What should Morals and Ethics be?

[mumblethrax]

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

One of us did. If I fail to act in accordance with an ethical judgment, I am failing to do what I judge to be better, all things considered.

How is that an argument against morality being a desire?

It's not, and wasn't presented as such.

 

[Roboramma]

First of all, I don't see why it follows,

Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, I'm not arguing that it follows, I just find it likely.

and second, you don't necessarily calculate prosperity by adding each individual's.

Agreed, though there has to be some function over all individuals. A simple sum is probably not the best function though.

 

[David Mo]

This assertion needs support. I don't agree that "attention to one's neighbour" is the basic moral norm. It strikes me as tribalistic, which is morally arbitrary.


This idea also needs support.

But to say that empathy is the basis of morality is not merely to say that empathy is necessary for moral action. It is to say that moral principles emerge from empathy.




You're misunderstanding Hume here. We can't deduce an ought from an is. But isn't this precisely what you're trying to do above? Deducing an ought (all of morality) from an is (the neurology of empathy)?


There is a world of difference between saying that a feeling is useful and saying it is the basis of morality. It might well be true that we do better with empathy than without, but that's no reason to put it at the center of normative ethics. We surely make better decisions when informed by sound scientific research, but concluding that science therefore is (or should be) the basis of ethics would be a foolish thing to do.

I used “neighbour" meaning the other men. No tribalism.

You can say that moral "principles" (sic) "emerge" from empathy or you can say that without empathy there is not morality. In any case empathy is a necessary condition because you take empathy away and not sense of responsibility arises in the subject. This is not the case of science. The subject can understand everything about nerves, pain, death and injuries from a scientific point of view. He can see his victim crying and understand what tears mean. He can enjoy this. But without empathy he cannot feel that is doing bad. Science is not the basis of morality.

This is supported by common experience (intelligent killers) and science (Damasio). What other support do you need?

If you put a moral feeling in the basis of your chain of reasoning you avoid Hume's guillotine. Your first statement is not in the form of "x is y" but "I want x" that is to say "x is good". Now you can argue in terms of "to be" without contradiction. I have not misunderstand Hume. This is Hume's solution to the problem.

“To put in the centre” is a vague expression. I only said that that without empathy no morality. After that the “centre” of your reasoning is the feeling of compassion and how it can be more effective, more fiting to circumstances, and so on. This is a job for reason, science and so. All right. Empathy gives the impulse, reason the logic. We can say this if you like.

 

[Belz...]

Agreed, though there has to be some function over all individuals. A simple sum is probably not the best function though.

Right. Slaves are sometimes not considered people, though, and surely they aren't considered citizens, so it really all matters on how you calculate it. Which was my point: we can't assume that how we'd calculate it is the only way to go.

 

[Roboramma]

Right. Slaves are sometimes not considered people, though, and surely they aren't considered citizens, so it really all matters on how you calculate it. Which was my point: we can't assume that how we'd calculate it is the only way to go.

It doesn't matter that some people don't consider them human. They are human. That's an objective fact, not a subjective opinion.

Again, we have already agreed that whether or not we should value human prosperity is a separate question.

 

[Belz...]

It doesn't matter that some people don't consider them human. They are human. That's an objective fact, not a subjective opinion.

I didn't say human, I said people, and citizen. Regardless, it depends how you define human, and there've been many examples of people treating other people like non-humans. We even have a word for that.

 

[Roboramma]

I didn't say human, I said people, and citizen. Regardless, it depends how you define human, and there've been many examples of people treating other people like non-humans. We even have a word for that.

Sorry, for some reason I read "people" as "human". Brainfart.

And I'm not denying your point, I think I explicitly agreed with it in the second sentence in my post. I just don't think it changes the fact that human prosperity can be seen as an objective thing.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry, for some reason I read "people" as "human".

I'd venture to guess that it's because most of us today just see the words as synonyms.

I just don't think it changes the fact that human prosperity can be seen as an objective thing.

Well, again it mostly depends on how it's defined. I'm not sure anyone's done that here.

 

[Roboramma]

Well, again it mostly depends on how it's defined. I'm not sure anyone's done that here.

Yes, that's fair.

However, I think that any reasonable definition will fit within certain constraints. A human is a particular species of organism. Prosperity should probably relate to something that the particular humans whose prosperity is being measured would value. I can understand that there may be a lot of nuance in the definitions of both words and thus of phrase, but any definition that didn't consider you and me to be humans, or included ham sandwiches as human, would be flawed. A definition of prosperity that viewed people as being more prosperous doing X than Y when they would freely choose Y over X given accurate information about both and having experienced both, is probably flawed.

There is certainly room for nuance in the definitions and those definitions may change the outcome of our calculus to some extent. I don't see how a reasonable definition could change the outcome to great extremes though.

 

[Belz...]

A human is a particular species of organism.

Yes but it's not a given that someone will use the scientific definition.

I agree with the rest of your post.

 

[Hellbound]

Sorry, for some reason I read "people" as "human". Brainfart.

And I'm not denying your point, I think I explicitly agreed with it in the second sentence in my post. I just don't think it changes the fact that human prosperity can be seen as an objective thing.

I'd venture to guess that it's because most of us today just see the words as synonyms.



Well, again it mostly depends on how it's defined. I'm not sure anyone's done that here.

This gets to the root of what I was trying to say earlier. You can calculate objectively, once you have the definitions and methods designed. But those definitions and methods are based on what you value, and therefore subjective.

Although perhaps subjective isn't the best term. Call them axiomatic, perhaps, for more accuracy. Once those axioms are decided upon, then the rest can be compared objectively...but the axioms have to be there first.

And this isn't a bad thing; math works more or less the same way. And it doesn't mean you can't call one moral system better or worse than another...but those are essentially relative terms. Better or worse, again, depends on what values are your axioms. But again, once you (or, more likely, society) has "selected" it's set of axioms, you can absolutely compare actions, ethical systems, and so forth to see which one supports those axioms best, or which provides the most practical effect towards reaching your goals/fulfilling your values.

To continue the science analogy, science can't really tell a researcher what he'd like to research; that depends on the researcher's interests. But it can definitely inform that decision, and once that decision is made it's definitely the way to research.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again the whole problem with the "science can't (or shouldn't) tell us why we should do X" is that... nobody has offered an explanation that isn't completely self defining for what can (or should.)

It does seem more and more like people are, intentionally or unintentionally, trying to take everything that they define as "not science" and start acting like it's a unified thing when the only defining factor is what it's not.

It's like the intellectual discussion version of the social discussion term "People of Color." It doesn't matter if your African American, Asian, Native American what matters is you're not white.

If "Well science can't answer this" doesn't lead to what does answer it, what's the point?

 

[Belz...]

This gets to the root of what I was trying to say earlier. You can calculate objectively, once you have the definitions and methods designed. But those definitions and methods are based on what you value, and therefore subjective.

Although perhaps subjective isn't the best term. Call them axiomatic, perhaps, for more accuracy. Once those axioms are decided upon, then the rest can be compared objectively...but the axioms have to be there first.

And this isn't a bad thing; math works more or less the same way. And it doesn't mean you can't call one moral system better or worse than another...but those are essentially relative terms. Better or worse, again, depends on what values are your axioms. But again, once you (or, more likely, society) has "selected" it's set of axioms, you can absolutely compare actions, ethical systems, and so forth to see which one supports those axioms best, or which provides the most practical effect towards reaching your goals/fulfilling your values.

To continue the science analogy, science can't really tell a researcher what he'd like to research; that depends on the researcher's interests. But it can definitely inform that decision, and once that decision is made it's definitely the way to research.

Truth.

 

[Hellbound]

Again the whole problem with the "science can't (or shouldn't) tell us why we should do X" is that... nobody has offered an explanation that isn't completely self defining for what can (or should.)

That is the point; there isn't one. It is self-defining, basically. Until you identify your goals, and science can't tell you what goals you should pursue. However, if you make the choice on what goals you want, what your values are, then science is the best option for meeting those.

It does seem more and more like people are, intentionally or unintentionally, trying to take everything that they define as "not science" and start acting like it's a unified thing when the only defining factor is what it's not.

Okay, have no idea what this is about. Some things are not science; the things that aren't are not unified at all. Some things are not science because they're crap (various woo things, stuff that's contrary to logic or reality). Some things aren't science simply because they are not objective (what movies you should like, what your favorite ice cream flavor is). And, even in science, there are things that science itself can't prove: axioms on which everything else is based. We accept those axioms because, using them, we can produce theories and advancements that are practically, demonstrably useful. It's really not any different in morality or ethics. But science can't tell you what the axioms should be...those have to be decided by some other method. We could, for example, take a page from science and use axioms that produce practical results, which is more or less the way morality, ethics, and law has worked throughout the years.

It's like the intellectual discussion version of the social discussion term "People of Color." It doesn't matter if your African American, Asian, Native American what matters is you're not white.

If "Well science can't answer this" doesn't lead to what does answer it, what's the point?

This confuses me. So you don't listen to music, or watch TV? Science can't answer what music you should listen to or whether or not you should go bowling, that's your choice based on your interests and mood. Doesn't make it pointless.

And morality and ethics do have practical effect. Essentially, discussion of ethics and morality is us trying to come to a group consensus on what the axioms should be for our moral systems. Typically, just like in science, this comes down to which axioms lead to the most useful, practical results.

No one is arguing about that part of it. Once you decide your axioms, your goals, your idea of what morality should accomplish, ten science will help you determine how to apply that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So again what's the question and where are we going with it?

Question: "What do I like Tom Waits music?"
Answer: "No Reason! You just do!"

Okay. Are we... done? Did we just solve philosophy?

People, the problem is if we go "Science goes this far, no further, and we don't have to answer the question beyond that we can just invoke 'because' and call it a day" is other people aren't going to, they are going to keep going and slapping God and Souls and Woo in that space.

 

[Hellbound]

So again what's the question and where are we going with it?

Question: "What do I like Tom Waits music?"
Answer: "No Reason! You just do!"

Okay. Are we... done? Did we just solve philosophy?

People, the problem is if we go "Science goes this far, no further, and we don't have to answer the question beyond that we can just invoke 'because' and call it a day" is other people aren't going to, they are going to keep going and slapping God and Souls and Woo in that space.

No, we can probably answer the why. I didn't exactly phrase that correctly. But your argument is essentially telling me that I can, objectively, tell you why you should (or shouldn't) like Tom Waits music. No one is saying "just because" is an answer, only that there isn't an objective way to get to should without already having some axiom, some value or goal, in mind.

We need to develop a set of axioms we can agree on, at all levels. An individual decides on their personal values; a group decides their shared values, all the way up to national and even species level. But to prove the "best" morality, you have to decide what best means. Most people reproducing? Most happiness? Would that be the most 100% happy individuals, or the highest number of mostly happy people? What if making everyone happy would also destroy the species in 3 generations? What takes precedence, continued existence or happiness? Science can't really answer that, because the answer is based on what you should value more, life or happiness. Or conversely, which is worth more, making more people happy or preventing suffering? Is making 10 people extremely happy worth 20 people mildly miserable? Is making 20 people mildly happy worth making 10 extremely miserable? Or worth killing 1? These are questiosn that can't be answered until you've already decided on what you value.

And we can definitely look into neuroscience and psychology to determine why people believe different things, or value different things, but even that doesn't answer whether they should or not...should can only be answered within a system of values.

However, what we can do, is look at various axioms/values and find those that are generally, practically useful and shared by most of humanity. Things like minimizing unnecessary suffering, promoting happiness where possible without causing harm, etc. Once we decide that those are our goals and values (and I agree with you that something like those should be our goal), then science can definitely explore the problem and tell us how to maximize those results.

 

[theprestige]

So again what's the question and where are we going with it?

Question: "What do I like Tom Waits music?"
Answer: "No Reason! You just do!"

Okay. Are we... done? Did we just solve philosophy?

People, the problem is if we go "Science goes this far, no further, and we don't have to answer the question beyond that we can just invoke 'because' and call it a day" is other people aren't going to, they are going to keep going and slapping God and Souls and Woo in that space.

What do you propose, then?

---

In a sense, who cares if they fill it with woo? Science offers nothing for that space. You offer nothing for that space. It's a space that obviously needs filling.

So what do you propose?

 

[David Mo]

So again what's the question and where are we going with it?

Question: "What do I like Tom Waits music?"
Answer: "No Reason! You just do!"

Okay. Are we... done? Did we just solve philosophy?

People, the problem is if we go "Science goes this far, no further, and we don't have to answer the question beyond that we can just invoke 'because' and call it a day" is other people aren't going to, they are going to keep going and slapping God and Souls and Woo in that space.

Why do I like X?
Should I do X?
When X may be "Tom Waits' music". In case you are able to do "Tom Waits' music". (Sorry for your throat).

These are two different questions. Two different solutions. The first is scientific. The second is not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And we can definitely look into neuroscience and psychology to determine why people believe different things, or value different things, but even that doesn't answer whether they should or not...should can only be answered within a system of values.

Maybe this is all comes down to some sort of distinction between "Science can tell me why I like Tom Waits" and "Why I like Tom Waits can be understood within scientific concepts like psychology" is a distinction I really need to make for my own view of the world.

"Science can answer" and "Science can explain the answer" are... well the same thing to me more or less.

At the end of the day I'm just not going be okay with someone, even on a purely argumentative level, going "Okay now prove to me using only a slide rule and the periodic table of elements why I should care about other people."

And I don't see away to let "axioms" into the discussion that isn't going to let faith and Woo in as well.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe this is all comes down to some sort of distinction between "Science can tell me why I like Tom Waits" and "Why I like Tom Waits can be understood within scientific concepts like psychology" is a distinction I really need to make for my own view of the world.

"Science can answer" and "Science can explain the answer" are... well the same thing to me more or less.

At the end of the day I'm just not going be okay with someone, even on a purely argumentative level, going "Okay now prove to me using only a slide rule and the periodic table of elements why I should care about other people."

And I don't see away to let "axioms" into the discussion that isn't going to let faith and Woo in as well.

I'm not sure where the disconnect lies here. Science can absolutely tell you the best way to reach your goals, or how things work, but it can't tell you what your goals should be, because it's something science can't do: value judgment. Without the ability to feel good or bad about something, there is no value.