Guttersnipe

By 'disutility' do you mean actions that have neither positive nor negative utility (amoral)? Or those which have greater negative utility than positive (immoral)?

By 'acting in a utilitarian fashion' I'm going to assume you mean he weighed the positive utility vs. negative utility of his action and decided that the positive effects of murdering his boss outweighed the negative. Of course, this does not mean he was correct, people tend to be short-sighted and biased in utility judgements. Again, my priniciple of honor is different from yours. For me, acting honorably is doing that which is right. This discourse is not going anywhere because I still have no idea what you mean by 'honor'. You expressed that it is a system of principles that has to do with the survival of any group. But from this def. I can't see why murdering one's commanding officer is necessarily dishonorable. If such an action is in the interests of survival of the group, wouldn't it then be honorable?

boneyard bill

Guttersnipe writes:

I don't mean either one. Your question assumes a correspondence between utility and morality. I was reacting to your claim that the principles of honor were a set of utilitarian rules. You seemed to be setting up disutility as a necessary ingredient for any claim of objective morality.

If the action were truly in the interests of the group it would be honorable as I think should be clear from the context of my remarks. That is why great effort is expended to make such points when a regime is overthrown. If it were personal ambition it would be dishonorable. Cassius had the "lean and hungry look." He was clearly ambitious. But Brutus was "an honorable man." His participation in the conspiracy was therefore essential.

I outlined the principles of honor in my first post and have said I would use the term honor so I didn't have to keep repeating them. They are the qualities of honesty, loyalty, trustworthiness, and committment that allow the group to achieve its goals.

You have suggested that these principles are simply utilitarian rules while I insist that they are moral absolutes. What is the difference? The difference is that without these principles you don't have a functional social group at all.

A nation can be a republic or a monarchy. It can be a democratic republic or an aristocratic one. It can be a constitutional monarchy or an autocratic one. But it is still a nation. It's nature as a nation is not altered by the particular form of government that it happens to have.

Humans are, by nature, social animals. And it is their nature to belong to functional social groups. These are my premises. From this it follows that they must adhere to the principles that derive from the nature of functional social groups. So my argument is that the principles of honor derive from the nature of a functional social group. They are therefore objective and absolute. They are not lacking in utility, but they are not merely utilitarian. The arise as a necessary aspect of the human condition.

In other words, I'm arguing that natural law is universal and absolute but that natural rights are a cultural construct that applies the natural moral law in a particular way that grows out of the traditions of Western civilization.

malpensante

agnostic, moral objectivist: no-one knows if god exists, and morality should be scientifically tractable.

Guttersnipe

Actually, I was suggesting that your principles of honor exist for utilitarian reasons -- because you keep supporting your claim of absolute morals by appealing to their effects: "without these principles you don't have a functional social group at all." This is a utilitarian justification for their existence. It does not substanciate them as existing in any objective or absolute manner.

I have no argument with your premises. I do have a problem with your conclusions, however. The principles need not exist for a small group (such as a tribe) to function, they need only the evolutionary mechanisms which allow for social cohesion and survival/propagation: empathic feelings, lust, etc. These evolutionary mechanisms are not very effective for complex societies. The construction of abstract moral principles increases the well-being of the society and ultimately the individuals which compose it. Hence the principles do not exist as 'ends in themselves', but rather as a means to an end: the well-being of society.
This natural law I would call evolution, which is universal and absolute. However, the means by which it manifests itself in human beings (desires and fears) is neither universal nor absolute. And it is my contention that any moral theory must concern itself with our desires and fears (ultimately happiness and suffering) if it is to be realistic.

boneyard bill

Guttersnipe writes:

I disagree. First of all, I don't think a tribe is necessarily a small group. But I think these principles would apply even to the smallest group. There has to be trust, honesty, and committment for even the smallest group to function.

Abstract moral principles are not constructed. They exist whether or not they are articulated. They manifest within different societies in different ways. This is why a code of honor in one society may be very different from the code of honor in another.

They do exist as ends in themselves in that such principles constitute what it means to be a society. They cannot be separated from what a society is. That is why I insist that they are not merely utilitarian. They are embedded in the nature of social organization. Hence they constitute a natural law.

What is evolving, as I see it, is human consciousness. The definition of who properly belongs to the social group has expanded throughout history. The names of many primitive tribes and the word for "human being" were the same. At first only family and clan counted. Then a tribal consciousness arose. A sense of kinship derived, however, only where real biological kinship existed. Then a cultural affinity developed. For example, the Greeks, who fought amongst themselves for centuries, eventually developed a sense of commonality based on language and culture.

During the Roman Empire it became possible to speak, as the Stoics did, of a univeral humanity. But this broke down with the middle ages and did not revive until the Enlightenment.

But I see no evolution in the principles of honor themselves. The particularities of these principles differ over time and culture, but the principles themselves do not. And the definition of membership in the group can expand and contract, but the principles themselves remain unchanged.

This, I think, is where we differ because I agree that there is evolution, but I don't agree on what is evolving.

I don't believe that happiness and suffering are the primary concerns of the principles of honor. Individuals can be happy or suffer, but a social group either exists or does not exist. The absolute moral principles that I assert are not individualistic. Individualism is a cultural product just as natural rights are. But individualism is not inherent in our nature. It is our nature to belong to a social group. This is one of my basic premises.

The principles of honor enforce social cohesion which is essential to the very definition of a functional social group. The individual is expendable in a social group although, of course, the individual can be expended with only on behalf of other individuals since a social group cannot exist without any individuals. Still, I don't see the personal happiness of individuals as being the essential point behind the principles of honor. Confucius was a better anthropologist than John Locke.

Laurentius

My ego?
A moral subjectivist (because social reality lacks the final foundation on which to undeniably ground).
My reason?
A moral objectivist (because only the objective can validate the subjective).
Myself?
A Neo Nihilist (that is, a secular humanist of some sort).

abe smith

I am a [76 yo] stone atheist; and My Opinion Izz that ALL definitions, rules, morals .... are MAN-MADE.

thefugitivesaint

boneyard bill, before i add to this discussion i would like to know why you have chosen to utilize the term honor within your argument.

Why this term?

-theSaint

boneyard bill

thefugitivesaint asks:

I considered the qualities necessary for individuals to participate in a functional social group: honesty, loyalty, trust, and committment. I decided that these could be summed up with the term "honor." This is also the term used in the old adage, "There's honor among thieves." And that's basically the point I'm making.

I considered using the term "virtue." But that implies other qualities such as love and compassion that are certainly necessary for a group that is concerned, for example, with biological reproduction. But such qualities can be downright counterproductive to a group involved in war, for example. And I was concerned to limit my list to the qualities necessary for
any functional social group, even one organized for nefarious purposes. Consequently, I settled on the term "principles of honor."

Demiurge

Atheist. Moral relativist.

The measure of all things is man.