Morals....

[Stevil]

I've harped on about this many times, so am getting reluctant to keep repeating myself. Of course it is just my personal opinion, but

We can dress any decision making process up in the clothes of morality. This attire conceals the naked truth of decisions.

There is no such thing as right and wrong in and of itself. Actions have direct consequences and secondary consequences, if you have a specific goal in mind and your action helps to achieve that goal and you are willing to invoke all the consequences of your actions then it seems at that point in time, in that specific instance, you have deemed that as the right decision to make. From another person's perspective, your decision (your action) is not moral nor immoral it is simply an action that you have made based on your own decision making process.
If the others deem that your actions are dangerous to themselves or their society then they might choose to oppose you, possibly by force. Their reaction is not because you have made an immoral action but because your action was dangerous to them, they are not guardians of morality, they are fighting for their own survival.

[ablprop]

I'm not sure that "morality" and "fighting for their own survival" are necessarily different. It seems to me that the concept of morality only works where communication among beings is possible. Survival is a difficult business, but if I can use communication to enhance my survival then I've improved my situation.

Logical thinking is necessary for things like science and engineering to take hold, but logical thinking has great reach. It stretches into my dealings with other communicative creatures. If I can convince you not to harm me because harming me is bad, then by logical extension I should not be harming you because harming you must be bad, too. If A equals B then B must equal A.

Steven Pinker has a great deal to say about the evolution of morality in The Better Angels of Our Nature. Amazing book. As Pinker argues, there is clear evidence that our world is more moral today than in the past. Think of what we've done away with, or nearly so. Witch burnings. Institutionalized slavery. Routine, state-sanctioned torture. Jim Crow laws. Logical thinking and the scientific revolution are making us more moral creatures.

Of course it's about self-preservation. I would argue, though, that the definition of "self" has expanded with the development of our society. We recognize that other people are more valuable to us alive, free, and happy than dead, enslaved, or tortured.

[Stevil]

I'm not sure that "morality" and "fighting for their own survival" are necessarily different.

Well, the problem is that not everybody has the same perception as you.
Some people think it is their place to ensure immoral actions are not part of society, even if those actions have nothing to do with "fighting for their own survival".
Why do you think some Christians are hell bent on stopping gay people from marrying? It clearly doesn't put their own lives or society in danger. Same thing goes for prostitution, or stem cell research.

If you stick to the ambiguous concept of morality, then you have no place to argue when your government makes laws based on moral grounds.
If witches are deemed as immoral, and burning them is deemed as moral, then who are you to argue otherwise. All you can argue is that "my morality is better than your morality" which is a stalemate unless one of you is in a power position and then it is authoritarian rule.

BTW, there are many old foggies that think our current times are much more immoral than when they were young.

[ablprop]

As our reasoning and explanations get better, our conception of morality improves. A big part of that improved conception is the idea that I should be allowed to do what I want as long as I'm not hurting others. I think it comes back to that logical argument again. No one wants others to tell them what to do, and if I'm thinking intelligently and logically I see that such an argument must cut both ways. If A equals B then B must equal A.

We're certainly not anywhere near there yet, and the examples you mention are the evidence. However, we're a lot further along than we were, say, sixty years ago. Gay marriage clearly is coming, just as interracial marriage came to pass over the past sixty years. Despite temporary setbacks, history shows that the conservatives are always wrong, and in the end they always lose these arguments.

You're right that there are plenty of people that argue how immoral our times are today. Their arguments just don't stand up. No public figure today, no matter how right wing, could get away with arguing for segregation, public lynching, witch burning, and so on. Things that were once almost completely accepted (slavery, for instance) are now almost universally condemned. People who don't buy this argument should read both Pinker and Deutsch. We are more moral creatures today than we've been at any time in recorded history.

[Stevil]

As our reasoning and explanations get better, our conception of morality improves.

Morality is not about reasoning or explanations, it is about knowing what is right and what is wrong, as if we have a sixth sense and can tap into a magical knowledge of cosmic right and wrong, or maybe it is a genetic right and wrong hence subjective but still just a right and wrong without the requirement of reasoning.

A big part of that improved conception is the idea that I should be allowed to do what I want as long as I'm not hurting others.

This highlights my point more than yours. The improvements have been due to descoping actions from the immoral classification. Making those actions neutral rather than immoral.

I think it comes back to that logical argument again. No one wants others to tell them what to do, and if I'm thinking intelligently and logically I see that such an argument must cut both ways. If A equals B then B must equal A.

Yep, so stop judging actions as right and wrong, moral and immoral. Simply let people do what they want to, as long as it poses no danger to others or society.

Gay marriage clearly is coming, just as interracial marriage came to pass over the past sixty years. Despite temporary setbacks, history shows that the conservatives are always wrong, and in the end they always lose these arguments.

Again, the solution is to descope the immoral concept. Slowly and surely we are eroding morality belief and our societies are becoming less oppressive.

You're right that there are plenty of people that argue how immoral our times are today. Their arguments just don't stand up. ...We are more moral creatures today than we've been at any time in recorded history.

We all like to think we are right, and that others are wrong. We look at past eras and say they were wrong, they look at us and say we are wrong.

[ablprop]

I'm carefully looking at your words to understand exactly what you're saying. I hope I'm not taking anything out of context.

"There is no such thing as right and wrong in and of itself." I agree.

"Some people help others because:
- that is the type of society they want to live in and they realise that such a society will benefit themselves in the long run." Again, I agree.

"If the others deem that your actions are dangerous to themselves or their society then they might choose to oppose you, possibly by force." Certainly true. This, in fact, is a pretty good definition of "society."

"If witches are deemed as immoral, and burning them is deemed as moral, then who are you to argue otherwise." This is where we part company. We ended witch burning not by convincing people to go ahead and let witches be witches. We did it via the Enlightenment view that witchcraft doesn't work. Witches don't sink ships or cause babies to die. Instead of burning witches, we learn to build better ships and cure or prevent disease. My argument with those who burn witches isn't that my morals are better than theirs; it's that my explanations are better.

"Simply let people do what they want to, as long as it poses no danger to others or society." Surely you see that this in itself is a moral stance? (a very good one.) You value freedom, individual expression, and the pursuit of happiness. Think how rare such a stance has been in the history of the world! These are values that came from the Enlightenment realization of the potential of people, armed with good explanations, to understand and thereby improve the world.

However, it is only through the power of good explanations that we can know whether a particular action poses a danger to others. Good explanations show that things like witchcraft, gay marriage, and heresy are harmless. Good explanations also show that firing missiles from your property, flushing motor oil down your toilet, and owning other human beings are actions that do harm (or are likely to do harm) to other people.

"We all like to think we are right, and that others are wrong. We look at past eras and say they were wrong, they look at us and say we are wrong."
Of course we're wrong. Our knowledge (and this includes our moral knowledge) is always fallible. As David Deutsch says, "We are always at the beginning of infinity." However, good explanations for how the world works show that we are less wrong than those who burned witches, tortured homosexuals, or kept black children out of white schools. All advancement, whether scientific, technological, or moral, is the result of improving our explanations.

I really don't think we're that different in our conception. We both value individual choice, freedom of expression, and a rational view of the world. I think the biggest difference is that you don't like the word "morality." I'm urging that we reclaim that word from those who would use it as a club to enforce their views, views that can be shown to be based on very bad explanations. We have made moral progress, and it's because our explanations have improved.

[Amicale]

*snip only for brevity*

"We all like to think we are right, and that others are wrong. We look at past eras and say they were wrong, they look at us and say we are wrong."
Of course we're wrong. Our knowledge (and this includes our moral knowledge) is always fallible. As David Deutsch says, "We are always at the beginning of infinity." However, good explanations for how the world works show that we are less wrong than those who burned witches, tortured homosexuals, or kept black children out of white schools. All advancement, whether scientific, technological, or moral, is the result of improving our explanations.

Very good post.

I singled out this bit because I think it's definitely true that we have better explanations; it's just as true that our explanations will certainly change over time, and will hopefully improve, the more knowledge and understanding we acquire. That quote about being at the beginning of infinity is an interesting one! It reminds us of how little we know, and of how much we still have to learn.

I think people in every era of time have always assumed that their society is at the 'height' of humanity; they assume their ways are best, and the most advanced, and that life as they know it is the best there is to be had. In the last few generations, it seems this thinking has really shifted. We know that in terms of progress, there's still a lot more to learn. I'd also argue that there's still a lot to learn in the area of ethics, too. We certainly aren't at our moral/ethical 'height' right now in history, no more than we are at our technological/scientific height. There's lots of room for improvement and discovery.

The fact we are aware of this now is excellent. However, I always try to keep in mind that this way of looking at things is a fairly modern way. In the past, those who burned witches, tortured groups of people they didn't like, etc... they all assumed that what they thought was 'right' would always be right. They weren't open to new understanding, new evidence, and better explanations. They were looking at their culture through a very, very narrow lens.

Unfortunately, some people today still take on this mentality. They cling to past assumptions, and insist on keeping their minds closed. It's more than just a shame. They're cheating themselves of the opportunity to learn.

[ablprop]

If you read The Beginning of Infinity you'll see that I'm just doing my best to spread the meme the author has created there. His major point is that the Enlightenment was a revolution unlike any other, in that it embraced the idea of fallibilism. Rather than replacing one authority with another, as previous revolutions had done, this revolution replaced appeal to authority with appeal to fallible reason, requiring us always to doubt, criticize, and try to improve our ideas.

[Stevil]

My argument with those who burn witches isn't that my morals are better than theirs; it's that my explanations are better.

We are getting somewhere here.
At least you are realising that explanations and reasoning are not morality. If you go to the trouble to think something through and articulate reasoning then you are not simply invoking a moral stand, you are being clear and specific with regards to an expressed goal. This is what I want, I do not what someone to state "you can't do that, that's immoral!"

"Simply let people do what they want to, as long as it poses no danger to others or society." Surely you see that this in itself is a moral stance? (a very good one.)

No, this is not a moral stance. This is a specified goal.
A moral statement would be "It is immoral for people to have homosexual sex", no reasoning, no goal, just a statement bestowing knowledge of right and wrong.

I really don't think we're that different in our conception. We both value individual choice, freedom of expression, and a rational view of the world. I think the biggest difference is that you don't like the word "morality." I'm urging that we reclaim that word...

Morality hides reason and agendas, as long as we keep insisting on use of this word we will continue to have oppression in our society.
Morality is the reason why witches were burned, morality is the reason why it is illegal for gay people to marry, morality is the reason why stem cell research is illegal, why euthanasia is illegal and in some countries why prostitution is illegal. If you remove morality as an excuse then your government will struggle to defend such laws. They will need to articulate their reasons and will find that they cannot in these instances find reasons that society will accept.

[Amicale]

If you read The Beginning of Infinity you'll see that I'm just doing my best to spread the meme the author has created there. His major point is that the Enlightenment was a revolution unlike any other, in that it embraced the idea of fallibilism. Rather than replacing one authority with another, as previous revolutions had done, this revolution replaced appeal to authority with appeal to fallible reason, requiring us always to doubt, criticize, and try to improve our ideas.

[ablprop]

My argument with those who burn witches isn't that my morals are better than theirs; it's that my explanations are better.

We are getting somewhere here.
At least you are realising that explanations and reasoning are not morality. If you go to the trouble to think something through and articulate reasoning then you are not simply invoking a moral stand, you are being clear and specific with regards to an expressed goal. This is what I want, I do not what someone to state "you can't do that, that's immoral!"

Our only quibble is about wording. I think one can reason about things that are generally considered moral questions. You agree, but don't want to call it morality.

I fear, though, that the one statement you've made about what I call morality, "Simply let people do what they want to, as long as it poses no danger to others or society" will not get you through every situation. There are situations where right will conflict with right, and then we need the reasoning tools as a society to come to a moral (there I said it) decision. For instance:

I am an archaeologist and discover some old-looking bones along a riverbank in a state park. You represent people who have lived on the land for millennia, and therefore claim the bones as an ancestor. I want to study the bones to learn more about human evolution and migration. You want to bury the bones as a tribute to those who came before.

I submit to you that we can't decide this case based on the "let people do what they want" credo. We need reasoning, good explanations, and a shared history of conjecture, criticism, and testing to come to a well-reasoned (what I would call moral) decision.

By the way, I picked this example because I predict that you and I will come to the same conclusion, arrived at through a rational picture of how the world works, while others, who don't share that rational view, may well have a different opinion. We can't just tell them that they're wrong and we're right (that would be just as bad as what traditional religious societies do). We have to convince them through good explanations.

My point is that science can speak to traditionally moral issues because the search for good explanations (which is the heart of science) is universal.



Edit: Tweaked quotes - Tank

[Stevil]

Our only quibble is about wording. I think one can reason about things that are generally considered moral questions. You agree, but don't want to call it morality.

Well, no.

I don't worry about whether my actions are moral or not, I don't worry about whether other people are acting morally or not, i don't judge.

Philosophically speaking, I don't want a government to impose rules and then hide behind morality as their reasoning. Again, we cannot argue that one person's morality is better than another's.

I want specific goals, specific reasoning behind legislated restrictions.
I selfishly want to be safe. If something doesn't impact that, they I don't care what others do.

[Amicale]

Our only quibble is about wording. I think one can reason about things that are generally considered moral questions. You agree, but don't want to call it morality.

Well, no.

I don't worry about whether my actions are moral or not, I don't worry about whether other people are acting morally or not, i don't judge.

Philosophically speaking, I don't want a government to impose rules and then hide behind morality as their reasoning. Again, we cannot argue that one person's morality is better than another's.

I want specific goals, specific reasoning behind legislated restrictions.
I selfishly want to be safe. If something doesn't impact that, they I don't care what others do.

Stevil,

I was just wondering. I certainly understand the desire to be safe. So, what if something did impact that? What if someone didn't want you to be safe, and actively tried to put you or your loved ones in danger? I'm assuming if they really wanted to harm you, then arguments about choosing actions that keep people safe wouldn't be anything that would interest them. When it came down to it, it would be your desire for you/your family to be safe, over their desire to harm you.

If in your worldview there's no such thing as morality, no such thing as right or wrong... how would you argue against them harming you or your family? What would you say to the authorities, with regards to protecting you or your family?

"It's wrong to want to hurt us", "please protect my family because they deserve to be safe", etc and arguments like it don't seem to fit with morality not existing. If it doesn't exist, then it's not wrong to put you in harm's way -- it's just someone's preference over yours. And nobody would 'deserve' safety, because on what basis does anyone deserve anything? Only if morality exists could someone deserve something.

I'll be interested to see how you'd tackle the problem.

[Stevil]

If in your worldview there's no such thing as morality, no such thing as right or wrong... how would you argue against them harming you or your family? What would you say to the authorities, with regards to protecting you or your family?

"It's wrong to want to hurt us", "please protect my family because they deserve to be safe", etc and arguments like it don't seem to fit with morality not existing. If it doesn't exist, then it's not wrong to put you in harm's way -- it's just someone's preference over yours. And nobody would 'deserve' safety, because on what basis does anyone deserve anything? Only if morality exists could someone deserve something.

I'll be interested to see how you'd tackle the problem.

I don't see this as a morality problem, maybe coincidently it looks like a morality to you, but then again it might look like Christian morality to a Christian, they might then suggest that you are acting like a good Christian.

Anyway,
Let's look at the individual and society aspects of wanting to survive.

Without any rules, no law, no cohesive society, you are basically on your own, to fend for yourself and to protect yourself.
If you have something that someone else wants, and they are bigger, stronger and faster than you then they will probably take it from you since they are also fending for themselves, remember in this hypothetical that there is no sense of society.
They might even use you for sex or as a slave, you are simply a resource and if they can dominate you they will. There is no sense of morality, unless you have been taught to behave a certain way, you will fend for yourself. (I understand that today's people kid themselves into believing that they are Good people and that they act morally because they are Good).

Now, in this hypothetical, the "smart" individuals band together to form a group for mutual protection. They make a pact that certain behaviors are unacceptable and that they will protect each other from outside people whom break certain rules e.g. rape, murder, theft, slavery etc. These rules, this alliance is based on survival, not some moral code, however depending on the individuals they might agree on excess rules to form some sort of morality, e.g. they might not like it if people behave rudely or they might not like people of a certain race or religion.

But a small group is vulnerable to larger, more powerful groups. So the bigger the group, the safer you are, but also the bigger the group the more accommodating the rules must be. If your group includes people of different races then you can't have racist rules, you can't makes slaves of certain races, you need to accommodate different religions and different cultures. The important thing about a lager group is that it must remove the unimportant rules and must stick to the survival ones, so slowly any "morality" is eroded away to exactly equal the bare minimum rules needed for survival. You could have got there much quicker if you removed the insistence on a moral society and simply realized that the importance is survival rather than morality.

Morality is an insistence that actions are good and bad, it hides reasoning and it allows oppression on a whim. We don't need morality, we only need inclusive rules for survival, otherwise let society members live their lives however they please.

[The Black Jester]

Stevil,

I have been following your explorations of the moral question with great interest.  You give eloquent voice to an instinct I have had for some time that a proper investigation of such questions would center on specific instances of behavior, and the consequences thereof, with reference to clearly specified, mutually agreed-upon goals.   Framing things in this way promises actual progress.   Further, it promises to illuminate both what is essential and what is inconsequential to actual daily living.

I fear, however, that there is a deep instinct on the part of many people that decisions based upon 'mere' calculations of mutual survival are somehow not binding enough, or far ranging enough.  With respect to the former, they want some extra-special sauce on top of their, or more to the point, other people's promises not to engage in certain behaviors, just to make sure that everyone's really serious.  As for the latter, a 'live and let live' philosophy will hardly do for many, since they have deeply entrenched instincts that those other guys are truly screwy in ways that aren't captured by the calculus of survival, and they desperately don't want those instincts dissected in any real way.

But I think your project is a worthwhile one, nevertheless...