Morality and reasoned justification are incompatable

[NatsuTerran]

I found Stevil's posts interesting and thought I'd drop my 2 cents. I believe in objective morality, but not absolute morality. This whole debate centers around semantics, obviously. What I mean by objective morality is an understanding of science in order to make decisions for the greater good of humanity. I find the title of this thread to be kind of funny, because I consider (objective) morality to BE reasoned justification. And I consider subjective morality to be the knee-jerk gut reactions that people make, and then have to think about *why* they think about that.

I'll give an example of my form of objective morality here, I use this a lot when battling libertarians or people who take the ideal of "freedom" to an extreme.

In scenario A there is a person with a nuke. The person launches the nuke and kills people.
In scenario B there is an asteroid hurtling towards the earth. That same person has the nuke and can pre-emptively blow it up, but chooses not to and the asteroid kills people.

In both scenarios, the end result is exactly the same. I consider subjective morality to be that scenario A is moral and scenario B is immoral. The reason this is subjective is because the person may value those that are killed differently based on who they are.

But objectively speaking, it is obvious (through science) that we as people could potentially have been anyone. It simply makes no sense to be callous towards the suffering of others, because we could have *been* those others. This is ultimately my beef with both theists and libertarians. They both seem to think that an individual has free will and can make themselves whatever they want. But people are a product of environment and experiences. They did not choose this, they did not choose their personality, and they did not choose who they became, or even choose to be born. But here they are, paying the consequences of any given action or inaction. As rational being, I think it should be objectively obvious that we care for others as if they were ourselves, because they very well could have been us given the randomness of life.

My philosophy class many years ago made this ideal clear to me. I vaguely remember his example, so I will recreate my own.

There is an island with several people on it. They just crashed here and they are going to establish their own small island society. These people differ in gender, ethnicity, background, etc. Now, the first order of business is to vote on what rights they should have. Before they do that, they decide to vote on who gets to vote on what rights the get. Now say they target gender, and they first vote on whether both genders can vote in future elections, or if only male votes count. Obviously, the females will vote against this. The males will have split votes, depending on their individual empathy levels. Regardless of how the vote ends up, there is one major rule of thumb that should be followed objectively.

That rule is that you should remove yourself from the situation. Assume that you are not yet born, but are still capable of rational thought. You know you will be born in this island colony, but you do not know to whom. You don't know what gender you will be. You do not even know how you will act once you are born (product of experience, not free will). With this information only, assume you were to place a vote in this election. What would that vote look like? It would obviously be a vote for both genders to have rights. Because since you don't know what you will become, you could potentially be voting against yourself. The only reason someone could want to vote against themselves is if they were brainwashed into thinking they weren't worthy after the fact. But this is before you were born hypothetically.

You can apply this to just about anything that the islanders vote on and come up with an objectively concise answer. The fundamental knowledge and logic that I, as a person, could have been anyone else is what I base pretty much my entire moral framework around. However, I will be the first to admit that this is still not *entirely* objective, which is why I don't use the term absolute morality.

My morals are basically a form of utilitarianism. I am for maximizing well-being, and minimizing suffering. Those are my primary rules of thumb, and the whole I could have been born as anything is another rule of thumb. The first issue with this is that there is a biased tendency to maximize *human* well-being, and minimize *human* suffering. This is clearly just as subjective as an ingroup of humans discriminating against an outgroup. In the same manner, I am treating humanity as a whole as one massive ingroup, and other species as the outgroup which I am okay with killing for food.

I think the reason why this is justified is going to be subjective no matter which way you spin it. My same logic as being born as any lifeform certainly still applies. But overall, I feel like you have to draw the line somewhere. We take life all the time, oftentimes without even realizing it. Every time you mow your lawn you are committing genocide. We, as humans, tend to value mammals more than insects, and humans more than other mammals. But in a way, this is both subjective and objective. It is an objective fact that we are evolved to be cooperative towards our own species.

So as you can see, I like to have a moral "framework" that follows rules of thumb, and is not dogmatic. I have major issues with dogmatic morality, in that doing "A" is *always* wrong. I am strongly Buddhist utilitarian and believe in seeking the lesser of evils and learning from mistakes. I'm certain that many people can take my same outline for morality and come to vastly different conclusions, however. But I believe that any differences are due to different views of human nature or cultural norms. These things can be accounted for through scientific education.

I'll be honest, I truly get what you are saying about how we tend to say "that's wrong" as if it is an objective fact. I tend to do the same, and I try to really reason it out as to "why" it is wrong as you can see from the above. I think the difference between my kind of morality and the kind you are arguing against is that my form of morality is adaptable. If the facts change, the morals change. A dogmatic belief is a means of saving cognitive resources so that the person doesn't have to think through their moral reasonings like I often do. For example, they might say killing a baby is wrong, period. But what if killing the baby means 20 people don't starve and suffer (but not die) for the rest of their lives? 200 people? 2,000? Unless you view life as objectively better than suffering vs well-being, there is going to be a cut-off point where you side with the lesser of evils. Now I'll be honest, the line that we draw is going to differ from individual to individual. I guess objective morals don't truly exist on an individual level. You can try and justify them like I did, and I and most on this forum might agree with how I have laid things out, but I cannot ultimately say I am straight up better than someone else morally. Perhaps I could, but it would take an eternity of scientific knowledge being disclosed onto them and ridding them of any preconceived notions and brainwashing that has shaded their views.

But ultimately, I think what I get down to for objective morality is that it doesn't matter if the individuals differ on where *exactly* to draw their lines, because societies as a whole can still ballpark it. It won't be pretty because people enjoy having a set in stone answer. People hate ambiguity, which is why so many fall for the post hoc fallacy. I think this is why so many find comfort in dogmatic views. They don't have to constantly rationalize things and can thus save cognitive resources.

But yeah, after all that rambling I probably kind of proved your point that morals don't exist, lol. I still take comfort in my view of objective morality, although I consider myself a moral relativist at the same time. Basically, "there's a greater good that can be appealed to," and then "and here's what I think we should do to move towards that goal." I think what you will find when everyone follows this thought process is that our ideas will bounce off of each other, and eventually one truth will prevail. And by that I don't mean it will ever be set in stone, our morals and ideas of rights will constantly evolve and change so long as we continue to do so.

So ultimately, I think whether or not morals are "real" or not is immaterial. Just like any other construct that we humans create, its purpose lies in its utility. And I think morals have a clear utility in the basis of our language for communicating desirable behavior. I guess the thing I don't like about your position is that it seems to have no implications whatsoever. It's like, okay, I can no longer say "you're wrong" but have to say "you're wrong from my point of view." Like, so what? Morality as a construct has utility in disclosing acceptable behavior and conveying ideas off of each other to determine what should or should not be allowed. It's more aimed at improving society as a whole rather than judging people based on individual values. I feel like I kind of clarified or added to what someone else was saying earlier in the thread. But ultimately I view things from a macro perspective. Also, I am wary of any attempt to get rid of morals because I have a strong distaste against the naturalistic fallacy.

[Stevil]

But ultimately, I think what I get down to for objective morality is that it doesn't matter if the individuals differ on where *exactly* to draw their lines, because societies as a whole can still ballpark it.

This ballparking, I have a problem with, it means that the majority will oppress the minority.
Lets consider polygamy. Because the majority see polygamy as immoral does that give them the right to impose via law restrictions on people whom want to live a polygomistic lifestyle?
What I am saying is that because polygamy won't cause society to become unstable or dysfunctional then do not create a law against it. Let people chose whether to live this lifestyle or not. Don't feel that your morals ought to be forced onto others through law. Morality should never be the basis for law. Let people make their own perceived moral decisions. Only infringe on people's right to make decisions if those decisions are dangerous for society.

[NatsuTerran]

I mostly agree with you there. I don't see how polygamy causes any problems in and of itself. But the thing is, there's gonna have to be a line that society draws eventually. What about condemning a family that treats their kid like crap because they are mormon or something? Like those stereotyped extremist cult families that teach their children that they are evil and their poop is concentrated evil, etc. Do you really think that should be allowed? I believe in equality of opportunity as one of the most important ideals. A person born into that family is clearly at a severe disadvantage. Even though it is society at large dictating its moral standards on the few that have whackjob beliefs, I still somehow think this is necessary. I like to think our moral standards of today are better than those of the past, on an objective level. In the other thread you said slavery was unstable for society. But it seems pretty arbitrary to me on what basis we determine stability. Is an extremist family cult unstable for society? What if there are lots of them?

I don't think there is a right answer in this area. Someone is going to get their feelings and "rights" stepped on no matter what. It just makes the most pragmatic sense to me to allow checks and balances between ingroups to cancel each others' influence out. In other words, democracy. But again, I think the whole stability of society thing is kind of arbitrary. We have come leaps and bounds in just the past century with more liberal ideas. To me it all comes from a fundamental empathy level for all people. I personally think extreme beliefs should be stepped on by society if the parents are treating their child terribly bad. Abuse is not a good thing, I am curious as to how you could avoid this familial dilemma without just shrugging your shoulders. Also keep in mind that the majority at large will not think like you. Even if it's against the rules, they will still voice their concerns and try to step on the family's rights to neglect.

I think the thing that bothers me is that you are trying to extrapolate what is bad for society based on what happens on an individual level. But a lot of times it is how you universalize something that determines its true consequences. We all have the right to smoke a cigarette. It is not unstable for society for me to personally smoke. But what if everyone smokes at the exact same time? Society stops dead in its tracks. We all die to smog. This is where morality comes into play, because everyone in this scenario is just 1/1,000,000,000th of the problem. Therefore certain rules have to come into play to regulate things that could prove disastrous in the long run. I don't think it wise to decide if something is stable for society based on how an individual instance harms society, but how it universalizes to harm society. It's going to be a blurry grey area no matter what, but I hope you get what I'm saying.

What is good for the many is ultimately what matters on an objective and subjective level. Subjective because we value human lives more, and objective because we have empathy and understanding that we cannot and should not differentiate between others. We are by default in the same boat as a species.

[Stevil]

I mostly agree with you there. I don't see how polygamy causes any problems in and of itself. But the thing is, there's gonna have to be a line that society draws eventually.

Draw the line on things that matter with regards to a stable and functional society

What about condemning a family that treats their kid like crap because they are mormon or something? Like those stereotyped extremist cult families that teach their children that they are evil and their poop is concentrated evil, etc.
Do you really think that should be allowed?

If this belief does not descend into an unstable society then don't interfere. Let the parent choose for themselves on how to raise their own children.

I believe in equality of opportunity as one of the most important ideals.

This is very important for a stable and functional society. If the poor will always be poor then they will be oppressed and eventually there will be an uprising.
There is no true equality in any human society, but there are things we can do to improve the playing field e.g. free education, free health, family support etc.

In the other thread you said slavery was unstable for society. But it seems pretty arbitrary to me on what basis we determine stability.

Not arbitrary. We can look to history, other countries, other cultures to see if certain lack of laws have created instability and conflict.
We also have the ability to think things through and to debate. To use reason.

Is an extremist family cult unstable for society? What if there are lots of them?

Not necessarily.

[NatsuTerran]

I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around how you are defining stability and how much is too much de-stability, as I mention in the other thread. I think my mammoth post in that thread says it all pretty much. We ultimately agree about most things.

The thing that bothers me is when you say let the parents decide how to raise the child. I think society should be the determinant of a child's upbringing. I am personally very against homeschooling when people do it to avoid their kids learning about science due to their religious beliefs. Anyone could make the case that this does and does not de-stabilize society. You end up arguing over moral gulfs no matter what in my opinion. Are you really looking at the externalities of the consequences, or just the tangible consequences? So child abuse is the parent's right? It doesn't de-stabilize society, or does it? Like I said, it seems mighty arbitrary. Furthermore, it seems like you are trying to establish your very own objective morality in the same way I do. Why are you valuing stability? Existence itself doesn't care.

[Stevil]

Why are you valuing stability? Existence itself doesn't care.

I want to be safe, I want my loved ones to be safe.
For the large part I don't care if people act "morally" or not, just as long as I am safe.

[En_Route]

Why are you valuing stability? Existence itself doesn't care.

I want to be safe, I want my loved ones to be safe.
For the large part I don't care if people act "morally" or not, just as long as I am safe.

You want far more than mere safety for you and your family.

[pytheas]

Why are you valuing stability? Existence itself doesn't care.

I want to be safe, I want my loved ones to be safe.
For the large part I don't care if people act "morally" or not, just as long as I am safe.

You want far more than mere safety for you and your family.

explore the "want" vs "need" axis

far more still we can imagine and want it

by removal, loss-of-function we have gathered that needs are specific and universal
they come with the model

[pytheas]

The thing that bothers me is when you say let the parents decide how to raise the child. I think society should be the determinant of a child's upbringing. I am personally very against homeschooling when people do it to avoid their kids learning about science due to their religious beliefs. Anyone could make the case that this does and does not de-stabilize society. You end up arguing over moral gulfs no matter what in my opinion. Are you really looking at the externalities of the consequences, or just the tangible consequences? So child abuse is the parent's right?

very nice


would it not follow, that we expect licenced professional educators that know how to disseminate knowledge, nurture sociability and inspire the pupils to teach our kids when we enroll them into school? wouldn't we expect that teachers working somewhere are qualified primary level educators by some state-approved system-degree or something?

So, do parents that proclaim homeschooling have to pass some sort of exam? some sort of licensing program to ensure "equal education, dignity " etc for all people under each nation?

where i am at the moment it is illegal, but some people put their kids at work and avoid school or schooling alltogether, there is anyway  no social security watchdog or any real beneficiary police work.

[pytheas]

Morality and reasoned justification are certainly compatible

they are associated and interlocking influencing each other
they can also be contradictory and disturbing
but this is psychopathology a persons problem because Morality and reasoned justification coexist

[Stevil]

Morality and reasoned justification are certainly compatible

they are associated and interlocking influencing each other
they can also be contradictory and disturbing
but this is psychopathology a persons problem because Morality and reasoned justification coexist

With applied Reason you will find that morality does not exist.

There is no objective morality since all the people in the world do not agree on anything.

There is no subjective morality since one person's morality is no more right than another person's it simply becomes a matter of opinion, with is hardly a morality.

People who apply reason do not say that something is right because it is moral they think it through and come up with something much more clear and specific.
They might suggest that murder is wrong because allowing it creates danger to themselves, as it essentially becomes open hunting season and there is nothing to suggest that they will not become the hunted. This reasoned person will be motivated to belong to a society which discourages murder. This is not a morality, this is a selfish desire to survive.

[pytheas]

Morality and reasoned justification are certainly compatible

they are associated and interlocking influencing each other
they can also be contradictory and disturbing
but this is psychopathology a persons problem because Morality and reasoned justification coexist

With applied Reason you will find that morality does not exist.

There is no objective morality since all the people in the world do not agree on anything.

There is no subjective morality since one person's morality is no more right than another person's it simply becomes a matter of opinion, with is hardly a morality.

People who apply reason do not say that something is right because it is moral they think it through and come up with something much more clear and specific.
They might suggest that murder is wrong because allowing it creates danger to themselves, as it essentially becomes open hunting season and there is nothing to suggest that they will not become the hunted. This reasoned person will be motivated to belong to a society which discourages murder. This is not a morality, this is a selfish desire to survive.

Ok, I pin-pointed a misunderstanding we have

I didn't add what I initially thought with my last entry, which would refer to you along these lines:

" As for stevil's remark (wanting safety-etc) it can form the basis of the most enduring type of morality being rooted and feeding from cold reason, cool logic and correspondant verification

the process of understanding creates emotion

verification by experience of the validity of a notion  created by logic deduction as principle brings waves of emotional satisfaction that stoics know about, but do not admit.

for me and my input, moral, morality is this: the feeling, the emotion of a person. A little, a lot, they don't have, or, they do. In some issues we are bound to feel the same. In others we may not.In some issues some feel and others do not. As a phenomenon, a characteristic of the conscious social human, it exists. Subjective means people have one but it may be different from each other.
To feel nothing, ever, and to actually be like that and not in some reactionary denial, for me and a line of experts means psychopathology, affective disorder.

Since you refer to motivation you are in effect already moral and pretty normal

all people in all the world certainly agree on a few things or  at least one, I would expect.

A matter of opinion Is what any morality amounts to be. That is the morality I understand and try to abide to by logic. I am afraid the connotations of "morality" that you seem to react towards are translated to me as poisonous dogmatic regulations by false authorities costituting blasphemy to the human essence. As far as the HIJACK of the term morality by church and religion goes, my oppinion falls behind Nietzsche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_%28book%29

Christianity "...turned every value into an disvalue, every truth into a lie... it created distress in order to eternalize itself."[69] It has "...contempt for every good and honest instinct..., and its Beyond is its will to negate every reality... ."[69] Nietzsche believed that Christianity is a conspiracy "...against health, beauty, whatever has turned out well, courage, intellect, goodness of the soul, against life itself."[69] He considered Christianity to be a curse and a corruption.

[Stevil]

If a person puts a gun against your head and demand you give them your wallet.
If you want to live, to survive then the "right" thing to do would be to give them your wallet. Would this be deemed as the moral thing to do?

[pytheas]

If a person puts a gun against your head and demand you give them your wallet.
If you want to live, to survive then the "right" thing to do would be to give them your wallet. Would this be deemed as the moral thing to do?

that is easy, normal thing to do, nothing with morality. fear of survival, anxiety-enhanced perception, ( or panic) weighing your odds and following suit. Really nothing to do with morality.

If a person puts a gun against someone else's head and demand you give them your wallet.
(as governments often do)

Now we start to approach questions of "morality"
-endager to disarm him?
-happily give him your wallet?
-cheer on for the shooting, you keep your wallet?
-something else?

let me put it this way, as long as we are not in a basal level of extreme anxiety, survival, war in the open field, morality can form, and it does so  in certain similar-or-equivalent fashions. It is applicable in situations that are not self-life-threatening.
morality is a prerequisite for good living, "better" living as some would like it.
pointing guns on people's heads and spraying neuronal jellies on wallpapers is not good living.

choices need to have a viable prospect for morality to claim the choosing. you can go eitherway and survive but how do you feel about it eitherway. The quick and the dead as far as choices go is like a flawed statistic test

[Stevil]

that is easy, normal thing to do, nothing with morality. fear of survival, anxiety-enhanced perception, ( or panic) weighing your odds and following suit. Really nothing to do with morality.

This is contradictory to this

As for stevil's remark (wanting safety-etc) it can form the basis of the most enduring type of morality being rooted and feeding from cold reason, cool logic and correspondant verification

As far as I am concerned, I want to survive, and I want not to be oppressed.
If I break the law, I will become oppressed in prison.
If I try to kill someone, they will try to kill me back or their loved ones will try to kill me or society will try to kill me, so I am forced to behave (at gun point, so to speak)
If I see a group become oppressed by another group e.g. homosexuals getting oppressed by Christians, then I know I must support the homosexuals. Otherwise, eventually there will be war which will endanger my life, or the Christians at some point will want to oppress me.

For Christian's that are doing good deeds, e.g. for charities etc, they are doing this so that they themselves will go to heaven and avoid eternal damnation. They too have a gun against their heads. When they do "good deeds" they tend to evangalise at the same time, this shows their true intention. They don't just want to do good deeds for the sake of helping others.

Morality is a human made up concept. If you break everything down you get the drive of survival.