Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr. Retard · 05-01-2003, 08:17 AM

There seem to be two ways that people can doubt morality. Two inconsistent ways. But though these two ways contradict each other, people like to help themselves to both. This is, of course, inconsistent and dumb.

(1) Selective Normativity: Here you say that behaving morally isn't justified, but that behaving other ways is justified. For example, being selfish or pursuing your own happiness is justified, but being altruistic or pursuing others' happiness isn't. These people often ask, "Why be moral? Why not just kill everyone, or go wild and 'live it up'? Why bother helping others when you can just look out for Number One?" These people accept that some behavior is more justified than other behavior. They just say that moral behavior is (relatively) unjustified.

(2) Denying Normativity: Here you reject the very idea of some behavior being more justified than other behavior. There's no sense in saying that behavior is justified -- some people behave one way, some people behave another way. We may not like a lot of types of behavior, but it's not like that behavior is more or less justified than other behavior. These people often ask, "What do you think, there's some Law in the sky that tells you what to do? That the universe wants us to behave a certain way? You think there's some object out there, 'rightness' or 'wrongness'? Where is it? The idea makes no sense. It's metaphysical babble".

These two positions contradict each other. People often go with (2) and deny normativity. But then they don't get to go with (1) -- selective normativity. After all, (1) says that being selfish is more justified than being altruistic. (2)-folks should reply with the same scorn, "What, you think the universe wants us to be selfish instead of altruistic? You think there's some Law in the sky telling you to be selfish? What malarkey! There's selfish behavior and altruistic behavior, and neither is more 'justified' than the other, whatever that means".

bd-from-kg · 05-01-2003, 09:15 AM

Dr. Retard:

These positions are only inconsistent if �justified� has the same meaning in (1) and (2). But this doesn�t seem to be the case. What those who take position (1) seem to mean is that it is in some sense irrational to sacrifice one�s own interests to others�; that while it is often in one�s (enlightened) self interest to sacrifice one�s short-term interests to benefit others, it is irrational to do so if it is really against one�s long-term self-interest. I think this position is flat-out wrong, but it�s not logically inconsistent.

Dr. Retard · 05-01-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
Dr. Retard:

These positions are only inconsistent if �justified� has the same meaning in (1) and (2). But this doesn�t seem to be the case. What those who take position (1) seem to mean is that it is in some sense irrational to sacrifice one�s own interests to others�; that while it is often in one�s (enlightened) self interest to sacrifice one�s short-term interests to benefit others, it is irrational to do so if it is really against one�s long-term self-interest. I think this position is flat-out wrong, but it�s not logically inconsistent.

So yes, they can define the word differently in different cases and avoid contradiction. Then they have to say that while it's justified1 to be selfish -- in that being selfish falls under what they mean by "rational" which is all they mean by "justified1" -- it's not justified2 to be selfish -- in that there's no sense in thinking selfishness to be more 'backed by reason' than altruism.

But then "Being selfish is justified1!" is kind of empty praise. "Being selfish is justified in that... well, that's how I defined my words".

Pyrrho · 05-02-2003, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
Dr. Retard:

These positions are only inconsistent if �justified� has the same meaning in (1) and (2). But this doesn�t seem to be the case. What those who take position (1) seem to mean is that it is in some sense irrational to sacrifice one�s own interests to others�; that while it is often in one�s (enlightened) self interest to sacrifice one�s short-term interests to benefit others, it is irrational to do so if it is really against one�s long-term self-interest. I think this position is flat-out wrong, but it�s not logically inconsistent.

I don't think that calling the one motive "rational" and the other motive "irrational" is justified. For the short version, see:

http://ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03/nqpmr10.txt

But to give you an interesting sampling (since I know full well that most people do not like reading very much):

Quote:

Whatever contradiction may vulgarly be supposed between the SELFISH and SOCIAL sentiments or dispositions, they are really no more opposite than selfish and ambitious, selfish and revengeful, selfish and vain. It is requisite that there be an original propensity of some kind, in order to be a basis to self-love, by giving a relish to the objects of its pursuit; and none more fit for this purpose than benevolence or humanity. The goods of fortune are spent in one gratification or another: the miser who accumulates his annual income, and lends it out at interest, has really spent it in the gratification of his avarice. And it would be difficult to show why a man is more a loser by a generous action, than by any other method of expense; since the utmost which he can attain by the most elaborate selfishness, is the indulgence of some affection.

Now if life, without passion, must be altogether insipid and tiresome; let a man suppose that he has full power of modelling his own disposition, and let him deliberate what appetite or desire he would choose for the foundation of his happiness and enjoyment. Every affection, he would observe, when gratified by success, gives a satisfaction proportioned to its force and violence; but besides this advantage, common to all, the immediate feeling of benevolence and friendship, humanity and kindness, is sweet, smooth, tender, and agreeable, independent of all fortune and accidents. These virtues are besides attended with a pleasing consciousness or remembrance, and keep us in humour with ourselves as well as others; while we retain the agreeable reflection of having done our part towards mankind and society. And though all men show a jealousy of our success in the pursuits of avarice and ambition; yet are we almost sure of their good-will and good wishes, so long as we persevere in the paths of virtue, and employ ourselves in the execution of generous plans and purposes. What other passion is there where we shall find so many advantages united; an agreeable sentiment, a pleasing consciousness, a good reputation? But of these truths, we may observe, men are, of themselves, pretty much convinced; nor are they deficient in their duty to society, because they would not wish to be generous, friendly, and humane; but because they do not feel themselves such.

Treating vice with the greatest candour, and making it all possible concessions, we must acknowledge that there is not, in any instance, the smallest pretext for giving it the preference above virtue, with a view of self-interest; except, perhaps, in the case of justice, where a man, taking things in a certain light, may often seem to be a loser by his integrity. And though it is allowed that, without a regard to property, no society could subsist; yet according to the imperfect way in which human affairs are conducted, a sensible knave, in particular incidents, may think that an act of iniquity or infidelity will make a considerable addition to his fortune, without causing any considerable breach in the social union and confederacy. That HONESTY IS THE BEST POLICY, may be a good general rule, but is liable to many exceptions; and he, it may perhaps be thought, conducts himself with most wisdom, who observes the general rule, and takes advantage of all the exceptions.

I must confess that, if a man think that this reasoning much requires an answer, it would be a little difficult to find any which will to him appear satisfactory and convincing. If his heart rebel not against such pernicious maxims, if he feel no reluctance to the thoughts of villainy or baseness, he has indeed lost a considerable motive to virtue; and we may expect that his practice will be answerable to his speculation. But in all ingenuous natures, the antipathy to treachery and roguery is too strong to be counter-balanced by any views of profit or pecuniary advantage. Inward peace of mind, consciousness of integrity, a satisfactory review of our own conduct; these are circumstances, very requisite to happiness, and will be cherished and cultivated by every honest man, who feels the importance of them.

Such a one has, besides, the frequent satisfaction of seeing knaves, with all their pretended cunning and abilities, betrayed by their own maxims; and while they purpose to cheat with moderation and secrecy, a tempting incident occurs, nature is frail, and they give into the snare; whence they can never extricate themselves, without a total loss of reputation, and the forfeiture of all future trust and confidence with mankind.

But were they ever so secret and successful, the honest man, if he has any tincture of philosophy, or even common observation and reflection, will discover that they themselves are, in the end, the greatest dupes, and have sacrificed the invaluable enjoyment of a character, with themselves at least, for the acquisition of worthless toys and gewgaws. How little is requisite to supply the necessities of nature? And in a view to pleasure, what comparison between the unbought satisfaction of conversation, society, study, even health and the common beauties of nature, but above all the peaceful reflection on one's own conduct; what comparison, I say, between these and the feverish, empty amusements of luxury and expense? These natural pleasures, indeed, are really without price; both because they are below all price in their attainment, and above it in their enjoyment.

kctan · 05-03-2003, 05:26 AM

Pyrrho,
Too damn long even for a sampling.

Anyway, be you an honest man or knave, you're still acting out in in your self-interest. When you derives pleasure from doing something, you're already serving your self-interest.

Back to the topic.

What's there to doubt about morality ? Take it as something which is superfluous. We are ultimately responsible for our life so depending on how you wish your's to be, just live it out accordingly. Think of consequences before acting if you want the best for yourself & wear the others shoes first before acting if you want the best for yourself & for others. Morality doesn't have to be a part of one's life at all.

Dr. Retard · 05-03-2003, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by kctan
Anyway, be you an honest man or knave, you're still acting out in in your self-interest. When you derives pleasure from doing something, you're already serving your self-interest.

This threatens to derail the thread, but...

Just because you want to bring about something doesn't mean you will derive pleasure from its successfully being brought about. It just means you want to bring it about -- you value it. Acting like this isn't acting in your self-interest (not according to normal use of that phrase), it's just plain acting. Acting as an agent. Acting in your self-interest is typically something like, for example, when you act in order to bring about your own pleasure.

Thalia · 05-03-2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Retard
This threatens to derail the thread, but...

Just because you want to bring about something doesn't mean you will derive pleasure from its successfully being brought about. It just means you want to bring it about -- you value it. Acting like this isn't acting in your self-interest (not according to normal use of that phrase), it's just plain acting. Acting as an agent. Acting in your self-interest is typically something like, for example, when you act in order to bring about your own pleasure.

Well, I think there are different kinds of pleasure and self interest. I view my own desire to be ethical as a desire to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would arise from doing "bad" while trying to maintain a self-image as a "good" person. I also want to avoid feeling another being's pain, and avoiding causing pain to others helps me reduce this "negative empathy". I am sure there are other motivations that I am not aware of that reward me with satisfaction when I do "good".

Martin Segilman proposes that there are several kinds of happiness, and our bias towards hedonistic happiness is too narrow. I agree.

Dr. Retard · 05-03-2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thalia
Well, I think there are different kinds of pleasure and self interest. I view my own desire to be ethical as a desire to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would arise from doing "bad" while trying to maintain a self-image as a "good" person. I also want to avoid feeling another being's pain, and avoiding causing pain to others helps me reduce this "negative empathy". I am sure there are other motivations that I am not aware of that reward me with satisfaction when I do "good".

Martin Segilman proposes that there are several kinds of happiness, and our bias towards hedonistic happiness is too narrow. I agree.

Even with other types of psychic rewards besides "hedonistic happiness", I doubt people's actions are always motivated by a desire to bring about these psychic rewards. (Same goes for psychic pains).

We can always cook up cases where people are informed beforehand that their brain is going to be numbed so that they can't feel the psychic rewards of 'success' or the psychic pains of 'failure'. People would probably still choose to bring about their valued goal, showing that the goal is what they're after, and not any feelings summoned up by the goal's obtaining or failing to obtaining.

So, first, their behavior is not guided by the prospect of feelings they expect to have. And second, even it it were, these feelings can be self-centered or other-centered. So people's behavior can be a way's off from selfishness. They're just acting to bring about some personal goal. Anything less wouldn't be agency.

What might be true, is that when people decide to act, their decision is guided by the feelings that attend upon certain thoughts. In that case, feelings make the difference then, influencing the decision-making process. In which case, the decision is not guided by the prospect of the future happiness attending 'success' or the future uneasiness attending 'failure'. It's instead guided by feelings 'right then and there'.

This, of course, is a way's off from the 'ulterior motive' speculations of psychological egoists.

Thalia · 05-03-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Retard

What might be true, is that when people decide to act, their decision is guided by the feelings that attend upon certain thoughts. In that case, feelings make the difference then, influencing the decision-making process. In which case, the decision is not guided by the prospect of the future happiness attending 'success' or the future uneasiness attending 'failure'. It's instead guided by feelings 'right then and there'.

This, of course, is a way's off from the 'ulterior motive' speculations of psychological egoists.

This is what I meant by the example of cognitive dissonance and self-image. It is not the action so much as the thoughts-> feelings surrounding the decision making. I think this sort of thing can be shown in many experiments in social psychology where people do things they should 'know' aren't rational bc of present social pressures or cognitive dissonance pressures give them an instant positive or negative feedback when even considering certain alternatives. Often these people come up with bizzare rationalisations with no awareness of the manipulation of their behavior.
Actually I am kind of losing my own train of thought, but social psychology is still interesting

sorry.

05-01-2003, 08:17 AM	#1
Dr. Retard Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona, USA Posts: 735	How and How Not To Doubt Morality There seem to be two ways that people can doubt morality. Two inconsistent ways. But though these two ways contradict each other, people like to help themselves to both. This is, of course, inconsistent and dumb. (1) Selective Normativity: Here you say that behaving morally isn't justified, but that behaving other ways is justified. For example, being selfish or pursuing your own happiness is justified, but being altruistic or pursuing others' happiness isn't. These people often ask, "Why be moral? Why not just kill everyone, or go wild and 'live it up'? Why bother helping others when you can just look out for Number One?" These people accept that some behavior is more justified than other behavior. They just say that moral behavior is (relatively) unjustified. (2) Denying Normativity: Here you reject the very idea of some behavior being more justified than other behavior. There's no sense in saying that behavior is justified -- some people behave one way, some people behave another way. We may not like a lot of types of behavior, but it's not like that behavior is more or less justified than other behavior. These people often ask, "What do you think, there's some Law in the sky that tells you what to do? That the universe wants us to behave a certain way? You think there's some object out there, 'rightness' or 'wrongness'? Where is it? The idea makes no sense. It's metaphysical babble". These two positions contradict each other. People often go with (2) and deny normativity. But then they don't get to go with (1) -- selective normativity. After all, (1) says that being selfish is more justified than being altruistic. (2)-folks should reply with the same scorn, "What, you think the universe wants us to be selfish instead of altruistic? You think there's some Law in the sky telling you to be selfish? What malarkey! There's selfish behavior and altruistic behavior, and neither is more 'justified' than the other, whatever that means".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-01-2003, 09:15 AM	#2
bd-from-kg Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: King George, VA Posts: 1,400	Dr. Retard: These positions are only inconsistent if �justified� has the same meaning in (1) and (2). But this doesn�t seem to be the case. What those who take position (1) seem to mean is that it is in some sense irrational to sacrifice one�s own interests to others�; that while it is often in one�s (enlightened) self interest to sacrifice one�s short-term interests to benefit others, it is irrational to do so if it is really against one�s long-term self-interest. I think this position is flat-out wrong, but it�s not logically inconsistent.

05-03-2003, 05:26 AM	#5
kctan Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Heaven, just assasinated god Posts: 578	Pyrrho, Too damn long even for a sampling. Anyway, be you an honest man or knave, you're still acting out in in your self-interest. When you derives pleasure from doing something, you're already serving your self-interest. Back to the topic. What's there to doubt about morality ? Take it as something which is superfluous. We are ultimately responsible for our life so depending on how you wish your's to be, just live it out accordingly. Think of consequences before acting if you want the best for yourself & wear the others shoes first before acting if you want the best for yourself & for others. Morality doesn't have to be a part of one's life at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.