Poldano - 13 October 2011 10:22 PM

Brick Bungalow - 11 October 2011 09:01 AM

We might declare that all the particles in existence behave according to some set of deterministic principles and we might be right. So every action and decision of every person would be governed by the same system that governs everything else. Whether these actions have a moral dimension or not. Strictly in this sense I guess I can agree that morality is objective.

But it still isn’t.

Fundamentally it isn’t because people disagree. Because the same physical act can acquire or can lose its moral dimension simply by virtue of the preferences present in the actors. Say someone hand cuffs me and then hits me with a cane. The moral dimension of this event seems entirely contingent on whether or not I prefer for this to be done. If its done by request it has no negative moral content. If it’s done against my will I call it immoral. The two events can be exactly identical in every other detail.

I compare it to physical science to highlight the difference. You and I stridently disagree on how a certain wildflower metabolizes sugar. We can both have facts to support our contention. We can be absolutely certain about mutually exclusive explanations for the same event. But there is a mediating principle that will exclude at least one of our ideas and possibly both of them. And that is the actual objective reality of the flowers existence.

Morality simply isn’t this way. There all sorts of polarized conflicts that simply rely on differing interests and preferences. Two or more people require the same resource and fight one another for it. If physical science affirms the morality of one it also affirms the other. They both need something only one of them can have. It makes no coherent judgment about whether I am ‘right’ to pay a dominatrix to spank me. Nor whether the rightness of her choice to do so is dependent upon my permission. These are strictly human judgments based on individual preference. I might cite my emotional being and brain chemistry as factors in my choice but someone else could do the same for the opposite choice. There is no meaningful reference to be found for the essential validity of any decision. Outside of personal self reflection.

Again, I’m happy to be proved wrong here. But I’m not hearing anything substantial.

I can’t agree with this, either, but I don’t have a slam-dunk proof.

Part of the problem is that an individual must start his/her/its moral development by acting on individual preferences. Morality is only possible after an individual preference is blocked by a circumstance not under an individual’s control. This is necessary for the start, but not sufficient. Some of the blocks to personal preferences must be interpreted as reactions from other entities with preferences, after which the indivudual must become cognizant of consensus rules governing which situations allow, and which do not allow, acting on which specific preferences. Then, I strongly suspect that the individual needs to see those rules as “fair”, i.e., applying to everyone in the same manner, with some modification according to clear differences among individuals (eg, self-sufficiency, grown-up-ness, gender, external social status, etc.).

Some of the situations you refer to are not properly in the scope of the “moral”, IMO, but might be considered such for people who operate by categorization of either literal behaviors or entire realms of behavior. Your dominatrix example, specifically, can be considered immoral only if someone judges morality by specific physical aspects of actions, by realm of action (eg, sensual or sexual pleasure not specifically needed to sustain life, health, and property), or by degree of conformity of action (i.e., it’s weird, “weird” being a description of a subjective categorical realm of behavior).

I think it’s all too common, but understandable, that people classify conformity issues with moral issues. Distinguishing between the two requires more cognition than most people want to spend on understanding other people’s actions. Also, general conformity may be taken as an indicator of effective morality (i.e., morality in practice), since the willingness of others to spend cognitive metabolism on moral decisions outside what is required to generally conform with others is justifiably suspect.

It is my opinion that morality of actions depends upon how they tend (i.e., can be reliably predicted to) benefit, as opposed to harm, other “conscious creatures”. This is an objective criterion, but establishing the objective evidence is very difficult. To be completely moral under the proposed rule would requires knowing all the entailments of one’s actions according to their total probabilities of helping or harming others. This is obviously impossible in a practical sense, and probably in a theoretical sense as well. What is possible is acting according to well-accepted heuristics, learning from experience, and actively trying to understand how the world works. If that sounds a bit like applied science, it’s no accident. Science is just formalized common sense.

I was going to ramble on about preferences, but I’ll leave at that for now. By the way, I guess this shows something of my true colors. I don’t just think that science can contribute to morality. I think that our native common sense together with biological evolution, two quasi-scientific processes, were the means by which morality came to be.

Practical and cognitive liberty. And religion (of course) Popular concepts of well being extend well past simply mental and physical health for the majority of earths inhabitants. They include all sorts social, creative and metaphysical considerations. The majority of which simply don’t intersect at all with any reductive sciences. While the naturalist is certainly free to disagree with claims its very different to make moral judgments about someones choice to pursue their own well being according to their own personal standard of well being. Especially if well being is the very ideal we propose to affirm in the first place.

The most enduring (and by some measures most powerful) institutions on the planet put the premium on well being AFTER death. I do not share this view but I cannot dismiss it either given the enormous influence it has. I don’t see any obvious synthesis between naturalistic and theistic models of morality. While we might find common ground on many isolated points the larger philosophic contradictions are not mobile.

If there is a single, objective model of human morality I don’t see how it can avoid taking sides on issues like this and thus dogmatically condemning the other as objectively immoral. The great crime of popular religion in my view.

This is a single throwaway example. I don’t mean to spark a specifically religious argument. The point is that persons have unique and often contrary conceptions of well being. And different ways of prioritizing moral elements. While I’m all in favor of relaxing our instinct to fight over trivia and find what consensus there is to be found I’m not able to extend this to moral prescription. Someone will either agree with you about some issue or they will not. Objectivity emerges from certain practical limits but human moral judgment cannot create it.

Brick Bungalow - 13 October 2011 11:59 PM

Poldano - 13 October 2011 10:22 PM

I don’t just think that science can contribute to morality. I think that our native common sense together with biological evolution, two quasi-scientific processes, were the means by which morality came to be.

Objectivity emerges from certain practical limits but human moral judgment cannot create it.

I’m not sure what this means, Brick. Are you saying that moral judgment cannot be based on objective evidence? Or, human moral judgment cannot create objectivity? Or, objectivity is so limited that it renders moral judgment subjective?

[I’m just listening in to your interesting conversation from time to time, so far.]

Answerer - 14 October 2011 12:02 PM

Brick Bungalow - 13 October 2011 11:59 PM

Poldano - 13 October 2011 10:22 PM

I don’t just think that science can contribute to morality. I think that our native common sense together with biological evolution, two quasi-scientific processes, were the means by which morality came to be.

Objectivity emerges from certain practical limits but human moral judgment cannot create it.

I’m not sure what this means, Brick. Are you saying that moral judgment cannot be based on objective evidence? Or, human moral judgment cannot create objectivity? Or, objectivity is so limited that it renders moral judgment subjective?

[I’m just listening in to your interesting conversation from time to time, so far.]

Sort of. Certainly the practical limits of the physical world limit our choices. Including moral choice. This lends some element of objectivity to the personal moral compass. Assuming an individual is clear about their own values.

But ‘morality’ writ large in the social sense remains subjective because we don’t really have any leverage with which to evaluate the priorities of other people. I can use objective criteria to determine that your actions do not affirm MY values. But can I really tell you that your wrong objectively for preferring what you prefer? I don’t see how.

Brick Bungalow - 14 October 2011 04:54 PM

Answerer - 14 October 2011 12:02 PM

Brick Bungalow - 13 October 2011 11:59 PM

Poldano - 13 October 2011 10:22 PM

I don’t just think that science can contribute to morality. I think that our native common sense together with biological evolution, two quasi-scientific processes, were the means by which morality came to be.

Objectivity emerges from certain practical limits but human moral judgment cannot create it.

I’m not sure what this means, Brick. Are you saying that moral judgment cannot be based on objective evidence? Or, human moral judgment cannot create objectivity? Or, objectivity is so limited that it renders moral judgment subjective?

[I’m just listening in to your interesting conversation from time to time, so far.]

Sort of. Certainly the practical limits of the physical world limit our choices. Including moral choice. This lends some element of objectivity to the personal moral compass. Assuming an individual is clear about their own values.

But ‘morality’ writ large in the social sense remains subjective because we don’t really have any leverage with which to evaluate the priorities of other people. I can use objective criteria to determine that your actions do not affirm MY values. But can I really tell you that your wrong objectively for preferring what you prefer? I don’t see how.

Ok, I see what you’re saying. I don’t know, though, the first thing that comes to mind is how much harm is your preference doing. If it’s heroin over methamphetamine, I guess not.

Gotta go, now. But will return no doubt. I don’t want to intrude on your and Poldano’s discussion, though. Asd is more than I can handle.

Brick Bungalow - 13 October 2011 11:59 PM

...
The most enduring (and by some measures most powerful) institutions on the planet put the premium on well being AFTER death. I do not share this view but I cannot dismiss it either given the enormous influence it has. I don’t see any obvious synthesis between naturalistic and theistic models of morality. While we might find common ground on many isolated points the larger philosophic contradictions are not mobile.

If there is a single, objective model of human morality I don’t see how it can avoid taking sides on issues like this and thus dogmatically condemning the other as objectively immoral. The great crime of popular religion in my view.

This is a single throwaway example. I don’t mean to spark a specifically religious argument. The point is that persons have unique and often contrary conceptions of well being. And different ways of prioritizing moral elements. While I’m all in favor of relaxing our instinct to fight over trivia and find what consensus there is to be found I’m not able to extend this to moral prescription. Someone will either agree with you about some issue or they will not. Objectivity emerges from certain practical limits but human moral judgment cannot create it.

A single, objective morality can be non-dogmatic, and tolerate some degree of dogmatism for some purposes. Where the unresolvable conflict will arise are with those who have rigidly self-replicating memes that prevent them from even reinterpreting their own dogmas. These can be managed somewhat by containment, in the form of constant pressure on their promulgators to prove their points empirically, in logically and statistically valid ways. We are doing OK in this regard in some areas, for example in keeping “Creation Science” out of public school curricula. The containment of religiously dogmatic morality will take the form of finding empirical rationale for every moral principle that religious dogma can come up with. This is obviously easier with respect to the human-oriented rules than with the god-oriented rules (I recently read of research suggesting that coveting has a high metabolic cost, for instance). Nonetheless, even the god-oriented rules have their basis in neurology, and consequently are the result of an evolutionary process, even if it is just a spandrel.

Such an objective morality is not going to be absolute any time soon, if ever. We don’t know enough, and may be incapable of knowing enough. Moreover, we are still evolving, and moral theory and moral practice are both components of the evolutionary process. So, we’ll have to settle for continuing to get better, albeit with false starts and dead ends that need to be undone, rather than trying to be perfect.

As for philosophical coherence, why worry? Philosophy is, and should be, the field for working out contradictions. All a contradiction proves is the insufficiency of at least one of the theories that resulted in it. Coming up with an acceptable theory that does not generate contradictions, and covers all the ground that needs to be covered, is the same as finding an absolute. I’ve said it can never be achieved, but we still have to create and test potentially better approximations.

Finally, as for eternal life, that is part of the justification for moral behavior, not a theory describing appropriate behavior. For those who believe it to be a fiction, or who find implausible the notion that it is a state of eternal torment for unbelievers, it should not matter. There remains the motivational problem I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread: why should one consider the world and all entities in it as existing for any reason other than one’s personal whim? That’s one tough nut of a problem to crack, and the eternal life carrot-on-a-stick is an obvious pragmatic solution for cultures where people have a conception of mind separate from body (for Christian theology, it’s of Greek rather than Judaic origin). There are other theological notions that are nearly as motivationally effective as that of eternal life, but that have much clearer correspondences to empirically-verifiable phenomena.

Say we grant the hypothetical existence of some future moral paradigm that reflects a comprehensive knowledge of human well being. It would be the most normative by every reasonable standard we might imagine.

I’m still struggling with how one person or one society can reasonably compel the individual who stubbornly refuses to cooperate. In other words, could the utopian model BE moral if it wasn’t voluntary? And if it is voluntary how is it more than simply academic?

Perhaps there is some means by which goals are passively realigned. Leading by example. It still feels like science fiction.

But don’t take my pessimism to heart. I WANT there to be a solution.

Brick Bungalow - 15 October 2011 04:21 AM

Say we grant the hypothetical existence of some future moral paradigm that reflects a comprehensive knowledge of human well being. It would be the most normative by every reasonable standard we might imagine.

I’m still struggling with how one person or one society can reasonably compel the individual who stubbornly refuses to cooperate. In other words, could the utopian model BE moral if it wasn’t voluntary? And if it is voluntary how is it more than simply academic?

Perhaps there is some means by which goals are passively realigned. Leading by example. It still feels like science fiction.

But don’t take my pessimism to heart. I WANT there to be a solution.

There is group consensus among Vegans that the slaughter of animals is ethically wrong.  If, one day, in the future, the entire planet became Vegans, it would just mean larger group consensus.  Societal consensus doesn’t mean “objectivity,” it just means group consensus of a preference.  The fact that everyone agrees on a preference doesn’t make it objective.  If everyone agreed on the priciples of Veganism, it wouldn’t make the principles of Veganism objectively true.