Without a moral foundation, you're only left with dysfunction

[Spiribala]

What's become noted today, is that America does not have a common moral underpinning. What kind of trends are developing right now because of this that are harmful to society? Are their any aspects to this which are good?

Probably the most perplexing and distressing problem, at least to me on a personal level, is that due to not having common moral ground with others, conversation is halted. Views are unmoved even after argumentation because you're just so far apart from the other person in your system of beliefs. I have a coworker, who has in bundles, intelligence, rationality, passionate views and a desire to change the world for what she thinks of as the better. I like to think I have those things as well. However, our moral foundation is so far off that we never actually had a substantive conversation that didn't end in "let's agree to disagree." I've stopped having those conversations, because we don't have a moral bedrock on which we can agree and which we can build subsequent points on top of. And while I respect her as a person, it's a deeply disturbing feeling to have.

While I don't think this is yet the case among conservatives and liberals in general, it's increasingly moving in that direction. If you took, say, the most liberal 20% of liberals and the most conservative 20% of conservatives, you may have a situation like my coworker and I have - that all conversations among such people can only end in frustration.

Because of this, the personal becomes the political. If people have a moral bedrock on which they can agree, politics will still be heated but at least you can be confident that both sides, while using different means, have the same overall end in mind. Without this, then, you're left questioning motives. What we consider foundational to our own moral views, are not views that we can take or leave. What we consider foundation to our moral views is foundational precisely because it's incredibly personal and valuable to us. A phrase I've heard my coworker use to describe those she views as political opponents is that they "hate the very fact I exist." The point is that when two people's moral centers are extremely far apart, the very act of one of those people working towards their own moral goals, may in fact, be beyond the pale, and in fact evil to those with a different moral view.

On a personal and political level this leads to distrust and people being increasingly emotionally combative. If you have no rational foundation on which to agree, you may be able to agree to disagree on a personal level. On a political level, this just isn't possible, at least not unless we go towards a much more libertarian form of government which seemingly has no popular appeal (but also an aspect of libertarianism which really makes sense to me). When reasoning to the other side becomes impossible, the other option is to rally the base by stronger and stronger denunciations of the other side. The incentive to hold a pluralistic or moderate position, or to elect those type of politicians evaporates. You can already start to see the signs. That might means Trump style language or it might mean the Obama administration threatening to cut off federal aid to North Carolina due to their new law on gay and transgender people. The signs are obvious.

What do you think? Am I right to be so pessimistic or are their signs for optimism? How can their be improvement if their is no agreement as to what the public good can even mean?

 

[Locutus]

Interesting post!

My question would be, how does a modern western society of a million different cultures, subcultures, religions, non-religions, democracy, colours, creeds, and freedoms, etc etc, decide what that moral underpinning is? To be frank, you don't live in a small isolated village. If that's the sort of social cohesion you're interested in, you would either need to move to a very small, mono-cultural town - or move to a theocratic nation.

Having said that, I live in an area where there is possibly more social cohesion than usual, but it's a social cohesion of tolerance - meaning most people here agree that anything goes, as long as it's environmentally responsible. We have less conservatives, so I suppose that could also be viewed as a unifying feature. As far as the broader society in which I live, I do what I have to do to get along.

Regarding the increasing shrillness of the left/right, I see it as a sign of political immaturity - the wild spree that always comes when freedom and voice is found after a long period of subjugation to old strictures on expressing these things.

 

[Locutus]

Responding to your title - that without what you call a moral foundation, there is only dysfunction. I think this is simply reflective of your discomfort with a society in which your personal position isn't validated at every turn. Again, it's a maturation thing. At some point most of us reach a place where we don't need constant validation, only some validation. We also learn that a common moral foundation (eg, religiously based) is necessarily going to bring with it some very unpleasant and dark stuff - just look at any theocracy. Or look backwards to the 1950's in America - the last time that country could be said to operate on a common moral foundation. Anyone not a white middle class male was a second class citizen, and that's just the tip of the iceberg of the horrors of that decade.

 

[PsychoSarah]

While it is true that in some ways, the fact that opinions on morality differ from person to person by varying extents slows down social action, it is also the only means by which society can improve over time. For example, if everyone both past and present found no moral fault with slavery, slavery would have never ended.

 

[Cearbhall]

What's become noted today, is that America does not have a common moral underpinning.

I disagree. Society would be crumbing if this were the case.

Probably the most perplexing and distressing problem, at least to me on a personal level, is that due to not having common moral ground with others, conversation is halted.

I agree with this. This is anecdotal, so I don't mean to point fingers at any political group: I have a friend who is a very proud Republican, which is fine in and of itself. But the part that bugs me is that she has a very strong "us vs. them" mindset. She knows I'm left-leaning, and sometimes she'll make comments that start with "You think..." or "You say this..." that aren't true at all. She lumps together anyone who isn't in her party. She doesn't see any in-between.

 

[Murby]

True morality is based on what is good (or not) for society > community > and individual.. In that order.

One of the most powerful ways to screw that up is to inject "beliefs" into the equation.. and it happens far more often than it should.

What is good or not is a fairly straight forward and simple thing.. until you inject religious belief systems into it.. Once religion becomes part of the process, all the religions become part of the process, and what comes out the other side is no longer ordered as above.

 

[Ana the Ist]

True morality is based on what is good (or not) for society > community > and individual.. In that order.

Where did you get this idea?

Also, on a related note, have you ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What's become noted today, is that America does not have a common moral underpinning. What kind of trends are developing right now because of this that are harmful to society? Are their any aspects to this which are good?

Probably the most perplexing and distressing problem, at least to me on a personal level, is that due to not having common moral ground with others, conversation is halted. Views are unmoved even after argumentation because you're just so far apart from the other person in your system of beliefs. I have a coworker, who has in bundles, intelligence, rationality, passionate views and a desire to change the world for what she thinks of as the better. I like to think I have those things as well. However, our moral foundation is so far off that we never actually had a substantive conversation that didn't end in "let's agree to disagree." I've stopped having those conversations, because we don't have a moral bedrock on which we can agree and which we can build subsequent points on top of. And while I respect her as a person, it's a deeply disturbing feeling to have.

While I don't think this is yet the case among conservatives and liberals in general, it's increasingly moving in that direction. If you took, say, the most liberal 20% of liberals and the most conservative 20% of conservatives, you may have a situation like my coworker and I have - that all conversations among such people can only end in frustration.

Because of this, the personal becomes the political. If people have a moral bedrock on which they can agree, politics will still be heated but at least you can be confident that both sides, while using different means, have the same overall end in mind. Without this, then, you're left questioning motives. What we consider foundational to our own moral views, are not views that we can take or leave. What we consider foundation to our moral views is foundational precisely because it's incredibly personal and valuable to us. A phrase I've heard my coworker use to describe those she views as political opponents is that they "hate the very fact I exist." The point is that when two people's moral centers are extremely far apart, the very act of one of those people working towards their own moral goals, may in fact, be beyond the pale, and in fact evil to those with a different moral view.

On a personal and political level this leads to distrust and people being increasingly emotionally combative. If you have no rational foundation on which to agree, you may be able to agree to disagree on a personal level. On a political level, this just isn't possible, at least not unless we go towards a much more libertarian form of government which seemingly has no popular appeal (but also an aspect of libertarianism which really makes sense to me). When reasoning to the other side becomes impossible, the other option is to rally the base by stronger and stronger denunciations of the other side. The incentive to hold a pluralistic or moderate position, or to elect those type of politicians evaporates. You can already start to see the signs. That might means Trump style language or it might mean the Obama administration threatening to cut off federal aid to North Carolina due to their new law on gay and transgender people. The signs are obvious.

What do you think? Am I right to be so pessimistic or are their signs for optimism? How can their be improvement if their is no agreement as to what the public good can even mean?

Just out of curiosity...what makes you think that both sides aren't necessarily working towards the same end? For example...

Suppose we have two people who agree that they should work towards "a better society for all". One person thinks that legal abortions do just that...they are better for society than a situation where abortion is illegal. The other person is horrified by this idea...and thinks that if abortion were illegal for all, society would be much better off.

So while they may disagree entirely on the morality of an issue and what's good for society...they both agree that they should be working towards a better society overall.

 

[Spiribala]

Interesting post!

Thanks

My question would be, how does a modern western society of a million different cultures, subcultures, religions, non-religions, democracy, colours, creeds, and freedoms, etc etc, decide what that moral underpinning is? To be frank, you don't live in a small isolated village. If that's the sort of social cohesion you're interested in, you would either need to move to a very small, mono-cultural town - or move to a theocratic nation.

Having said that, I live in an area where there is possibly more social cohesion than usual, but it's a social cohesion of tolerance - meaning most people here agree that anything goes, as long as it's environmentally responsible. We have less conservatives, so I suppose that could also be viewed as a unifying feature. As far as the broader society in which I live, I do what I have to do to get along.

Bringing up place and how it affects culture is enlightening. In 50's culture there were certain factors that everyone realizes were different then, in contrast to now. There were just a few TV shows, and everyone watched those same shows. Your local paper was the paper, etc. But another factor is that people have become much more likely to migrate to live near people more like them. This is the true regarding income level and education and it's also true regarding ideology. Moving is not that hard, so how an area is viewed probably factors in to at least some extent to where people end up going. There are a number of suburbs near me. Most of them can easily and correctly be considered heavily conservative or heavily liberal. Not many are actually moderate. This isn't the worst thing in terms of local politics, and might be beneficial in that sense. Your local government is actually likely to do the things you want. However, the power of local government is weak compared to national government and therefore this ideological segregation, in my mind, actually is a net negative. You're less likely to have your view challenged and therefore their is a sort of ideological drift and before you know it, you're looking at people in the town down the road as strange and possibly much worse.

 

[Spiribala]

My question would be, how does a modern western society of a million different cultures, subcultures, religions, non-religions, democracy, colours, creeds, and freedoms, etc etc, decide what that moral underpinning is? s.

I think their are a few possibilities. One, my preferred option, is that the role of governement actually shrinks, at least at the national level. Everyone has their own view, and you let it play out in the public and private spheres and that way, whatever argument "wins" is the one that convinces society and not the one that is implemented in law.

Of course, this is tricky. An example as to why it's so hard might be the role of government in education. I think having a wide range of schooling options with little government interference is a valuable thing. I look at homeschooling and think, parents have taken a deep interest in how they would like to raise their child and have decided that the standered public and private school options do not exhaust the infinite amount of ways they could inform their child and that they could do a better job. Having a variety of options also means that the best option can then diffuse to others in society which leads to better education instead of the static same beaurocratic system. Others see this through a lens of possible harm. Allowing homeschooling is a potential for parents to either offer an inferior educational opportunity for their child, or even for outright abuse. Ending all private and homeschooling options therefore and standardizing public schooling to ever more exact extents, provides a much safer learning environment for the child. Every child is educated the same way regardless of their parent's status, race or gender. I remember having this argument with my co-worker and I kept on making the case that the giving parents more options like the American system does, made our system freer. And she kept arguing that the harm prevention model of Germany (homeschooling is almost always illegal there) made their system freer. We agreed to disagree.

What I think more likely to happen when their is a lot of political disagreement like we currently have, is that the political party in power is more likely to use the power of the state. As I said before, when rational argument no longer holds sway, you appeal not to the moderate middle (which by this time has diminished anyway) but to your base. And you pass all you can pass, and celebrate your righteous victories over your bigoted opponents. And this continues to polorize everyone and while the victors are happy, a large minority are seething. So in the instance when a more libertarian mindset (I'm not libertarian, but some aspects are certainly appealing to me) would be most valued, the incentives move people towards more laws, more vindictiveness and more polarization.

 

[Murby]

Where did you get this idea?

Spend a few minutes and think about it and you'll see that it is true.

Also, on a related note, have you ever read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift?

Just the wiki description.. Not applicable to this argument.

 

[Spiribala]

True morality is based on what is good (or not) for society > community > and individual.. In that order.

This is arguable, sure, but certainly not easily apparent. Many self described progressives at the turn of the 1900's would have said the same thing. They were also heavily in favor of eugenics (it wasn't just a Nazi thing). In the US and other countries they weren't exterminating a race of people, but many countries in many instances had no problem sterilizing people who were deemed inferior. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in fact, used the good of society argument to force sterilization on a girl:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccinations is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. [...] Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

 

[Murby]

This is arguable, sure, but certainly not easily apparent.

By today's standards, it usually is easily apparent as you say.. While there are a few debatable subjects, most are slam dunks and those which are debatable usually have an option to error on the side of caution.

Many self described progressives at the turn of the 1900's would have said the same thing. They were also heavily in favor of eugenics (it wasn't just a Nazi thing).

Just because someone thinks or describes an idea as being favorable to society, does not make it so. In the case of Nazi eugenics, its been scientifically proven at a genetic level that the idea was poor. Again, just because someone says an idea is good, does not make it so.

In the US and other countries they weren't exterminating a race of people, but many countries in many instances had no problem sterilizing people who were deemed inferior. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in fact, used the good of society argument to force sterilization on a girl:

Yup... but again, just because someone says something is good, (or bad), does not make it so.
What is morally right or wrong is not based on what anyone thinks.. its based on facts.. The problem is that in the absence of reliable factual and scientific information, we are sometimes misguided. But that doesn't mean that the scale of what is or isn't moral has changed..

 

[Spiribala]

Just out of curiosity...what makes you think that both sides aren't necessarily working towards the same end? For example...

Suppose we have two people who agree that they should work towards "a better society for all". One person thinks that legal abortions do just that...they are better for society than a situation where abortion is illegal. The other person is horrified by this idea...and thinks that if abortion were illegal for all, society would be much better off.

So while they may disagree entirely on the morality of an issue and what's good for society...they both agree that they should be working towards a better society overall.

Perhaps, but let me phrase it somewhat differently. At some stage peoples' conception of what is good and what isn't can become so different that it shuts down conversation. Abortion is a good example, although some people certainly do have good, enlightening conversations regarding it. Another example was slavery in 1800's. The pro slavery side didn't just way, we just like doing evil. They too represented their position as good for society. And while before the civil war, their were lots of arguments, eventually people became so entrenched and emotionally attached to their positions that rational argument became impossible. Obviously our current disagreements are no where near that level, but I think on certain issues conservatives and liberals have so little in common in terms of moral values that conversation has basically stopped.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Spend a few minutes and think about it and you'll see that it is true.

I've thought about it, and I disagree entirely. Morals are opinions...nothing more.

Just the wiki description.. Not applicable to this argument.

Actually, it applies great to your model of morality. Swift proposes a solution to the Irish potato famine. His solution considers society, community, then the individual...

His proposal is that the poor should sell their children as food for the wealthy. This of course, provides the wealthy with meat...and the poor with a new income which they can then use for food which has become expensive due to the potato crisis. It also provides the poor with the dual benefit of not having an extra mouth to feed (i think his exact proposal was to sell their youngest only).

While this proposal would probably offend the morality of most...it seems to follow your reasoning quite well. It considers the individual (the youngest children) last behind the needs of society and community.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Perhaps, but let me phrase it somewhat differently. At some stage peoples' conception of what is good and what isn't can become so different that it shuts down conversation. Abortion is a good example, although some people certainly do have good, enlightening conversations regarding it. Another example was slavery in 1800's. The pro slavery side didn't just way, we just like doing evil. They too represented their position as good for society. And while before the civil war, their were lots of arguments, eventually people became so entrenched and emotionally attached to their positions that rational argument became impossible. Obviously our current disagreements are no where near that level, but I think on certain issues conservatives and liberals have so little in common in terms of moral values that conversation has basically stopped.

I agree...though I'm not sure what the OP is about now. Were you simply looking to make this point? Were you looking for a solution to it?

 

[Murby]

I've thought about it, and I disagree entirely. Morals are opinions...nothing more.

If morals are nothing more than opinions, and my opinion is that I should kill and eat my neighbor, does that mean its moral?
Opinions are irrelevant to what is good or not.

Actually, it applies great to your model of morality. Swift proposes a solution to the Irish potato famine. His solution considers society, community, then the individual...

His proposal is that the poor should sell their children as food for the wealthy. This of course, provides the wealthy with meat...and the poor with a new income which they can then use for food which has become expensive due to the potato crisis. It also provides the poor with the dual benefit of not having an extra mouth to feed (i think his exact proposal was to sell their youngest only).

While this proposal would probably offend the morality of most...it seems to follow your reasoning quite well. It considers the individual (the youngest children) last behind the needs of society and community.

This one is easily debunked. Killing humans for the purposes of others would not be good for the propagation of the species. It might be good for one community, but the precedent would be bad for society. But lets get beyond that because there's an easier and faster way to shoot this down.

This is a simple manufacturing issue. The fact is, it would not provide a net profit (energy?) return to the poor.. In other words, it would cost more to have a child than what you'd get back for its nutritional value. (eek! just typing that sentence makes my toes curl!)

The fact is, that while they may not have possessed the science or knowledge to run the mathematics back then, they would have very quickly realized the value of resources invested would be far higher than the value of the resources returned.

The laws of physics are not called laws because you need to follow them.. They're called laws because you have no choice but to follow them.

I do applaud your attempt.... take some time and see if you can come up with a better challenge as I welcome it..

 

[Ana the Ist]

If morals are nothing more than opinions, and my opinion is that I should kill and eat my neighbor, does that mean its moral?
Opinions are irrelevant to what is good or not.

In your opinion, I suppose that would be moral. Regarding morality, opinions are all we have.

This one is easily debunked. Killing humans for the purposes of others would not be good for the propagation of the species. It might be good for one community, but the precedent would be bad for society. But lets get beyond that because there's an easier and faster way to shoot this down.

This is a simple manufacturing issue. The fact is, it would not provide a net profit (energy?) return to the poor.. In other words, it would cost more to have a child than what you'd get back for its nutritional value. (eek! just typing that sentence makes my toes curl!)

This is why I asked if you read the book...we aren't talking about having children for the purpose of selling them. It's just selling your youngest for a tidy sum and using the income to feed the remaining smaller family. It's a sound argument even without any profit. If you look at many starving societies...it's not uncommon to hear stories of abandoning children so the remaining family survives (that's where we get stories like Hansel and Gretel).

The fact is, that while they may not have possessed the science or knowledge to run the mathematics back then, they would have very quickly realized the value of resources invested would be far higher than the value of the resources returned.

The laws of physics are not called laws because you need to follow them.. They're called laws because you have no choice but to follow them.

I do applaud your attempt.... take some time and see if you can come up with a better challenge as I welcome it..

Now that you understand the argument better...do you want to modify your response so that you can address the actual argument?

If you want, we can go straight to the part where I point out that you can't objectively demonstrate any morals.

 

[quatona]

What's become noted today, is that America does not have a common moral underpinning.

You almost make it sound like it ever had.
There have always been and there still are broadly shared abstract ideals, and there have always been wildly diverse opinions how to achieve them.

As far as I know the most foundational moral ideal has always been the freedom to individually pursue happiness. Actually, it seems to be you who is abandoning this moral ideal.

 

[Cearbhall]

While I don't think this is yet the case among conservatives and liberals in general, it's increasingly moving in that direction. If you took, say, the most liberal 20% of liberals and the most conservative 20% of conservatives, you may have a situation like my coworker and I have - that all conversations among such people can only end in frustration.

It's a problem, yes, but I'm not sure why you think political divisions are a new problem. We fought a Civil War, remember.