What should Morals and Ethics be?

[acbytesla]

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.

I can see 4 and a half. And I certainly don't agree with the same punishment for all of them.

Thou shall not murder. Check.
Thou shall not steal. Check
Thou shall not bear false witness. Check.
Thou shall not commit adultery. Check.
I could go with honor they mother and thy father if it also included thy children. But without the mutual instruction, it is just wrong.

I can't stomach the rest.

 

[David Mo]

I think that got walked back to just trying to find a natural basis for morality, with the idea that you could back up arguments in that kind of morality’s favor with science showing how we got there. Presumably in the hopes that a morality you could do that with might be a more universally acceptable one.

ETA: and yeah, what you said.

Talking about "objective" in ethics is misleading. "Objective" means the quality of a proposition that corresponds to reality.
"You must not steal" does not correspond to any reality. It is a mandate, an order, an advice. One thing is what things are. Another thing is what you should do.
The theory of evolution can tell where certain human behaviours come from. It cannot say what behaviours should and should not take place.
The moral problem arises not because I do something that is genetically determined, but because there are two things I can do and I must choose one of them. Genetically determined or not.

The second problem with pretending an objective morality based on evolution is pretending that everything that is genetically determined is good. This is another inconsistency.

I think that these kind of mistakes comes from the obsessive need to put the science in everything.

 

[Cheetah]

I think that got walked back to just trying to find a natural basis for morality, with the idea that you could back up arguments in that kind of morality’s favor with science showing how we got there. Presumably in the hopes that a morality you could do that with might be a more universally acceptable one.

ETA: and yeah, what you said.

As I said, there are two entirely separate discussions going on here:

1. What can science tell us about our morality. How much is instinctual, how much cultural. Where does it come from, it's evolutionary origin and roots.
2. Suggesting well-being an objective start to build a moral framework on.

I am getting confused. It would really help if people could indicate to which their posts refer. There is a lot of overlap, I'm not always sure.

 

[Cheetah]

ETA: I think Cheetah is trying to get at ‘original useful purpose’ of moral drives, to parallel the talk about the ‘original useful purpose’ of appetites eg, strong preference for sweet flavors going from being adaptive to being maladaptive due to change in the environment; maybe there’s a way to show ‘immoral’ behaviors are similarly ones that were once adaptive and are now maladaptive because of reasons we can actually look at.

Discussion #1
Yes, something like that. Examine ourselves objectively.

But we still need a metric. With appetites we can use health outcomes. With moral behaviors, Cheetah is suggesting gene propagation? I’m not at all convinced this is useful. But it could be; perhaps Gengis Khan’s success in the past is like our once-adaptive drive to eat sweets?

Is this part of Discussion #2? I assume so.
For these reasons I am specifically NOT using 'gene propagation' as a metric, but 'well-being'.

 

[Cheetah]

...the moral objective value you're trying to establish. You know, the topic of the discussion. You tried to establish a basis for it, but forgot to link the foundation, flimsy as it is, to that.

, very funny.

Then please communicate clearly, why confuse things?

What conclusion?
I asked in the previous reply is it:
"That all seek well-being"?

Is that it?
If so, you are confused, that is NOT a conclusion. I think I have mentioned before, it's a fact.

Why do you have a problem with it? What is the problem?

 

[Cheetah]

The second problem with pretending an objective morality based on evolution is pretending that everything that is genetically determined is good. This is another inconsistency.

I think that these kind of mistakes comes from the obsessive need to put the science in everything.

Talk about mistakes, you also completely missed the line of my reasoning. I don't know where these kinds of mistakes come from.

A question for you.
I have read similar reasoning expressed here on numerous occasions, by multiple posters, since the start of theses forums. Something like:

Science can only describe and explain what you can do, not what you aught to do. This is because there is no objective good/bad to start from.

Did I understand that correctly?

 

[David Mo]

Talk about mistakes, you also completely missed the line of my reasoning. I don't know where these kinds of mistakes come from.

A question for you.
I have read similar reasoning expressed here on numerous occasions, by multiple posters, since the start of theses forums. Something like:

Science can only describe and explain what you can do, not what you aught to do. This is because there is no objective good/bad to start from.

Did I understand that correctly?

No. It is because speak of objectivity in morality is like to speak of the speed of red colour.

"Objectivity" means the correspondence between a proposition and a thing. Knowledge.
"Ought to" means the obligation or advice to do a thing. Norm to act.

They are different uses of words that you cannot mix.

 

[Belz...]

, very funny.

I wasn't trying to be.

Then please communicate clearly, why confuse things?

I don't know where you think I confused anything.

What conclusion?

Quite frankly, Cheetah, it seems that you're getting lost in the conversation several times, so I won't be pursuing this further. I'm not satisfied that you've established any basis that would or could lead to a conclusion of objective morality, and unless you can make a better effort of it, that claim remains rejected.

 

[Cheetah]

I honestly don't know what you mean.


I really thought you meant the bit about life seeking well-being. If that's not it, please explain. I've now asked you twice if that was it and you haven't answered.

Link to my post. Highlight the conclusion you disagree with.

 

[Cheetah]

Please don't go, you are admirably tenacious in your arguments. I went back and had a look. I wrote:

Well-being is central to my reasoning. I have only been asked for a definition once and I supplied one.

and you replied:

But you failed to lead from that to your conclusion.

I took it as to mean I 'failed to lead from well-being to my conclusion'. With 'well-being' being as I defined it. My conclusion being 'all life want's it'. I took it as self evident that all life want's it since that is the way life evolved to be. It could not be any other way, the principles of evolution dictate it. It is not a conclusion, it is a property of life, which confused me.

Are you asking why well-being is a property of life?
Are you asking why I define well-being that way?
Or about the link between well-being and successful genes?
Or something else? All of them? I don't know what you want to know.

We are busy with a #2 are we not?

 

[Belz...]

Quite simply, I want to know how you derive the golden rule, essentially, from selfish well-being considerations.

 

[Cheetah]

I haven’t done that. I think it might be possible since evolution did it, I don’t know.
I’m still trying to convince you I’m starting off from an objective universal base.

 

[Lithrael]

Yeah, Cheetah is still poking at how to construct something out of these ideas and hasn’t even settled on the beginning yet. They’re trying to see what kind of conclusions you could draw IF you used x or y, whether it’d lead somewhere useful to use x or y. I like this kind of conversation because I enjoy trying to poke holes in arguments.

But Cheetah, I thought you were looking to see if you could define well-being as behaviors that lead to gene propagation? That’s why I was skipping straight to gene propagation and wondering if Genghis Khan’s behaviors were really really good at maximizing well-being. (Several posters have proposed that this line of thinking will not pan out and I agree but it’s still fun and I’d like another line of thinking to try this out on please)

 

[David Mo]

I’m still trying to convince you I’m starting off from an objective universal base.

An objective basis is not the same as a universal basis. On the impossibility of speaking of an objective basis, I have already commented something above.
On the existence of a universal basis it can mean two things: that it is a basis that all men accept in fact or that it is a basis that all men should accept.

The first is a factual question. Let us suppose that the universal basis is well-being. This would be like saying that all men put well-being above all else. Let us suppose that this is true, that it is not.
A distinction should be made between personal well-being and the well-being of others. If we talk about personal well-being we are talking about selfishness, which is an unethical attitude. If we speak of the welfare of others, it is a false statement: men do not put the welfare of others above all else.


Conclusion: ethics cannot be based on a universal proposition about facts.

Is "Men should contribute to common well-being" an universal basis for moral? Having discarded facts, on what basis?

 

[Belz...]

I’m still trying to convince you I’m starting off from an objective universal base.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are. Then what?

 

[epeeist]

I think that’s an observation, not a principle. Similarly, it’s not my objective moral principle that objects go down when dropped, but we can’t put it past humans to come up with the idea that it’s morally right for things to be on the ground.

Not sure what you mean.

Does it prescribe a behaviour or assign a value to one? No, ergo no.

What do you think moral principles are?

Sure it does. It prescribes that behaviour in accordance with the will of the majority - whatever it might be - is moral. I suggested before that's at least related to utilitarianism being an objective moral principle. And previously, I suggested the golden rule as an objective moral principle, even though it's not specific in terms of behaviour, but rather (in my view) is an objective moral principle that, while objective, may nonetheless be interpreted different ways depending upon what the person acting believes. That is, subjective interpretation and action based upon an objective moral principle.

Now, if your position is that moral principles have to relate to specific behaviour (no murder unless sanctioned by the state and self-defence or defence of others and killing in war aren't murder, no eating pork unless required for health reasons including avoiding starvation, etc.) then we may be discussing different things.

 

[Belz...]

Sure it does. It prescribes that behaviour in accordance with the will of the majority - whatever it might be - is moral.

Absolutely not. That something is subjective does not imply that anything should be done, or not done, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the will of the majority. In other words it is not a moral imperative in any way, shape or form, any more than any other statement of fact is.

And previously, I suggested the golden rule as an objective moral principle

Others have as well, but have failed to demonstrate that their suggestions had any merit.

Now, if your position is that moral principles have to relate to specific behaviour (snip) then we may be discussing different things.

I don't know what you're talking about. Moral principles may or may not be related to specific behaviours.

 

[epeeist]

Absolutely not. That something is subjective does not imply that anything should be done, or not done, and it certainly doesn't say anything about the will of the majority. In other words it is not a moral imperative in any way, shape or form, any more than any other statement of fact is.



Others have as well, but have failed to demonstrate that their suggestions had any merit.



I don't know what you're talking about. Moral principles may or may not be related to specific behaviours.

If you want to try re-explaining go for it, but your positions don't seem to make sense to me. You say society defines morality, but then disagree that society defines morality. You say principles don't need to be related to specific behaviours.

Well, then, if they don't need to be related to specific behaviours, how about this as an objective moral principle: everybody should do what they believe to be morally right; to thine own self be true.

 

[Cheetah]

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are. Then what?

Why don't you admit:
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.

is an objective all inclusive statement, definition, whatever?
It obviously is, always was.
It is not subjective anthropomorphism, as I think you called it and claimed to have demonstrated.

 

[Belz...]

You say society defines morality, but then disagree that society defines morality.

Where did I disagree?

You say principles don't need to be related to specific behaviours.

They don't. Plenty of moral principles are general, including the golden rule.

Well, then, if they don't need to be related to specific behaviours, how about this as an objective moral principle: everybody should do what they believe to be morally right; to thine own self be true.

How is that objective? Do you know what 'objective' means?