What should Morals and Ethics be?

[jrhowell]

Yes, totally agree.
You and Belz... and most seem to be missing the point.
Good and bad are feelings, feelings have evolved specifically because it preserved genes.
Science can tell us all about how that works and why.



Our morals and ethics are based on feelings that have evolved in a social context because it was successful in preserving genes. Again, science can tell us all about how that works and why.

I am not seeing how this connects to objective morality.

What feels good and feels bad is often different from what is good and bad for you because evolution can't see the bigger picture. For example overeating feels good and exercising feels bad to many people.

Similarly our sense of morality evolved in the context of competing tribes and so what seems intuitively good and bad to us may not be in our best interests for survival in a global culture.

 

[Lithrael]

I am not seeing how this connects to objective morality.

What feels good and feels bad is often different from what is good and bad for you because evolution can't see the bigger picture. For example overeating feels good and exercising feels bad to many people.

Similarly our sense of morality evolved in the context of competing tribes and so what seems intuitively good and bad to us may not be in our best interests for survival in a global culture.

I agree. While Cheetah probably has something in mind like ‘science tells us we want sweet things so badly because of these reasons in our evolutionary history, so we can figure out that the optimal amount of sweet things is actually x,’ only for morals, it sounds fraught with natural fallacy type problems. A culture of bedbugs would have to argue that the reason you want to stab your mate any old place is really just because it successfully spreads genes, and that morally you should not do that because it negatively impacts her health and now that you’re civilized, you have time to go look for her actual sex organs. Sorry, tangent, I just got a bunch of field mite bites so bugs are on my mind.

There’s so many human behaviors that are good at spreading genes but that are also on a continuum, like, a population will have members that are very empathetic and members that are sociopathic, because both work when both are present, but no society will function if they are all one way or the other, so how do you take that bell curve and have science tell us what, out of all that, we ought to be aiming for?

Actually JR already put it better than I did but oh well.

 

[Cheetah]

I am not seeing how this connects to objective morality.

Is this objective?
Morality is a direct result of gene survival in the environment it evolved in

What feels good and feels bad is often different from what is good and bad for you because evolution can't see the bigger picture. For example overeating feels good and exercising feels bad to many people.

Similarly our sense of morality evolved in the context of competing tribes and so what seems intuitively good and bad to us may not be in our best interests for survival in a global culture.

Yes exactly, our morality is optimized for a tribal lifestyle, competing for limited resources, as are our appetites. The world we live in now is much different, some feelings that were productive and necessary in the past are now counterproductive, the environment has changed.

 

[Minoosh]

Yes exactly, our morality is optimized for a tribal lifestyle, competing for limited resources, as are our appetites. The world we live in now is much different, some feelings that were productive and necessary in the past are now counterproductive, the environment has changed.

What does that do to your concept of objective moral frameworks, though, if morals have changed over the past 15,000 years?

I think maybe that your value system includes the idea of "sustainability" somewhere, but that's just a guess.

ETA: If morality has changed, or should change, to accommodate today's lifestyle.

 

[acbytesla]

What does that do to your concept of objective moral frameworks, though, if morals have changed over the past 15,000 years?

Certainly some have changed. But don't you think some have endured? Prohibitions against murder, theft, perjury even battery are pervasive in almost all cultures. And I can understand how prohibitions against adultery were much more appropriate in the past then they are today.

 

[Minoosh]

Certainly some have changed. But don't you think some have endured? Prohibitions against murder, theft, perjury even battery are pervasive in almost all cultures. And I can understand how prohibitions against adultery were much more appropriate in the past then they are today.

That's why I don't mind 6 or so of the 10 Commandments - there is a universal, pragmatic quality to them. Even then, though, I imagine that definitions of "murder" have changed over the centuries. Human sacrifice had its fans and infanticide was a thing.

I once read that mate-swapping in Inuit circles was simply a practical necessity. Life was so difficult that you needed 2 people to undertake a journey. If your wife couldn't make it, somebody else's probably could. But I don't know how accurate that report was.

 

[Cheetah]

What does that do to your concept of objective moral frameworks, though, if morals have changed over the past 15,000 years?

It hasn't changed in much longer than that.

I think maybe that your value system includes the idea of "sustainability" somewhere, but that's just a guess.

Why don't people believe me when I say I'm making it up as I go? I honestly have not thought this through to any conclusion.
For now we seem to be stuck at the foundation, but I really like the idea of sustainability.


Edit: I just had some thoughts. I think if you take my chum^* in post #537 as valid and strive to optimize individual well-being, the conclusion reached might be to "minimize conflict and maximize cooperation". It might conceivably depend on particulars in the environment under consideration, I really don't know.


^*_{I decided to call it Cheetah's Hypothesis of Universal Morality :D}

 

[Cheetah]

Certainly some have changed. But don't you think some have endured? Prohibitions against murder, theft, perjury even battery are pervasive in almost all cultures. And I can understand how prohibitions against adultery were much more appropriate in the past then they are today.

Cultural differences are merely distortions of the underlying, shared morality that evolved. Culture and circumstance suppress some aspects and inflate others. The details don't really matter and are only a distraction. Yet most keep focusing on the leaves on the trees in the forest.
This sideline on 'Homo sapiens morals' started because some people appear to deny that morals and ethics evolved.


Belzz..., Lithrael, jrhowel?

 

[jrhowell]

Cultural differences are merely distortions of the underlying, shared morality that evolved. Culture and circumstance suppress some aspects and inflate others. The details don't really matter and are only a distraction. Yet most keep focusing on the leaves on the trees in the forest.
This sideline on 'Homo sapiens morals' started because some people appear to deny that morals and ethics evolved.

Belzz..., Lithrael, jrhowel?

I believe that our feelings of what is moral behavior are a product of evolution and are influenced by our upbringing and culture. Having these feelings is a survival strategy that evolved because we existed for a long time as a social species grouped into competing tribes.

I don't believe that our feelings of what is right and wrong are objectively right and wrong. (Or that anything is or can be objectively right/wrong.) For many individuals those feelings include a certain amount of aggression toward those who are not considered to be part of the individual's group. I do not believe that make aggression toward outsiders is objectively good just because it is part of our evolved moral makeup.

 

[Cheetah]

I don't believe that our feelings of what is right and wrong are objectively right and wrong. (Or that anything is or can be objectively right/wrong.)

That is the accepted view and I expect most who do not believe in some supernatural origin of morals would probably agree.
I believe morals have a materialistic origin and can be traced back to personal well-being.

Do you admit that if personal well-being is a universal moral imperative, that it would then be possible, in theory at least, to calculate whether an act is morally wrong or right?

For many individuals those feelings include a certain amount of aggression toward those who are not considered to be part of the individual's group. I do not believe that make aggression toward outsiders is objectively good just because it is part of our evolved moral makeup.

We agree of course, neither do I.
What any individual feels like doing at any time does not necessarily have anything to do with what is morally right, in fact quite the opposite. How could it?

 

[jrhowell]

Do you admit that if personal well-being is a universal moral imperative, that it would then be possible, in theory at least, to calculate whether an act is morally wrong or right?

No, I disagree. Unless you have an agreed, concrete, objective definition of "well-being" you have no basis to derive anything else from it. I do not believe that is possible. Even if you could, that is morality for an individual. How do you then balance the well-being of individuals against each other when they are in conflict?

Most of can agree on some basics, such as murder and theft is bad and charity is good. But I don't see that you are going to be able to objectively solve the hard problems. Is abortion moral or immoral? How about alcohol consumption? Capitol punishment? Eating meat? Eating plants? And so on..

 

[Cheetah]

No, I disagree. Unless you have an agreed, concrete, objective definition of "well-being" you have no basis to derive anything else from it. I do not believe that is possible.

MMMmmmmm, well-beinnggg....
How about:

Well-being is the state of a nervous-system when engaging in behaviors that lead to the successful spread of it's genes.

It's simple, concrete, objective and universally applicable.
Do you agree now?

Even if you could, that is morality for an individual. How do you then balance the well-being of individuals against each other when they are in conflict?

It is not morality for an individual, why do you say that? Morality is 100% a social thing.
Why does everyone keep focusing on individuals and specifics when we are discussing a basic framework?

Most of can agree on some basics, such as murder and theft is bad and charity is good. But I don't see that you are going to be able to objectively solve the hard problems. Is abortion moral or immoral? How about alcohol consumption? Capitol punishment? Eating meat? Eating plants? And so on..

I don't know. First get an idea of how things work overall, before even considering details like individuals and specific situations.
It is of no use at this stage.
Ignore the trees for now and lets examine and discuss the forest.

 

[Belz...]

Belz... and Lithrael, everyone.

My reasoning, where do I go wrong, trying to be subjective.

Morals and ethics are about what is good and bad.
As such it's domain of applicability would be all that are able to experience good and bad.
Do all that are able to experience good and bad have any universal values concerning good and bad?
Yes, they all want well-being.
What is well-being?
Science can tell not only what it is, but why it is and what all experience it.

What's good or bad depends on what YOU feel like, and what you value, hence Lithrael's post. It makes it impossible to determine a set of "goods" or "bads" that are universal enough to even be considered objective.

Our morals and ethics are based on feelings that have evolved in a social context because it was successful in preserving genes.

Yes but they vary from species to species, and since you brought up other species, you have to contend with the problems with your argument.

 

[Cheetah]

What's good or bad depends on what YOU feel like, and what you value, hence Lithrael's post.

Then please feel free to point out specifically where I do so when I say something like:
Morals and ethics apply to all able to experience good and bad.
All able to experience good and bad have a universal aim: Well-being.
To put it bluntly, it's a fact.

It makes it impossible to determine a set of "goods" or "bads" that are universal enough to even be considered objective.

It does not.

Yes but they vary from species to species, and since you brought up other species, you have to contend with the problems with your argument.

Forest, trees, again.

If it varies from species to species it is obviously not a universal principle. If you want to discern a universal principle you have to look at shared traits, not differences.
You determine the relatedness and of species by looking at shared genetics not differences. The differences and details are irrelevant in this context.

 

[Belz...]

Morals and ethics apply to all able to experience good and bad.
All able to experience good and bad have a universal aim: Well-being.

Which differs across species and individuals.

To put it bluntly, it's a fact.

It's a definition. But then what? Pointing out that individuals try to have better experiences than bad doesn't tell you how you should treat others.

It does not.

It absolutely does, as I've demonstrated. You yourself are struggling to find a coherent set of definitions, let along establish any moral imperative, to say nothing about establishing its objective nature.

If it varies from species to species it is obviously not a universal principle.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. You're looking in the wrong place for your objective morality. Your attempt at doing so being laid upon a foundation of behaviour by intelligent species means that you fail if you fail to find universality.

 

[Cheetah]

Which differs across species and individuals.

Only specific details, not the overall principles.

It's like the notochord that evolved into the spine and the vertebral column and the skeleton. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are all very different with very different skeletons but all are only variations of the same basic structure with overall still the same basic function of support and locomotion. If you continue focusing on the details you miss the similarities.

Please try to focus.

Pointing out that individuals try to have better experiences than bad doesn't tell you how you should treat others.

It might if you start simple and consider the path evolution took to end up with a species advanced and complicated enough to have morals.

It absolutely does, as I've demonstrated. You yourself are struggling to find a coherent set of definitions, let along establish any moral imperative, to say nothing about establishing its objective nature.

Please don't be, as they say here, disingenuous.

The single definition I struggled with was not part of my argument at all, but something that happened in an irrelevant sideline of yours.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. You're looking in the wrong place for your objective morality. Your attempt at doing so being laid upon a foundation of behaviour by intelligent species means that you fail if you fail to find universality.

Morality evolved!
Prove that wrong and you might have a point.

 

[jrhowell]

Well-being is the state of a nervous-system when engaging in behaviors that lead to the successful spread of it's genes.

It's simple, concrete, objective and universally applicable.
Do you agree now?

With that definition? Definitely not. Spreading our genes may be the ultimate aim behind the evolution of morality, but I don't see how that makes spreading our genes the ultimate moral good.

Your definition would make a perpetual orgasm be the height of wellness.

It is not morality for an individual, why do you say that? Morality is 100% a social thing.
Why does everyone keep focusing on individuals and specifics when we are discussing a basic framework?

I phrased that poorly, but I don't see how you can address morality outside of the context of individuals.

Ignore the trees for now and lets examine and discuss the forest.

I don't know what you mean by that, but go ahead.

 

[Belz...]

If you continue focusing on the details you miss the similarities.

The only details I'm focusing on is the fundamental ones.

It might if you start simple and consider the path evolution took to end up with a species advanced and complicated enough to have morals.

Sorry, that's meaningless. How do you get from the self-serving quest for well-being, assuming we allow it, to the golden rule?

Please don't be, as they say here, disingenuous.

I never am.

The single definition I struggled with was not part of my argument at all, but something that happened in an irrelevant sideline of yours.

"Well-being" is an irrelevant sideline? I'm pretty sure you brought it up.

Morality evolved!
Prove that wrong and you might have a point.

Why would I need to? Not only have you no case yet, and nothing to debunk, but the very fact that morality evolved is a damning piece of evidence against your claim.

 

[Lithrael]

MMMmmmmm, well-beinnggg....
How about:

Well-being is the state of a nervous-system when engaging in behaviors that lead to the successful spread of it's genes.

It's simple, concrete, objective and universally applicable.

(...)

First get an idea of how things work overall, before even considering details like individuals and specific situations.
It is of no use at this stage.
Ignore the trees for now and lets examine and discuss the forest.

Unnnnfortunately right off the bat this definition has a problem if you want to use it as a basis for outlining morality. There are plenty of things that can happen to people that will absolutely spread their genes but that are deeply detrimental to the individual; most people would agree that is not well-being. So let’s try adding a word:

Well-being is the state of a nervous-system when voluntarily engaging in behaviors that lead to the successful spread of it's genes.

This one still leaves you with a bit of a mess, because now you have posited that a rapist who’s enjoying themselves, in any culture where a victim is likely to raise any offspring, is achieving well-being.

It seems that well-being must either be far more carefully defined or that the means used to achieve it must have some caveats in it before its pursuit can be used as a basis for what you call moral.

ETA: Discussing only the places where this definition leads to results we’d be happy with, doesn’t seem to solve any problems with pinning down a useful moral framework. But if that’s where you’d like to start, you can do a little legwork and let us know where the idea could go from there. It could still be a good starting place if there’s a lot more on the positive end of the see-saw than the negative end, or if you figure out a compelling reason to move the fulcrum.

 

[Lithrael]

I think the ultimate problem of this line of thinking is that all behaviors we display are there because having some amount of them in the mix is beneficial to propagating genes. They’re most clearly ‘bad’ when a behavior or drive that would be useful in one context or to some degree, gets expressed in a different context or to an inappropriate degree.

Sexually attracted to people who are youthful: great for propagating genes!
Sexually attracted to people who are too youthful: bad for genes and bad behavior!
Not giving up too easily when pursuing a mate: great for propagating genes!
Not giving up at all: great for propagating genes but ****** behavior!
Being extremely altruistic towards your own family group: great for propagating genes!
Being extremely altruistic towards people who have nothing to do with your group: bad for your genes but laudable behavior!