Morality without Absolute Morality

[partinobodycular]

Isn't the goal to derive morality through reason?

Well that's my goal, and I assume that it's yours and @Bradskii's as well. So as long as each of us stick to reason, and refrain from resorting to ad hominems I'll willingly participate in this discussion. So far so good.

So how was the golden rule determined to be a guiding principle,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I assume that it was derived foremost by empathy and subsequently by reason. It's seemingly based upon the human capacity to empathize with the suffering of others, and in so doing to seek to ease that suffering. The golden rule simply being the simplest and most equitable means of balancing my self-interests against humanity's seemingly inherent desire to do no harm.

I would augment the golden rule however, to include the provision that in keeping with the precept that all men are created equal, any moral authority that I may claim for me or my Gods, I grant to you as well. This is done in the hope that in recognizing the equality of others I temper my desire to judge them.

Then it's just a matter of applying reason. Unfortunately, misapplied, this third step often serves to negate the first two.

... and is it a moral absolute?

The only absolute is that time will be the final arbiter of what lives and what doesn't, and all our claims about morality will either be our redeeming virtue, or an insignificant historical footnote. This being the case, I choose to believe that history will at least remember that I was above all, compassionate.

So there are times when the golden rule is not the appropriate moral principle?

My heart says yes, simply because I've seen the depravity of mankind, and I'm afraid that sometimes even morality must respond in kind. My heart also hopes that it's wrong.

Adaptability is hardly a determinant of moral behavior.

Unfortunately, this is an area where I don't get to be the judge... time does.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Nope. The act is either intrinsically bad or it is not.

I don't think so.

You mean based on their laws, right? More to the point, what do you say? Is rape good?

In general no, when I think about someone getting raped it makes me feel bad and angry. If I witness it I try to stop it. There might be some circumstance where it would be acceptable, I've never been confronted by it yet though.

 

[o_mlly]

I don't think so.

In general no, when I think about someone getting raped it makes me feel bad and angry. If I witness it I try to stop it. There might be some circumstance where it would be acceptable, I've never been confronted by it yet though.

What circumstances would make rape a morally good act?

 

[Bradskii]

Another red herring? Or just the working of a convoluted mind?

A futile attempt by me to explain to you how circumstances change the morality of an act.

 

[Bradskii]

All of this speaks to why you might want to present as meek and mild, but none of them speak to a moral imperative. Simply a fear of retribution/consequences.

The term is 'ought'. Not 'must'. In all circumstances I am not obliged to follow any reason or emotion when I decide what to do in a moral matter. But if I fear the consequences of an act that I may perform then I ought not to do it. That's really a statement that can nnot be argued against. It's the equivalent of a friend (Jimminy Cricket if you like) saying 'Hey, I wouldn't do that if I were you. It's not a good idea. You probqbly won't like the outcome'.

And here you've taken a turn, and seem to be making a category mistake between compliance with external powers and an internal morality. There is no proper reason to comply except with what is being enforced socially which is not a basis for morality.

It is plainly obvious that I don't consider an external power necessary. The reasons to comply I have listed in this ase. Some are emotional, some rational. All are relevant in the decision making process. But the decision to comply with what seems to me to be the morally correct thing to do is mine and mine alone.

And you've presented a series of non-sequitors, and an argument that morality can only come from an external source and a fear of consequences. You haven't established a relationship between descriptive statements and prescriptive ones.

That is a truly bizzare statement. The decision on morality is determined by the conditions. Fear of the consequences was just one. And a valid one at that. The others are equally valid in deciding whether to strike you or not. What would prevent you? Exactly the same reasons that I gave.

If that is not the case, then present yours and we can examine them.

 

[Fervent]

Well that's my goal, and I assume that it's yours and @Bradskii's as well. So as long as each of us stick to reason, and refrain from resorting to ad hominems I'll willingly participate in this discussion. So far so good.

Not my goal, as I see that project as entirely hopeless.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I assume that it was derived foremost by empathy and subsequently by reason. It's seemingly based upon the human capacity to empathize with the suffering of others, and in so doing to seek to ease that suffering. The golden rule simply being the simplest and most equitable means of balancing my self-interests against humanity's seemingly inherent desire to do no harm.

Emotions like empathy are more likely to drive tribal association, good for social cohesion but hardly a ground for deriving an ethical principle. Every time i see it mentioned it seems to operate as a brute fact rather than a derived truth.

I would augment the golden rule however, to include the provision that in keeping with the precept that all men are created equal, any moral authority that I may claim for me or my Gods, I grant to you as well. This is done in the hope that in recognizing the equality of others I temper my desire to judge them.

The issue isn't the principles themselves, but the leap from states of affairs to such principles. if we are to simply take them as brute facts, then so be it. But that opens a whole other can of worms.

Then it's just a matter of applying reason. Unfortunately, misapplied, this third step often serves to negate the first two.

Reason tends to operate in the other direction, trying to justify a conclusion like a lawyer rather than moving from premises to a conclusion

The only absolute is that time will be the final arbiter of what lives and what doesn't, and all our claims about morality will either be our redeeming virtue, or an insignificant historical footnote. This being the case, I choose to believe that history will at least remember that I was above all, compassionate.

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

My heart says yes, simply because I've seen the depravity of mankind, and I'm afraid that sometimes even morality must respond in kind. My heart also hopes that it's wrong.

if your ethics depend on the behavior of others, I would say you're lacking in integrity.

Unfortunately, this is an area where I don't get to be the judge... time does.

If morality is identical with fitness, then it makes no sense to discuss morality.

 

[Fervent]

The term is 'ought'. Not 'must'. In all circumstances I am not obliged to follow any reason or emotion when I decide what to do in a moral matter. But if I fear the consequences of an act that I may perform then I ought not to do it. That's really a statement that can nnot be argued against. It's the equivalent of a friend (Jimminy Cricket if you like) saying 'Hey, I wouldn't do that if I were you. It's not a good idea. You probqbly won't like the outcome'.

Word-concept issue, because a moral "ought" and a "in my best interest" "ought" are not the same thing. So are you trying to establish morality through reason, or just reducing morality to base fitness?

It is plainly obvious that I don't consider an external power necessary. The reasons to comply I have listed in this ase. Some are emotional, some rational. All are relevant in the decision making process. But the decision to comply with what seems to me to be the morally correct thing to do is mine and mine alone.

None of which relate to moral conclusions.

That is a truly bizzare statement. The decision on morality is determined by the conditions. Fear of the consequences was just one. And a valid one at that. The others are equally valid in deciding whether to strike you or not. What would prevent you? Exactly the same reasons that I gave.

You're still missing the sauce, leaving a mystery what the relationship between the states of affairs and the moral decision. Fear of consequences was the only one that broached the possibility, but even that hardly rises to the level of morality.

If that is not the case, then present yours and we can examine them.

My argument is that reasoning to morality is a hopeless endeavor. So what am I to present?

 

[partinobodycular]

My argument is that reasoning to morality is a hopeless endeavor.

I see what you meant, when you said that:

Reason tends to operate in the other direction, trying to justify a conclusion

In this case your point about the hopelessness of reasoning seems to be all too painfully obvious.

 

[Fervent]

I see what you meant, when you said that:



In this case your point about the hopelessness of reasoning seems to be all too painfully obvious.

My point isn't related to how most people tend to reason, it's a recognition that there are no non-moral premises that lead to moral conclusions. Deduction can't overcome that, induction can't either, nor can we draw any abductive moral inferences. So what options are available? Only sophistry that takes moral premises as brute facts and then dances around that fact with word games.

 

[partinobodycular]

it's a recognition that there are no non-moral premises that lead to moral conclusions.

You seem to be hung up on the fact that you can't draw moral absolutes from non-moral premises, but that leaves a whole lot of other options besides sophistry. All that one needs to do is to set up a criteria by which to judge an acts morality, and voila, you've got the framework for setting moral standards. Sure there's no reason that you should accept those standards, but that does nothing to negate my right to label them as such. Heck, I can declare something to be immoral simply because I feel like it, it's still as valid as any moral 'absolutes' that can't be demonstrated as such.

 

[Fervent]

You seem to be hung up on the fact that you can't draw moral absolutes from non-moral premises, but that leaves a whole lot of other options besides sophistry. All that one needs to do is to set up a criteria by which to judge an acts morality, and voila, you've got the framework for setting moral standards. Sure there's no reason that you should accept those standards, but that does nothing to negate my right to label them as such. Heck, I can declare something to be immoral simply because I feel like it, it's still as valid as any moral 'absolutes' that can't be demonstrated as such.

It's not just absolutes, it's any moral statement. If you begin with a moral "criteria" you're not reasoning to moral systems you're creating them from the ground up and engaged in sophistry to make it appear respectable. if you're simply going to make up moral premises out of thin air, by what right can you call that reasoning towards them?

 

[partinobodycular]

if you're simply going to make up moral premises out of thin air, by what right can you call that reasoning towards them?

Why should they require some means of validation, reasoned or otherwise? A morality derived out of thin air is just as valid as one that's based upon a millennia old religious text, or a divine God. Neither of them hold any demonstrable validity beyond what the individual chooses to give them.

If you begin with a moral "criteria" you're not reasoning to moral systems you're creating them from the ground up and engaged in sophistry to make it appear respectable.

Once again you're assuming a moral absolute when you have no evidence that such a thing exists. Therefore any means of deriving a moral standard is just as valid as any other means, and this includes reasoning them out via an arbitrary set of criteria, or gleaning them from a millennia old religious text.

Unfortunately, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is morality.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What circumstances would make rape a morally good act?

I don't know, I haven't seen them yet. Even if I never am exposed to such a scenario, I think there was some universality criteria in the definition of absolute morality. Rape is used as a weapon in war, the perpetrators obviously feel that rape can be acceptable as they use it instrumentally. It seems that "rape is bad" is not universally held.

Perhaps I stumbled over a situation where I wouldn't feel any moral outrage regarding a rape, if I knew for a fact that the victim was a serial rapist I might not feel obliged to stop it. I can't be certain though until I am in presented with the actual situation.

 

[Fervent]

Why should they require some means of validation, reasoned or otherwise? A morality derived out of thin air is just as valid as one that's based upon a millennia old religious text, or a divine God. Neither of them hold any demonstrable validity beyond what the individual chooses to give them.

So then no morality is valid?

Once again you're assuming a moral absolute when you have no evidence that such a thing exists. Therefore any means of deriving a moral standard is just as valid as any other means, and this includes reasoning them out via an arbitrary set of criteria, or gleaning them from a millennia old religious text.

I'm assuming no such thing, simply maintaining that in order for something to qualify as moral it cannot simply be arbitrary. If there are moral facts to deal with, from which we can reason about morality, we must have some means of locating them rather than simply pulling them from thin air.

Unfortunately, just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is morality.

And so morality amounts to nothing of the sort.

 

[Bradskii]

My argument is that reasoning to morality is a hopeless endeavor. So what am I to present?

So emotional arguments are invalid. Reasoning is hopeless. Rationality has been rejected. These are all concepts which literally everyone uses to determine if an action is right or wrong. Except those who say 'It is written'. Now if I do a search through the world's literature, secular and divine, then I won't find anything pertaining to me randomly smacking a guy in a pub. But...I will find some guidance as to how to live a moral life.

As I have said, the Golden Rule is common throughout the ages. When Jesus brought it up he didn't say 'Hey, I've got this great new idea...' He was reminding people of the rule. So it's written in the bible. Not as a commandment on how to behave in your local bar, but as a general rule that you ought to follow. For all the reasons I have given to you.

So if you have rejected literally all means that I use to determine morality, then you likewise have rejected them yourself. So what on EARTH do you use to decide that smacking a guy in a bar is wrong? Tell me how you determine it.

 

[Fervent]

So emotional arguments are invalid. Reasoning is hopeless. Rationality has been rejected. These are all concepts which literally everyone uses to determine if an action is right or wrong. Except those who say 'It is written'. Now if I do a search through the world's literature, secular and divine, then I won't find anything pertaining to me randomly smacking a guy in a pub. But...I will find some guidance as to how to live a moral life.

Divine sources speak from authority, because humans are blind men leading blind men.

As I have said, the Golden Rule is common throughout the ages. When Jesus brought it up he didn't say 'Hey, I've got this great new idea...' He was reminding people of the rule. So it's written in the bible. Not as a commandment on how to behave in your local bar, but as a general rule that you ought to follow. For all the reasons I have given to you.

Nope, Jesus elevated the rule from a negative command(do not do what you would not have) to a positive one(do unto others as you would have). That difference is important.

So if you have rejected literally all means that I use to determine morality, then you likewise have rejected them yourself. So what on EARTH do you use to decide that smacking a guy in a bar is wrong? Tell me how you determine it.

It is written...

 

[Bradskii]

So then no morality is valid?

Mine is fine. It has been for decades. We don't know yours. We can't tell if yours is valid.

I'm assuming no such thing, simply maintaining that in order for something to qualify as moral it cannot simply be arbitrary. If there are moral facts to deal with, from which we can reason about morality, we must have some means of locating them rather than simply pulling them from thin air.

So tell us how you determine that punching people in bars is wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Nope, Jesus elevated the rule from a negative command(do not do what you would not have) to a positive one(do unto others as you would have). That difference is important.

Make the Golden Rule a command then. We still have to interpret how it is applicable in a bar when someone has insulted you.

It is written...

No, it isn't. The Golden Rule is a guide for you to apply as you see fit. You've had examples. One of them being how long can you keep a child in her room? A very simple question for you. If the answer is written then tell us all what it is.

 

[Fervent]

Mine is fine. It has been for decades. We don't know yours. We can't tell if yours is valid.

My question was addressed to @partinobodycular because they stated that a morality that is pulled from thin air is as valid as one that is from any other source, rendering all moral systems "valid". Which, if that is the case, then no moral system is valid because none speak to what is right in any real sense of the world. All is permitted, all is valid.

So tell us how you determine that punching people in bars is wrong.

God's word.

 

[Fervent]

Make the Golden Rule a command then. We still have to interpret how it is applicable in a bar when someone has insulted you.

Sure, but if the Golden Rule is a real moral truth we have to explain how and why it is such a truth.

No, it isn't. The Golden Rule is a guide for you to apply as you see fit. You've had examples. One of them being how long can you keep a child in her room? A very simple question for you. If the answer is written then tell us all what it is.

If you must know, I'm a Eudemonist. I don't deal in deontological ethics, I deal in moral character.