moral system(s)

[Bob Carabbio]

I'm looking for some guidance on morality.

Morals are "human social inventions", based on NOTHING except the social majority opinion in the individual society. The Bible doesn't bother with "Morals". Rather it concentrates on Righteousness, and SIN. Biblical values are ABSOLUTE - being based solidly in God's WORD which is Absolute.

If you don't agree with the Bible, then there IS NO OTHER ABSOLUTE STANDARD.

 

[5wize]

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.

And what is central to my beliefs is that categorizing an action as good or evil has to do with whether it either harms or protects core human realities that are ubiquitous in us all. On top of that, there may be many layered subjective moral systems, but I would categorize their outcomes not as good or evil, just effective or ineffective.

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.

Here’s our disagreement. I say yours was objectively correct because whether you knew it or not, you were practicing a consistency in your moral landscape to issues of equal importance to all humanity, like maintaining one’s life. Hitler didn’t want to die. So why did he think others didn’t care?

 

[Gus Bovona]

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.

I don't see this as an argument against an objective morality based on the well-being of conscious creatures. Did you mean it that way? If so, please explain.

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.

I'm not sure the question I'm answering is how to define a moral system *better* than another/ My goal was to merely define a an objective moral system, and I think Sam Harris did that.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Are you saying morality objectively refers to well-being?

No, it refers to well being by definition. If morality is not defined as the well-being of conscious creatures, what other definition are we using (beyond just offering a synonym, like morality is the good) such that something other than well-being is now part of morality?

In other words, no matter what people think about morality, well-being is the only measure of it.

Yes, by definition.

If so, who decided morality refers to well-being? Why do they get to decide?

Nothing else makes as much sense.

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.

What else do you see, besides well-being (I know I asked that question above).

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.

Nothing else makes as much sense. I mean, we can define a table to be a transportation device that you can drive down the street, but that doesn't make any sense, right?

 

[Caroljeen]

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.

I agree. Moral systems are completely subjective from a naturalist/materialist/physicalist, atheist perspective.

There is no objective moral authority in the naturalist worldview. No absolute justice. No objective good or evil. No hope whatsoever. To say there is, is to deny the implications of your chosen reality.

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." RD

 

[tor]

Morals are "human social inventions", based on NOTHING except the social majority opinion in the individual society. The Bible doesn't bother with "Morals". Rather it concentrates on Righteousness, and SIN. Biblical values are ABSOLUTE - being based solidly in God's WORD which is Absolute.

If you don't agree with the Bible, then there IS NO OTHER ABSOLUTE STANDARD.

Agree! I'm not convinced there is a god and I don't believe there is an absolute standard.

 

[tor]

No, it refers to well being by definition. If morality is not defined as the well-being of conscious creatures, what other definition are we using (beyond just offering a synonym, like morality is the good) such that something other than well-being is now part of morality?


Yes, by definition.


Nothing else makes as much sense.


What else do you see, besides well-being (I know I asked that question above).


Nothing else makes as much sense. I mean, we can define a table to be a transportation device that you can drive down the street, but that doesn't make any sense, right?

My disagreement here is about the definition of morality. I think some words can be defined rigidly, but some cannot. A table can be defined rigidly, but beauty cannot. I think morality is in the same category as beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

You can exchange the word morality for beauty and get the same effect in the questions below:
Where are you getting your definition of morality? Is it based on what you think most people agree with? If so, would your belief in morality change if most people changed their definition to something else? I don't think it would.

 

[Gus Bovona]

My disagreement here is about the definition of morality. I think some words can be defined rigidly, but some cannot. A table can be defined rigidly, but beauty cannot. I think morality is in the same category as beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

You can exchange the word morality for beauty and get the same effect in the questions below:
Where are you getting your definition of morality? Is it based on what you think most people agree with? If so, would your belief in morality change if most people changed their definition to something else? I don't think it would.

My definition of morality is the one that makes sense. What is morality except for the well-being of conscious creatures?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Agree! I'm not convinced there is a god and I don't believe there is an absolute standard.

Then you have nothing.

 

[5wize]

My disagreement here is about the definition of morality. I think some words can be defined rigidly, but some cannot. A table can be defined rigidly, but beauty cannot. I think morality is in the same category as beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.

You can exchange the word morality for beauty and get the same effect in the questions below:
Where are you getting your definition of morality? Is it based on what you think most people agree with? If so, would your belief in morality change if most people changed their definition to something else? I don't think it would.

What you are doing here is interchangeably morphing morality with contract at will for the sake of your argument.. They are not the same, but you are saying that things like contracts, if agreed upon by 2 or more people, become moral systems.

 

[tor]

My definition of morality is the one that makes sense. What is morality except for the well-being of conscious creatures?

I think I understand your perspective. Your moral system has a goal of well-being and that makes sense to you (in fact it's the only moral system that makes sense to you). It may not make sense to other people, but in that case, you don't think they're really talking about morals anymore. Is that correct?

At this point I think we've both acknowledged that there are many moral systems, some which make sense to you, some don't. Some make sense to me and some don't. Now we can continue working on which moral system makes the most sense and why, which I believe is an everlasting discussion. Still worth having though!

 

[tor]

Then you have nothing.

I think it's up for discussion to determine which one of us has false beliefs (if either), but that's for a different thread.

 

[tor]

What you are doing here is interchangeably morphing morality with contract at will for the sake of your argument.. They are not the same, but you are saying that things like contracts, if agreed upon by 2 or more people, become moral systems.

Sorry I don't understand your point here. Can you elaborate?

I believe a moral system is a set of rules to categorize actions on a scale of evil to good. These rules are designed to achieve some goal(s). So a moral system can exist independent of whether anyone uses it. For example, I can create a moral system that has the singular goal of sleeping 15 hours a day. It could be the case that no one uses this moral system, but it is still a valid moral system. I define the morality of a person to be which moral system they currently use. The morality of an action can only be defined with respect to a particular moral system.

A contract is a deal of some sort between 2 or more entities (people, companies, countries, etc). I don't think morality and contract are related.

 

[Tiburon]

Sorry I don't understand your point here. Can you elaborate?

I believe a moral system is a set of rules to categorize actions on a scale of evil to good. These rules are designed to achieve some goal(s). So a moral system can exist independent of whether anyone uses it. For example, I can create a moral system that has the singular goal of sleeping 15 hours a day. It could be the case that no one uses this moral system, but it is still a valid moral system. I define the morality of a person to be which moral system they currently use. The morality of an action can only be defined with respect to a particular moral system.

I'd say the morality of an action is measured by it's being directed toward or away from the goal one has defined. eg: The well-being of conscious creatures
I think it's being judged against a devised "moral system" is more a legalistic evaluation.

 

[tor]

I'd say the morality of an action is measured by it's being directed toward or away from the goal one has defined. eg: The well-being of conscious creatures
I think it's being judged against a devised "moral system" is more a legalistic evaluation.

To me both cases sound very similar. In one case the morality of an action is measured by how well it supports a defined goal. In the other case, morality of an action is measured by how well it supports the defined goal(s) of a moral system. Why does the 2nd case feel different from the first for you?

 

[5wize]

Sorry I don't understand your point here. Can you elaborate?

I believe a moral system is a set of rules to categorize actions on a scale of evil to good. These rules are designed to achieve some goal(s). So a moral system can exist independent of whether anyone uses it. For example, I can create a moral system that has the singular goal of sleeping 15 hours a day. It could be the case that no one uses this moral system, but it is still a valid moral system. I define the morality of a person to be which moral system they currently use. The morality of an action can only be defined with respect to a particular moral system.

A contract is a deal of some sort between 2 or more entities (people, companies, countries, etc). I don't think morality and contract are related.

Moral situations only emerge from interactions, but not all interactions imply moral situations. There are varying degrees of interactions from bumping into someone on the street to simple agreements, to formal contracts. Laws, for example, are not moral systems, they are imperfect social contracts in an attempt to capture objective moral realities.

If agreed upon contracts, even at a macro social level, aren’t attached to objective moral realities, then they don’t really exist in the sphere of a moral system... they are just agreements and contracts. How does one know whether they are acting from an objective moral reality as opposed to merely an amoral agreement or contract? Here’s were it gets real simple and has already been expressed very efficiently:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and Confusius’ addendum.... do not ask others to do for you what you would not do for yourself. These moral observations are alluding to the very furnace of moral objectivity - the potential of personal and real violations of the self that are beyond mere agreements and social contracts.

 

[tor]

Moral situations only emerge from interactions, but not all interactions imply moral situations. There are varying degrees of interactions from bumping into someone on the street to simple agreements, to formal contracts. Laws, for example, are not moral systems, they are imperfect social contracts in an attempt to capture objective moral realities.

If agreed upon contracts, even at a social level, aren’t attached to objective moral realities, then they don’t really exist in the sphere of a moral system... they are just agreements and contracts. How does one know whether they are acting from an objective moral reality as opposed to merely an amoral agreement or contract? Here’s were it gets real simple and has already been expressed very efficiently:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and Confusius’ addendum.... do not ask others to do for you what you would not do for yourself. These moral observations are alluding to the very furnace of moral objectivity - the potential of personal and real violations of the self that are beyond mere agreements and social contracts.

I agree that laws aren't moral systems. Laws describe legality and consequences; they don't categorize actions as good and evil.

I disagree that moral situations only emerge from interactions between people. For example, a moral system could include the goal of staying clean shaven. There are actions supporting this goal that do not require interactions between people.

You describe the objective moral reality as actions that follow the Golden Rule with an addendum. Why is that the objective moral reality? There are many moral systems that don't have those goals or include additional goals. Why is your proposed moral system the objective moral reality and not any of the other moral systems that exist?

I think all moral systems start on equal footing and each person decides which moral system to follow based on their own opinion.

 

[Tiburon]

To me both cases sound very similar. In one case the morality of an action is measured by how well it supports a defined goal. In the other case, morality of an action is measured by how well it supports the defined goal(s) of a moral system. Why does the 2nd case feel different from the first for you?

They are quite similar it just comes down to the point of focus.
The second seems to measure how well an action conforms to the proposed system not how well it supports the goal.
I know it is thought that conforming to the one achieves the other, but sometimes it devolves to evaluating conformity to the process, not to achieving the overall goal.
If that makes sense.

 

[tor]

They are quite similar it just comes down to the point of focus.
The second seems to measure how well an action conforms to the proposed system not how well it supports the goal.
I know it is thought that conforming to the one achieves the other, but sometimes it devolves to evaluating conformity to the process, not to achieving the overall goal.
If that makes sense.

Ah! I think I understand now, thanks for the clarification.

In my view conforming to a moral system and supporting the goal(s) of a moral system are the same. With respect to moral systems, there is no process; there is only the moral system's goal(s) and how well actions achieve those goal(s).

 

[5wize]

I agree that laws aren't moral systems. Laws describe legality and consequences; they don't categorize actions as good and evil.

I disagree that moral situations only emerge from interactions between people. For example, a moral system could include the goal of staying clean shaven.
There are actions supporting this goal that do not require interactions between people.

That’s just a personal decision. There are no moral implications to that. Morality is completely transactional.

You describe the objective moral reality as actions that follow the Golden Rule with an addendum. Why is that the objective moral reality?

Because in them we find the potential of personal and real violations of the self that are beyond mere agreements and social contracts.

There are many moral systems that don't have those goals or include additional goals.

No, there are not. Those are simply amoral agreements or social contracts.

Why is your proposed moral system the objective moral reality and not any of the other moral systems that exist?

Because the others are not attached to violations of the self. They are only attached to violations of indifferent contractual fictions.

I think all moral systems start on equal footing and each person decides which moral system to follow based on their own opinion.

O.K. Try that. Practice a moral system that violates another’s sense of self. Make sure the person is smaller than you, because if he’s bigger than you, then you will feel the reality of the objective moral violation of the other's self in spades.