Modern secular morality and it's inability to be authoritative

[Bradskii]

The obvious question then is: why do people still have a proclivity to do Y?

The answer is that most actions are situation dependent. Killing is bad "most of the time". Stealing is bad "most of the time". But they're useful in just enough situations that the genes that express them continue to survive. Hence we continue to do bad, because sometimes bad is beneficial, and then we as moral agents are left to justify this dichotomy.

Exactly right. If everyone accepted that stealing is wrong then there'd be no need for locks and safes. But, as you say, a minority can exploit the system and ignore what's good overall and do what they think is good for them. And your car isn't there when you wake up.

Game theory is relatively complex to explain in a few lines but it is fundamental to reciprocal altruism and why the majority do the right thing most of the time.

Game Theory, Evolutionary Stable Strategies and the Evolution of Biological Interactions

 

[durangodawood]

I prefer this:

1. The majority of people have a tendency to do X.
2. X works.
3. Society survives.
4. We term X as 'good'.

A. The majority of people have a tendency to do Y.
B. Y doesn't work.
C. Society fails.
D. We term Y as 'bad'.

That works. Somewhere in there, after 3 or C, comes the idea that we value the preservation of society. Why do we do that? Thats what I was getting at by appealing to our inner desire for satisfying lives.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm bemused by it.

I naturally accept that the vast majority of people who have ever lived have had and do have some sort of religious belief and that their religion will have scripture of some sort that will tell them what that religion considers to be good and bad. Some of it is is blindingly obvious - don't murder anyone. Some of it is patently wrong - stone women to death for adultry. And some obviously contradictory - treat others as you would wish to be treated ...but don't beat your slaves too much.

That someone would blindly follow a scriptural edict simply because it's scripture horrifies me. Surely, and I mean surely, any reasonable person would think about what it means, why it was written, when it was written, for whom it was written...and consider 'is this reasonable?'

Nah! .. We all know that Hermeneutics is only suitable for anti-social hermits who want to disrupt the flow of progress in society.

At least, that's what I keep being told.

 

[Bradskii]

I would alter this one a bit.

A. People, be it a minority or a majority, have a proclivity to do Y.
B. In aggregate Y tends toward less desirable outcomes
C. Evolution selects against Y
D. People learn to associate Y with 'bad'

Yeah, that's more accurate. And I assume that you mean:
C. Evolution selects against those who select Y.

So if sharing food and the workload was beneficial then those who had a tendency not to share would be excluded from the group. This goes back to my example of buying someone a beer on a couple of occasions if he said he was short of cash, but avoiding the guy if he kept taking advantage.

My position is as per your D. If certain acts have negative outcomes then we decribe them as being bad. Not that we avoid certain acts because they are bad in some objective sense. An example I have used before is incest. Without fail, all societies consider it to be wrong. But...if biology worked in a way such that reproducing within a family was evolutionary beneficial then having sex with a stranger would then be looked upon in the same way as we think about having sex with a sibling.

 

[Bradskii]

That works. Somewhere in there, after 3 or C, comes the idea that we value the preservation of society. Why do we do that? Thats what I was getting at by appealing to our inner desire for satisfying lives.

I'd suggest that working together in a group is more beneficial than being alone.

If I'm good at fishing and you are good at making spears then I'll give you three fish for a decent spear. You'll give two fish to someone for a cooking pot as he's good at making them. He'll give ten pots to someone who helps build him a hut. We'll all then have access to shelter, food, weapons, cooking utensils etc. The guy who won't share...well he's struggling to get his hut built because he needs to go hunting alone with a broken spear and an empty belly while we're sitting around the camp fire picking meat out of our teeth with fish bones. We're quite satisfied.

As far as women are concerned, who is the best bet for a decent life and a supplier of what's needed for a family? The guy with a half built hut who is off chasing rabbits with a broken stick? My guess is that he may well be eventually removed from the gene pool.

 

[zippy2006]

Oh come on. Just because the form works for morality doenst mean the forms applications are limited to morality. If you use that form to think about other topics, that wont transmute them into statements about morality.

Huh? Then what is the point of you giving that form as an answer to the question of what morality is? It's like saying, "Here's the thing that explains what morality is ...except when it doesn't." You're implicitly admitting that your account of morality is inadequate.

Thats your formula, not mine. Mine has 3 being: Therefore we will make Y happen.

Okay, so now, for the first time, you are offering a new (3). Let's try it out:

1. Over the long term, most people prefer X​

2. Long term observation teaches us that Y leads to X​

3. Therefore, we will make Y happen​

Again, this has nothing to do with morality. Beyond that, the syllogism is not valid, for (3) is just a vague statement with no real relation to (1) or (2). Who is this "we", and what relation do they have to the "most people" of premise (1)?

I think I'm done with this conversation. We're going around in circles and you're not taking this seriously.

There is no norm. Its not "right". Its just what we want, filtered through wisdom, which is essentially long term knowledge. We add the "oughts" and "rights" and "wrongs" at the back end to give them emotional weight via constant conditioning, the dispensing or withholding of precious regard.

You're not describing morality. You're denying the existence of morality and then offering an explanation for why some people are deceived into believing in morality, but it's sleight of hand to call your explanation "morality." You are equivocating between a putative causal mechanism and the concept itself.

Suppose an atheist gives a definition of God. He says, "God is a psychological authority complex." His definition is uncontroversially false. What he means to say is, "God does not exist and anyone who believes in him does so because of a psychological authority complex." But he is not talking about God or giving a definition of the concept. All he is doing is explaining away its existence. This would be a form of indoctrination, not an account of what a word or concept means. Just so with your "morality."

I think the desire for a good life is deeper than reasoning and doesnt need justification by reasoning. I see it as a raw fact of nature. Christians might say we were created with it. I also think theres an natural selection of cultures: all other things being equal, those that provide good, satisfying lives tend to thrive and persist. Those who provide chaos and misery tend to dwindle out or get conquered. And so morals have their own sort of survival of the fittest going on.

Redefining morality in terms of survival is not only dishonest--for that is not what morality is--but it also gets us nowhere. It continues to avoid the questions of normativity that plague your account.

Your account of morality fails not only to be authoritative, but it even fails to be normative.

If we open up hedonism as broadly as you want, then it swallows up all human impulses including the religious.

Not for those of us who understand moralities other than hedonism.

 

[Bradskii]

Redefining morality in terms of survival is not only dishonest--for that is not what morality is--but it also gets us nowhere. It continues to avoid the questions of normativity that plague your account.

Morality has either always existed - effectively it is an objective fact like 2+2=4 (it exists whether we exist or not), or it has developed as we have evolved. Some of us are going for option 2.

I would say that going back into the deep past, our very distant ancestors were not moral creatures. And I'm pretty certain that morality didn't suddenly pop into existence one Tuesday afternoon. So it must have evolved as we did. And a couple of those 4 point lists give a somewhat simplistic summary of how we thought that happened. And those lists are all concerned with survival.

 

[zippy2006]

Morality has either always existed - effectively it is an objective fact like 2+2=4 (it exists whether we exist or not), or it has developed as we have evolved. Some of us are going for option 2.

The most commonly posited historical option, which you omit, is that morality is coeval with humankind (or rational creatures).

But my general point is that which is not normative is not morality. Morality involves imperatives by definition (and by 'imperative' I mean the grammatical mood). So if you want to deviate from durangoda and give an account of morality-based-on-survival that involves imperatives, then this would count as an account of morality. Yet generally the Darwinian definition of morality runs along the same lines as the atheist's definition of God that I provided in my last post.

 

[Bradskii]

But my general point is that which is not normative is not morality. Morality involves imperatives by definition...

There we disagree. Morality is conditional. IF you want this outcome THEN you should do X. So IF you want society to flourish (for reasons given earlier) THEN you should (for example) share the workload. In other words, if it works - gives you the desired outcome, then it's good. If it doesn't then it's not.

And my point is that there was no thought put into this in the first instance. What happened naturally either worked or it didn't. What worked was termed good and it was then that the conditional steps in. As in 'Hey, IF we want this, THEN x has worked, so we ought to continue to do it.'

And coeval? How does that work? Unless you think that God created morality when He created Adam and Eve. In which case we obviously disagree. Failing that, do you think it appeared on that Tuesday afternoon at some point or did it evolve with us?

 

[zippy2006]

There we disagree. Morality is conditional. IF you want this outcome THEN you should do X.

Above I mentioned Philippa Foot's famous essay, "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives." Hypothetical propositions are not devoid of imperatives.

@Moral Orel is a thoroughgoing subjectivist who seems to accept something very close to Foot's account, but neither he nor Foot would claim that morality is unrelated to imperatives, only that there are no overriding or categorical imperatives. I obviously disagree with them both, but they both disagree with durangoda. Durangoda has consistently shown an incomprehension of the practical syllogism. He has been vacillating between attempting to arrive at a merely descriptive conclusion and call it 'moral', and attempting to arrive at a normative conclusion without any normative premise. It's futility on either side.

 

[Bradskii]

...a merely descriptive conclusion and call it 'moral', and attempting to arrive at a normative conclusion without any normative premise. It's futility on either side.

I'm not seeing a problem. We've all been describing what morality is - a system of behaviour that works to bring about what we class as a beneficial outcome. And some of us have described how it evolved. This behaviour then becomes the norm. As opposed to 'hey, this is what we must do because...it's apparently the moral thing to do.' Edit: i.e. as opposed it it having normative authority.

 

[zippy2006]

In other words, if it works - gives you the desired outcome, then it's good. If it doesn't then it's not.

Also, Orel and myself have addressed your approach to morality many times in the past, and each time it has been found to be incoherent. I am guessing that it remains as it was then. I am not going to revisit the same issue with you again. Here are some of the threads:

• The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force
• Is there Objective Morality?
• Is there an absolute morality?

 

[Neutral Observer]

but neither he nor Foot would claim that morality is unrelated to imperatives, only that there are no overriding or categorical imperatives. I obviously disagree with them both,

But ultimately doesn't this mean that your position rests solely on your opinion as to whether or not there are overriding or categorical imperatives?

In which case aren't you resting your entire argument for objective morality on nothing more than your own personal opinion?

I may be mistaken, but that's what it looks like to me.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

rather than any reason or system.

The cause for your morality is not a system on which to determine behaviour ""because morality has a cause it does not therefore necessitate certain actions be committed based upon that cause". The explanation of morality's cause within your worldview/paradigm does nothing to condemn murder hence why in the thread title there is the word authoritative."

[Edit: I'm not doing this again, just pointing it out that it's been explained to you 50 times yet you can't see it]

 

[Bradskii]

Above I mentioned Philippa Foot's famous essay, "Morality as a System of Hypothetical Imperatives." Hypothetical propositions are not devoid of imperatives.

Coming back to this, they may not be devoid of imperatives, but the imperatives must be fit for purpose. There must be a reason why the imperative exists. It cannot exist in a vacuum. Hence the conditional. So 'Do not lie' makes no sense. It has to be 'IF you lie in this specific circumstance THEN...x'. And reason will dictate if x is the best outcome. Although that outcome is open to discussion with anyone who disagrees.

 

[Bradskii]

The cause for your morality is not a system on which to determine behaviour ""because morality has a cause it does not therefore necessitate certain actions be committed based upon that cause". The explanation of morality's cause within your worldview/paradigm does nothing to condemn murder hence why in the thread title there is the word authoritative."

[Edit: I'm not doing this again, just pointing it out that it's been explained to you 50 times yet you can't see it]

The cause, or how morality has come to be, was nothing to do with authority. It didn't start with anyone stating 'we must act this way because it is moral.' It was a naturally evolved process. A throw of the genetic dice dictated what some people did and what others didn't. And what worked was selected for. So it became the norm. And was classed as good (obviously).

So morality had a cause - certain acts turned out to be beneficial (or at least avoided negative outcomes) and then it became obvious that it was necessary to promote those acts to maintain the benefits.

So not murdering people at random helped maintain a stable society. Murdering at random caused a collapse. So murder was classed as an immoral act and became authoritative.

 

[YahuahSaves]

I'm completely aware that there is more than one definition. But guess why I referenced the first one...because it's the one that's applicable as secular morality 'is most definitely not a whim, categorically not random but most certainly based on reason.'

Y: How do you know that stealing is wrong?
B: Gee, I dunno. I just decided it on a whim. It was pretty random. I certainly don't have any reasons for it.

And that apparently makes sense to you.

I guess you are determined to consider it arbitrary...

Did I consider it arbitrary according to your own definition throughout this thread? Yes. refer back to my post #263 and what I quoted.

I don’t know what you're trying to achieve mentioning one of the definitions of "arbitrary", but to reiterate my previous post that quotes the definition the OP was talking about (and you, by your own admittance) also, if you remember, the OP was pointing to the fact that there's no authority the secular world bases their morality on because it comes down to individual preference.

ar·bi·trar·y (är′bĭ-trĕr′ē)
adj.

1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Law Relating to a decision made by a court or legislature that lacks a grounding in law or fact: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator

 

[durangodawood]

You're not describing morality. You're denying the existence of morality and then offering an explanation for why some people are deceived into believing in morality, but it's sleight of hand to call your explanation "morality." You are equivocating between a putative causal mechanism and the concept itself.

Morality is the rules for conduct and associated conditioning that culture comes up with to promote social continuity and stability. I dont deny it exists. I just deny that there's anything deeper at work than that. What is morality other than the rules for human conduct?

I suspect youre looking for some "actual" right and wrong that exists apart from the rules we make. Id love to see it. I can see the usefulness in believing such a thing. But that doesn't make it real.

 

[Bradskii]

Also, Orel and myself have addressed your approach to morality many times in the past, and each time it has been found to be incoherent. I am guessing that it remains as it was then. I am not going to revisit the same issue with you again. Here are some of the threads:

• The moral justification for the preemptive use of mortal force
• Is there Objective Morality?
• Is there an absolute morality?

If you want to revisit old threads then start them up again. If you have a question about anything stated then that is relevant now to this thread, then ask it. Otherwise 'hey, I didn't understand your position on something last year' isn't really worth your effort posting it or mine reading it.

 

[zippy2006]

Morality is the rules for conduct and associated conditioning that culture comes up with to promote social continuity and stability. I dont deny it exists. I just deny that there's anything deeper at work than that. What is morality other than the rules for human conduct?

None of the arguments that you have offered in this thread arrive at or even mention rules, much less any sort of normative strictures. Here is the current state of your argument:

1. Over the long term, most people prefer X​

2. Long term observation teaches us that Y leads to X​

3. Therefore, we will make Y happen​

Are you proposing that we enforce (3) via societal rules (laws or mores)? ...That if people like things then we need to make rules to force them to do those things...? (Because apparently people aren't capable of doing the things they prefer to do without rules...!?)

I'm not convinced that you yourself know what you think on this topic.