News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Morality as sane competent socialization

Started by Inevitable Droid, November 21, 2010, 02:21:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Inevitable Droid

This is for people who intuit the existence of objective morality.  I'll offer a proposal along those lines and see how it fares.  

After parsing the various comments of people who seem to intuit objective morality's existence, I've concluded that such people would tend to agree that objective morality has something to do with sane competent socialization.  I'll ask such people from among those reading this post to consider the foregoing and let me know if they tend to agree or disagree.  

Continuing on, I'll first define sane as, "not suicidal, able to identify the boundaries between self and others, able to identify obvious physical dangers to self or others, and able to distinguish between the imagined and the physically real."  Controversial yet?  Notice, for example, that a hired killer could be sane by this definition.

Next, I'll define competent as, "able to identify criteria for success, and methods for fulfilling those criteria, in a given area of endeavor."  Controversial?  A hired killer could of course be competent by this definition.

Finally, I'll define socialization as, "the process of assimilating and internalizing society's policies as to appropriate and inappropriate endeavors and methods."  A hired killer could be socialized per this definition if and only if his society considers killing for hire to be an appropriate endeavor - and of course it is entirely conceivable that some society might well consider such to be the case.

Given the foregoing, would we consider an individual who had achieved sane competent socialization to be moral?  If so, we may have discovered objective morality - but no, I think we have to proceed a little further before we'll be satisfied.  If we're going to include socialization in our definition, then surely we need to assess not only the individual, but also society itself.  Can a society be insane?  I think yes.  A society could be suicidal, or unable to identify the boundaries between itself and other societies, or unable to identify obvious physical dangers to itself or other societies, or unable to distinguish between the imagined and the physically real.  Can a society be incompetent?  I think yes.  It could be unable to identify criteria for success, or methods for fulfilling those criteria, in areas of endeavor on which it has embarked or wishes or intends to embark.  I would suggest that a sane competent individual would want to live in a sane competent society and would resist socialization otherwise.

Now at last I'll define objective morality as, "socialization as offered (or as would be offered) by a sane competent society and as accepted (or as would be accepted) by a sane competent individual."

What do you think, O ye who intuit the existence of objective morality?  Does my proposed definition satisfy you?
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

penfold

Well I have a number of problems with your scheme.

1. Sanity is not itself absolute. Rather it is a measure of conformity. So in answer to your question "can a society be insane?" the answer is only yes if there is another social platform one is making the comparison from; if there were only one society then its norms could not be insane without offending the very definition of the word! We call someone insane, not by absolute measure but, by reference to their behavior in comparison to social norms. (NB I am not talking legalistic definitions of insanity, that's a whole different ball of wax)

2. You've radically limited the scope of morality. The implicit claim you are making is that so long as behavior 'fits' with social norms it can be considered moral. Butchering and devouring your next door neighbour's cat (I had an odd weekend...) would, in the context of our society, be considered immoral, and this fits with your system. But what about an affair? It does not breach any of your categories, it is neither insane, nor incompetent, and, while some may frown on it, for the most part our social norms accept such behavior. It seems to me your system makes for a bad litmus test, unable to distinguish right from wrong at anything but the most severe levels. Most moral decisions in my life have involved choices which are all sane, competent and socially acceptable; none the less I feel their moral weight.

3. Most importantly you at no point talk of the individual and their motivations. I understand that you are arguing against moral realism (though I meet fewer and fewer proponents of that these days) but your account is entirely behaviorist. By your model the sociopath can be a moral person; this is an absurd result, the sociopath simply has no moral awareness (though they may be very good at following the rules). It has always seemed blindingly obvious to me that morality is about people not merely their behavior. Any account of morality which does not deal with issues of knowledge, intention, negligence, recklessness, culpability, guilt etc... are incomplete.

peace

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "penfold"Well I have a number of problems with your scheme.

And see - I thought I did such a great job!  Could it be that objective morality doesn't exist? :devil:

Quote1. Sanity is not itself absolute. Rather it is a measure of conformity.

Not by my definition.  You disagree with my definition, then.  Could someone, anyone, seriously and plausibly argue that a person could be sane and simultaneously (1) suicidal; (2) unable to identify the boundaries between self and others; (3) unable to identify obvious physical dangers to self or others; or (4) unable to distinguish between the imagined and the physically real?    Doesn't the word have to mean at least the opposites of those four things?  I really tried to be minimalistic and conservative in my definition.  I aimed at the barest inarguable essence of the concept - or so I thought.

Quote2. You've radically limited the scope of morality. The implicit claim you are making is that so long as behavior 'fits' with social norms it can be considered moral.

Only true if society and the individual are both sane and competent.  If either isn't, then theoretically the individual's behavior could be immoral or at least amoral (by my definitions) despite fitting in perfectly with society's norms.

QuoteBut what about an affair? It does not breach any of your categories, it is neither insane, nor incompetent, and, while some may frown on it, for the most part our social norms accept such behavior.

You really perceive Western culture as being OK with marital infidelity?  May I ask if you live in the USA?  Here a politician can lose an election due to marital infidelity.

QuoteIt seems to me your system makes for a bad litmus test, unable to distinguish right from wrong at anything but the most severe levels. Most moral decisions in my life have involved choices which are all sane, competent and socially acceptable; none the less I feel their moral weight.

I think you perceive the socially acceptable as being much broader than I do.  I would have said society frowns on absolutely anything even the least bit dishonest or mean.  I can't imagine experiencing guilt or shame with regard to an action I perceived as sane, competent, and not at all unacceptable to society.  If I could announce what I did on the evening news, without wincing at all, and without white-washing what I did, guilt or shame would never come anywhere near me.  The opposite scenario is what I might have expected someone to hit me with; I.e., society being horrified by what I did, while I rebelliously thrust what I did in everyone's face, defiantly insisting on my blamelessness, because I disagree with society's moral principles.  By my definitions, I could in that case be immoral or at least amoral, if society is sane and competent, or if I'm not.

Quote3. Most importantly you at no point talk of the individual and their motivations. I understand that you are arguing against moral realism (though I meet fewer and fewer proponents of that these days) but your account is entirely behaviorist.

What else could objective morality be but behaviorist?

QuoteBy your model the sociopath can be a moral person

I would say that sociopaths violate social norms constantly, because they behave dishonestly and meanly, constantly.  Society hates sociopaths.  That's almost (almost) a definition for the word.  If society would hate what I do, if only society knew what I was doing, there's a good chance I'm a sociopath, unless society is consumed with hate for behaviors that are perfectly sane and competent both for society and for the individual, which might well be the case, of course.

QuoteIt has always seemed blindingly obvious to me that morality is about people not merely their behavior. Any account of morality which does not deal with issues of knowledge, intention, negligence, recklessness, culpability, guilt etc... are incomplete.

Is there a way to deal with such things objectively?
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Is there a way to deal with such things objectively?

"Such things," mainly being questions of a relevant actor's relevant knowledge and understanding, could perhaps be objectively tested via clever questioning of the relevant actor, and so I'll add words to the end of my proposed definition.  Here's the new version.  Objective morality shall be defined by me as, "socialization as offered (or as would be offered) by a sane competent society and as accepted (or as would be accepted) by a sane competent individual, and as put into practice by a society or an individual with as much knowledge and understanding of relevant inputs, possible outputs, and the relevant implications of all possible outputs, as could plausibly be expected, given an assumption of diligent rigor, and taking into account the amount of time that had actually been available for making the relevant decision."
 
Thus the definition is no longer strictly behaviorist.  It has a cognitive component.  Does it work now?

The definition stipulates that objective morality can only originate in society, never in the individual.  This is because I don't see how an individual can devise a moral code without succumbing at all to subjectivity.  I'm not even sure that omnipotence and omniscience could accomplish the task, as the task may be a logical contradiction, but surely, at minimum, superhuman discipline would be required, or else my view of human nature is unduly pessimistic, or my view of the relevant questions as being very difficult is exaggerated.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Inevitable Droid

In attempting to grapple with my own line of thought here, I find myself asking two questions:
1. On what basis do I grant society the authority to decide morality by fiat, limited only by sanity and competence?
2. On what basis do I grant sanity and competence the status of goodness?

The answer to the second is, on no basis whatsoever.  I merely attempted to apply criteria that could be evaluated objectively.  I could probably have applied other such criteria if I had been able to imagine some.  Sanity and competence were arbitrary constraints, the very opposite of objective.

The answer to the first is, that I was treating morality as an artifact of society; I.e., that morality is, literally is, nothing more and nothing less than an artifact of society.  Thus morality isn't, literally isn't and never can be, an artifact of one individual.  This flies in the face of what most people would argue, surely.  And if sanity and competence are merely arbitrary constraints, hence non-objective, we're left with objective morality as being the artifact of society unconstrained by anything objective, hence unconstrained at all, in practice.  Subjectively we could dispute society's directives, but objectively we couldn't.

Perhaps some sort of objective/subjective hybrid is possible?  After all, from the perspective of the individual, society's directives are facts, hence part of objective reality.  Perhaps the proper creator of morality is society but the proper judge is the individual?  Thus, from the individual's perspective, society's directives would be facts and thus part of objective reality, but the individual's rendered judgments would be opinions, derived from other opinions or from commitments or imaginings, all subjective.  Perhaps this objective/subjective hybrid is the best we can do.
 
I'm trying to escape what seems self-evident to me, that morality as an artifact of one individual alone, could never in any sense be objective, for the directives would have to come from the individual, and thus could never be objective facts for that individual, but merely commitments, which are subjective.

Hmm.  I guess the fact that I've made a commitment could be taken as an objective fact.  Thus my commitments could be taken as the objectively factual premises for moral reasoning.  Thus the strategy would have to be, first make commitments, then honor them and reason from them as objective facts about my past and present.  In practical terms, this yields an objective morality that has one and only one maxim: Have a conscience.  What sort of conscience?  That is entirely up to you.  Just have one, please.  But at least we could articulate where having a conscience must begin.  It must begin with making commitments.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

xSilverPhinx

I may be over simplifying things here but I think that morality is basically:

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"...an artifact of one individual alone, could never in any sense be objective, for the directives would have to come from the individual, and thus could never be objective facts for that individual, but merely commitments, which are subjective.

And that what people perceive as "objective" morality is merely the projection of theirs. Morality as we like to think of it does not exist in nature. Natural catastrophes are not "good" or "evil". Diseases are not "good" or "evil" - I often eye roll when atheists act as if it should be, and use it as a counter argument to the theistic false association of morality with nature. They fall into the same fallacious trap IMO.

As for humans, I have reason to believe that morality is really a tribal system (based on our evolutionary gains and baggage) that constantly adapts to fit into a multi-tribe society. I really can't think of an 'objective' morality other than trying what's mathematically stable when at a level larger than an individual or group (which acts a lot like an individual).
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey