be exempt from incurring benefits. Prisoners are protected from things like mob justice, and the old and sick aren’t discarded like trash.

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’?

We can show that there are other options. People can be rehabilitated, taught trades, cared for, etc. we can show the benefits of such activities. For example, we can show that people will be more willing to work for a group that will care for them when they are old and sick.

[statiktech]

@iambiguous

@statiktech

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.

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

The thread is for anyone who wants to participate, man. I just need to have some idea what you’re talking about before I can give a calculated response.

[Diekon]

@statiktech

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?

Hey statik, could you explain why you would describe your position as ethical naturalism, or say that they may be verified by objective facts?

I ask this because you first seem to describe morality as conventional, and intersubjective… which seems at odds with ethical naturalism. The latter seems to be saying that morality is true or false independent of subjective opinion, even if that subjective opinion is shared by a large number of people within a group and becomes inter-subjective.

The clarify, it seems ethical naturalism would say that “murder is wrong” is true regardless of what is agreed upon, whereas a conventional account would imply that it is true that “we agreed that murder is wrong”. The agreement is something that could potentially be verified, not the moral ‘fact’ itself… if that makes sense.

It may be just a terminology-issue, but maybe it’s good to get those cleared up.

[statiktech]

@Diekon

The clarify, it seems ethical naturalism would say that “murder is wrong” is true regardless of what is agreed upon, whereas a conventional account would imply that it is true that “we agreed that murder is wrong”. The agreement is something that could potentially be verified, not the moral ‘fact’ itself… if that makes sense.

But I think it can be verified, based on the criteria of suffering and the goal of protection. We agree nobody wants to be murdered, but why is it wrong? Well, murder causes suffering and violates the agreement - that’s the verification. So, convention helps us determine what to expect, and presumably objective criteria helps us determine if those expectations are practical. What we are agreeing on is the issue to be considered.

[Diekon]

Then you position seems to be a mix of conventionalism and ethical realism, which seems odd, because conventionalism imo shines when you acknowledge that people have difference moral opinions, whereas ethical naturalism is more in tune with people generally having a common goal, like avoiding suffering etc… .

[YourDarkAffected]

@statiktech

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?

I’m not sure if this is more suited to be said in the religious forum, but can morality have any validity or truth to it in a secular view? Just from reading this thread and thinking about it myself, it seems that the definition of morality/ethics is a very multifarious one, so I could be speaking out of context, but because we have different views on right and wrong, is there a supreme right and wrong? for example, with war, the issue is essentially whether murder/killing is ethical or unethical in the context of war, so whose view is the ethic/moral one? I don’t mean ethical and moral as in subjective views of right and wrong, but as in whether ethics/morality are absolute truths that exist unconstrained by opinion. Without a moral law giver, can our view of morality be definitive or valid? Society has been constantly changing and with it, our views of right and wrong. When we look back 500 years ago, we see much of their laws and actions as unethical, but does that mean our society is more ethical? I think 500 years from now, people will see our societal views of morality as primitive and unethical. I’m just wondering then if there is such a thing as the true right and wrong that can exist as derived from humans, or whether morality can only be valid if stated by a divine moral law giver.

[statiktech]

@YourDarkAffected

I’m not sure if this is more suited to be said in the religious forum, but can morality have any validity or truth to it in a secular view?

Absolutely! That’s part of what I’m trying to establish here.

Just from reading this thread and thinking about it myself, it seems that the definition of morality/ethics is a very multifarious one, so I could be speaking out of context, but because we have different views on right and wrong, is there a supreme right and wrong?

I’m not sure what you mean by “supreme”, but I think there are presumably objective facts that are verifiable. Meaning we may be able to determine the rightness or wrongness of an act, regardless of the opinions held about it.

for example, with war, the issue is essentially whether murder/killing is ethical or unethical in the context of war, so whose view is the ethic/moral one? I don’t mean ethical and moral as in subjective views of right and wrong, but as in whether ethics/morality are absolute truths that exist unconstrained by opinion. Without a moral law giver, can our view of morality be definitive or valid?

Yes, I think it can. I’m not comfortable dealing in absolutes, but we can determine the validity of a moral statement that should be able to apply across the board. I think we can work together to establish law.

Society has been constantly changing and with it, our views of right and wrong. When we look back 500 years ago, we see much of their laws and actions as unethical, but does that mean our society is more ethical?

I think so. We know much more about the world now.

I think 500 years from now, people will see our societal views of morality as primitive and unethical. I’m just wondering then if there is such a thing as the true right and wrong that can exist as derived from humans, or whether morality can only be valid if stated by a divine moral law giver.

Morality does not need a divine source. That is a total misconception, and a dangerous one at that.

[von_Rivers]

@statiktech

…but I think there are presumably objective facts that are verifiable. Meaning we may be able to determine the rightness or wrongness of an act, regardless of the opinions held about it.

…took you long enough son. It’s about time!

[statiktech]

Yeah, I know. I think it’s a product of naturalism. I’ll admit it still feels somewhat strange, like I’m overlooking something. Or maybe I just want to complicate things.

[Diekon]

I still don’t get how you would verify the truthvalue of ethical statements. You say ‘killing is wrong’ can be verified to be true because it causes suffering. But that’s just shifting the onus on another moral criterium. And eventhough a lot of people probably agree that suffering is something that should be avoided, it’s not like it’s an objective fact.

[phyllo]

And eventhough a lot of people probably agree that suffering is something that should be avoided, it’s not like it’s an objective fact.

And people don’t avoid suffering when they get a compensating benefit.

[Diekon]

@phyllo

And eventhough a lot of people probably agree that suffering is something that should be avoided, it’s not like it’s an objective fact.

And people don’t avoid suffering when they get a compensating benefit.

Yeah, i agree. Some amount of suffering is not allways the worst… and can even be beneficial. Some philosophers certainly argued that case with some succes.

[Chester]

@statiktech

@Chester

@statiktech

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?

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.

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, I believe that we should attempt to raise ourselves above wild beasts, we should not be led by our base instincts, we should subjugate them to higher ideals.We understand motive and whether our motive is good or ill, we can attempt to always do what we believe is the right thing even if that means an element of self sacrifice.

There are particular moral principles that we all know to be true, for instance, we should never harm others for the motive of fun.

[statiktech]

@Diekon

I still don’t get how you would verify the truthvalue of ethical statements. You say ‘killing is wrong’ can be verified to be true because it causes suffering. But that’s just shifting the onus on another moral criterium. And eventhough a lot of people probably agree that suffering is something that should be avoided, it’s not like it’s an objective fact.

That murder causes suffering is a fact regardless of my opinions about it. And I said presumably objective.

Also, suffering is a part if life, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work to avoid excessive or unnecessary suffering.

[statiktech]

@phyllo

And eventhough a lot of people probably agree that suffering is something that should be avoided, it’s not like it’s an objective fact.

And people don’t avoid suffering when they get a compensating benefit.

I’m not sure I understand your point. I’m not talking about a total absence of suffering here, as if that is even possible. The benefit is protection, which is a way to avoid suffering.

[The_Idiot]

What do you feel about “morality”? The nature of morality cannot be decided upon by reason alone. It involves feelings as well as reason. You may not be able to articulate satisfactorily why you feel a certain way, but that does not by any means prove that you are wrong in the way you feel.

-The Idiot

[dan25]

@statiktech

@Diekon

The clarify, it seems ethical naturalism would say that “murder is wrong” is true regardless of what is agreed upon, whereas a conventional account would imply that it is true that “we agreed that murder is wrong”. The agreement is something that could potentially be verified, not the moral ‘fact’ itself… if that makes sense.

But I think it can be verified, based on the criteria of suffering and the goal of protection. We agree nobody wants to be murdered, but why is it wrong? Well, murder causes suffering and violates the agreement - that’s the verification. So, convention helps us determine what to expect, and presumably objective criteria helps us determine if those expectations are practical. What we are agreeing on is the issue to be considered.

Murder, in another way of looking at it, would END the suffering of the ‘victim’, at least.

[Only_Humean]

@statiktech

Also, suffering is a part if life, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work to avoid excessive or unnecessary suffering.

Is the status of someone’s suffering as necessary or unnecessary objectively verifiable?

[finishedman]

@Only_Humean

@statiktech

Also, suffering is a part if life, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work to avoid excessive or unnecessary suffering.

Is the status of someone’s suffering as necessary or unnecessary objectively verifiable?

Probably. If you keep looking for roses there will be thorns. Are the roses really necessary?