What should Morals and Ethics be?

[jrhowell]

In my opinion, if you were living in a free and fair egalitarian society with all your basic needs met; if you were in good health and had access to adequate variety and choice in terms of physical and mental stimulation and needs, you would be incapable of real suffering.

Categorizing suffering that occurs within the content of your version of a utopian society as not being "real suffering" seems a real stretch to me. Perhaps you mean that to you it would be unjustified suffering?

To me suffering is a mental state, and not necessarily a logical consequence of a person's circumstances.

 

[Cheetah]

Categorizing suffering that occurs within the content of your version of a utopian society as not being "real suffering" seems a real stretch to me. Perhaps you mean that to you it would be unjustified suffering?

Yes, good.

To me suffering is a mental state, and not necessarily a logical consequence of a person's circumstances.

In that case, I think the argument could be made that that person is not in good mental health and need's help.

 

[theprestige]

If morality isn't a social construct, what the hell is it? Just because each individual creates their own version of morality does not mean it's not a social construct. We don't make those choices in a vacuum. Each of us are influenced by the people around us. Are we not?

We are indeed influenced by the people around us. However, there is much debate about whether going along to get along is truly moral. We often condemn those who choose evil over good because the people around them or above them made it easier to choose evil than to take a stand for good. Conversely, we often praise those who take a stand for good, even when - especially when! - those around or above them make it a hard choice.

 

[jrhowell]

In that case, I think the argument could be made that that person is not in good mental health and need's help.

Perhaps we could call the treatment centers for those who are suffering in the perfect society "re-education camps".

 

[caveman1917]

I did make the assumption, explicitly. And it follows from that assumption that he does have the desire to act, if you think a moral judgment implies a desire (that is, if I say that this outcome is better than that outcome, I am expressing a preference for the former). If you don't think this follows, then you can't say that I have a desire to act.

The problem here isn't really a moral problem, but that you're invested in a dubious theory of action where desires always and exclusively produce intentional action. That just isn't the case, but it's way off topic.

Ok then, what else, if not your desire to act ethically and his lack of desire for such, is then the cause for the difference in choices you both make?

 

[acbytesla]

We are indeed influenced by the people around us. However, there is much debate about whether going along to get along is truly moral. We often condemn those who choose evil over good because the people around them or above them made it easier to choose evil than to take a stand for good. Conversely, we often praise those who take a stand for good, even when - especially when! - those around or above them make it a hard choice.

I agree with that. It is how many germans justified slaughtering Jews. It's also how the Jewish people justified slaughtering the Amalakites etc etc. I would think these events and others cllearly demonstrate that morals are a social construct.

I'm just curious what principles should a society use to base it's laws, rules and morals on?

 

[mumblethrax]

Ok then, what else, if not your desire to act ethically and his lack of desire for such, is then the cause for the difference in choices you both make?

A failure of will, as I already mentioned. That's a topic unto itself, but not one that I have much interest in talking about here.

 

[theprestige]

I agree with that. It is how many germans justified slaughtering Jews. It's also how the Jewish people justified slaughtering the Amalakites etc etc. I would think these events and others cllearly demonstrate that morals are a social construct.



I'm just curious what principles should a society use to base it's laws, rules and morals on?

Faith, norms, or sociopathy.

For existing societies, norms is probably just going to be tradition. Societies generally don't go for blank slate replacement of their entire value system.

For philosophical ethicists, the practical result seems to be socioparhy.

 

[caveman1917]

A failure of will, as I already mentioned.

Was it not your will to act ethically? Was it not his will to not do so? What failure of will?

That's a topic unto itself, but not one that I have much interest in talking about here.

Well it's relevant for a claim that morality is something more than a desire.

 

[caveman1917]

For existing societies, norms is probably just going to be tradition. Societies generally don't go for blank slate replacement of their entire value system.

Traditional social norms are just peer pressure from dead people.

For philosophical ethicists, the practical result seems to be socioparhy.

Why?

 

[acbytesla]

Faith, norms, or sociopathy.

For existing societies, norms is probably just going to be tradition. Societies generally don't go for blank slate replacement of their entire value system.

For philosophical ethicists, the practical result seems to be socioparhy.

1. Who's faith? What if I have a different faith than you?

2. A norm is not a principle.

3. Sociopathy again? I thought you said you weren't a fan? And frankly, I disagree that from practical result it seems to be sociopathy. John Nash proved otherwise.

 

[theprestige]

Social norms are just peer pressure from dead people.

Sure. It's a witty way to put it. As a Chestertonian conservative, I think that peer pressure from dead people even plays an important role in a healthy society. Even though you probably meant it as an insult, I'll take it as a compliment.

Why?

I think it has something to do with doctrinaire adherence to a pleasing philosophical construct, over empathetic concern for actual human beings. But I'm not sure.

 

[caveman1917]

Sure. It's a witty way to put it. As a Chestertonian conservative, I think that peer pressure from dead people even plays an important role in a healthy society. Even though you probably meant it as an insult, I'll take it as a compliment.

I meant it as neither.

I think it has something to do with doctrinaire adherence to a pleasing philosophical construct, over empathetic concern for actual human beings. But I'm not sure.

Well, do you then have an example of such a philosophical ethicist for whom the practical result is sociopathy?

 

[mumblethrax]

Was it not your will to act ethically? Was it not his will to not do so? What failure of will?

The failure to act in accordance with what we judge to be better, all things considered. If I had acted otherwise, I would not have changed my opinion about which was the better action. I just would have failed to do what I think I ought to do, which is not an unfamiliar experience for most of us.

 

[caveman1917]

Just as an aside, as it has been brought up in the thread, the repeated prisoner dilemma (ie playing the prisoner dilemma over and over again) does not have an analytic solution but in practice it has been found that "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" is generally the best strategy. Tit-for-tat meaning that you do what the other side did the previous time, with forgiveness meaning that there's some small chance that you'll choose cooperate regardless.

ETA: Sociopaths, curiously, get this wrong - they tend to always choose defect - and, experimentally (IIRC there was an experiment on this) go home with less money at the end than non-sociopaths who tended to choose cooperate.

 

[caveman1917]

The failure to act in accordance with what we judge to be better, all things considered.

Neither of you failed to act in accordance with what you both, respectively, judged to be better.

If I had acted otherwise, I would not have changed my opinion about which was the better action. I just would have failed to do what I think I ought to do, which is not an unfamiliar experience for most of us.

How is that an argument against morality being a desire? The fact that, sometimes, it can be "overruled" by a different, conflicting desire only seems to support that.

 

[theprestige]

I meant it as neither.

My apologies. "Just" is often a dismissive, and "peer pressure" is usually a negative. I got the wrong impression.

Well, do you then have an example of such a philosophical ethicist for whom the practical result is sociopathy?

I withdraw my aspersions of the philosophers themselves. But the philosophies?

Utilitarianism, for example. Ask a sociopath to figure out how many people we need to kill or enslave, to maximize overall happiness, and he'll do the math and carry out the program. I shouldn't have suggested that Bentham would do the same, though.

 

[theprestige]

Just as an aside, as it has been brought up in the thread, the repeated prisoner dilemma (ie playing the prisoner dilemma over and over again) does not have an analytic solution but in practice it has been found that "tit-for-tat with forgiveness" is generally the best strategy. Tit-for-tat meaning that you do what the other side did the previous time, with forgiveness meaning that there's some small chance that you'll choose cooperate regardless.

ETA: Sociopaths, curiously, get this wrong - they tend to always choose defect - and, experimentally (IIRC there was an experiment on this) go home with less money at the end than non-sociopaths who tended to choose cooperate.

Huh. I stand corrected. Both about the dilemma and about sociopaths.

 

[caveman1917]

My apologies. "Just" is often a dismissive, and "peer pressure" is usually a negative. I got the wrong impression.

It was just meant as a neutral witty remark, like someone making a pun (but I don't like puns so I go with this instead). Now, of course, I am dismissive of it but my remark wasn't mean as an insult to you or indeed even really related to you at all.

Utilitarianism, for example. Ask a sociopath to figure out how many people we need to kill or enslave, to maximize overall happiness, and he'll do the math and carry out the program. I shouldn't have suggested that Bentham would do the same, though.

Yep. If you want a really dodgy ethical philosophy, try negative utilitarianism. The difference being that utilitarianism maximizes happiness as a goal whereas negative utilitarianism minimizes suffering - as some people in this thread have suggested. The logical consequence of that one is pretty neat, there is zero suffering if everyone were dead. However, in the act of killing someone you can induce suffering in two ways, either to the person you're killing or to their friends and loved ones who learn of this person having been killed.

The first problem is handled by killing the person faster than their nervous system can register in their brain, for example by putting them in a nuclear fireball. The second problem is handled by killing everyone at the same time, install a grid of nukes around the planet with overlapping fireballs and then press the button.

 

[caveman1917]

Huh. I stand corrected. Both about the dilemma and about sociopaths.

You were correct that defect is the correct choice when playing the prisoners dilemma a single time, and sociopaths consistently choose this, but the analysis and optimal strategies change when you do the game repeatedly (you're introducing the possibility for people to "punish" or "reward" each other over multiple iterations).

ETA: it should also probably be noted here that this depends on the sample of other strategies in play. Always-defect gains a little against tit-for-tat but tit-for-tat gains a lot against tit-for-tat. If everyone else were doing always-defect then tit-for-tat is worse than always-defect, but if there are sufficient tit-for-tatters then tit-for-tat gains much more than always-defect.