What is Morality?

[ThePainefulTruth]

The Question: Other than the issue of limited moral grey areas (subject of another thread), what human interactions can be defined as immoral?: The violation of the equal rights of all human adults to their life, liberty, property and self-defense through force or fraud. Therefore, true morality is much less than the wide array of sins that most if not all religions claim that it is.

A simple moral code, a refined statement of the Golden Rule, uses only two assumptions: 1) That life is of value to creatures that can comprehend that they are alive (enabling them to value it), with human/sentient life being of ultimate value due to a full self-awareness defined as the comprehension of mortality; 2) The desire for (value of) good order among humans mandates a universal morality among humans. The only ones who wouldn't agree with those assumptions are those wishing to establish a double standard with themselves being in the elite favored status; and anarchists who only want to watch the world burn. Some will say that restricting the elite class is subjective, but just the opposite is the case. To allow for a morally elite class or individual would automatically invite chaos, and devalue those of the second class based on the subjective (self-determined, exceptional) values/superiority the elites give themselves.


IOW, morality is an objective means to fulfill a subjective but nearly universal goal. If no objective/universal morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos.

The more universally honored the moral code is, the more universal good order is. In order to work toward that universal acceptance, we must keep the moral code as simple as possible without mandating individually determined virtues—the disagreements over which are the cause of most human strife. Understanding the need to separate subjective virtues from objective morality is our greatest obstacle to good order.

[Bust Nak]

I was serious, these are solution that will lead to good order, given "perfect use." Besides, how serious I am, is irrelevant to the validity of my points.

But that's secondary. I want to focus on objectivism vs subjectivism, as I been saying all along. What about the rest of my post? Particular re: "you determine what rights you want to make universal, i.e. objective." How do you make something objective? You simply declare it? Universal consensus means the same thing objective to you?

The goal of the objective position, or objectivism if you must, is equal rights for all.

The goal of objective position?! Who sets the goal, why ought everyone have equal rights?

Your subjective position is that there are no rights, or at least whatever rights some have are subject to the whim of an elite class.

That's simply reality. Whatever objective utopia you have in mind, still need the strengh of arms to stop those few who don't want "good order" from messing it up.

hus your, "Are you asking me what are the ways of achieving good order? Well everyone becoming Buddhist would work, everyone becoming Christians would also work. Everyone doing exactly as I order would also work", would mean nothing but chaos by definition. There would be no inviolable individual rights except for the elite's--and those would shift with vagaries of the ebb and flow of power.

It might lead to chaos with imperfect use. If would by necessity lead to good order with perfect use.

I take it from your attitude that you'd willingly become a Buddhist, or a Christian, or a Muslim or bare your throat to a tyrant at the say-so of those entities? If so, you either aren't serious, as I said, or (there is no alternative I can think of that would fit within the rules of the board).

No, I am not willing for any of those to happen. No more than tyrant want equal right for everyone. You asked me a question and I gave you multiple answers, demonstrating the point that even if you have a consensus on what the goal is, there are still many ways of achieving that goal.

[higgy1911]

[Replying to post 45 by ThePainefulTruth]

No I cannot give you an example of where a virtue should be legislated. That's part of my point. I'm struggling to see how you are distinguishing social order and the value of freedom or equality as being distinct from any other virtue. This may be a semantic problem but I find it an interesting one.

The problem I have is that legislating morality, any morality, is by its nature simply an attempt by a majority of people who hold similar values to force others to adhere to those values and to pursue the goal of that majority. This is made somewhat obvious by the fact that you call it universal morality but then immediately describe two groups, tyrants and anarchists, who don't agree with your means and possibly not even your goal.

Don't get me wrong. I'm with you. I'm all for legislating only the basics of my morality. Freedom from coercion applied equally to all. Thing is that's based on my values and what I see as virtues. So when I force the minority of people to adhere to it that don't share those values the only thing that distinguishes my behavior morally from a tyrant is I'm subjugating a minority instead of a majority. It's just tyranny to a lesser degree. Which is probably a necessary state but I think we fool ourselves if think there is an objective distinction between us and tyrants aside from some math.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 50 by ten10ths]

It's in the best interests of the 100 people for none of them to be raped or rape - even if 99 of them liked raping, more happiness would be attained by rehabilitating the 99 into not liking rape, as then 100 people could be happy simultaneously. (incidentally the way I see it is not as a literal mean average but more of raising a low quartile average or similar)

[ThePainefulTruth]

I was serious, these are solution that will lead to good order, given "perfect use." Besides, how serious I am, is irrelevant to the validity of my points.

But that's secondary. I want to focus on objectivism vs subjectivism, as I been saying all along. What about the rest of my post? Particular re: "you determine what rights you want to make universal, i.e. objective." How do you make something objective? You simply declare it? Universal consensus means the same thing objective to you?

The goal of the objective position, or objectivism if you must, is equal rights for all.

The goal of objective position?! Who sets the goal, why ought everyone have equal rights?

The people set the goal in self-defense. And the irony is the people who say there are no equal rights are the useful idiots who scream equal rights the loudest when they're drawn and quartered by the one they thought was their benefactor. The truth is despots respect the members of their opposition but have no patience with their simpering myrmidons once they've outlived their useful idiocy. Which side are you on?

Your subjective position is that there are no rights, or at least whatever rights some have are subject to the whim of an elite class.

That's simply reality. Whatever objective utopia you have in mind, still need the strengh of arms to stop those few who don't want "good order" from messing it up.

Amen, when did I ever say otherwise? "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and the blood of tyrants."--T.J.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 45 by ThePainefulTruth]

No I cannot give you an example of where a virtue should be legislated. That's part of my point. I'm struggling to see how you are distinguishing social order and the value of freedom or equality as being distinct from any other virtue. This may be a semantic problem but I find it an interesting one.

As I continue to say, morality should be seen as the code that governs our interactions with each other regarding our rights. It is the only code that should be legislated; while virtue is our individual code of conduct which doesn't involve violating the rights of others. We use "morals" and "virtues" interchangeably, but that only opens the door for confusion and corruption. We could make up new words but those who don't want the confusion to stop would be at an even greater advantage for fighting that than the model I'm using here.

The problem I have is that legislating morality, any morality, is by its nature simply an attempt by a majority of people who hold similar values to force others to adhere to those values and to pursue the goal of that majority.

That's exactly why legislation must protect the equal rights of all, not just a majority. It's also why a legal/moral double standard is the source of ALL evil. Slavery, genocide, rape, murder, theft are all examples of the results of a legal double standard in a society, or a moral double standard in an individual.

This is made somewhat obvious by the fact that you call it universal morality but then immediately describe two groups, tyrants and anarchists, who don't agree with your means and possibly not even your goal.

How is that a problem? If we manage to achieve a universal morality, equally applied to all, there will always be those who try to violate that morality, justifying that violation in their mind with the "I'm more important than them" double standard. I'm using the word tyrant here for anyone who wants to violate the code for his own advantage, which would be the vast majority of criminals. The anarchist's reasoning is beyond my comprehension, and is probably akin to a mental illness or some form of irrational thought.

Don't get me wrong. I'm with you. I'm all for legislating only the basics of my morality. Freedom from coercion applied equally to all. Thing is that's based on my values and what I see as virtues. So when I force the minority of people to adhere to it that don't share those values the only thing that distinguishes my behavior morally from a tyrant is I'm subjugating a minority instead of a majority.

I think you're conflating morality and virtue. Again, which of what you see as virtues should be legislated? And the only value involved from which morality is deduced, is the value of human life. The only minority you're trying to force are those who would violate your or other's rights (to life, liberty, property and self-defense). If we can't agree on those basic rights, then continuing the chaos is the only alternative--and believe me, other than those places that honor that morality (mostly), that chaos is ubiquitous.

It's just tyranny to a lesser degree. Which is probably a necessary state but I think we fool ourselves if think there is an objective distinction between us and tyrants aside from some math.

How so, are you a tyrant? Or would you be without the restraint of the law, or the opposition of others, or the moral imperative against it? Even a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

[Bust Nak]

The people set the goal in self-defense. And the irony is the people who say there are no equal rights are the useful idiots who scream equal rights the loudest when they're drawn and quartered by the one they thought was their benefactor. The truth is despots respect the members of their opposition but have no patience with their simpering myrmidons once they've outlived their useful idiocy. Which side are you on?

People setting the goal you say, there is a term for that - moral subjectivism. I am on the side of subjectivism.

Amen, when did I ever say otherwise? "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and the blood of tyrants."--T.J.

That would be when you constandly talk as if my appeal to the strength of arms puts me on the side of tyrants or anarchists.

[ThePainefulTruth]

The people set the goal in self-defense. And the irony is the people who say there are no equal rights are the useful idiots who scream equal rights the loudest when they're drawn and quartered by the one they thought was their benefactor. The truth is despots respect the members of their opposition but have no patience with their simpering myrmidons once they've outlived their useful idiocy. Which side are you on?

People setting the goal you say, there is a term for that - moral subjectivism. I am on the side of subjectivism.

People setting the same goal for all, or individuals or groups each adopting the morality that benefits their desire to have an advantage over others.

Amen, when did I ever say otherwise? "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and the blood of tyrants."--T.J.

That would be when you constandly talk as if my appeal to the strength of arms puts me on the side of tyrants or anarchists.

As always, arms can be used for good (self-defense) or bad (conquest).

In both cases here, you put words in my mouth that were never there. If we can't have an honest discussion, it's not worth it.

[Bust Nak]

People setting the goal you say, there is a term for that - moral subjectivism. I am on the side of subjectivism.

People setting the same goal for all, or individuals or groups each adopting the morality that benefits their desire to have an advantage over others.

Right, in both cases it's people picking and choosing. The appeal to people is what makes it subjective.

As always, arms can be used for good (self-defense) or bad (conquest).

In both cases here, you put words in my mouth that were never there. If we can't have an honest discussion, it's not worth it.

Never there you say?

"If no objective/universal morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos."
"The only other moralities would be based on the desires of oligarchs/despots or anarchists (miniscule minorities)."
"The instant you allow a moral/legal double standard, the whole thing is in shambles because the tyrants and anarchists have won and can take over."
"So Theocracy or Dictatorship?"
"The goal of the objective position, or objectivism if you must, is equal rights for all. Your subjective position is that there are no rights, or at least whatever rights some have are subject to the whim of an elite class. "

All your words, not mine. It's a constand theme of your posts: "1) objective morality, 2) dictatorship or 3) anarchy; you can only pick one."

[Danmark]

I believe our* core morality is objectively agreed upon and shared by all cultures and societies. And we need look no further than evolution to determine this. As Fran de Waal, among others, has pointed out even animals have this same core morality that consists of principles necessary for cooperative enterprise; i.e., reciprocity, a sense of fairness, empathy.

"Let’s get right to the point. In Wild Justice, we argue that animals feel empathy for each other, treat one another fairly, cooperate towards common goals, and help each other out of trouble. We argue, in short, that animals have morality."
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/041612.html

It is not hard to understand how and why these universals developed in the animal kingdom to which we belong. The social animals 'learned' thru evolution that they were better off if they cooperated. Tribes that did not have these qualities had a hard time cooperating for the common good and were less likely to survive. Cooperation gives us a survival advantage.

We must distinguish between morality and law. In any society where there is inequality of power, naturally some groups will subvert the common morality by seeking to pass laws and regulations based on narrow self interest. In the U.S. this culminated in the Citizens United ruling which increased the power of some groups over others based on how much money they have to spend influencing legislation.
_____________________
*There are obvious exceptions, such as sociopaths and corporations; the latter being 'persons' only in the sense that law can create absurdities. But even sociopaths understand the universal morality, and even act is if they believe in it when it suits their selfish purpose. To some extent this applies to us all. We understand this universal morality, we accept it, we believe in it, but sometimes our own self interest triumphs over our moral sense. That is why we are all susceptible to acting differently in private than we do in public.