A question for everyone

[The happy Objectivist]

I find that a very powerful tool to get to the heart of any issue is to ask: What perceptually self-evident facts of reality give rise to the need for a certain concept or idea. So I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality. I use the word perceptually self-evident because I'm interested in getting to the heart of the issue. I want to reduce the idea to its foundation and the foundation of any knowledge is perception. So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.

I'm defining morality as a set of principles to guide one's actions in the pursuit of a good life. why do we need such a concept in the first place?

 

[durangodawood]

....So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.....

Does this mean sense data alone, prior to the application of reasoning?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Does this mean sense data alone, prior to the application of reasoning?

Yes, durangodawood, just facts that are available by looking at reality, not the products of inferrence, because those wouldn't be fundamental facts. They'd rest on prior facts and I want to get to the most basic facts, available to everyone by just looking at reality.

 

[PloverWing]

I think I'd start with our inner intuitions that "morally right" and "morally wrong" are meaningful categories -- that the word "ought" means something. Figuring out which actions are morally right and morally wrong can be a challenge, of course, and ethicists come up with various theories to use as heuristics. But the category itself -- moral rightness/wrongness -- is a deep intuition most humans have. To deny that category is to deny a strong inner intuition, and I don't want to do that without a very good reason.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think I'd start with our inner intuitions that "morally right" and "morally wrong" are meaningful categories -- that the word "ought" means something. Figuring out which actions are morally right and morally wrong can be a challenge, of course, and ethicists come up with various theories to use as heuristics. But the category itself -- moral rightness/wrongness -- is a deep intuition most humans have. To deny that category is to deny a strong inner intuition, and I don't want to do that without a very good reason.

Hi Ploverwing, thank you for answering. Intuition is not perception though and you are using the concept "morally right" and "morally wrong" and I want to know what facts are observable by means of perception that make the concept morally right and wrong necessary.

 

[partinobodycular]

So I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality. I use the word perceptually self-evident because I'm interested in getting to the heart of the issue. I want to reduce the idea to its foundation and the foundation of any knowledge is perception. So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.

I think that your premise is flawed. We often do things without being aware of why we're doing them. We call them biases. Some of which are triggered by perceptually self-evident causes, but the majority of them aren't. Which is probably a remnant of our evolution. Biases are nature's way of inducing certain beneficial behaviors that we wouldn't be able to form consciously.

Personally I think that animal/human intelligence evolved in three steps. First instinctive. Then intuitive. And finally intellectual. Although it seems that humanity hasn't actually evolved very far beyond number two, and may never.

 

[durangodawood]

Hi Ploverwing, thank you for answering. Intuition is not perception though and you are using the concept "morally right" and "morally wrong" and I want to know what facts are observable by means of perception that make the concept morally right and wrong necessary.

Necessary for what?

 

[Leaf473]

I find that a very powerful tool to get to the heart of any issue is to ask: What perceptually self-evident facts of reality give rise to the need for a certain concept or idea. So I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality. I use the word perceptually self-evident because I'm interested in getting to the heart of the issue. I want to reduce the idea to its foundation and the foundation of any knowledge is perception. So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.

I'm defining morality as a set of principles to guide one's actions in the pursuit of a good life. why do we need such a concept in the first place?

If I understand your post right,
(and I'm not sure that I do )
we don't actually need a morality.

But it's a handy tool. Our brains are designed/evolved to use shortcuts. So, for example, when we use language, we don't rethink the definition of each word each time we use it... We usually access a shortcut.

So a set of guiding principles is a handy tool we use so that we can reach decisions much more rapidly.

Is that in line with the OP?

 

[SkyWriting]

I find that a very powerful tool to get to the heart of any issue is to ask: What perceptually self-evident facts of reality give rise to the need for a certain concept or idea. So I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality. I use the word perceptually self-evident because I'm interested in getting to the heart of the issue. I want to reduce the idea to its foundation and the foundation of any knowledge is perception. So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.

I'm defining morality as a set of principles to guide one's actions in the pursuit of a good life. why do we need such a concept in the first place?

If you fail to treat others similar to how you'd like to be treated,
then most everyone else is expedable besides yourself.

Just you and your garden and a patch of woods is all you need to survive.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think that your premise is flawed. We often do things without being aware of why we're doing them. We call them biases. Some of which are triggered by perceptually self-evident causes, but the majority of them aren't. Which is probably a remnant of our evolution. Biases are nature's way of inducing certain beneficial behaviors that we wouldn't be able to form consciously.

Personally I think that animal/human intelligence evolved in three steps. First instinctive. Then intuitive. And finally intellectual. Although it seems that humanity hasn't actually evolved very far beyond number two, and may never.

I think that what you say is true, undoubtedly, but I think that is a flaw in humans and not in my premise. My premise is that concepts serve a valuable purpose and that they are formed on the basis of perception. What fact gives rise to the need for the concept "beneficial"? I'm not trying to play 20 questions here, I want to get down to the basic facts that underly the concept of moral or right or wrong. What facts give rise to the need for the concepts of right and wrong?

 

[partinobodycular]

Just you and your garden and a patch of woods is all you need to survive.

While this is true from an individual perspective it's not very sustainable from the perspective of the species as a whole. And seeing as how most animals, including us, aren't intelligent enough to consciously determine the best survival strategy evolution has instilled us with certain beneficial traits, and among these are morals. An intuitive sense of good and bad. We humans then come along with our supposed intelligence and attempt to assign a "supernatural" explanation to something that has a perfectly natural cause.

 

[partinobodycular]

What fact gives rise to the need for the concept "beneficial"? I'm not trying to play 20 questions here, I want to get down to the basic facts that underly the concept of moral or right or wrong. What facts give rise to the need for the concepts of right and wrong?

As far as nature/evolution is concerned, "beneficial" is simply that which leads to a species' survival. But when it comes to morality that concept is somewhat malleable. What's good or bad in one culture or situation may not be good or bad in another. But the basic concept holds across them all...do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Many animals no doubt function under the very same premise, with no need to question why.

Of course if an animal were to question why, they would likely find it just as mysterious as we do, and just like many of us humans they might therefore attribute it to God, when it's simply the product of evolution.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I find that a very powerful tool to get to the heart of any issue is to ask: What perceptually self-evident facts of reality give rise to the need for a certain concept or idea. So I'd like to ask everyone what facts of reality give rise to the need for morality. I use the word perceptually self-evident because I'm interested in getting to the heart of the issue. I want to reduce the idea to its foundation and the foundation of any knowledge is perception. So what facts available in direct perception give rise to the need for morality.

I'm defining morality as a set of principles to guide one's actions in the pursuit of a good life. why do we need such a concept in the first place?

The consequences suffered by being immoral gave rise to this fact.

 

[honestal]

Hi The Happy Objectivist,

I'm not at all sure I understand your question, or what answer you're looking for... but I'll try anyway.

#1--I've lived both an immoral life and a moral life.
For me, there's no comparison--the moral life is much better.
(I think experience is a good teacher--sometimes at least.)

#2--As SkyWriting alluded to-- I believe treating others like I would like to be treated is not only moral, but is the path to happiness--not only for myself, but for those I've treated like I would like to be treated. (Which in turn further increases my happiness.)

Society calls it "the golden rule."

"Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." {MATTHEW 7:12 NLT}

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If I understand your post right,
(and I'm not sure that I do )
we don't actually need a morality.

But it's a handy tool. Our brains are designed/evolved to use shortcuts. So, for example, when we use language, we don't rethink the definition of each word each time we use it... We usually access a shortcut.

So a set of guiding principles is a handy tool we use so that we can reach decisions much more rapidly.

Is that in line with the OP?

No, I think we do definitely need a concept of morality. I think it's crucial to human life. But why is it crucial? What facts makes it crucial?

 

[SkyWriting]

While this is true from an individual perspective it's not very sustainable from the perspective of the species as a whole.

But back to morality, it fails when left to nature to create.
So we must accept guidance from God because nature has failed us.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If you fail to treat others similar to how you'd like to be treated,
then most everyone else is expedable besides yourself.

Just you and your garden and a patch of woods is all you need to survive.

This is close to what I have in mind but not quite there. You are definitely on the right track here. You are very close.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The consequences suffered by being immoral gave rise to this fact.

Yes, this is precisely what I'm looking for. I think you've given the answer. The keywords you used were consequences and suffering. If I were to sum up what you say into a principle it would be that our actions affect not only our lives but others' lives either in a negative way or a positive way. Is this fact self-evident? Yes, I think it is. We experience this fact directly even before we have the concepts "good" and "bad". You have made the first reduction But there is still more to do. What fact about our lives gives rise to the concept that some things affect us negatively and some things affect us positively? We need to go through two more rounds of reduction, at least, to get to the most fundamental fact that gives rise to the need for a concept of morality.

Folks, this is not a gotcha kind of question. I'm not asking these questions to ridicule or make fun of you or trip you up. This is an exercise in a certain method of thinking, one of reducing an idea to axioms, i.e., self-evident facts that are irreducible, meaning they can't be broken down into more fundamental ideas. I'm asking this question for my own curiosity about how people on this forum think. The method goes by several names. Elon Musk calls it thinking in first principles. I call it thinking in terms of essentials. It's the most powerful tool I've come across in understanding reality.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is close to what I have in mind but not quite there. You are definitely on the right track here. You are very close.

And what else? I suppose you want sex too?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Hi The Happy Objectivist,

I'm not at all sure I understand your question, or what answer you're looking for... but I'll try anyway.

#1--I've lived both an immoral life and a moral life.
For me, there's no comparison--the moral life is much better.
(I think experience is a good teacher--sometimes at least.)

#2--As SkyWriting alluded to-- I believe treating others like I would like to be treated is not only moral, but is the path to happiness--not only for myself, but for those I've treated like I would like to be treated. (Which in turn further increases my happiness.)

Society calls it "the golden rule."

"Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." {MATTHEW 7:12 NLT}

Yes you do understand. The fact that our actions affect our lives either negatively or positively gives rise to the need for a concept of morality but that is not the most fundamental fact. But it is necessary to take all the steps to get to that fundamental fact. You've performed the first reduction. This is an exercise in thinking in terms of essentials. And certainly, recognizing the fact that some actions affect our lives positively and some negatively are crucial to understanding why we need morality. Well done. This is a self-evident fact but it's not the most fundamental fact. We're not there yet but we've made a good start. So what is it about us that makes some actions good for us and some bad?