What should Morals and Ethics be?

[David Mo]

That is tribalistic. For example, there's no reason to exclude non-human animals from consideration that doesn't amount to tribalism.

But empathy is quite bad at the job of turning our concern to other men. Instead, we feel a great deal of empathy for people who are socially proximate, and very little for some poor beggar on the other side of the world. It's almost like it's something we developed when we were living in small kinship groups.


Well, yes, but you will then be saying very different things.

There are a million and one necessary conditions for engaging in moral reasoning. For example, the universe has to exist. And you have to be alive. But it would be foolish to say "The universe is the basis of morality" or "Being alive is the basis of morality." You are intentionally conflating different ideas in order to try to rescue a failed argument.


Neither is empathy. Earlier you intimated that we might be too empathic or not empathic enough. In what terms would you make that argument? What is the good you seek in hoping we will be ideally empathic? The answer can't be "Empathy!" which means there is some more fundamental value at work here, and empathy is therefore not the basis of your morality. Or you can keep insisting that it is, and flail around in the dark forever.


What you need is a normative basis that will make sense out of any of this. You can say "Empathy! Science! Serial killers!" but none of that does or can amount to morality.


No, you don't. You're still failing to appreciate what Hume means. You need an ought before you can get anywhere. Feelings are not normative. If I feel someone else's pain, that's just a declarative fact about the world. It does not imply that I ought to feel their pain.


This is gobbledygook. Hume does not present a solution to the is-ought problem.


This is you disingenuously retreating from what you initially claimed to a triviality (without even doing any work to establish that it's true).

There are a million of conditions of the fall of the Roman Empire. Without the formation of the solar system, the Roman Empire would not have fallen. But no one says that the formation of the solar system "generated" (your word) the fall of the Roman Empire. We are talking about specific conditions.

Empathy is the capacity to understand and feel what another person is experiencing. If directed toward a limited group (tribalism), to the humankind (humanism) or is extended to animals (animalism) would be decided by reasoning and learning. I have not said that empathy is the only condition for morality. I have said that is the only one that entails action and moral feelings and that it is the only one that surpasses the test of Hume's guillotine.

What follows is a summary of an encyclopedia of philosophy. I hope it's clear.

Hume argues against moral rationalism by observing that the ordinary way of reasoning, makes an unremarked transition from premises whose parts are linked only by “is” to conclusions whose parts are linked by “ought” — a deduction that seems to Hume “altogether inconceivable” (T3.1.1.27). This implies “that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason” (ibid.).

Our moral evaluations of persons and their character traits, on Hume’s positive view, arise from our sentiments. The virtues and vices are those traits the disinterested contemplation of which produces approval and disapproval. These moral sentiments are emotions (in the present-day sense). The moral sentiments are produced by sympathy with those affected by a trait or action. Such sympathetically-acquired feelings are distinct from our self-interested responses, and an individual of discernment learns to distinguish her moral sentiments from the pleasure or uneasiness she may feel when responding to a trait with reference to her “particular interest”.

"It ought to be" is a different way of saying "this is good" and "being good" is nothing but the positive emotion that a disinterested action awakes in me. With this translation I can undertake all moral reasoning without falling into the undue leap from being to ought. With this explanation Hume has surpassed the guillotine.

Whether this is a subjectivism or not, is another question we can discuss if you want. But don't tell me that Hume doesn't give a solution to the guillotine problem because this is wrong. Another thing is that you don't like that solution.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again I think the terms "objective" and "subjective" are really, really making this discussion a lot harder then it has to be.

Designing a bridge without stopping to "Define the exact essence of what a bridge is and proving outside of context that bridge building is a good thing and designing some ultimate perfect bridge that works in every scenario and working backwards from that" isn't a question of subjectivity vs objectivity.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But there is an answer. It's just not an objective one. It's different for everyone.

Not for me. "Ethics and morality" are only about how we interact with each other. Put someone on a desert island by himself and there's no such thing as morality or ethics.

ISTM that's a classic example of you reasoning from a personal set of principles. Fundamentalist Christians could think of lots of immoral things you could do on your own on a desert island. Buddhists could probably think of a completely different set. That ethics and morality relate only to interpersonal interactions is one of your principles, but it's by no means a universal one.

"Ethics and morality that's different for everyone" is paradoxical, again within my mental framework.

If your mental framework includes a principle that ethics and morality are the same for everyone, then that's to be expected. However, nor is that a universally accepted principle.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again I get you can "And then?" everything into reductionist absurdity.

I just don't see the point.

At a certain point this "Everything you say is just your principles and values" reductionism removes all context and this stops being a discussion with any intellectual framework and just turns into a shared creative writing exercise.

It's the "Everything is philosophy, therefore you aren't allowed to negatively comment on any philosophy because you're doing philosophy" tune just with a bass line.

 

[Dave Rogers]

And again I get you can "And then?" everything into reductionist absurdity.

I just don't see the point.

I don't see that it's reductionist absurdity to say that some people think certain things are grossly immoral, while others think they are morally acceptable; nor that there isn't any definite way to determine who's right.

Dave

 

[Cheetah]

I don't see that it's reductionist absurdity to say that some people think certain things are grossly immoral, while others think they are morally acceptable; nor that there isn't any definite way to determine who's right.

Dave

Only true if there is no such thing as a universal morality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You build four bridges. Three stay up and one falls down.

Without begging the question down further if you say "Well we found three good ways to build a bridge and one bad way" you are not declaring that there is a "Universal bridge building standard."

In every other topic we simply add knowledge to what we know, refining our knowledge to work better without vague accusations of trying to declare our self arbitrators of truth.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You build four bridges. Three stay up and one falls down.

Without begging the question down further if you say "Well we found three good ways to build a bridge and one bad way" you are not declaring that there is a "Universal bridge building standard."

What would be the equivalent, in terms of a system of morals and ethics, of the bridge staying up?

Dave

ETA: And I'd say there is at least one universal bridge building principle: the bridge should stay up under reasonable conditions.

 

[Cheetah]

But there is a theoretical 'best bridge' optimized for it's function using the available materials and methods of construction.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What would be the equivalent, in terms of a system of morals and ethics, of the bridge staying up?

A question we don't bother asking!

Anyone could walk up to a bridge building operation and put on a big showy contrarian act of going "Yah know... you haven't objectively defined why it's good to build bridges yet... just saying."

The fact that people generally don't do that raises questions we should be asking ourselves.

 

[theprestige]

Do you really think you would be awful to others if you didn't believe in a God? That the only thing stopping you from raping, stealing, lying and killing is a belief in a god?

You don't think you would have learned the golden rule without being taught it in Catechism class?



Do you seriously believe I am without morals because I'm an atheist?

The only thing I seriously believe right now is that this is a non sequitur. It's like you skipped ahead several steps in a game nobody is even playing.

 

[Roboramma]

ISTM that's a classic example of you reasoning from a personal set of principles. Fundamentalist Christians could think of lots of immoral things you could do on your own on a desert island. Buddhists could probably think of a completely different set. That ethics and morality relate only to interpersonal interactions is one of your principles, but it's by no means a universal one.




If your mental framework includes a principle that ethics and morality are the same for everyone, then that's to be expected. However, nor is that a universally accepted principle.

Dave

Even from a completely secular viewpoint: I don't see myself as fundamentally different from any other conscious entity, and so I consider treating myself well to be as much a moral obligation as treating other conscious entities well. So that's another conflicting viewpoint about how to behave on the island.

 

[Roboramma]

But there is a theoretical 'best bridge' optimized for it's function using the available materials and methods of construction.

Right, so once you've defined that function, you are all set to go...

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you put someone's Queen in check and their response is not to move their bishop into space to protect it but step back and ask you to prove why their Queen is even worth saving in the first place, you have to accept you just aren't playing the same game.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A question we don't bother asking!

But I've asked it.

Anyone could walk up to a bridge building operation and put on a big showy contrarian act of going "Yah know... you haven't objectively defined why it's good to build bridges yet... just saying."

The fact that people generally don't do that raises questions we should be asking ourselves.

I'm perfectly happy to agree that bridges are useful, and that good ones remain standing for a long time, connect places that people want to travel between, and permit traffic to flow between them. I'm also perfectly happy to agree that systems of morality are useful, and that good ones [insert something here].

What goes in place of [insert something here]?

Dave

 

[Belz...]

Again I think the terms "objective" and "subjective" are really, really making this discussion a lot harder then it has to be.

They usually do, mainly because telling the two apart is often hard.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But there is a theoretical 'best bridge' optimized for it's function using the available materials and methods of construction.

Which, of course, vary according to time and place.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

A question we don't bother asking!

Anyone could walk up to a bridge building operation and put on a big showy contrarian act of going "Yah know... you haven't objectively defined why it's good to build bridges yet... just saying."

The fact that people generally don't do that raises questions we should be asking ourselves.

Yeah but physical things are inherently different from thoughts. You can't appeal to facts about bridges to say that we shouldn't discuss the issues with morality. If you did, it would give the impression that you expect -- presumably -- your moral values to be the real, unquestionable standard.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But I've asked it.

So? Why do people think this has so much power?

What would the color blue pay the bishop to rent his motorcycle?

Why do plums levitate?

I didn't magically make any of those concepts valid by phrasing the questions. None of those questions have answers and not because "our cold hard science just can't answer them" or whatever.

I'm perfectly happy to agree that bridges are useful, and that good ones remain standing for a long time, connect places that people want to travel between, and permit traffic to flow between them. I'm also perfectly happy to agree that systems of morality are useful, and that good ones [insert something here].

And yet you're not happy to just start at "Pain, suffering, and similar concept are bad and should be reduced."

"Suffering is bad" is a LOT more self evidence then "Bridges are useful."

What goes in place of [insert something here]?

What possible answer can I give you, even hypothetically, that won't be "and then"-ed?

 

[caveman1917]

If you put someone's Queen in check and their response is not to move their bishop into space to protect it but step back and ask you to prove why their Queen is even worth saving in the first place, you have to accept you just aren't playing the same game.

I'm not sure what game you are playing, but in chess you can't put someone's queen in check. And the difference is that, to someone new to the game, it can be an entirely valid question why the queen would be worth saving - a question which has an objective answer, namely that the queen is the "most powerful" piece because it attacks the most squares.