moral system(s)

[tor]

Those are core human drives, not merely goals. These drives exist in all of us objectively. They are not merely chosen to achieve, they are existential. When someone flicks their hand at your face, you blink. It’s not a choice you make. It’s core existential programming.

You can practice subjective moral systems that would be valid for certain ends, but they become useless once you are faced with objective existential issues. Then s4!t gets real.

They can be valid for certain ends, but they are probably subjective ends if they don’t service existential issues.

An authority isn’t required to experience our existential reality. Again, that’s core existential programming. But an authority may be required to negotiate its transactions in some instances.

I disagree that moral systems become useless in certain situations. Moral systems are still in effect, even when s4!t gets real. For example, a moral system with a goal of non-violence may actively fight instinctual need to feed if food was only available through violence.

That said, a person may choose to change their moral system in the face of adversity. For example, the goal of non-violence may change to a goal of survival. Or the person may keep their original moral system's goals of non-violence and starve to death.

 

[tor]

I still don’t understand why you think you would need an authority to converge on a basis of origin for moral values. Can you elaborate on why it would be necessary to have a council telling us what we all already know about ourselves? We all want to live. We all want to survive. Sure we can choose subjective methods to accomplish that, but in the end they converge on objective existential realities.

You can definitely make generalizations. For example, at a particular timestamp, humans tend to have moral systems that value XYZ. No issues there.

Without a moral authority, I don't think the moral system with goals of XYZ (or any moral system) can be the objectively correct moral system. Everyone has an opinion on which moral system is correct, but there isn't an objectively correct moral system.

I believe it's also incorrect to say all humans have a goal of XYZ in their moral system. Not everyone wants to live, not everyone wants to survive; not everyone wants XYZ. Taking this a step further, even if we had the case where all humans had the same moral system, does that make it objectively correct? I don't think that it does.

What could determine if a moral system is objectively correct? First we need to determine if objective moral truths are possible. Then we'd need to figure out who/what decides objective moral truths. My belief is objective moral truths are not a thing.

 

[5wize]

I disagree that moral systems become useless in certain situations. Moral systems are still in effect, even when s4!t gets real.

O.K. We can drop that. A certain modicum of subjective civility is always useful, even when the s4!t hits the fan. I agree with that.

For example, a moral system with a goal of non-violence may actively fight instinctual need to feed if food was only available through violence.

That’s what I’m getting at. Morals are all transactional between parties. You cannot violate another’s intrinsic drive for self protection to satisfy your self promotion, even if starving, and say that you are expressing an actual “moral” philosophy that includes your own feelings about potentially being violated in the future. It’s a contradiction, and therefor a “back to the drawing board” moment on a subjective morality that says you can violate, but not be violated.

That said, a person may choose to change their moral system in the face of adversity. For example, the goal of non-violence may change to a goal of survival. Or the person may keep their original moral system's goals of non-violence and starve to death.

But you are being too short sighted here. You assume that the person without need wants to constantly live in a paradigm where they are threatened by people in need. Sooner or later your own safety becomes a matter of making sure there is less desperation around you wielding pitchforks and torches at your gate. Then you actually comply with your own need for self protection by giving what you can to keep desperation in your environment at bay. At that point we converge on an objective existential morality that includes all people's common and objective intrinsic drives.

 

[5wize]

---

 

[5wize]

You can definitely make generalizations. For example, at a particular timestamp, humans tend to have moral systems that value XYZ. No issues there.

Without a moral authority, I don't think the moral system with goals of XYZ (or any moral system) can be the objectively correct moral system. Everyone has an opinion on which moral system is correct, but there isn't an objectively correct moral system.

When someone is beating you with a bat your opinions about your subjective moral rights granted by an authority are not part of your objective defense mechanism

I believe it's also incorrect to say all humans have a goal of XYZ in their moral system. Not everyone wants to live, not everyone wants to survive;

Then there is no basis for any moral declarations whether subjective or objective. The very ground you build moral systems upon turns to quicksand we just beat on each other all day because no one recognizes a want to live, in themselves or anybody else.

But those past barbaric paradigms don't seem to last too long... we evolved from that only because we actually do care if we live and survive.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I agree you can define a moral system with the goal of the well-being of conscious creatures. You can also make the argument that this moral system should be the moral system followed by humans.

I disagree with the idea that there is an objectively correct moral system. Are you saying that the moral system with the goal of well-being is the objectively correct moral system? If so, what is your evidence for that? Who or what is the ultimate authority on moral systems?

The authority comes from a combination of the definition of the word morality and empirical evidence as to what enhances well being. Harris makes the point that even though we can’t say whether every thing we can imagine might be healthy or not, we still know that what is healthy is an objective question. And we can say some things are not healthy (having your head cut off, for instance).

Same with morality.

 

[5wize]

The authority comes from a combination of the definition of the word morality and empirical evidence as to what enhances well being. Harris makes the point that even though we can’t say whether every thing we can imagine might be healthy or not, we still know that what is healthy is an objective question. And we can say some things are not healthy (having your head cut off, for instance).

Same with morality.

I listened to the debate (really the interview) between Harris and Alex O’Connor about Harris’s approach to objective morality and its relationship to human well being. It just didn’t seem to hit home for me. I had a problem with it in that I felt the term “well being” subjective. What doesn’t seem subjective to me is a more personal and raw desire just to live and "be" regardless of whether well being is involved in whatever subjective ways that can be pursued once one is left to just “be”.

People that find themselves in abusive situations, such as in a violent prison where they are constant targets of abuse, a situation where their well being isn’t even present, still seem to want to live, even if the situation isn’t promoting well being. They seem to just want a chance at it, someday, maybe later.

Harris just didn't get down to the rawness of it for me.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I listened to the debate (really the interview) between Harris and Alex O’Connor about Harris’s approach to objective morality and its relationship to human well being. It just didn’t seem to hit home for me. I had a problem with it in that I felt the term “well being” subjective. What doesn’t seem subjective to me is a more personal and raw desire just to live and "be" regardless of whether well being is involved in whatever subjective ways that can be pursued once one is left to just “be”.

OK, would you agree that *some* aspects of well-being would apply universally and objectively, like not having your head chopped off? So, if someone chops off your head (we can even specify, without your permission, although we really don't need to), that is immoral because it harmed your well-being.

People that find themselves in abusive situations, such as in a violent prison where they are constant targets of abuse, a situation where their well being isn’t even present, still seem to want to live, even if the situation isn’t promoting well being. They seem to just want a chance at it, someday, maybe later.

I don't see that as an argument that well-being is subjective, nor that it can't define what morality is. Is that where you were trying to do, or was it something else?

Harris just didn't get down to the rawness of it for me.

What rawness?

 

[5wize]

OK, would you agree that *some* aspects of well-being would apply universally and objectively, like not having your head chopped off?

Yes.

So, if someone chops off your head (we can even specify, without your permission, although we really don't need to), that is immoral because it harmed your well-being.

Yes.

I don't see that as an argument that well-being is subjective, nor that it can't define what morality is. Is that where you were trying to do, or was it something else?

It just seems that well being is too broad a term to get to objectivity as well is a qualitative term. Qualitative terms can be subjective in many of its aspects, but as you point out above, not all aspects. Just take the word “well” out and you have “being”. I would still be able to answer yes to both questions you asked above, but wouldn’t have to then explain the subjective potential of what well means to me.

What rawness?

The rawness of being without adorning it with qualitative terms like well. Whether it’s well or not, we still seem to quite strongly want to just be.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Yes.

Yes.

It just seems that “well being” is too broad a term as well as qualitative, which can be subjective in many of its aspects. Just take the word “well” out and you have “being”. I would still be able to answer yes to both questions you asked above, but wouldn’t have to then explain what “well” means to me.

Wouldn't you agree that you can make the same argument about the term and concept of health (in terms of medicine), yet that has not stopped us from using the term and applying the concept fruitfully.

The rawness of being without adorning it with qualitative terms like well.

Ah, I see.

 

[tor]

O.K. We can drop that. A certain modicum of subjective civility is always useful, even when the s4!t hits the fan. I agree with that.

That’s what I’m getting at. Morals are all transactional between parties. You cannot violate another’s intrinsic drive for self protection to satisfy your self promotion, even if starving, and say that you are expressing an actual “moral” philosophy that includes your own feelings about potentially being violated in the future. It’s a contradiction, and therefor a “back to the drawing board” moment on a subjective morality that says you can violate, but not be violated.

But you are being too short sighted here. You assume that the person without need wants to constantly live in a paradigm where they are threatened by people in need. Sooner or later your own safety becomes a matter of making sure there is less desperation around you wielding pitchforks and torches at your gate. Then you actually comply with your own need for self protection by giving what you can to keep desperation in your environment at bay. At that point we converge on an objective existential morality that includes all people's common and objective intrinsic drives.

It seems like there are moral systems with goals that categorize violations of others as good and violations of self as bad. Can you explain more why you think that is a "back to the drawing board" moment?

I think you're right that people tend to change their moral system's goals as their life's situation changes. The same life situation may lead people to have similar goals in their moral systems. My point is that there are many different moral systems that people arrive at, and that there is no objectively correct moral system.

 

[5wize]

Wouldn't you agree that you can make the same argument about the term and concept of health (in terms of medicine), yet that has not stopped us from using the term and applying the concept fruitfully.

Yes. Some health issues are an existential issue related to whether you are going to continue just “being”. Other health issues are not and they deal with more subjective wellness issues, like my extra 20 pounds or my creaky knees because I don’t hydrate enough.

 

[tor]

When someone is beating you with a bat your opinions about your subjective moral rights granted by an authority are not part of your objective defense mechanism

Then there is no basis for any moral declarations whether subjective or objective. The very ground you build moral systems upon turns to quicksand we just beat on each other all day because no one recognizes a want to live, in themselves or anybody else.

But those past barbaric paradigms don't seem to last too long... we evolved from that only because we actually do care if we live and survive.

I think how you defend yourself is based on your moral system. If your moral system categorizes killing as evil no matter what, then you won't purposefully kill, even to defend yourself. If you do end up purposefully killing, then you've changed your moral system such it classifies killing as good in the situation in which you killed someone.

There are many different basis for moral declarations, but no basis is objectively better than the other. By basis, I mean a moral system's goal(s). I don't see this as a bad thing, instead it's a great equalizer. No moral system is better than another objectively, instead each has to stand on its own merits.

 

[5wize]

It seems like there are moral systems with goals that categorize violations of others as good and violations of self as bad. Can you explain more why you think that is a "back to the drawing board" moment?

Because true moral systems cannot be inconsistent in that they allow you to perpetrate on others what you will not have perpetrated onto you. Sounding familiar?

I think you're right that people tend to change their moral system's goals as their life's situation changes. The same life situation may lead people to have similar goals in their moral systems. My point is that there are many different moral systems that people arrive at, and that there is no objectively correct moral system.

I agree that there may be many useful subjective moral systems, but I believe they serve a very quintessential objective moral system at the core of our beings.

 

[tor]

The authority comes from a combination of the definition of the word morality and empirical evidence as to what enhances well being. Harris makes the point that even though we can’t say whether every thing we can imagine might be healthy or not, we still know that what is healthy is an objective question. And we can say some things are not healthy (having your head cut off, for instance).

Same with morality.

Are you saying morality objectively refers to well-being? In other words, no matter what people think about morality, well-being is the only measure of it. If so, who decided morality refers to well-being? Why do they get to decide?

I fully agree that if you decide your moral system's goal is well-being, then we can figure out which actions objectively contribute to well-being. However, I don't see well-being as the only goal available for moral systems. Is a moral system with a goal of increasing net worth at the cost of well-being not a valid moral system? If not, why not? If it is, then morality cannot be defined to only refer to well-being.

 

[tor]

Because true moral systems cannot be inconsistent in that they allow you to perpetrate on others what you will not have perpetrated onto you. Sounding familiar?

I agree that there may be many useful subjective moral systems, but I believe they serve a very quintessential objective moral system at the core of our beings.

Wait, what is a true moral system as opposed to an untrue moral system? Where did that requirement come from? Moral systems simply help categorize actions as evil or good based on how well those actions help to achieve particular goal(s).

Where do you get your definition for the quintessential objective moral system you mention? From your previous posts, it feels like one of this moral system's goals is survival. Is that right? Do you believe there are there other goals for that objective moral system?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Yes. Some health issues are an existential issue related to whether you are going to continue just “being”. Other health issues are not and they deal with more subjective wellness issues, like my extra 20 pounds or my creaky knees because I don’t hydrate enough.

I don't see why whether something is an existential issue or not has anything to do with the usefulness and internal logic of the concepts of health as well as morality, which can be defined as the well-being of conscious creatures.

Also, having an extra 20 pounds is objectively not ideal for your health, it's not a subjective thing. Now, at some point, having a small amount of extra pounds is unlikely to make a difference in your health, but that's objective and not subjective, too. And, having a lot of extra pounds is objectively poor for your health. So what's the issue here?

 

[5wize]

Wait, what is a true moral system as opposed to an untrue moral system? Where did that requirement come from?

Moral systems simply help categorize actions as evil or good based on how well those actions help to achieve particular goal(s).

Then Hitler was moral.

Is a moral system truly moral if it's an unbalanced one way transactional morality like Hitler or that you outlined before that allowed slaves, pedophilia, and gender subjugation, truly humanly moral just because it's culturally normative? You called it moral. Was it, really, truly?

 

[5wize]

I don't see why whether something is an existential issue or not has anything to do with the usefulness and internal logic of the concepts of health as well as morality, which can be defined as the well-being of conscious creatures.

Also, having an extra 20 pounds is objectively not ideal for your health, it's not a subjective thing. Now, at some point, having a small amount of extra pounds is unlikely to make a difference in your health, but that's objective and not subjective, too. And, having a lot of extra pounds is objectively poor for your health. So what's the issue here?

Yeah. The introduction of health into it sounds like a red herring to me too now.

 

[tor]

Then Hitler was moral.

Is a moral system truly moral if it isn’t moral? Is an unbalanced one way transactional morality like you outlined before that allowed slaves, pedophilia, and gender subjugation truly humanly moral just because it's culturally normative? You called it moral. Was it, really, truly?

This is central point to my beliefs. Categorizing an action as good or evil can only be done with respect to a particular moral system.

Hitler was immoral according to my moral system, but he would most likely see his actions as moral based on his moral system. Which moral system is objectively correct?! Neither. There is no moral authority, so in the end, each person has to decide for themselves which moral system to follow based on the merits of the moral systems.