What should Morals and Ethics be?

[angrysoba]

I agree with the first paragraph.

About the second: If what I have read -not much- is true our moral decisions are not taken in strict logical order: axioms, postulates and rules. We take many particular moral decisions in an intuitive mood and we try to rationalize them after. This sounds well.

That’s the problem I am alluding to. It’s definitely true that this happens often and can be demonstrated that much of our moral decisions are post-hoc rationalizations - or at least many controlled experiments show that humans will do this. And yet, what they often also show is that there is a rational answer them against which the rationalization can be shown (maybe I am not explaining this well). It seems to me that it only underscores the need to learn how to deal with cognitive biases and to train ourselves to be more rational.

Maybe a good example is someone who says “I realize I rationalize eating meat when I know that it follows from any reasonable principle that I shouldn’t eat it.”

 

[caveman1917]

This would only follow if satisfaction of my own desires was the only possible motivator of my actions, ie, if psychological egoism were true. You're talking in circles.

What other motivator of your actions would there be? You presented a situation with two conflicting desires, the desire for good WiFi access and the desire to act ethically, and you choose to follow the latter.

 

[angrysoba]

Well my implied answer is that they should be about whatever each individual and group makes them about. Aside from giving you my own set of moral values there's not much I can say about how things "should be" that they will never be like.

I’m not sure I follow you. I am pretty sure you spend a lot of time trying to reason with people to explain why, say, what Donald Trump says about immigration is wrong. I don’t think you would do that if you didn’t think there was a right answer to what people should do and that some people are persuadable.


Also, historically we have examples of suttee and more recently of female circumcision. I think when we say “you should not throw widows on funeral pyres” that the meaning behind the sentence is more than “I disagree with it for arbitrary reasons; you agree with it for arbitrary reasons; you say potato I say potato...”

Yeah but in the end it's in the service of our feelings and needs. We use reason more to rationalise our decisions and mistakes, and to reach our goals than we do for crafting a rational value system.

Yeah, we have cognitive biases. No doubt. But where does that leave us? Some people conclude it is rationalizations all the way down. I disagree. I think the fact that we make lots of mistakes in our reasoning only means we make lots of mistakes in our reasoning. But the fact we can talk about mistakes in reasoning implies there is also correct reasoning.

 

[Belz...]

I’m not sure I follow you. I am pretty sure you spend a lot of time trying to reason with people to explain why, say, what Donald Trump says about immigration is wrong. I don’t think you would do that if you didn’t think there was a right answer to what people should do and that some people are persuadable.

I don't see how that's mutually-exclusive with what you quoted. That people have different values and feelings doesn't mean you can't change those. Sometimes you can do it with reason, and sometimes not. But at some level it usually involves some sort of feeling. That's just how humans roll.

Yeah, we have cognitive biases. No doubt. But where does that leave us? Some people conclude it is rationalizations all the way down. I disagree. I think the fact that we make lots of mistakes in our reasoning only means we make lots of mistakes in our reasoning. But the fact we can talk about mistakes in reasoning implies there is also correct reasoning.

Ok so how do we determine what reasoning is correct? And the problem with answering that question is that "correct" also varies from one person to the next.

 

[Robin]

Another cop-out.

A cop-out how?

Am I supposed to pretend to believe in some Platonic Realm of transcendent Goodness?

There really is no fact of the matter about what we ought to do.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It is if you want to suggest ethics is based on logic. If that's what you're saying you should be able to show your work. Premise, inference, conclusion. Isn't that what logic is?

Of course ethics is going to be based on logic. Everything is based on logic or it's... well not logical.

There's nothing illogical about not wanting to suffer, and not wanting others to suffer unless one isn't arguing against logic but straw Vulcanism.

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

And I think it is. Again if we aren't trying to reduce suffering what are we doing that isn't so much pure mental masturbation?

Ethics is about the mental condition being better or worse. True we might not have anything resembling a full picture of all the variables of the human condition in every possible combination, but that doesn't lend us to "Morality/ethics aren't logical/rational/scientific/insert whatever intellectual scare word here."

Again like I said over in the philosophy thread ignoring the terms since people get hung up on them if you're trying to do anything if what you're doing doesn't include concepts like looking at the evidence what are you even doing?

Ah! You have embraced philosophy at last. Your absolutist consequentialist principle underlying actions cannot itself be demonstrated by evidence, but if you accept the principle as axiomatic, then a lot of implications follow from it. Though would you mind explaining what you mean by “conscious”? If I remember rightly you have ridiculed people in the past for even suggesting something called “consciousness” exists.

Do please grow up and debate honestly. I wish people's "ethics" would say more about sad attempts at "gotchas." Maybe if I phrase it in the form of a trolley problem.

I "ridicule" people as you call it for using "conscious" as the new code word for "soul" or presenting it as this magical woo-woo thing that "Science just can't understand." It's a perfectly acceptable word to describe a functioning neurological system.

 

[Belz...]

And I think it is. Again if we aren't trying to reduce suffering what are we doing that isn't so much pure mental masturbation?

I don't know. What are your values? What are those of someone else? Or some other society? If the definition of ethics I posted is correct, then it could be anything. As another poster noted we accept suffering for various reasons; sometimes we subject ourselves or others to it because it furthers our goals. It's not that simple.

Ethics is about the mental condition being better or worse.

I think that's a good summary. Unfortunately then it goes right back to the fundamental question: is there a way to objectively determine what is good? I say no.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know. What are your values? What are those of someone else? Or some other society? If the definition of ethics I posted is correct, then it could be anything. As another poster noted we accept suffering for various reasons; sometimes we subject ourselves or others to it because it furthers our goals. It's not that simple.

I don't know. Again when it comes down to "Well why care about suffering" I don't have an answer. I get this is a point of disagreement but I sort of feel that "suffering is bad and we shouldn't want it in ourself or others" is a reasonable place to just... start the discussion.

And if you start at that point the discussion by no means becomes easy, but the goal is at least simple. "Reduce the suffering." And the things that cause suffering aren't unknown variables and then the mental process of the hows and ways can advance like everything else; collect data, analyze it, etc.

But people (not necessarily you) so often seem to be hesistant to outright dismissive of the idea that morality/ethics is something we as a species can just... figure out the same way we figured out how to built bridges and make airplanes fly.

Morality/ethics is one of those discussions where everything is an eggshell because of the mixture of people who don't think certain questions have answers and people who put an odd moral (ironic I know) value on the questions not having answers.

 

[theprestige]

Well my implied answer is that they should be about whatever each individual and group makes them about. Aside from giving you my own set of moral values there's not much I can say about how things "should be" that they will never be like.







Yeah but in the end it's in the service of our feelings and needs. We use reason more to rationalise our decisions and mistakes, and to reach our goals than we do for crafting a rational value system.

Once we understand that everything is deterministic, and that choice is an illusion, doesn't that make any system of crime and punishment Immoral? After all, we're blaming people for phenomena they have no control over.

Over which they have no control.

I guess it can't really be Immoral, since the people declaring the crime and inflicting the punishment also have no choice in the matter.

I wonder what this means for the death penalty.

 

[angrysoba]

Do please grow up and debate honestly. I wish people's "ethics" would say more about sad attempts at "gotchas." Maybe if I phrase it in the form of a trolley problem.

"Grow up and debate honestly"? Is like, "Be civil, you moron!"?

I "ridicule" people as you call it for using "conscious" as the new code word for "soul" or presenting it as this magical woo-woo thing that "Science just can't understand." It's a perfectly acceptable word to describe a functioning neurological system.

I don't think you actually read what people say before you start telling them they are talking about a soul or start waffling on in your "grown-up" way about pianos and old men's monocles falling out.

 

[Belz...]

Once we understand that everything is deterministic, and that choice is an illusion, doesn't that make any system of crime and punishment Immoral?

No, it just happens, remember? Can't do anything about it!

 

[JoeMorgue]

If "everything is deterministic" then our reaction to things are as predetermined as our actions, so moral questions of as to what changes seem rather meaningless to me.

"Well it's not his fault he axe murdered the entire old lady bridge group because it was determined" and "Well it's not our fault we're going to hang him from the gallows at dawn for it" have to sort of be on one level, if determinism means one can't be changed neither can the other.

That's why I've always found the determinism debate pointless. There's no possible functional difference between a deterministic universe and a non-deterministic universe.

 

[angrysoba]

I don't see how that's mutually-exclusive with what you quoted. That people have different values and feelings doesn't mean you can't change those.

The problem here is that now you are not saying anything meaningful.

You point out that different individuals and different groups have different values, which is a very commonplace observation of descriptive ethics, but then you say that they ought to be about "whatever each and group makes them about".

This is making explicit an idea of normative moral relativism:

Well my implied answer is that they should be about whatever each individual and group makes them about.

This is incoherent in the sense that you give free reign to any and all kinds of "morality".

The Nazis think they should gas the Jews - they should gas the Jews.
The Confederate States think they should have slavery - they should have slavery.
Hindus and Sikhs found it right to commit suttee - they should commit suttee.

To tell them otherwise is to violate the principle that their morality should be about whatever each individual and group makes them about.

 

[Belz...]

If "everything is deterministic" then our reaction to things are as predetermined as our actions, so moral questions of as to what changes seem rather meaningless to me.

Indeed. Sorry, the determinism thing was just a facetious, pointlessly reductionist response to another post for fun. It wasn't meant to stimulate actual discussion. Of course, everything being deterministic changes nothing about morality in the real world, because we're not able to determine what's going to happen anyway. Our ignorance of the variables and factors involved is what preserves the idea of choice.

 

[angrysoba]

That's why I've always found the determinism debate pointless.

No matter how much it is debated, you can't change anything.

 

[Belz...]

The problem here is that now you are not saying anything meaningful.

You don't think "what's moral or ethical depends on the individual" is meaningful? I think it's a very important thing to know and acknowledge.

This is incoherent in the sense that you give free reign to any and all kinds of "morality".

How is that incoherent? It's true. That doesn't mean that I can't disagree with someone's morality. It just means that there's no objectively correct one, and that looking for one through reason is futile. Each society and individual has their value system and that's how those ethical rules are set.

 

[angrysoba]

You don't think "what's moral or ethical depends on the individual" is meaningful? I think it's a very important thing to know and acknowledge.



How is that incoherent? It's true. That doesn't mean that I can't disagree with someone's morality. It just means that there's no objectively correct one, and that looking for one through reason is futile. Each society and individual has their value system and that's how those ethical rules are set.

The issue I have is your claim that because of the incontestable fact that different people and different groups have different ideas of what is moral, that it follows from that that each individual and group ought to follow those moral values.

And it becomes incoherent when you say that they should follow those moral values and that people should simultaneously try to dissuade them from those moral values.

I don't see the normative rules you are implying as either justified or coherent.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The idea that morality/ethics is variable doesn't mean it is arbitrary, nor does it mean that all moral/ethical systems work, either at all or as good as other systems.

Again people get way to hung up on some variation on asking "Are ethics subjective or objective" and think that's a bad question.

We have river we need to get cars across.

Person A: Builds a suspension bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person B: Builds a Truss bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person C: Builds a cantilever bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person D: Builds a bridge out of cardboard and old chewing gum. It collapses on the first car.

The fact that we have multiple viable options doesn't mean we don't also have wrong answers. It doesn't mean the bridge building is subjective, just complex.

It is possible for moral systems to fail, or to work better or worse in certain scenarios. That makes it more complex, nothing more.

 

[theprestige]

Belz..., how would you adjust the following to better reflect your position?

---

Should the Nazis murder Jews?

No.

Why not? They believe they should murder Jews. Why isn't that sufficient?

Because their victims might disagree.

Then we have two moralities in conflict with each other. Which one should prevail?

Whichever one does prevail, should prevail.

Then the Nazis should murder Jews, at least up until the moment someone stops them.

 

[theprestige]

The idea that morality/ethics is variable doesn't mean it is arbitrary, nor does it mean that all moral/ethical systems work, either at all or as good as other systems.

Again people get way to hung up on some variation on asking "Are ethics subjective or objective" and think that's a bad question.

We have river we need to get cars across.

Person A: Builds a suspension bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person B: Builds a Truss bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person C: Builds a cantilever bridge. Cars can now cross the water.
Person D: Builds a bridge out of cardboard and old chewing gum. It collapses on the first car.

The fact that we have multiple viable options doesn't mean we don't also have wrong answers. It doesn't mean the bridge building is subjective, just complex.

It is possible for moral systems to fail, or to work better or worse in certain scenarios. That makes it more complex, nothing more.

Begs the question that there should be a bridge in the first place. This isn't complex, it's fundamentally unanswerable.