Discussion on morality

[Revo]

I remember we had a thread like this on the previous board, and I'd like to bring it back. My own worldviews have been going through constant change over the past few years, so I enjoy engaging in these discussions and seeing where they lead me next. I also remember having a discussion with Pntball about the moral value of humans vs. animals before it got cut short, which I'd be happy to continue . Although my views have been refined somewhat even since then.

So basically the point is to share views on morality. This is not supposed to be a theistic debate, although I acknowladge that some of those aspects will probably be impossible to avoid. Discuss differences, similarities, dilemmas, contradictions, values etc. in a respectable manner. You know, get a good conversation rolling. No one should be left feeling like their views are being attacked. Any differences in opinion can be presented as polite questions or points without calling anyone an ignoramus, so that everyone gets the most out of the whole debate experience.
(Don't be a d*ck, is what I'm saying..)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

To start things off, I'll present my own view on morality as of now. As I said, it's been under constant change. Right now my views are pretty close those that Sam Harris outlines in "The Moral Landscape". And that is that morality has to do explicitly with the well-being of conscious creatures.
Although he calls it moral objectivism, which I don't think it is. The way I see it the most general possible source you could find for any morality would be our nature and the way we as humans experience consciousness. Any possible moral truth out there is still subject to the fact that our consciousness is such that we value happiness and disvalue suffering, which is not an absolute fact. This is just a result of how our consciousness has evolved within the organism we call "life" on Earth. So I don't think such a thing as objective morality outside our conscious minds could ever exist.

However, although I support moral subjectivism on that front, I don't support moral relativism. That is to say I do think there are right and wrong answers to all moral dilemmas, given the basic assumption that morality has to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. Well-being is something that can be measured with scientific facts. This is true even though we don't have an all-encompassing definition of "well-being". For analogy, just because because there is no ultimate definition of "health", that doesn't mean we can't make clear decisions of what is healthy and what is not. Similar to how there still isn't a really good definition of "life", yet we still have the thriving science of biology based around it. A science which is based purely on facts.

So to not write a huge big wall of text explaining my whole current view in detail, I'll summarize here. And maybe leaving my explanation a bit open ended might catalyse the discussion forward a bit.. I'll bring up other points as they become necessary. But in short:
There are such things as right and wrong opinions on moral values, but I don't concede that there is anything outside our minds asserting these moral values.

Discuss away!

[saitenyo]

It sounds like we share similar opinions on the subject, although I don't think I've thought mine through quite as thoroughly. I have some very strong moral opinions on a number of subjects. Like you, I acknowledge the subjectivity of morality, and my morals aren't taken from a specific religion or any other organized system. To some degree I assume they are a product of my culture and upbringing, but I also feel there are some moral notions that can be more objectively recognized, as you said.

The fundamental basis of my moral beliefs takes the form of a question: "How does this action affect others?" That is the question I ask myself when determining whether or not I think something is right or wrong.

Obviously there can be grey area, and some of it is probably a spectrum. It is easier to determine the positive or negative affects of an action in some situations. More clear moral answers are attached to more drastic effects, for example: killing someone is the absolute most significant way you could negatively affect someone else's life (by removing that life from them, and therefore all benefits of life and choice) so according to my moral views, murder would be one of the most immoral actions one could commit. That's one of the easier, more extreme examples. I feel there are situations where it's hard to judge what's morally right or wrong where the consequences and their pros and cons are less clear. But that's the general gist of my moral code.

[Juniper]

I differ from you both in that ascribe to an objective moral reality -- there exists an objective right and an objective wrong for at least some situations. We can try to identify what the right and wrong is, and we can be correct or incorrect in our conclusion, but our conclusion does not change rightness or wrongness. Revo, I am well aware that you disagree.

All objective moral realities necessitate a moral authority -- I'm closest to a Modified Divine Command Theory, as per Adams.

[Revo]

I differ from you both in that ascribe to an objective moral reality -- there exists an objective right and an objective wrong for at least some situations. We can try to identify what the right and wrong is, and we can be correct or incorrect in our conclusion, but our conclusion does not change rightness or wrongness. Revo, I am well aware that you disagree.

Actually I don't disagree at all with the part I bolded out. Since our last discussion (and partly as a result of it) I have organized and rearranged my position considerably. I feel somewhat trivial about whether my views would be called objective or subjective... It's the content that counts rather than the label, and my view has a lot more in common with the traditional sense of objective morality. As I mentioned, Harris himself calls his model a model for objective morality. The only reason I'd rather call it subjective is on a technicality. The content is the same.

[Juniper]

Actually I don't disagree at all with the part I bolded out. Since our last discussion (and partly as a result of it) I have organized and rearranged my position considerably. I feel somewhat trivial about whether my views would be called objective or subjective... It's the content that counts rather than the label, and my view has a lot more in common with the traditional sense of objective morality.

Then we can move forward with our discussion

[saitenyo]

This is actually one of those subjects I have a great deal of trouble actually debating, since I am an agnostic. According to my personal beliefs, one cannot know nor prove with certainty whether or not there is a deity (or divine moral authority). The best I can do is say, "I do not believe the same thing," but I cannot prove that my viewpoint is correct nor disprove yours.

My stance on it is basically, "This is what makes the most sense to me, but I cannot come to a definitive conclusion without more evidence," so as far as morality goes, I guess I follow the same principle. I do not know if there is a true "right" or "wrong" so the best I can do is use the available evidence to come to the best conclusions I can about it. In my case: trying to discern right or wrong based on how others are affected by specific actions.

[Revo]

My stance on it is basically, "This is what makes the most sense to me, but I cannot come to a definitive conclusion without more evidence," so as far as morality goes, I guess I follow the same principle. I do not know if there is a true "right" or "wrong" so the best I can do is use the available evidence to come to the best conclusions I can about it. In my case: trying to discern right or wrong based on how others are affected by specific actions.

But by admitting that moral questions can infact be evaluated with evidence and reason, are you not also submitting that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions?

To any particular moral problem there is a finite amount of answers, and thus a finite number of results. All of these results fall into one of three categories in the long term:
1) The net well-being has increased (Or in your words: The overall effect has been positive)
2) The net well-being has decreased (The overall effect has been negative)
3) The net well-being has not changed (The overall effect has been insignificant)

Even if we aren't capable of foreseeing the full consequences of our choices, the truth is that some choices will be better than others. Would you agree?

[saitenyo]

But by admitting that moral questions can infact be evaluated with evidence and reason, are you not also submitting that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions?

There are right and wrong answers from my own perspective. As for whether or not there are right and wrong answers from a purely objective or divine perspective, that I cannot answer. I don't think we have enough information about life/the universe to answer that question.

To any particular moral problem there is a finite amount of answers, and thus a finite number of results. All of these results fall into one of three categories in the long term:
1) The net well-being has increased (Or in your words: The overall effect has been positive)
2) The net well-being has decreased (The overall effect has been negative)
3) The net well-being has not changed (The overall effect has been insignificant)

Even if we aren't capable of foreseeing the full consequences of our choices, the truth is that some choices will be better than others. Would you agree?

I do agree, yes. Like I said, I maintain, from my personal perspective, that there are definitive right or wrong answers if morality is based on how the well-being of others has been affected. I think that is something we can judge based on available evidence. I just meant that we have no way of knowing whether or not there truly is a divine moral code of right and wrong, beyond simply judging cause and effect.

[Revo]

There are right and wrong answers from my own perspective. As for whether or not there are right and wrong answers from a purely objective or divine perspective, that I cannot answer. I don't think we have enough information about life/the universe to answer that question.


I do agree, yes. Like I said, I maintain, from my personal perspective, that there are definitive right or wrong answers if morality is based on how the well-being of others has been affected. I think that is something we can judge based on available evidence. I just meant that we have no way of knowing whether or not there truly is a divine moral code of right and wrong, beyond simply judging cause and effect.

Even if there was a God out there with his self-proclaimed perfect moral code, what would that change? Would we be obligated to follow that code? Why? We as conscious beings are perfectly justified in evaluating the morality of other conscious beings without any guidance from some mystical objective authority "out there".
Any divine moral code would also fall under the umbrella of moral claims we are free to evaluate and critique based on evidence.

And why would a moral code created by a God (=assumably an immaterial conscious entity outside time and temporal experiences) apply to humans (=material, capable of experiencing physical interaction) in the first place? It's not clear that a God would have the same goals of well-being as we do.

[saitenyo]

Even if there was a God out there with his self-proclaimed perfect moral code, what would that change? Would we be obligated to follow that code? Why? We as conscious beings are perfectly justified in evaluating the morality of other conscious beings without any guidance from some mystical objective authority "out there".
Any divine moral code would also fall under the umbrella of moral claims we are free to evaluate and critique based on evidence.

And why would a moral code created by a God (=assumably an immaterial conscious entity outside time and temporal experiences) apply to humans (=material, capable of experiencing physical interaction) in the first place? It's not clear that a God would have the same goals of well-being as we do.

Well, this is all getting into the hypotheticals and technically forcing me to play devil's advocate since it's not actually what I believe. I'm not going to argue in defense of something that I don't personally believe is true. I was just stating that I acknowledge that I cannot empirically prove that it's not true.

[Lweek]

I remember a speach on TED but I don't remember speaker. However he pointed something very interesting. The relativity of good and bad. Our behaviors and moral values are more or less defined by culture. Depends on our very personal intel what we will inherit from our surrounding and what own values we'll set for ourselves. Of course, this might affect our social interaction and put us into isolation or worse we could violate social rules and then take responsibility for it. For example I can't walk naked thru the city no matter I believe that human body is nothing to be ashamed of. Again, there are tribes where everybody walks naked and nobody is affected so there is only reason for dressing .. hygiene. There are oposite opinions from people who believe that even dogs should be dressed because naked animals are disgusting etc. I just used to resign to all this debates because people are usually damn blind. When I ask them to support their opinions by fact and describe reasons their even usually can't or referencing to non objective reasons. You can't change mind of this people because they have to learn thinking logically and consequentially first. Let say I'm tolerant to their opinions as long as it doesn't hurt somebody. But there are topics which are important. For example abortion. I can't see reason why prohibit abortion. There are many good reasons for abortion and all women who want abortion have to consult this with psychologists so if they lasts for abortion even after consultation then there is reason for it. There can be even health issues when medics recommend abortion etc. So if somebody say that God won't this because it is sin ... hello, try again.

[Juniper]

I remember a speach on TED but I don't remember speaker. However he pointed something very interesting. The relativity of good and bad. Our behaviors and moral values are more or less defined by culture. Depends on our very personal intel what we will inherit from our surrounding and what own values we'll set for ourselves. Of course, this might affect our social interaction and put us into isolation or worse we could violate social rules and then take responsibility for it. For example I can't walk naked thru the city no matter I believe that human body is nothing to be ashamed of. Again, there are tribes where everybody walks naked and nobody is affected so there is only reason for dressing .. hygiene. There are oposite opinions from people who believe that even dogs should be dressed because naked animals are disgusting etc. I just used to resign to all this debates because people are usually damn blind. When I ask them to support their opinions by fact and describe reasons their even usually can't or referencing to non objective reasons. You can't change mind of this people because they have to learn thinking logically and consequentially first. Let say I'm tolerant to their opinions as long as it doesn't hurt somebody. But there are topics which are important. For example abortion. I can't see reason why prohibit abortion. There are many good reasons for abortion and all women who want abortion have to consult this with psychologists so if they lasts for abortion even after consultation then there is reason for it. There can be even health issues when medics recommend abortion etc. So if somebody say that God won't this because it is sin ... hello, try again.

Moral relativism is widely disregarded in modern philosophy because it is illogical (truly illogical, not just absurd) -- for more reasons than I can list. But I'll try to sum up one of the main problems, realizing that I'll probably butcher it a bit:

Relativism demands tolerance of opposing moral choices because there exists no right or wrong, just opinions on right and wrong. Tolerance is itself morally relevant (it is a moral choice), and therefore relativism cannot demand tolerance -- intolerance of opposing moral choices is just as relevant as tolerance of opposing moral choices. Relativism leads to either: admission that absolutely no ethics can exist, which is intellectually and morally apathetic, or it can state that tolerance actually is an objective moral right. If it takes the latter approach, it must demonstrate why tolerance should be an objective right above all other things that are only subjective -- proponents have yet to demonstrate this.

Cultural sensitivity does play a part in ethics. If one society buries their dead and one society burns their dead, that may not be a moral problem. Both societies intend to honor their dead in their own way, and no real harm is being done. If one society wears clothes and the other is naked, that is likely so morally benign that cultural sensitivity applies. Abortion, slavery, capital punishment, etc... do not fall under the umbrella of cultural sensitivity -- a person is potentially being harmed (that is the debate) and the moral dilemma is far too serious to write off as a cultural quirk. Where you draw the line can be fuzzy, but it does not allow for absurdity. Were this not the case, and society truly did set its own moral right and wrong, then all you would need to do is send out a Gallup poll on any moral dilemma. Is abortion wrong? If that society believes that abortion is wrong, then it is wrong. Is slavery acceptable? Well if the majority of society believes that slavery is right, then it is right.

Edit: Relativism is actually completely different from subjectivism, I know I confused Revo last time because I used these interchangeably. Fun fact: Divine Command Theory is the only major subjective moral authority that is also not some form of moral relativism. Modified Divine Command Theory helps a bit with the subjective part because of how it defines right and wrong (there are two definitions -- a God right and an absolute right). In practice, since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, these two definitions always reach the same moral conclusion. In theory, and only in theory, if a g-d were to command someone to sin, and then it would still be wrong.

[shadowland]

I have my little set of morals, but they're kinda complex, a bit too complex to describe clearly but this encapsulates a considerable segment of my outlook on morality.