There is no "ought"

[MikeSun5]

The system I prescribe isn't a prescription as to how people "should" act, but a description as to why acting in certain ways commonly considered immoral is against the best interest of the individual.

I don't see much of a difference between the two. In both cases, you are telling a person the best way to act, and why it's the best way. In both cases, the person has the option to act opposite your "prescription" or "description."

In my view, punishing a criminal (be that by jail sentence or a punch to the nose) isn't about "justice" or him "deserving it". I don't care about such things. What's important is incentive. It's important to set a precedent: if you try to rob people, you get punched and/or go to jail. That way, you'll have much less incentive to try it, and the overall suffering is minimized. Thus, by systematically beating up muggers, we can actually lessen the amount of mugging taking place.

Two things: First, justice IS an incentive. Second, as any economist will tell you, incentive can backfire on you quickly. In your example, systematically beating up muggers sounds like a good way to lessen the amount of muggings, but the reality is not always so black and white. We already have "incentives" in place against muggings, yet they still happen. If justice isn't important, then why don't we have any "incentives" against muggings other than punishing them afterwards? Why not a cash reward to anyone who stops a mugging or alerts a policeman? Cash reward to anyone who escorts a person through a sketchy area at night? Programs to clean up sketchy areas? Also, as mentioned earlier, the precedent it looks like you're trying to establish seems to revolve around not getting caught.

Anyway, the point of the thread isn't really whether or not objective morality is a good thing, but whether or not it exists. Can you give me a set of moral rules that is objective, and explain why those rules apply in all situations and all people?

(Also note that "objective morals" doesn't mean "morals accepted by the majority of people" but "morals independent of people and their opinions". Basically, you can't base an objective moral code on opinions, or even outcomes; it has to be based on natural laws or irrefutable logic.)

Well, now that you put it like that.... the answer is "no." And there's not really an argument against that.

So I guess this thread's finished now, right?

 

[westprog]

Because acting that way didn't work out very well for Jeffrey Dahmer. He was beaten to death at the age of 34 in prison.

And we know about Dahmer because he was caught. We don't know about the people who have forty or fifty missing people in their basement because they haven't been caught. We know that there are a vast number of missing people out there.

Saying that being a serial killer is a bad idea because you're bound to suffer because of it is a flawed analysis. We can never know about the successful killers. We only encounter the failures.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Two things: First, justice IS an incentive.

I'm not sure if you understood my point; I was referring to the mugger's incentive to mug people, and to lessening that incentive. Making everyone have a strong feel of justice would be an effective way to do that, but I don't see a feasible way of achieving that.

Second, as any economist will tell you, incentive can backfire on you quickly. In your example, systematically beating up muggers sounds like a good way to lessen the amount of muggings, but the reality is not always so black and white. We already have "incentives" in place against muggings, yet they still happen. If justice isn't important, then why don't we have any "incentives" against muggings other than punishing them afterwards? Why not a cash reward to anyone who stops a mugging or alerts a policeman? Cash reward to anyone who escorts a person through a sketchy area at night? Programs to clean up sketchy areas? Also, as mentioned earlier, the precedent it looks like you're trying to establish seems to revolve around not getting caught.

Obviously my example was an oversimplification of the issue. My point was not that we should start beating up muggers, but that acts can't be viewed in isolation, when put in context, the path of least resistance may not be the path that leads to minimizing suffering.

As for the suggestions on other methods to lessen muggings, I'm all for them. It would be a great idea to give trustworthy men small payments for escorting women home at night, for example, though it would be somewhat difficult to implement. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of programs to clean up sketchy areas, and helping other people or alerting policemen is generally encouraged, if not usually by cash. The reason police and the judicial system form one of the most important "incentives" not to mug people is simply because at the moment, it's the most practical alternative. That doesn't mean we're not doing other things to stop muggings.

And no, it's not about "not getting caught". Do you think punishing people from crimes only makes them try harder not to get caught? The point is making the crime as unappealing as possible. There would be many, many more muggings if people knew they couldn't go to jail for it - and most muggings happen in areas where the police system doesn't function perfectly. Sure, the system isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it isn't doing anything.

Of course, the prison system has another function as well; namely stopping recurring crimes. A person sentenced once is far less likely to commit crimes again, and for the fraction that do, longer sentences are used to keep them out of the way. But the most important effect of law enforcement is (or at least ought to be, if the goal is to be effective ) is to make crime less appealing.

Well, now that you put it like that.... the answer is "no." And there's not really an argument against that.

So I guess this thread's finished now, right?

I wouldn't bet on that.

 

[westprog]

I'm not sure if you understood my point; I was referring to the mugger's incentive to mug people, and to lessening that incentive. Making everyone have a strong feel of justice would be an effective way to do that, but I don't see a feasible way of achieving that.



Obviously my example was an oversimplification of the issue. My point was not that we should start beating up muggers, but that acts can't be viewed in isolation, when put in context, the path of least resistance may not be the path that leads to minimizing suffering.

As for the suggestions on other methods to lessen muggings, I'm all for them. It would be a great idea to give trustworthy men small payments for escorting women home at night, for example, though it would be somewhat difficult to implement. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of programs to clean up sketchy areas, and helping other people or alerting policemen is generally encouraged, if not usually by cash. The reason police and the judicial system form one of the most important "incentives" not to mug people is simply because at the moment, it's the most practical alternative. That doesn't mean we're not doing other things to stop muggings.

And no, it's not about "not getting caught". Do you think punishing people from crimes only makes them try harder not to get caught? The point is making the crime as unappealing as possible. There would be many, many more muggings if people knew they couldn't go to jail for it - and most muggings happen in areas where the police system doesn't function perfectly. Sure, the system isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it isn't doing anything.

Of course, the prison system has another function as well; namely stopping recurring crimes. A person sentenced once is far less likely to commit crimes again, and for the fraction that do, longer sentences are used to keep them out of the way. But the most important effect of law enforcement is (or at least ought to be, if the goal is to be effective ) is to make crime less appealing.

The only reason that the whole incentive scheme is accepted, with its panoply of punishments for wrong-doing is that it is generally accepted that what people are doing is wrong. If people don't think that breaking a law is actually wrong, then they will be lot less inclined to actively support punishments.

Of course, human nature being as it is, people are far more able to see how behaviour by other people is wrong than in themselves.

 

[Mirrorglass]

The only reason that the whole incentive scheme is accepted, with its panoply of punishments for wrong-doing is that it is generally accepted that what people are doing is wrong. If people don't think that breaking a law is actually wrong, then they will be lot less inclined to actively support punishments.

Of course, human nature being as it is, people are far more able to see how behaviour by other people is wrong than in themselves.

That may be the commonly accepted view, but I myself don't share it. Basically, I don't really particularly care about right or wrong. All I care about are the outcomes. I desire a safe and fair society for myself and my loved ones, and due to my ability to feel empathy, to all humans (though myself and my kin come first). The reason I don't break (many) laws is I consider it a fair price to pay for having the society protect me.

In conversation, I might agree that stealing is "wrong", but what I really mean is stealing is harmful. If stealing didn't result in a punishment, practically everyone would be stealing, and that would lead to everybody's quality of life decreasing. As such, my decision not to steal comes not from some vague sense of right and wrong, but reasoning and knowledge of desired outcomes.

The same applies to all laws and moral rules. If people realize what the underlying purpose of laws is - to make life better for everybody - there's no need for absolute morals. I personally prefer that to the current situation, where many can't state a reason for why we don't steal beyond "the bible says so", though even that is preferable to anarchy, of course.

 

[Cavemonster]

And we know about Dahmer because he was caught. We don't know about the people who have forty or fifty missing people in their basement because they haven't been caught. We know that there are a vast number of missing people out there.

Saying that being a serial killer is a bad idea because you're bound to suffer because of it is a flawed analysis. We can never know about the successful killers. We only encounter the failures.

I didn't say you're bound to suffer, but your chances go up by a considerable amount.

For me, it would be 100% because I possess empathy and a capacity to feek guilt. I would automatically feel terrible all the time.

You suggest there could be a large number of unfound serial killers, since they would need to have victims that were vastly separated in time and place to avoid police strongly suspecting a serial killer at work. To say that these exist in any number is a bit of an "invisible dragon in my garage" scenario, being unevidenced and unfalsifiable. The only thing that matters in decision making is available evidence, not complete truth. As far as any potential serial killer knows, there is a risk level that corresponds roughly to the percentage of those captured and their own specific circumstances. Speculating that any number of serial killers go uncaptured is a risk in itself, as an uncertain way to evaluate real risk.

But let's say that a lot of serial killers don't get caught, let's say only 30%. What kind of reward would it take for you to accept a 40% chance of public humiliation, then execution, or worse, a lifetime of being prison raped (It's very important to inmates to put high profile criminals in their place).

If you're really the type of person who has no empathy, and for whom a 1 in 3 chance of the most unpleasant outcome is outweighed by the joy in killing, then you're essentially a man-eating tiger who can't be reasoned with.

It doesn't really matter to me whether these individuals are capable of justifying it to themselves or not. A lot of moral arguments in this thread and others have to do with a kind of outrage that something terrible is not labelled as morally "bad" in someone's given system. It really doesn't matter what's labelled morally bad, when it can be easily seen as practically undesirable for everyone else. When a serial killer, or a rampaging tiger comes into a community, it is in the paractical interests of everyone around to kill it. It doesn't matter what the beast thinks.

As to the idea that the illusion of absolute morality may keep some people in check and protect the community from sociopaths...

It's a good question, and for the record, I'm not necessarily advocating that the idea of morality must be wiped from every human mind. That would be a naive plan, since morality may be the most deeply rooted meme we have. Even in this thread, it has been very difficult for me to avoid normative language, we're all very used to speaking that way. I don't even think most of the planet will ever be able to ditch religion of some sort, much less morality. But I do think that the decision makers and philosophers can and debate would be helped considerably.

That said, the risk of individuals held in check only by the illusion of moral truth is another one of those unfalsifiable claims. What we do know is that a similar claim is often made by religion, and the lack of new headlines of people who came to atheism calmly and rationally and then poisoned a bunch of children may indicate that that version of the claim was without merit.

 

[Sophronius]

It seems to me that the idea that a concept of absolute morality would keep sociopaths in check would need some evidence to back it up. I certainly won't believe it out of hand.

And even if it were true, I would still prefer people to know the truth rather than try to brainwash them in an attempt to control them. I would at least want our worlds leaders to know better. The idea of the president of the US believing in things like the bible or absolute moral values is a disturbing one. :/

And seeing how its the average man on the street who decides who gets to lead in democracies, that makes it an even less attractive idea to fool the general populace into believing nonsense.

So yea, I'll choose rationality over morals any day.

 

[Cavemonster]

It seems to me that the idea that a concept of absolute morality would keep sociopaths in check would need some evidence to back it up. I certainly won't believe it out of hand.

It would not only need to be proven to exist, but proven to outweigh the unpleasant effects caused by a belief in absolute morality discussed elsewhere in this thread, from the Spanish inquisition to the guy last week who had police burst into his home and shoot his dogs for a small amount of pot.

The unpleasant effects of absolute moral thinking are clear, the benefits have the burden of proof.

 

[Sophronius]

Agreed.

Although, to be completely fair, it is easier to tell people what is "right" and "wrong" than it is to teach them to think for themselves. And it is human nature to make decisions based on feelings rather than rationality anyway, so I can see why it would be tempting to try and indoctrinate people with absolute morality in an effort to control them.

But yea, it never quite works out in practice.

 

[Cavemonster]

Although, to be completely fair, it is easier to tell people what is "right" and "wrong" than it is to teach them to think for themselves.

I suspect that many people who believe they're relying on morality are actually doing the harder work but failing to be able to articulate it.

Most times you suggest to someone a world without god or without objective morals, they will eventually rebut with an image of the terrible society such hedonism would produce in their minds. But the fact that they can recognize the problem with people going around and killing indiscriminately outside of the problems their moral and religious framework puts forward suggests that they already follow the logical argument.

 

[westprog]

It seems to me that the idea that a concept of absolute morality would keep sociopaths in check would need some evidence to back it up. I certainly won't believe it out of hand.

And even if it were true, I would still prefer people to know the truth rather than try to brainwash them in an attempt to control them. I would at least want our worlds leaders to know better. The idea of the president of the US believing in things like the bible or absolute moral values is a disturbing one. :/

And seeing how its the average man on the street who decides who gets to lead in democracies, that makes it an even less attractive idea to fool the general populace into believing nonsense.

So yea, I'll choose rationality over morals any day.

The belief that rationality is in some sense "good" is at least as unfounded as a belief in absolute morality. If people behave better when they believe something that isn't true, then why not let them believe it? Faith lurks around every corner.

(N.b. this is addressing the hypothetical as to whether unfounded beliefs should be supported. I don't accept that objective morality is unfounded).

 

[Cavemonster]

The belief that rationality is in some sense "good" is at least as unfounded as a belief in absolute morality.

But you know that in this thread we're arguing that nothing is just "good".

What rationality is good for is building models of the universe with more descriptive and predictive power than models built without it. This allows us to use those models to make decisions that give the highest chances of success in our actions and fulfilling our wants and needs.

So I as an individual have every reason to value rationality, and to the extent that I want others to be my peers and communicate and collaborate freely, and to the extent that I want them to be able to make decisions that benefit them because I care about them, then I want others to be rational as well.

 

[Sophronius]

I suspect that many people who believe they're relying on morality are actually doing the harder work but failing to be able to articulate it.

Most times you suggest to someone a world without god or without objective morals, they will eventually rebut with an image of the terrible society such hedonism would produce in their minds. But the fact that they can recognize the problem with people going around and killing indiscriminately outside of the problems their moral and religious framework puts forward suggests that they already follow the logical argument.

Hmmm, I think I get where you are going. If you mean that, on some subconscious level, they think in terms of practical considerations rather than purely on what they believe is 'right', you might be right there. (But not in all cases) I would not describe that as 'the harder work' however, since the harder work would be logic. Rather, it seems to me they are arguing purely on basis of their emotions/subconscious.

The belief that rationality is in some sense "good" is at least as unfounded as a belief in absolute morality. If people behave better when they believe something that isn't true, then why not let them believe it? Faith lurks around every corner.

The whole point of my post was that this is not the case. Rationality works better in practice, that is why it is "good".

(N.b. this is addressing the hypothetical as to whether unfounded beliefs should be supported. I don't accept that objective morality is unfounded).

Is there any evidence that makes you refuse to accept that?

 

[westprog]

the guy last week who had police burst into his home and shoot his dogs for a small amount of pot.

Which seems a pretty clear example of relative morality. There's no absolute moral rule which says that having pot around is intrinsically evil. There's a view that the effects of drugs on society as a whole are contrary to certain societal aims, and hence it's possible to do harm to an individual.

That seems a fairly clear example of the way in which utilitarian thinking can lead to undesirable consequences.

It also seems that the concept of objective morality is being confused with religious fundamentalism. They aren't the same thing, although there is some overlap. Objective morality is accepted by many people who deny conventional religion. Many (if not most) atheists consider right and wrong as far from being meaningless, and indeed become most indignant at any suggestion that they don't.

 

[westprog]

But you know that in this thread we're arguing that nothing is just "good".

What rationality is good for is building models of the universe with more descriptive and predictive power than models built without it. This allows us to use those models to make decisions that give the highest chances of success in our actions and fulfilling our wants and needs.

So I as an individual have every reason to value rationality, and to the extent that I want others to be my peers and communicate and collaborate freely, and to the extent that I want them to be able to make decisions that benefit them because I care about them, then I want others to be rational as well.

The flaw is in the assumption that Mr A will benefit if Mr B rationally analyses what he wants. What if what Mr B wants is to kill Mr A and run off with his wife?

I don't see how Mr B's belief that killing Mr A is objectively wrong is any more harmful than, say, a belief that establishing socialism requires the liquidation of the peasant class.

 

[Cavemonster]

Which seems a pretty clear example of relative morality. There's no absolute moral rule which says that having pot around is intrinsically evil. There's a view that the effects of drugs on society as a whole are contrary to certain societal aims, and hence it's possible to do harm to an individual.

That seems a fairly clear example of the way in which utilitarian thinking can lead to undesirable consequences.

A few notes.
1) I'm not talking about utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is actually an objective moral system, valuing the greatest general "good". I'm talking about rational decisions from an individual perspective.

2) We can argue the merits of that case, but it's a red herring to do so, at worst just a poor example of a phenomenon that is undeniable. Bottom line is that objective morality often causes more pain and suffering than benefit. See the moral police in Iran for an unambiguous example.

3) I absolutely agree that the practice of objective morality is wider than religion. I often highlight the two together because belief in objective morality suffers from the same logical flaws as belief in god and is subject to the same abuses. That's part of why it's sad for me to see atheists cling to it. I'm put in mind of the argument often used on theists "So you can see that thor isn't real, what makes your god different?" You can see there are no gods, what makes objective moral truth different?

 

[westprog]

That may be the commonly accepted view, but I myself don't share it. Basically, I don't really particularly care about right or wrong. All I care about are the outcomes. I desire a safe and fair society for myself and my loved ones, and due to my ability to feel empathy, to all humans (though myself and my kin come first). The reason I don't break (many) laws is I consider it a fair price to pay for having the society protect me.

In conversation, I might agree that stealing is "wrong", but what I really mean is stealing is harmful. If stealing didn't result in a punishment, practically everyone would be stealing, and that would lead to everybody's quality of life decreasing. As such, my decision not to steal comes not from some vague sense of right and wrong, but reasoning and knowledge of desired outcomes.

The same applies to all laws and moral rules. If people realize what the underlying purpose of laws is - to make life better for everybody - there's no need for absolute morals. I personally prefer that to the current situation, where many can't state a reason for why we don't steal beyond "the bible says so", though even that is preferable to anarchy, of course.

It's because I believe that terms such as "quality of life" and "making life better" are objectively meaningful that I find objective morality unavoidable. If one considers "quality of life" an arbitrary measure, such that one can define it to be, say, winning a certain number of Olympic medals, then one can follow measures directed to that outcome, and have an East German-style society. However, I don't accept that "quality of life" is as mutable as that.

 

[Sophronius]

Which seems a pretty clear example of relative morality. There's no absolute moral rule which says that having pot around is intrinsically evil.

Oh? There's plenty of people who believe there should be 0 tolerance towards drugs use and possession. But of course it's not an absolute moral rule since there isn't such a thing in the first place.

I'll say it again, you have yet to provide us with any reason to believe there is such a thing as absolute morality in the first place.

All you have argued so far is that a belief in absolute morality is socially desirable, without supplying us with any reason to believe this is so.

It also seems that the concept of objective morality is being confused with religious fundamentalism. They aren't the same thing, although there is some overlap. Objective morality is accepted by many people who deny conventional religion. Many (if not most) atheists consider right and wrong as far from being meaningless, and indeed become most indignant at any suggestion that they don't.

It is not being confused, merely being compared. At least by me.

And the percentage of atheists which are also moral absolutist doesn't change the facts in the slightest.

 

[Sophronius]

3) I absolutely agree that the practice of objective morality is wider than religion. I often highlight the two together because belief in objective morality suffers from the same logical flaws as belief in god and is subject to the same abuses. That's part of why it's sad for me to see atheists cling to it. I'm put in mind of the argument often used on theists "So you can see that thor isn't real, what makes your god different?" You can see there are no gods, what makes objective moral truth different?

Yep. I have used that same argument many times. And then they proceed to argue in exactly the same way as most religious people.

"What reason do you have for believing in absolute morality?"
"Isn't it obvious? Killing is wrong!"
"That's just your opinion."
"Well, people everywhere have believed that throughout history."
"Actually, they mostly believed that you shouldn't kill your own people, and anyway just because people believe it doesn't make it true."
"So you honestly think it would be okay to murder someone!?!"
"Well, not according to society of course, but there is no universal law that says-"
"Could you strangle a kitten with your bare hands?"
"Uh, probably not, but what-"
"See, you don't really believe that objective morality doesn't exist!"


And those are the same people who make sarcastic remarks about how illogical religious people are. Honestly it can get despressing. :/

 

[westprog]

A few notes.
1) I'm not talking about utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is actually an objective moral system, valuing the greatest general "good". I'm talking about rational decisions from an individual perspective.

2) We can argue the merits of that case, but it's a red herring to do so, at worst just a poor example of a phenomenon that is undeniable. Bottom line is that objective morality often causes more pain and suffering than benefit. See the moral police in Iran for an unambiguous example.

However, if objective morality has in itself damaging qualities, then it should be possible to give examples where a non-religious use of objective morality has done harm - harm being defined as divergence from some aim on which some kind of consensus has been reached.

Is the concept of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in itself harmful?

3) I absolutely agree that the practice of objective morality is wider than religion. I often highlight the two together because belief in objective morality suffers from the same logical flaws as belief in god and is subject to the same abuses. That's part of why it's sad for me to see atheists cling to it. I'm put in mind of the argument often used on theists "So you can see that thor isn't real, what makes your god different?" You can see there are no gods, what makes objective moral truth different?