Objective morality, can it exist? Sort of....

[durangodawood]

I think you're trying to skip ahead to your conclusion, and I think all that jumping around is what is making us seem like we disagree on more than we do.

So let's go back to values. Values are likes and dislikes, ya? If you like X, then you like more of X, so you like things that make there be more of X. Ya? Simplify and pretend like we know X doesn't carry things you don't like so we don't have to worry about a "too much of a good thing" issue.

Sure.

But I already said this and noted there will be problems down the road if we fail to distinguish between sorts of values and their function in our own lives and society.

But lets keep going down this path youre taking me on. So....

 

[Moral Orel]

Sure.

But I already said this and noted there will be problems down the road if we fail to distinguish between sorts of values and their function in our own lives and society.

But lets keep going down this path youre taking me on. So....

Well, let's see where exactly the problem actually arises.

So X is a thing you like, and Y is an action that makes more X.

If you like X, then you like Y because it makes more X, then you are going to do Y. Is that contentious? Now sure, we have to weigh all the things that come along with doing X, but we can simplify and say that if we ultimately like the predicted outcome, we are going to do the action. I think we both took note of a lack of altruism before, because of that I'm confident this one will slide by, so let's do two points in one post. Here's the next one.

Thus morality itself is: I like X, I like Y because it makes more X, so I'm going to do Y.

Note that I'm only describing the basic process of morality. I'm not talking about what to insert for X or Y.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, let's see where exactly the problem actually arises.

So X is a thing you like, and Y is an action that makes more X.

If you like X, then you like Y because it makes more X, then you are going to do Y. Is that contentious? Now sure, we have to weigh all the things that come along with doing X, but we can simplify and say that if we ultimately like the predicted outcome, we are going to do the action. I think we both took note of a lack of altruism before, because of that I'm confident this one will slide by, so let's do two points in one post. Here's the next one.

Thus morality itself is: I like X, I like Y because it makes more X, so I'm going to do Y.

Note that I'm only describing the basic process of morality. I'm not talking about what to insert for X or Y.

For the bolded part...No, because morality is socially defined and has to pass some kind of endurance test. Its not individual whim.

 

[Moral Orel]

For the bolded part...No, because morality is socially defined and has to pass some kind of endurance test. Its not individual...

Citation please.

 

[durangodawood]

Citation please.

OK. Here you go:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or

2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Now its pretty clear we're talking descriptively in our discussion.

So in addition to our individual sense of morality we need to account for
1. morality put forward by society.
2. that morality is codes of conduct

Even just in the individual, in no way do all our "likes and dislikes" generate anything like codes of conduct. No one holds to a personal code of conduct re their preference for chocolate over vanilla. Even less would we find that in society's code of conduct.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK. Here you go:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

"or accepted by an individual for her own behavior"

You see that doesn't match what you told me morality requires, right? Both 1 and 2 only require a single human. Even in 2 where it says that it would be put forward by all rational persons, it can still be a code of conduct on what to do in situations that affect no one but yourself. There's also no part of the definition as to whether or not any system has an endurance test.

So back to my description:

I like X, I like Y because it makes more X, so I'm going to do Y.

Do you agree that this describes the process of morality?

So in addition to our individual sense of morality we need to account for
1. morality put forward by society.
2. that morality is codes of conduct

Even just in the individual, in no way do all our "likes and dislikes" generate anything like codes of conduct. No one holds to a personal code of conduct re their preference for chocolate over vanilla. Even less would we find that in society's code of conduct.

I think you're still trying to jump ahead. I don't think we can do that until we at least agree on what morality is. That seems to be the first big sticking point.

 

[durangodawood]

"or accepted by an individual for her own behavior"

You see that doesn't match what you told me morality requires, right? Both 1 and 2 only require a single human. Even in 2 where it says that it would be put forward by all rational persons, it can still be a code of conduct on what to do in situations that affect no one but yourself. There's also no part of the definition as to whether or not any system has an endurance test.

So back to my description:

I like X, I like Y because it makes more X, so I'm going to do Y.

Do you agree that this describes the process of morality?...

Not generally. I dont think most people think it through like that. I think its more instinctual and socially enforced rather than each person thinking through all the consequences of "bad" behaviors for the world we share.

(Also, lets leave aside normative sense of morality. Dealing with both the normative and descriptive simultaneously is a recipe for chaos. I think we're both mainly interested in descriptive, but you reference the other above. And I'm not interested in leaving aside the "codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion)". Per the definition that is a real aspect of "morality" that we need to account for. I do accept that the descriptive definition also refers to an individual sense of morality, placed appropriately after the social sense.)

 

[Moral Orel]

Not generally. I dont think most people think it through like that. I think its more instinctual and socially enforced rather than each person thinking through all the consequences of "bad" behaviors for the world we share.

People do act instinctually, I'll grant that. Often, the idea of whatever X (the thing) is doesn't even cross our minds. We simply like Y (the action) so we do the thing we like. But when we do think it through and want to justify why we like and do some action, my description sums it up nicely, doesn't it?

(Also, lets leave aside normative sense of morality. Dealing with both the normative and descriptive simultaneously is a recipe for chaos. I think we're both mainly interested in descriptive, but you reference the other above. And I'm not interested in leaving aside the "codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion)". Per the definition that is a real aspect of "morality" that we need to account for. I do accept that the descriptive definition also refers to an individual sense of morality, placed appropriately after the social sense.)

I'm building towards society and groups, but notice that each part of that definition is separated by an "or", which means only one of them at a time is required. If we agree that my description sums it up nicely at least on an individual level, then we can move forward. I agree that it'll work better to only work with the descriptive sense right now too.

 

[durangodawood]

People do act instinctually, I'll grant that. Often, the idea of whatever X (the thing) is doesn't even cross our minds. We simply like Y (the action) so we do the thing we like. But when we do think it through and want to justify why we like and do some action, my description sums it up nicely, doesn't it?

The deepest and most widely shared components of our moral code(s) seems to be prohibitions against interpersonal actions. Dont murder your neighbor. Dont steal from your neighbor.

So if we can take your description:
I like X, I like Y because it makes more X, so I'm going to do Y.
and do a little rewrite:
I like X, I hate Y because when people do it, it ruins X, so we will enforce a code against Y.

That sums it up nicely per my best understanding.

....I'm building towards society and groups, but notice that each part of that definition is separated by an "or", which means only one of them at a time is required. If we agree that my description sums it up nicely at least on an individual level, then we can move forward. I agree that it'll work better to only work with the descriptive sense right now too.

Per my above I think you have it backward.
Seems most reasonable to me that morals started as instinctual and pack/band social. Individuals reasoning out correct moral positions came later I think, aided by the historical hindsight of what morals actually enabled good living. Build toward individual moral codes; start deeper, I'd say

 

[Moral Orel]

The deepest and most widely shared components of our moral code(s) seems to be prohibitions against interpersonal actions. Dont murder your neighbor. Dont steal from your neighbor.

So if we can take your description:
I like X, I like Y because it makes more X, so I'm going to do Y.
and do a little rewrite:
I like X, I hate Y because when people do it, it ruins X, so we will enforce a code against Y.

That sums it up nicely per my best understanding.

No rewrite necessary. I'll fill in X and Y based on "stealing is bad".

I like security. I like stopping people from stealing because it makes more security. So I will stop people from stealing.

Per my above I think you have it backward.
Seems most reasonable to me that morals started as instinctual and pack/band social. Individuals reasoning out correct moral positions came later I think, aided by the historical hindsight of what morals actually enabled good living. Build toward individual moral codes; start deeper, I'd say

Sounds like you're talking about when we first conceptualized morality, not when morality really started. Because morality works on the individual level, it didn't start after societies began thinking about it. It started before humans.

 

[durangodawood]

No rewrite necessary. I'll fill in X and Y based on "stealing is bad".

I like security. I like stopping people from stealing because it makes more security. So I will stop people from stealing.


Sounds like you're talking about when we first conceptualized morality, not when morality really started. Because morality works on the individual level, it didn't start after societies began thinking about it. It started before humans.

I am talking about the deep origins or morality. I mean, I said this: "Seems most reasonable to me that morals started as instinctual and pack/band social."

Also, per the definition I provided, morality is a "code of conduct". Its not really fair to say that instinctive behavior is a code. Starfish like to eat sea urchins. OK, they dont have a code about that. A code happens when you codify, which is done by human cultures and at least semi-literate individuals. So yeah, I am talking about when morality per that definition started. If you want to link to a different well considered definition, something deeper than than a dictionary provides, like what I provided, I'd read that.

I do contend that the roots of our moral codes come from our animal instinct reinforced by pack/band social structures. As for the actual code of conduct, that came later when we as societies and individuals began to properly codify things.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am talking about the deep origins or morality. I mean, I said this: "Seems most reasonable to me that morals started as instinctual and pack/band social."

Also, per the definition I provided, morality is a "code of conduct". Its not really fair to say that instinctive behavior is a code. Starfish like to eat sea urchins. OK, they dont have a code about that. A code happens when you codify, which is done by human cultures and at least semi-literate individuals. So yeah, I am talking about when morality per that definition started. If you want to link to a different well considered definition, something deeper than than a dictionary provides, like what I provided, I'd read that.

I do contend that the roots of our moral codes come from our animal instinct reinforced by pack/band social structures. As for the actual code of conduct, that came later when we as societies and individuals began to properly codify things.

Sounds like you have a very specific definition in mind of what a "code of conduct" is that somehow requires the ability to read and write. Citation please.

 

[durangodawood]

Sounds like you have a very specific definition in mind of what a "code of conduct" is that somehow requires the ability to read and write. Citation please.

No. It could be put forth orally, Mr Oral.

But yeah, a code is codified. That's what it means. It's stated and not unconscious.

If you want to argue that starfish have a code of conduct that says eat urchins, go for it. I'll be at the bar.

 

[Moral Orel]

No. It could be put forth orally, Mr Oral.

But yeah, a code is codified. That's what it means. It's stated and not unconscious.

If you want to argue that starfish have a code of conduct that says eat urchins, go for it. I'll be at the bar.

Stated with words or unconscious is a false dichotomy.

To codify means to arrange systematically, it doesn't require words. So if we can associate feelings with actions, we can codify them. Having a code of conduct only requires the ability to plan.

Once actions can be arranged by likes and dislikes, you've got yourself a code of conduct. Prioritizing actions by preference is another system to arrange by. Neither of which requires the existence of words.

 

[durangodawood]

Stated with words or unconscious is a false dichotomy.

To codify means to arrange systematically, it doesn't require words. So if we can associate feelings with actions, we can codify them. Having a code of conduct only requires the ability to plan.

Once actions can be arranged by likes and dislikes, you've got yourself a code of conduct. Prioritizing actions by preference is another system to arrange by. Neither of which requires the existence of words.

So lets say a starfish has a increasing preference for each of 3 kinds of food, and works harder in preferential order to acquire each them. Is that a code of conduct, a morality?

Reading further into the Stanford article, its pretty clear that morality is an aspect of the human social/cultural domain and not just an element of animal behavior generally (even if the contents of moral systems have some roots in the animal facts of humans.) I think the onus is on you now to cite a well respected in-depth definition of morality that expands it as far as you do.

 

[Moral Orel]

So lets say a starfish has a increasing preference for each of 3 kinds of food, and works harder in preferential order to acquire each them. Is that a code of conduct, a morality?

Reading further into the Stanford article, its pretty clear that morality is an aspect of the human social/cultural domain and not just an element of animal behavior generally (even if the contents of moral systems have some roots in the animal facts of humans.) I think the onus is on you now to cite a well respected in-depth definition of morality that expands it as far as you do.

Everything I've said fits perfectly well under the definition you provided. I don't need to expand it. The restrictions you've concocted don't work just like the other restrictions you concocted about morality needing a test of endurance and being strictly social.

I get that only humans have the cognitive ability to think about the concept of morality itself, but engaging in morality doesn't require that. As an analogy, when was the first military battle? Was it only during recorded human history, or was it the first time one group of apes fought another group of apes with sticks and rocks?

 

[durangodawood]

Everything I've said fits perfectly well under the definition you provided. I don't need to expand it. The restrictions you've concocted don't work just like the other restrictions you concocted about morality needing a test of endurance and being strictly social.

I get that only humans have the cognitive ability to think about the concept of morality itself, but engaging in morality doesn't require that. As an analogy, when was the first military battle? Was it only during recorded human history, or was it the first time one group of apes fought another group of apes with sticks and rocks?

So the starfish has a moral code per my description?

 

[durangodawood]

Everything I've said fits perfectly well under the definition you provided. I don't need to expand it. The restrictions you've concocted don't work just like the other restrictions you concocted about morality needing a test of endurance and being strictly social.

Yeah, a moral code requires endurance, or else its just whim. Today I like chocolate and cheating on the SAT is ok. Tomorrow I like strawberry and cheating is sinful. Yesterday I didn't care about either...... Its ridiculous.

I didnt concoct that. Its implied in any sensible notion of a code of conduct.

 

[Moral Orel]

So the starfish has a moral code per my description?

Do you have an argument to make?

Yeah, a moral code requires endurance, or else its just whim. Today I like chocolate and cheating on the SAT is ok. Tomorrow I like strawberry and cheating is sinful. Yesterday I didn't care about either...... Its ridiculous.

I didnt concoct that. Its implied in any sensible notion of a code of conduct.

It's not implied, you made it up. People do change their views on what is moral all the time.

 

[durangodawood]

Do you have an argument to make?...

Its a question about your argument, which seems to stretch the notion of morality to absurdity. I'm just double checking that I'm getting it right. Can you answer my question?

It's not implied, you made it up. People do change their views on what is moral all the time.

No they dont change it all the time. Changing ones moral code is a pretty rare occasion in a persons life. Contrast that with mere preferences... heck we change what we want for dinner every night.