What should Morals and Ethics be?

[mumblethrax]

That depend the moral code you're using, doesn't it?

Not especially. The nature of ethical statements is distinct from any specific normative code.

But you could have gotten everything you claimed[*] you wanted, you were perfectly capable of locking everyone else out.

I couldn't have, not if I accept the framing (that I wanted good wifi but also wanted to not be a dick). These desires are in conflict.

If I reject the framing, then I only had one desire, and it wasn't satisfied, precisely because I acted in the way that I thought was moral/ethical.

Either way, the idea that morality was just me doing what I wanted to do is false. It's a considered act, and the consideration is where the work of ethics and morality gets done.

 

[caveman1917]

Looking at the overall situation and going "How can we maximize personal happiness at least without sacrificing, ideally while also improving, overall group happiness?" is the only morality/ethics I feel is valid.

I don't know what overall situation you are looking at, but when I look at the world, how societies are structured and organized, I see something quite different from that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You can take any topic and recursive (yes I verbed recursive) it into null level "You can't know anything" meaningless.

We might as well just start arguing whether or not we're in the Matrix.

 

[caveman1917]

I couldn't have, not if I accept the framing (that I wanted good wifi but also wanted to not be a dick). These desires are in conflict.

And you could've gone with either one, there was nothing stopping you from doing either but yourself (for example you had the admin password etc).

Either way, the idea that morality was just me doing what I wanted to do is false. It's a considered act, and the consideration is where the work of ethics and morality gets done.

It's still you wanting to consider the act in terms of ethics and morality, it's a completely free choice you made. You could've ignored any ethics or morality or, indeed, chosen not to even consider the act in those terms.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Whenever we talk morality/ethics I always get perturbed by the number of people who are, even if only on an argumentative level, either looking for a loophole to exploit to be a total psychopath and/or assume other people are doing the same.

That's not what's happening here. This is a philosophical discussion, you must expect tough questions. Note that this isn't the Politics forum: it's not games and agendas and gotchas here. You have an idea, we want to examine it, that's all.

Humans are social creatures who want and need to interact with each other, but we have different, sometimes conflicting, individual wants, needs, and desires.

We are unhappy when we don't get the things we want/need.
But sometimes the easiest, simpliest, most obvious way to get what we want/need causes unhappiness in other people.

Okay, now you're introducing something new. What is happiness, and how does it relate to the suffering in the premise? That's not a trick question, there is a common answer to it in this context.

Looking at the overall situation and going "How can we maximize personal happiness at least without sacrificing, ideally while also improving, overall group happiness?" is the only morality/ethics I feel is valid.

//Note. I use the term "happiness" as shorthand, but this refers to a broad range of positive human emotions.//

Okay, that seems clear enough, once the happiness question is settled. You appear to favor maximizing a good while minimizing harm, for the many rather than the few when they conflict. Again, not an uncommon view.

But it assumes several things as given and hinges on concepts that are as yet undefined, and has implications that could be explored. This stuff isn't easy.

 

[Belz...]

Again I will not entertain "Prove to me why I shouldn't just be a psychopath" moral solipsism.

I'm comfortable starting at a point of "Suffering is bad" being self evidence.

But that WASN'T your claim. Your claim wasn't that suffering is bad. It's that ethics are about suffering.

ETA: Ethics are defined as "moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity." Whether that pertains to suffering or not, or to what extent, depends on the individual and society.

 

[caveman1917]

You can take any topic and recursive (you I verbed recursive) it into null level "You can't know anything" meaningless.

We might as well just start arguing whether or not we're in the Matrix.

That makes no sense. Obviously you can know things, for example by looking at the overall situation you can know that "might is right" is a much more accurate description than "maximizing happiness while not making the group unhappy" - indeed, it seems that the paradise of the rich (the "maximized personal happiness") is built on the backs of the poor (the "large group being made unhappy because of it")

 

[TragicMonkey]

Again I will not entertain "Prove to me why I shouldn't just be a psychopath" moral solipsism.

That's not what's happening here.

I'm comfortable starting at a point of "Suffering is bad" being self evidence.

That's not sufficient here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's not what's happening here. This is a philosophical discussion, you must expect tough questions.

Tough questions yes. Meaningless recursion, no. I will play for a while, but when everything I say is answered "And then?" I will bow out.

Okay, now you're introducing something new. What is happiness, and how does it relate to the suffering in the premise? That's not a trick question, there is a common answer to it in this context.

As said I was using "happiness" as shorthand for the much more complex idea of a positive emotional state; lack of suffering, fulfillment... ya know the whole "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" thing. There's more to the positive emotional state then simple in the moment happiness.

Okay, that seems clear enough, once the happiness question is settled. You appear to favor maximizing a good while minimizing harm, for the many rather than the few when they conflict. Again, not an uncommon view.

But it assumes several things as given and hinges on concepts that are as yet undefined, and has implications that could be explored. This stuff isn't easy.

Nobody wants to suffer. I have no problem "assuming" things which nobody is actually disagreeing on.

 

[caveman1917]

That's not what's happening here.

I always find it interesting when people do that sort of "but if you aren't enslaved to a moral code then what's stopping you from doing [insert immoral thing]?" It's similar to the one religious believers make against atheists: "but if you didn't have fear of God then what's stopping you from doing [insert immoral thing]?" In the same way the latter says more about the religious believer than the atheist, I think the former says more about the moralist than the amoralist.

 

[mumblethrax]

And you could've gone with either one, there was nothing stopping you from doing either but yourself (for example you had the admin password etc).

And? I'm not saying I was forced to do the right thing.

It's still you wanting to consider the act in terms of ethics and morality, it's a completely free choice you made. You could've ignored any ethics or morality or, indeed, chosen not to even consider the act in those terms.

If I had ignored morality, I could not claim to be acting morally. And yet I would have been acting in keeping with my desire. Which means it would be an error to say that "acting morally is just doing what you want to do". There's something more at work.

This is the only thing I'd like to establish.

 

[caveman1917]

And? I'm not saying I was forced to do the right thing.

Well you're the one who claimed that you couldn't have done otherwise.

If I had ignored morality, I could not claim to be acting morally. And yet I would have been acting in keeping with my desire. Which means it would be an error to say that "acting morally is just doing what you want to do". There's something more at work.

This is the only thing I'd like to establish.

Then you'd have been better of with an example where you acted "immorally" instead, as that would actually refute the claim that "acting morally is just doing what you want to do." Why would a desire to act ethically be any more than any other desire? If your desire to act ethically is stronger than your desire to get good WiFi then you've still just done what you wanted most.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Tough questions yes. Meaningless recursion, no. I will play for a while, but when everything I say is answered "And then?" I will bow out.

Yes, yes, we all remember the kid who quit playing Tag when he got tagged to be It. If you cannot keep your temper then philosophy is not for you.

As said I was using "happiness" as shorthand for the much more complex idea of a positive emotional state; lack of suffering, fulfillment... ya know the whole "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" thing. There's more to the positive emotional state then simple in the moment happiness.

There was nothing wrong with using "happiness", it's not that simple a concept as you suggest. But here you give the definition I anticipated: happiness as the avoidance of suffering.

Nobody wants to suffer. I have no problem "assuming" things which nobody is actually disagreeing on.

And yet people do suffer, willingly, sometimes. Athletes experience injury, dental patients and tattooed people endure pain, children suffer through school. If ethics were about reducing suffering would it therefore be ethical to stop sports, school, dentistry, and tattooing? What about the grief of losing loved ones? Better to never love than to experience the suffering of loss?

Obviously not. The avoidance of suffering is not by itself the basis of ethics. You are missing an element: purpose. The avoidance of suffering without a greater purpose being served fits better. But what is the purpose? Is there one in general, or is it specific and different per individual?

 

[JoeMorgue]

There was nothing wrong with using "happiness", it's not that simple a concept as you suggest. But here you give the definition I anticipated: happiness as the avoidance of suffering.

Don't do that. Don't play the "Ha I Socratically predicated that you would make that point in my previous point and lead you into it..." game, especially right after admonishing me for assuming people were gonna play gotcha.

Make the point you're making against the point I'm making, not some unspoken future point you'll assume I'll make.

And yet people do suffer, willingly, sometimes. Athletes experience injury, dental patients and tattooed people endure pain, children suffer through school. If ethics were about reducing suffering would it therefore be ethical to stop sports, school, dentistry, and tattooing? What about the grief of losing loved ones? Better to never love than to experience the suffering of loss?

There's nothing illogical about trading temporary suffering for long term less suffering.

 

[Belz...]

Don't do that. Don't play the "Ha I Socratically predicated that you make that point in my previous point and lead you into it..." game.

Make the point you're making against the point I'm making, not some



There's not illogical about trading temporary suffering for long term less suffering.

Hey, Joe. Do you think you could address my points, here?

 

[Cheetah]

Thanks for you posts mumblethrax, I'm enjoying them.

I'm asking if you can support the premise that ethics is "reducing the suffering of conscious beings". Why is that a desirable thing?

I would actually like to be pro-active and change "reduce suffering" to "maximize happiness", it seems like a more worthy goal.


Since we are discussing ethics and we all agree it's about feelings, it makes sense to include things that experience feelings in developing an ethical framework.
Science informs us that evolution gave rise to conscious beings that experience both positive and negative feelings and emotions.
Since we are all selfish, we don't like experiencing negative feelings and want to avoid them.

The reason is simple, feelings are just evolution's way of compelling an organism to lead a healthy and productive life.
You feel negative feelings under situations best avoided back in evolutionary history. And positive feelings when in situations that lead to a productive life in terms of reproductive success.
That is why all animals that care, try to avoid suffering, pain, hunger etc. It's obviously damaging and could kill you if you ignore it. I think it might be a universal in the evolution of complex enough brains, together with the will to live.


I want to live and I don't want to suffer doing it, I want to enjoy myself.

It's pretty safe to say all conscious evolved beings feel the same.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Don't do that. Don't play the "Ha I Socratically predicated that you would make that point in my previous point and lead you into it..." game, especially right after admonishing me for assuming people were gonna play gotcha.

Make the point you're making against the point I'm making, not some unspoken future point you'll assume I'll make.

Such a prickly bunny! I merely meant that you were aiming at a well-established line of thought. If you weren't so hostile to philosophy you'd have known what you're suggesting isn't new or unique, and been able to review prior atguments.

There's nothing illogical about trading temporary suffering for long term less suffering.

I agree. I never said it was. This is the first time you've mentioned logic, so now we have another new element in the mix. Are you going to amend your original premise to include logic, or use logic to support it, or both?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I agree. I never said it was. This is the first time you've mentioned logic, so now we have another new element in the mix. Are you going to amend your original premise to include logic, or use logic to support it, or both?

Logic isn't something I should have to "bring up."

It's like asking an engineer for a bridge design and 1/3 of a way into the design process going "What? You never mentioned the bridge would be built in a place with Gravity!"

 

[mumblethrax]

Well you're the one who claimed that you couldn't have done otherwise.

I didn't make that claim. I made the claim that I could not satisfy both desires (the real and the putative), since they were mutually exclusive.

Then you'd have been better of with an example where you acted "immorally" instead, as that would actually refute the claim that "acting morally is just doing what you want to do."

I was assuming that people here could imagine I might have acted otherwise. I'll concede that this might have been a mistake, since the responses have been perplexing.

Why would a desire to act ethically be any more than any other desire?

Because we might consider it a more serious interest. Some desires are trivial, or even harmful if acted upon. The alcoholic who knows he is reckless when drunk has good reason to rate his second-order desire to abstain higher than his first-order desire to have a drink, even if the first-order desire is felt more strongly.

If your desire to act ethically is stronger than your desire to get good WiFi then you've still just done what you wanted most.

So here we encounter some of the manifold problems with psychological egoism--if I claim that I didn't act according to my own desires at all, but in consideration of other people's interests, I'm told that not only do I feel such a desire, but that I must have felt it more strongly. Otherwise, psychological egoism would be false! *wank emoji*

 

[Belz...]

I guess I'm on ignore or something.