What should Morals and Ethics be?

[theprestige]

Because I don't consider the concept of an "absolute moral statement" to really be a thing.

Again you can say "There are right and wrong ways to build a bridge" without declaring "the is absolutely one right way to build a bridge."

Morality and ethics, again the only parts I can really speak to because they are the only parts I consider valid, are just... applied psychology and sociology to me.

The whole "Is morality subjective or objective" thing doesn't really fit into my headspace.

That seems reasonable to me.

Where do you come down on ethical questions in public policy?

I ask about public policy because it's a practical, real-world situation. Regardless of your philosophical position, you're called upon to vote, to have an opinion of how the government should spend your tax dollars. To have an opinion on how the government should treat you and your fellow citizens.

You don't think it's ethical to withhold chemotherapy from a cancer victim, if they can't prove the morality of treating them. Do you think it's ethical for your government to require you to pay for that chemotherapy?

And by "do you think it's ethical?" I mean, "is that how you would vote, if the question ever came up for a vote?"

 

[JoeMorgue]

Where do you come down on ethical questions in public policy?

Okay before this train leaves the station let me make sure one thing is 100,000% clear.

I will NOT discuss politics with you. Not anymore. That ship sailed, hit the reef, sunk, and there's now a thriving coral reef on the wreckage.

We'll ride this "public policy" train down the razors edge as long as we can, but the second I get the first whiff of politics or liberal/conservative tribalism, I'm out.
__________________________

As to the question... the same way we apply public policy about anything else. We balance the needs of the majority against the tyranny of the majority, what the public wants versus what can be given to them.

Again, and we're going to keep coming back to this, the same way we balance the public anything. Questions of ethics and morality are not special.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm a moral realist, and I'd like to give a simpler way of looking at this issue. Let's start with two declarative statements.

1. Adding gasoline to an out-of-fuel car is a good way to get it running again.
2. Chocolate is a good flavor of ice cream.

Sentence 1 is pretty clearly objective, while sentence 2 is pretty clearly subjective. Now let's add a new sentence:

P. The complete abolition of slavery is a good way of advancing human prosperity.

All I'm saying is that Sentence P is more like 1 than it is like 2. To put it another way, the thought process behind answering, "Why should I abolish slavery?" is similar to, "Why should I refuel my car?" and completely different from, "Why should I choose chocolate ice cream?"

At this point, someone will likely retort with, "Well, yes, but why should we advance prosperity?" but that's not really the point. All we're trying to figure out is whether or not these questions have objective answers, not whether or not we should care. To put it another way, the entire field of method does not need to tell you why life is preferable to death before it can state, objectively, that clean water is healthier than poison.

 

[mumblethrax]

All I'm saying is that Sentence P is more like 1 than it is like 2.

Similarly, if I didn't like fish when I was a kid but I do now, I'm unlikely to say that my taste-preference was mistaken--I just didn't like fish back then. Whereas if I used to believe that gay people should be jailed for having sex with each other but have since come around, I am likely to regret the former position. At the very least, we don't talk about moral utterances as if they were merely emotive.

A problem with ethical subjectivism (as it's being related in this thread) is that it requires us to say that if A held X at point t, A was correct to do so, and if A then held ~X at t+1, A was again correct to do so, despite the fact that one view is the negation of the other. This tends to make subjectivism difficult to distinguish from nihilism.

 

[theprestige]

I'm a moral realist, and I'd like to give a simpler way of looking at this issue. Let's start with two declarative statements.

1. Adding gasoline to an out-of-fuel car is a good way to get it running again.
2. Chocolate is a good flavor of ice cream.

Sentence 1 is pretty clearly objective, while sentence 2 is pretty clearly subjective. Now let's add a new sentence:

P. The complete abolition of slavery is a good way of advancing human prosperity.

All I'm saying is that Sentence P is more like 1 than it is like 2. To put it another way, the thought process behind answering, "Why should I abolish slavery?" is similar to, "Why should I refuel my car?" and completely different from, "Why should I choose chocolate ice cream?"

At this point, someone will likely retort with, "Well, yes, but why should we advance prosperity?" but that's not really the point. All we're trying to figure out is whether or not these questions have objective answers, not whether or not we should care. To put it another way, the entire field of method does not need to tell you why life is preferable to death before it can state, objectively, that clean water is healthier than poison.

I admit, my first impulse was to retort, "Well, yes, but why should we advance prosperity?"

But I take your point.

On the other hand. Something like "advancing human prosperity" is actually a complicated proposition with a lot of subjective judgement at play. Not the least of which is the question, "why should I care about advancing human prosperity?"

Advancing my own prosperity seems like a slam-dunk value proposition for me. Advancing your prosperity also makes a lot of sense, if my prosperity depends on yours. But that's a game-theoretical consideration, not a moral consideration.

The moral conundrum is especially acute if we look beyond my lifetime. I'm going to be dead in fifty years no matter what. Why shouldn't I strip-mine the Earth, and maximize my own prosperity in my lifetime, without concern for the fate of those who succeed me?

 

[Thor 2]

I admit, my first impulse was to retort, "Well, yes, but why should we advance prosperity?"

But I take your point.

On the other hand. Something like "advancing human prosperity" is actually a complicated proposition with a lot of subjective judgement at play. Not the least of which is the question, "why should I care about advancing human prosperity?"

Advancing my own prosperity seems like a slam-dunk value proposition for me. Advancing your prosperity also makes a lot of sense, if my prosperity depends on yours. But that's a game-theoretical consideration, not a moral consideration.

The moral conundrum is especially acute if we look beyond my lifetime. I'm going to be dead in fifty years no matter what. Why shouldn't I strip-mine the Earth, and maximize my own prosperity in my lifetime, without concern for the fate of those who succeed me?

I would say you would get a round of applause from climate change deniers, for this kind of attitude. Those of us with children and grand children, have our reservations for obvious reasons. Not all I would concede, as immediate self interest trumps* all else for some.

* There's a good word.

 

[theprestige]

I would say you would get a round of applause from climate change deniers, for this kind of attitude. Those of us with children and grand children, have our reservations for obvious reasons. Not all I would concede, as immediate self interest trumps* all else for some.

* Theres a good word.

Do you have a moral argument for why I should diminish my present prosperity, to improve the future prosperity of your children and grandchildren?

Your reasons are not obvious to me. Could you explain them?

 

[acbytesla]

It does, however, mean making people unhappy if they get in the way of your principle of maximizing happiness.

And when did we agree that maximizing happiness was the basis of morality, anyway?

So what if Hitler sought to increase his happiness at the expense of Jewish happiness? Is that so wrong?

Which leads me to this question. What should be the foundation for morality?

 

[Thor 2]

Do you have a moral argument for why I should diminish my present prosperity, to improve the future prosperity of your children and grandchildren?

Your reasons are not obvious to me. Could you explain them?

Well I was talking about the moral obligation a parent feels toward children. Something that is demonstrated daily all around the World, as in the recent shooting incident in the USA, where a mother shielded her baby from gunfire and subsequently perished.

As an unrelated party I imagine you're urge to show altruism may be somewhat diminished. None the less there are some who do this in an extreme way, and many who do so in a milder form.

Can I give you reasons for behaving in this non selfish manner? No I don't think so. It is a quality that most of us admire, although contrary to the quest for survival of self, in some cases.

 

[theprestige]

Which leads me to this question. What should be the foundation for morality?

**** if I know. These threads always seem to stall out somewhere between the part where the rational thinkers all express certainty in their moral calculus, and the part where any of them actually attempt a rational explanation that isn't "because reasons". At least you're asking.

I started a thread a while back on the same topic. It was actually kind of productive. Got farther than this one, anyway. This one seems to be having a pretty typical run here. Same old questions, same lack of answers. Nothing really new.

---

So here, I'll add something new:

I don't know which of these *should* be the foundation for morality, but it seems like it's gonna be one of these three:

Faith
Norms
Sociopathy

I've been leaning towards sociopathy lately, but if it's going to be norms my vote is MacDonald.

 

[theprestige]

Well I was talking about the moral obligation a parent feels toward children. Something that is demonstrated daily all around the World, as in the recent shooting incident in the USA, where a mother shielded her baby from gunfire and subsequently perished.



As an unrelated party I imagine you're urge to show altruism may be somewhat diminished. None the less there are some who do this in an extreme way, and many who do so in a milder form.



Can I give you reasons for behaving in this non selfish manner? No I don't think so. It is a quality that most of us admire, although contrary to the quest for survival of self, in some cases.

As moral arguments go, this one seems pretty weak. It's mostly an appeal to emotion, with some attempt at shaming me for not conforming to your subjective standards.

Do you believe it's morally wrong for me not to feel a moral obligation to your children?

Do you believe it's morally wrong for me not to act to my own disadvantage, because I don't share your feelings of obligation?

 

[mumblethrax]

Would someone who would've blocked everyone else out have owed it to the others to have chosen differently?

Yes.

If yes, then clearly "owing something to others" isn't the property distinguishing the behaviours. Both you and the other hypothetical person who blocks everyone out would "owe it to others" but what would distinguish you is that you have a desire to act ethically whereas he doesn't.

There's a contradiction in your reasoning--in order for him to be aware that he owes it to others not to block him (if he isn't, there's nothing to account for), he has to agree that it is better not to block people, which means he and I must have similar propositional attitudes--we both hold that it is better not to block everyone else. It cannot therefore be true that I desire to act and he does not, because the acknowledgment that one outcome is better than the other is the very thing you want to call a desire. All we can say is that we both prefer one outcome over another, but he has experienced a failure of will where I have not. That's not explicable in terms of the presence or absence of desire, if you hold that a moral judgment is (or entails) a desire.

In any case, if I had acted otherwise, according to this account, I could not call my actions moral (since I would be ignoring my "desire to act ethically")--so the idea that morality is just a label that we stick on what we wanted to do is just not true. Moral desires would then be distinct from other desires, which would render this account of morality as desire inadequate. That's all that needs to be shown.

 

[acbytesla]

**** if I know. These threads always seem to stall out somewhere between the part where the rational thinkers all express certainty in their moral calculus, and the part where any of them actually attempt a rational explanation that isn't "because reasons". At least you're asking.

I started a thread a while back on the same topic. It was actually kind of productive. Got farther than this one, anyway. This one seems to be having a pretty typical run here. Same old questions, same lack of answers. Nothing really new.

---

So here, I'll add something new:

I don't know which of these *should* be the foundation for morality, but it seems like it's gonna be one of these three:

Faith
Norms
Sociopathy

I've been leaning towards sociopathy lately, but if it's going to be norms my vote is MacDonald.

Faith in what?

Norms? Seriously?

Sociopathy? "A mental health disorder characterized by disregard for other people." That's what should he the foundation of our morals?

 

[acbytesla]

As moral arguments go, this one seems pretty weak. It's mostly an appeal to emotion, with some attempt at shaming me for not conforming to your subjective standards.

Do you believe it's morally wrong for me not to feel a moral obligation to your children?

Do you believe it's morally wrong for me not to act to my own disadvantage, because I don't share your feelings of obligation?

I can't answer for Thor. But my answer is yes. I think everyone has an obligation to society as a whole which includes future generations. I'm not the one of us that is a Christian. But what happened to being your brother's keeper?

Maybe you were serious about sociopathy being the basis for morality? I thought you were just kidding.

 

[Thor 2]

As moral arguments go, this one seems pretty weak. It's mostly an appeal to emotion, with some attempt at shaming me for not conforming to your subjective standards.

It was not an argument, just an observation.

Do you believe it's morally wrong for me not to feel a moral obligation to your children?

Do you believe it's morally wrong for me not to act to my own disadvantage, because I don't share your feelings of obligation?

There are no absolute rights or wrongs in all this. If someone behaves in an altruistic manner, by far the greater number of us would think this commendable. If someone doesn't feel any compulsion to perform deeds for the good of others, that is understandable although unlikely to inspire admiration in others.

 

[theprestige]

Faith in what?

The existence of some universal morality to which axiomatic appeals can be made. This seems to be more or less where JoeMorgue keeps ending up, though he keeps stopping short of actually acknowledging it.

Norms? Seriously?

Seriously. Take a look at this thread, and previous threads, and every other instance of this debate on this forum. Social norms seem to be the prevalent conclusion most people arrive at. It's pretty obvious in debates about human rights.

Sociopathy? "A mental health disorder characterized by disregard for other people." That's what should he the foundation of our morals?

Think about it. Pure prisoner's dilemma, enlightened self-interest stuff. You're not concerned about what other people think. You're not concerned about custom, or tradition, No worries about how you were raised or what you were taught to believe. All that matters is a dispassionate evaluation of what works for you and what doesn't.

Most sociopaths are pretty adept at going along to get along, but not because they're concerned with morality. Their concern is whatever practical and profitable strategy they can find, for getting what they want.

Obviously the sociopaths will eat all us non-sociopaths for lunch if we give them a chance, but so what? It's not like there's a higher law that says they shouldn't. And who knows? Maybe once they've cleared us out of the way, and sorted out the kinks in their objective social darwinism approach to things, they'll build a far more productive society than we ever will. Two sociopaths in a Prisoner's dilemma are probably going to find a mutually beneficial arrangement a lot faster than a Communist and a Christian, even though the latter each believe in a moral code, and the former believe in nothing but self-interest.

 

[theprestige]

I can't answer for Thor. But my answer is yes. I think everyone has an obligation to society as a whole which includes future generations. I'm not the one of us that is a Christian. But what happened to being your brother's keeper?

You lost me. Who's the Christian, here? Are you saying I should adopt Christianity as my moral foundation? Or just complaining that I don't?

Maybe you were serious about sociopathy being the basis for morality? I thought you were just kidding.

Only half kidding. Put two sociopaths in a room, all they care about is, "how do I make it easier for this guy to go along with what I want, than fight me over it?" And really, what's a higher morality than that?

 

[theprestige]

It was not an argument, just an observation.



There are no absolute rights or wrongs in all this. If someone behaves in an altruistic manner, by far the greater number of us would think this commendable. If someone doesn't feel any compulsion to perform deeds for the good of others, that is understandable although unlikely to inspire admiration in others.

You seem to be drifting off topic with your observations.

Are you saying that inspiring admiration in others should be the basis of morality?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The existence of some universal morality to which axiomatic appeals can be made. This seems to be more or less where JoeMorgue keeps ending up, though he keeps stopping short of actually acknowledging it.

If I knew what "universal morality" was supposed to mean I'd know whether or not you were putting words in my mouth.

 

[theprestige]

If I knew what "universal morality" was supposed to mean I'd know whether or not you were putting words in my mouth.

If I knew what "certainly immoral" was supposed to mean, I'd know whether you were actually appealing to a universal morality.