dshimel

I’ve been hanging out in this “Moral Foundations” board for a few weeks, and engaged in several discussions. As best as I can figure, there seem to be 3 main points of view on the foundations of morality.

These are:
1: God’s Morality
God created morality, and we should trust in X-Y-Z religion to tell us God’s morality. Since this board isn’t really about which religion, if any, is correct the usual “Moral Foundations” proof of this view is that without God, anything is moral.

The flaw that I see is use of circular reasoning. It is assumed that God created morality, and then this assumption is used to prove that God must have created morality. The fact that atheists do live by a moral code that is very similar to the theist’s code almost disproves that people behave morally simply because God commands it.

2: Badly misnamed, Objective Morality
We don’t create morality; we simply discover it through purely logical, reasoned, philosophical, unbiased search for deeper truth. What is wrong now, was wrong before, will be wrong in the future, is wrong everywhere. The differences in societal morality are based on varying levels of understanding of this universal objective morality.

I see several flaws with this one. Primarily, it simply violates the definition of objective. Objective in something that exists independent of a mind, that can be detected and measured, and doesn’t require special knowledge or training to detect. That is, an object.

Subjective, on the other hand, is an idea or thought or something that can’t be directly detected with the 5 common senses. We can think about it and talk about it, but can’t touch, see, smell, taste, or hear either directly or with some device.

If one wants to assert the existence of a morality that exists somewhere other than as a real sensible object or purely subjective individual ideas, then they need to come up for a term for it. I believe the term most appropriate would be spiritual morality, in which I don’t believe.

I’m sure the term spiritual morality would be offensive to many of its proponents, and further use of the term object morality is offensive to me. Until its proponents can offer a better term, I’ll call it non-existential (not existing within time and space) moral law (NML?).

Once the problem with the definitions is out of the way and we accept the possible existence of some absolute and discoverable moral code, there are still huge problems.

If it exists, it is only “discoverable” through subjective means. We must think about it, talk about it, and examine its effects in order to determine its rules. This sort of “revealed knowledge” is highly flawed. This projection of what seem to be reasoned subjective beliefs based on a certain set of knowledge and values into a higher truth is the foundation of most superstitious and religious beliefs.

It is impossible to isolate thought from knowledge and values. These are the programming of the mind. And I believe this is the biggest problem with thinking of morality as existing at a level higher than the mind. It can be used to assert that the values of one person, group, or society are the “correct” values. Many would claim that they are closer to the correct moral code, and are therefore justified in enforcing their moral code on others.

Finally, on principal alone, one should start with disbelief in anything, then only accept belief in things for which there is sufficient objective, verifiable evidence to support belief in. In this way, one is far less likely to hold incorrect beliefs than if they allow themselves to hold belief in things without such evidence.


3. Subjective Morality
The third view for morality would be that of the humanist philosophy. It is willful acceptance that there is no foundation for morality other than the Golden Rule. Humans are the creator of the concept of morality, that it is based on how they want to be treated, what behavioral restrictions they want to place on themselves and others, with the goal of making this world the best place for humans that we can.

So, how do I prove this is the correct foundation for morality? Well, I don’t really need to because I’m not trying to prove that subjective morality is “real”. I’m only recommending that morality be thought of as subjective. That is, that we should all go out of our way to create a personal moral code based on treating people the way that we and they want to be treated.

Of course, the major draw back with subjective morality is that we have no authority to force our personal moral code on anyone else. This is something I’m more than willing to give up to prevent the other 6 billion people on the planet from trying to enforce their belief on me. Oh, and since I don’t want anyone forcing their morals on me, it would be immoral for me to force my beliefs on them anyway. I’ve yet to find anyone complain when they are treated the way they want to be treated.

Note: If you are reading this forum, it is assumed you’re interested in peoples’ opinions about morality, and therefore, it is not immoral for me to present my opinions of morality.

99Percent

Even though you seem to be a bit confused on some of the details, I think that was an excellent summary of the different moral theories.

Of course not. However as a moral objectivist I think morality in a society is not subject to opinion. As a crude example I would hate to think that person X values more the pleasure of torturing me than my life. As an moral objectivist it looks like the only way to force the moral issues with a subjectivist who refuses to use his reason and rational self-interest, is to use physical force or threat of force when such a person initiates force himself to violate objective moral principles.

I do agree that that there is also a morality applied in the individual sense which is entirely subjective. That is we can individually value different things at different times. For example I can value health more than the pleasure of eating chocolate so I abstain from eating chocolates. But that does not mean that you shouldn't eat chocolates too.

OTOH, we live in a society that tries to enforce subjective morality in an objective sense by passing laws which are violations of individual freedom. Such laws are the ones that make consensual crimes illegal, such as drug prohibition, prostitution, sodomy, insider trading, homosexuality, etc.

tronvillain

As a subjectivist I prefer to say that the foundation of morality is self-interest, especially as it is affected by empathy and various emotions. While humans may be the creators of the concept of morality, we did not create morality itself - it evolved rather than being created.

dshimel:
We force our personal moral codes on others all of the time, through the application of force and threats of force. That morality is subjective changes nothing.

dk

Morality defines right and wrong with reason to regulate conduct suitable to human nature. The problem isn’t universal morality per say but the imperfectability of human nature by universal moral law. The more flawed a person’s, family’s or culture’s character the greater a burden morality appears to impose. The argument over morality gets confusing for two basic reasons, people want 1) credit or possession of the good others acquire or inherit, and 2) retribution from others for the trials of life they acquire or inherit. People of virtue do what’s right no matter how much they suffer, and people of vice suffer intolerably no matter what they do. The problem is everybody lives in a state of flux either becoming more virtuous or vicious.

Ironically, truly virtuous people have no need of the law, and truly vicious people have no desire for law. There are communities in which people get along. They go about the business of life happily, without envy, grudges, pomposity or guile by honoring the next person’s life, family, comfort and property more than their own. Whiile such people make good families, workers, neighborhoods, and patrons, they tend to find bureaucrats offensive. Yet people that spend all their time getting even with life, consumed by feelings of envy, apathy, hatred, pretense, pomposity and guile, spend all their time trying to become bureacrats. Sadly most of these people are drawn to power like a moth to the flame. The problem isn’t with morality, its the nature of the beast, or just plain old human weakness.

philechat

I think morality arises directly from human's biological nature. To be able to survive in a certain external environment (thus determined much by geography) each group of human animals devices a social system that attempts to maximize resources and minimize interpersonal conflicts. Therefore a group evolved in a hostile environment would derive a different set of moral code from one evolved in a fertile environment, and different styles of life are the basis of different codes of morality in each culture.

For example, it is observed that "an eye for an eye" and morality of honor is more prevalent in a herding society than in a farming society, and the higher "revenge murder" rate in towns of American south in comparison to American north is a descendent of a herding culture.

Even the same species of baboons showed different social behaviors with regard to differing environment. In a gaming park, baboons are observed to be much more patriarchal and aggressive than in a national park where gaming was prohibited.

Many "morality" may become meaningless in modern times because the environmental limitations upon a culture has been removed. However, each culture still shows its own "moral values" inherited from their ancestors who perhaps lived in a completely different surroundings as us moderns.

curmudgeon

Not really, objective morality is based on only those things that can be easily determined, or more importantly those things which cannot be argued against, without destroying the very context of the argument. Namely: I possess life and I possess consciousness. Were we face to face and not discussing this over the internet, you would quickly look foolish trying to argue that I possess neither of those attributes.

Objective (as in objectivism) morality flows naturally from those two points. Its objective only in the sense that it does NOT use as its primaries subjective, abstract concepts like "fairness" and "love". There IS no "objective morality" in the same sense that, say, E=MC^2 or 2+2=4, is true here and is also true on a red dwarf a trillion miles away. Morality can ONLY be defined in the context of conscious beings interacting with each other.

Its no more subjective than, say, paleontology, and certainly no more subjective than sociology. If I can pin my arguments on those two primaries, "I possess life" and "I possess consciousness", then they cannot be rationally be argued AGAINST.

If I can base my morality on that which is self-evident, and you base yours on what "feels right" to you, which is, objectively, superior?

Amen

That's simply the tradeoff we make in order to live with other humans in a society. Since a rational society is a great enhancement to our ability to survive and prosper, its a beneficial proposition for everyone. In objective morality the right to use force is entirely limited to use against those that would use force against you.

dshimel

Okay, I'd go with those assertions. You exist. You are conscious. Therfore......

I'm more lost than ever.

How does being conscious give you some ability to know good actions from bad actions without judging the relative values of the outcomes? 2+2 = 4 is a subjective concept. 2 cups on a table, then 2 more cups on a table, now 4 cups on a table... The actual cups are objective. The realization of a pattern that 2 + 2 = 4 is subjective.

The bones are objective. The length of a bone, the age of a bone, the size and the shape of the teeth, these things are objective.

Any conclusions draw from the data..... 100% subjective.

Sociology. Data = objective. Conclusions = subjective.

I'm still more lost than ever. I'll give you your assertions. Now prove morality using nothing more than "you exist" and "you're conscious".

So, you can't use force to protect a third party?

What if you have the choice of
a) killing 1,000 innocent people to get at 100 terrorists or
b) letting the 100 terrorists live knowing they will kill 10,000 innocent people.

In subjective morality, both options are immoral as we are not treating others as we and they would like to be treated. Subjective morality acknowledges that most real world "tough choices" become a value judgement as to which immoral action to take.

K

dshimel:

I think you missed at least one (the one I subscribe to).

4. Biologically driven morality - There is no "ought". People behave as they have been genetically and environmentally programmed to. Some of these behaviors fall into a category that is generally referred to as morality.

This is similar to subjective morality, however there is no Golden Rule as an ideal - it just happens to be the kind of behavior that allowed our ancestors to form effective societies giving them a survival advantage over their contemporaries. There is also no taboo about forcing one's morality on others - if doing so provides a survival advantage to the forcer, it becomes part of normal behavior (extremely gradually through evolution).

99Percent

But is that really morality? If we are simply robots preprogrammed to respond and react to certain situations, are we in anyway moral beings?

Morality does imply an "ought". If there is no ought then there is no morality.

K

99Percent:

It depends on your definition of morality. I consider morality to be the set of behaviors that are commonly referred to as "moral" or "immoral".

I don't see the justification for assuming an "ought" and I don't see why it isn't open for debate in a discussion of the foundations of morality.