I know this has been hashed over more than once in varying degrees so forgive a bit of repetition.I think a few salient points remain. I’m more interested in personal reflections about choices and less interested in scientific or political justification but I appreciate any and all feedback.

As an agnostic atheist naturalist how does one make sense of morality at the very bottom?

Certain choices seem ‘wrong’. When I harm myself or another person or allow such to happen through neglect or deceit I experience a palpable sensation of negative feedback. This feedback is often reinforced by the disapproval of a community that has come to a consensus on many specific situations. Further, more extreme examples of harmful behavior such as killing produce similar sensations simply by suggestion or observation and I conclude, almost subconsciously, that these behaviors are to be avoided altogether. This seems to be essentially what frames and motivates whatever ethical system I possess. Call it conscience perhaps.

In order to prevent harm and maximize well being it is often necessary to cooperate with others. This means finding commonality among collective values. And agreeing upon specific prohibitions, incentives and punishments. This is often complicated by the fact that conscience and preference differ from person to person. I am unable to simplify or reduce this to utility or consequence because I do believe that some regard for the very diversity of preference is actually parcel to a concern for social well being. And also because I cannot reasonably grant total moral authority to any single source.

This approaches moral relativism. Even its language. And I don’t think I can honestly shy away from the problem. How can there be morality without an objective source? It’s really the only salient question I’ve ever heard from a theist. And I still struggle with it. Although there is certainly a spectrum of moral talent from person to person there is no exemplar. No perfect standard.

I’m actually glad that there isn’t. Because although it makes choices more difficult it ultimately makes human solidarity more noble. Two parties with competing interests that can compromise WITHOUT a referee are more accomplished as statesmen and citizens. Essentially, its analogous to growing up. The casting off of the parental authority that instructs you grudgingly recite your apologies. Making peace (or war) on ones own terms. Accepting all responsibility, reward and consequence directly. With no scapegoats or bet covering.

All that said, I still find this to be the single hardest problem in all of philosophy. How one underwrites the moral worth of choices that must necessarily impact the available choices of other persons who may or may not share ones priorities? Given that they are also necessarily the direct result of previous choices made amongst similar dilemmas.

I’ve got a lot more to say about this but I’ll wait to see if there is any gas left in the tank.

How can there be morality without an objective source? It’s really the only salient question I’ve ever heard from a theist. And I still struggle with it. Although there is certainly a spectrum of moral talent from person to person there is no exemplar. No perfect standard.

Salient OP. An “objective source” as far as I can imagine and respect, is basically a “consensus,” for lack of a better term, of that which the human race might, for the most part, agree to—sloppy as that may be, that is at least consistent with what an individual experiences.  Absent WBCC, I’m aware of no standard as an alternative; even though as here exemplified on this, WBCC cries for further evolving definitions and measurement.  So that moral standard is species-centric, but then I’m not into using egg-plants as an alternative.

Your struggle is I think deserving of respect, since otherwise people end up like a BM, just spouting self-assured platitudes dressing an authoritarian demand for compliance and submission to the spouter’s will.

I can relate to Brick’s struggle. I think the felt need to anchor ethics in something more solid than personal preference is, as he says, the fundamental question in ethics.

I think that some form of moral realism is the only way out of the dilemma. Harris’ anchoring morality in the WBCC seems a reasonable place to drop anchor. We can argue about whether well-being is subjective or measurable. I don’t think it needs to be seen as subjective and I think it is, at least in principle if not always in practice, measurable.

The search for a legitimate ‘source’ for ethical evaluation appears to be situated between either a subjective or an objective place.  But are these two alternatives the only ones we have?  According to what has been said in this thread it seems that ‘intersubjectivity’ is where we should look for the source of our ethical standards. Words like ‘community’ and ‘consensus’ and ‘agreement’ are the ideas toward which we are gravitating.

Sam Harris has called his source, WBCC, an objective one because we must rely on science to give us the pertinent facts in deciding which behaviours serve the well being of all conscious creatures. It seems to me that an intersubjective place is the closest we are going to come to arriving at an “objective” ethical standard.  It just naturally makes sense that ethics cannot be completely objective because then we would have a ‘must’ rather than a ‘should’ serving as the driving force. In a truly objective moral system everyone would act like a molecule of water and flow according to the principles of natural law - but the very nature of ethics being what it is makes it by necessity largely a subjective behaviour.

In moving to Nhoj’s 3-levels of cognition model, I would suggest that ethics have nothing to do with Mr.Flashlight’s needs and probably little if anything to do with how Mr.Now feels . . . the practice of ethical activity is mostly concerned with the life of Mr.Hippo.  The Well-being-o-meter is asked to measure the basics of life . . . is the conscious creature fed adequately? Does she have a roof over her head? Does she have access to drinking water? Is the conscious creature safe from preventable diseases?  Is she safe from being harmed by others? These are the basic ethical questions that need to be taken into account in order to facilitate the well being of human creatures on a global scale. 

I have argued somewhere on this forum that at some point last year I realized that ‘intersubjectivity’ is not just a meeting of the minds (a narrative agreement) but that it has a largely biological component to it, namely, that we (humans) are all constructed physiologically and neurologically to the same overall structure/function. In sharing that same psycho-physical pattern of being, we are in natural agreement already on many of the basics that make life worth living.  It is at this subsistent level of life that our ethical standards should be based. This is not to say that the idea of ‘individual freedom’ is not valuable or a necessary aspect of moral being, but perhaps it’s not (nor should it be) our primary ethical concern?

There was a time in which I would have proposed, quite strongly, that the source of objective morality is and has to be God.  Specifically, the christian God.  And if that were not the case, the only other alternative was subjective relativisim.  To me, there was no gray area or middle ground.  To the extent that unbelievers were “moral” and their morality corresponded to the Bible, that was simply due to the fact that they were created in the image of God, and all humans still retained that image, including a god given conscience and knowedge of right vs. wrong.  In other words, it was all attributed to the Christian God, who was the only objective source.

Then I realized that even followers of this God could not agree on what was objectively moral or immoral.  Smoking, drinking, dancing, going to the theatre, cursing, how one dresses, etc.  Certainly this deity we all followed could have made things much more clear (except for the big things like murder, lying and stealing).  Further, it was also astounding how this God changed the administration of the law - from Adam/Eve to Noah to Abraham to Moses then to Christ.  My conclusion now is that reliance upon this deity or any other does not provide the “objective morality” humans often seek.  The religious order which has the most power often seems to have the most influence over the rules.  Despite my previous Christian assertions, objective morality based on the Christian God was a lot more subjective than I was willing to admit.

However, I do not believe that the complete opposite is true: that the only other alternative is complete relativism.  It seems to me that humans for the most part intend good will and are able to collectively arrive at morality which benefits the majority of the population, and are willing to adjust when things don’t make sense or when further research brings different conclusions.  Morality, therefore, does not appear to be completely “objective” yet neither is it completely subjective either.

I realize that the above it not very scientific or philosophical, but it best describes where I’ve come from.  And forms like this are helpful in figuring out where I’m going.

GDBD,

That’s fine as long as, as you noted, there’s some agreement as to “god’s” wishes.  There’s not.  It all comes down to what human claims what revelation.

As a former christian I also relied upon said god. But now I think even he’s not up to the task. Since he gave man free will each person is still charged with making choices, Albeit with a rather large carrot/stick for motivation.

I wish there were a single anchor but I don’t think there is. It’s more like calculus. The moral agent is not simply mediating between two or more competing interests. He must also mediate between two or more competing internal values (assuming he is the least bit literate and ego-formed) And also between competing social values that attempt to compel his choices.

Before you are a plaintiff and defendant. Each have compelling stories. Each have relevant needs. Each have sad-eyed families. As the judge in this case you have a dizzying array of variables to consider. There are possible past precedents. There are state and federal sentencing guidelines. There statutes regarding the handling of evidence. Rules regarding jury conduct. And most of all there is yourself. Your own personal need to balance justice against mercy. Your underlying and irrational biases against certain sorts of people. Your tendency towards emotional fatigue. All examples are throwaways but I think the character of the challenge remains.

Courtroom analogies, tired as they are, I think illustrate this facet of my concern. Moral choices of gravity tend to be extraordinarily complex. Often as not they are too complex to fully think through with merely cognitive apparatus. There isn’t sufficient time. We need to act in a timely fashion according to some some sort of structure in order to prevent more harm. And we need to do this many times each day. We need shortcuts. I just don’t know what they are.

Brick.

Good post.  Those decisions suck.  Sometimes, damned if you do or don’t.  Welcome to the uncomfortable world of a thinking person.

Brick:
As an agnostic atheist naturalist how does one make sense of morality at the very bottom?

I like Rob’s analogy of anchors.  He pointed out well-being. 

Harris also dedicated a section of his book to argue the ordinary sense of free will is not scientifically supported.  In Parfits free-will chapter he argues strongly that no-one can deserve to suffer.  I believe adopting such a view can provide an important moral anchor.

Time, or at least our perception of it, provides another anchor for me.  Looking back to the beginning of the universe as we know it, I can see how amazing it is that we exist.  I can also see that I was caused by everything before me, I did not create myself. 

I can also see that many of the questions about how our species got here, and how great our accomplishments can be in the universe, will not be answered in my life time.  My assessment is we will need millions if not billions more years as a species to figure it out.  Although it is possible that, in the end, our spices survival does not matter, I believe that it is logically possible that it does matter, and as a member I have species survival as one of my moral anchors.

I believe these anchors and others help at the very bottom.

Dennis Campbell - 28 September 2011 02:07 PM

Brick.

Good post.  Those decisions suck.  Sometimes, damned if you do or don’t.  Welcome to the uncomfortable world of a thinking person.

I agree. I think that deciding what is moral and what is not in various specific instances is a fantastic balancing act, without a clear-cut right or wrong answer. Recourse to ‘God’ may be an attempt at finding clear-cut answers, and in some instances it may work, although humans may not like the answer(s) supposedly given by ‘God’. On the other hand, I find that sometimes those supposedly ‘God-given’ answers are just as immoral as any, which makes me doubt the morality provided by the religious answer. [ What a paradox ! ].

Similarly secular answers to moral questions may often seem to be self evident, but on many occasions, a moral decision is a compromise among a set of issues. For example, is giving children a disciplinary smack an immoral thing? What are all of the consequences and ramifications? A person’s answer will probably be a compromise an estimate, a guessed-at balance of values and outcomes. Yes, Dennis, if one actually thinks hard about it, morality can be a prickly problem. I guess that in my own life, I don’t ponder too much on specific moral issues, unless I am faced with such an issue. I hope that my mind is up to the job of making a good decision when faced with a moral choice.

This does not mean that I don’t consider issues of morality in society in general, such as where I place issues such as murder, rape, theft, lying, homosexuality, violence and war etc. On these I do have an opinion based on moral principles But an individual can be faced with an unexpected moral issue which is of direct personal impact. Then, the thinking mind would need to come into play, and attempt to analyse the issue in whatever time-frame is available, and thus make some kind of moral decision and take action on the basis of it. The experience and its consequences may then lead the individual to change their views on some aspects of that issue, or maybe they will be strengthened.

Ok, good stuff.

I’m quite encouraged that my anxiety isn’t unique. While I do not share Sam’s view on morality what I do greatly appreciate is his zeal and intention to TRY and formulate objective moral concepts. I find I have more empathy for an unsuccessful attempt to create a principle than I do for a rather more logical determination that no such effort is fruitful.

So I’d put this question to ya’ll. Do you prefer to rest upon some post modern abdication of collective/objective morality in favor of relativism or is a worthwhile goal to pursue some as-of-yet unformed moral code? I’m inclined toward the latter but not without considerable conflict. There may attributes to human moral intuition that favor an untethered approach. I’m exploring this vigorously and appreciate your input.

Thanks again.

Brick Bungalow - 28 September 2011 10:07 PM

Ok, good stuff.

Do you prefer to rest upon some post modern abdication of collective/objective morality in favor of relativism or is a worthwhile goal to pursue some as-of-yet unformed moral code?

I lean towards the latter. I dislike and distrust relativism. I cannot see how I could ever be convinced that (for example) it is morally right to stone a young couple to death for sex outside marriage or to hang a couple of 18 year old boys for engaging in a bit of sexual activity together. I feel an instinctive, visceral moral indignation and anger at such cruelty and injustice. That is why I feel the need to pursue moral realism and anchor morality in something like the WBCC. When gods are found to be false, morality only makes sense in terms of conscious creatures and their flourishing. It is we who must find out what is good for us and what is moral. Morality comes from us. When we know what is good for us we have valid, rational reasons for deciding whether something is morally correct or not and for acting in the morally correct manner.

I do not think it needs to be as difficult as philosophers have heretofore made it . Parfit and other moral realists and Sam Harris are on the right track.

I don’t think you have to make it so hard. We’ve evolved as a social species, like any other except that we’re really smart and have serious technology and a really, really complex society. Part of evolving as a social species is empathy and the ability to “read” others’ body language and such. Go with it. Be mindful of it. Study it if you feel the need (you’re already very good at it ... so are dogs, by the way). It may not serve well in some rare circumstances, but really even then we can relate to each other even if it doesn’t translate well into what’s best to do and such. I think evolution has served us well enough that we’re pretty well equipped to manage intuitively over 99% of the time (online is quite another ballgame, though).

But then I’m not sure I’m addressing exactly what you’re after here.

I would say, that like many complex structures in our lives, it is a mixture of both.

Morality is subjective with a strong not to objective (or impartial) observation of the affects it imparts to our societies.

Even the notion of “Objective Morality” is, at its heart, subject to the correct observation of what the Objective actually is.  Once interpretation or disagreement about that Objectivity begins to take place, we then move into a subjective realm of morality, with that morality’s relative worth measured on the proposed objective.

In some cases we have god(s) posited as the source of Objectivity - but this only works if the god(s) so posited are not themselves subjective constructs of human socialization.
In other cases we have lofty ideals posited as the source of Objectivity (WBCC) - but this also falls into a pattern of subjective interpretation based on a heirarchy of needs and social structures.

For absolutists or authoritarians, this plastic nature of morality poses a larger problem than for those with more adaptable personalities or social sets.  (I’m not saying one is bad and one is good…I’m just saying they are different.) 

We can all come up with examples of “sounds like it should be an absolute moral imperative” that seems to be subjective in certain circumstances.  “Nazi’s at the door with Anne Frank in the Attic” scenarios come to mind. I think what these “exceptions to the rule” tell us is that even if we’re working on a presumption of objective morality based on socialization we should be prepared to think about the cause and effect of moral decisions and moral enforcement on others.

One other thing to consider is that it takes time to shift the zeitgeist.  While we can all think of examples and friends who would directly benefit from an instant change in our current zeitgeist, we know (intellectually) that change takes time….and if we sit back and look around for a minute,  we’ll see clear signs that times, they are a-changing.

(This is my opinion, and only my opinion, and thus should be treated accordingly…)

Jefe - 29 September 2011 06:02 AM

We can all come up with examples of “sounds like it should be an absolute moral imperative” that seems to be subjective in certain circumstances.  “Nazi’s at the door with Anne Frank in the Attic” scenarios come to mind ...

That reminds me ... I need to read Sam’s new eBooklet on lying. It’s just sitting there in my Kindle, waiting ... (forgot aboot it).

Jefe - 29 September 2011 06:02 AM

IIn some cases we have god(s) posited as the source of Objectivity - but this only works if the god(s) so posited are not themselves subjective constructs of human socialization.
In other cases we have lofty ideals posited as the source of Objectivity (WBCC) - but this also falls into a pattern of subjective interpretation based on a heirarchy of needs and social structures.

Jeff, I don’t see the WBCC as a lofty ideal. It is a very practical way of deciding what is good and it it something that we know objectively a lot about already. Subjectivity may always play a role in preferences, just s it does in aesthetics but we can objectively measure what is good or bad for us and what would contribute to our flourishing or otherwise. We might not always have the answers but in principle, questions about well-being are answerable. Where we don’t have answers it just means we need more knowledge and that knowledge will come from science. And let’s not forget that we are not talking about what is pleasurable here. What is pleasurable is not always good (boiling babies for example). That example is a no-brainer. Other examples may be more difficult but in principle there are answers.

I cannot see any other way of anchoring morality in objective reality other than to use something like the WBCC as a metric. This gets us out of the bind of Moore’s open question (the so called naturalistic fallacy) and it relieves us of the unsatisfactoriness of relativism that ends in nihilism. Moreover, and very importantly, it provides a means whereby a consensus about what is right might be reached.