An objective definition of MORALITY

[sickles]

Hello all. Im sure this group has its own fair share of moral nihilists. How goes it? Anyhow, I have a definition of morality that I have come up with. The idea is to avoid almost if not all of the pitfalls one comes across when claiming an objective moral imperative. This includes, but is not limited to; Hume's Is-ought problem, J.L. Mackie's claim there cannot be an objective morality, Is this not utilitarianism?, and a priori problems, and so on. I am to sidestep these. Most of these objections either are mostly against Divine Command Theory, or a problem of subjectivity and value. Here is my definition (this is the spirit of the new field thats called "Experimental Philosophy")

Morality is defined as sets of evolutionarily stable behaviors or strategies that ease the difficulty of socially complex animals living together in groups.

I say I avoid Hume's guillotine by not proscribing an "ought". The definition does not say whether one should or should not be moral. Nor does it claim that all humans are moral. Nor does it say what one should do with immoral people. The only ought that *might* be implied is that you "ought not go extinct". But that is really stretching it, from my estimation. I say I counter Mackie's claim by asserting that this definition is true , whether there is an observer or not. It has truth value before someone discovers the definition or not. Mackie is mainly postured against Divine Command Theory. I hope you see where I would go with this. I say I counter the accusation that this is utilitarianism, because it is not we who judge what is actually necessarily easier and what is not. It either meets the definition , or it doesn't. See my objection to Mackie, above. I hope why I would object to the assertion of an a priori problem would be obvious by this point. What do you think , ladies and gents? Have I struck gold, or is there a huge problem that I am not realizing? Please, anyone who responds and myself must assume the principle of mutual fallibility. I look forward to your responses.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 210 by sickles]

I see what you are attempting and understand. I just don't think this would fit any longer perhaps at one time but not in the current society we live in. It is in my opinion that we no longer live in a natural way. The use of technology, industry, medicine, and agriculture, means we no longer fight for survival and therefore do not see this fitting. Of course that is my opinion, but do find this thread and your idea of coming to a philosophical definition of morality based on observations of nature intriguing.

I myself have surmised a anthropological hypothesis on social morality not based on nature but observation of beliefs and interactions of tribal societies(hunter gatherers). It is always fascinated me how long these societies existed in relative peace with each other. Do not get me wrong they did fight but not in the way the civilized world has.

[sickles]

[Replying to post 211 by Excubis]

What my theory would mean is that , while we would have been living moral before the agricultural revolution (on the tribal level), we could not say so after hammurabi and such. However, my theory would probably predict that every cultural moral policy and norm would have to be re-evaluated for morality. If we can assume that people before the agricultural revolution were practicing morality in an evolutionarily stable way (we can) , then every change to those policies is subject to review. This is because those pre civilization policies can be reasoned to be evolutionarily stable, meaning they are ideal. Any change that to these principles that is less than ideal must be justified or rendered immoral by definition. At least, I think thats how it would work.

[sickles]

I think a simple way to put this is that the is-ought problem applies to all "contrived" systems of morality since Babylon, while systems of morality before this is not susceptible to the is ought problem. This is because it is descriptive.

[instantc]

I myself have surmised a anthropological hypothesis on social morality not based on nature but observation of beliefs and interactions of tribal societies(hunter gatherers).

Could you explain in laymans terms how that works. Is it merely an exercise in describing what those tribal societies have considered as moral, or is there more to it?

[sickles]

[Replying to post 214 by instantc]

I dont want to speak for him, but perhaps he means something like this?

"One response to this argument, on behalf of naturalistic realism, grants the claim of pervasive evolutionary influence on the contents of moral beliefs but challenges the claim that this should undermine our confidence in these beliefs. David Copp (2008), for example, has argued that on the conception of moral truths implied by his society-centered moral naturalism, it is plausible to suppose that a moral psychology shaped by natural selection in social contexts would yield moral beliefs that track moral truths at least reasonably well as a first approximation. On such a view, moral truths are grounded in moral standards having to do with codes that would enable societies to meet their basic needs (continued existence, stable cooperation among members, internal harmony and peaceful relations with other societies). Given the account of the evolution of human moral psychology sketched in section 2.3, involving the evolution of a capacity for normative guidance in connection with promoting social stability and cooperation (ultimately, of course, because of effects on genetic propagation), and further contributions of cultural evolution toward the development of moral codes fostering those same goals, many of our moral beliefs would naturally have to do with conditions for social stability and cooperation. Since on the proposed naturalistic view this is just what moral truths are about, there would thus be a tendency for our moral beliefs to have been shaped in ways that do tend to track moral truths, especially combined with continued cultural developments for correcting beliefs or attitudes that fail to contribute to these social goals."

[instantc]

[Replying to post 214 by instantc]

I dont want to speak for him, but perhaps he means something like this?

"One response to this argument, on behalf of naturalistic realism, grants the claim of pervasive evolutionary influence on the contents of moral beliefs but challenges the claim that this should undermine our confidence in these beliefs. David Copp (2008), for example, has argued that on the conception of moral truths implied by his society-centered moral naturalism, it is plausible to suppose that a moral psychology shaped by natural selection in social contexts would yield moral beliefs that track moral truths at least reasonably well as a first approximation. On such a view, moral truths are grounded in moral standards having to do with codes that would enable societies to meet their basic needs (continued existence, stable cooperation among members, internal harmony and peaceful relations with other societies). Given the account of the evolution of human moral psychology sketched in section 2.3, involving the evolution of a capacity for normative guidance in connection with promoting social stability and cooperation (ultimately, of course, because of effects on genetic propagation), and further contributions of cultural evolution toward the development of moral codes fostering those same goals, many of our moral beliefs would naturally have to do with conditions for social stability and cooperation. Since on the proposed naturalistic view this is just what moral truths are about, there would thus be a tendency for our moral beliefs to have been shaped in ways that do tend to track moral truths, especially combined with continued cultural developments for correcting beliefs or attitudes that fail to contribute to these social goals."

This doesn't answer my question. My question was, after one has decided that moral truths can be deduced empirically from, say, the behavior of tribesmen, how does one go about determining what the said moral truths are?

[sickles]

I would hazard to guess a "highest common denominator" scenario

[Excubis]

I myself have surmised a anthropological hypothesis on social morality not based on nature but observation of beliefs and interactions of tribal societies(hunter gatherers).

Could you explain in laymans terms how that works. Is it merely an exercise in describing what those tribal societies have considered as moral, or is there more to it?

I will in most modest of terms will attempt to express. I will first say that although I took the social interactions within a tribal society(specifically hunter gatherers) these behaviors in many cases mimic that of all social animals. I choose hunter gathers that had no civilization and/or little interactions with the civilized world. For this I sifted through literally thousands of anthropological studies from the past. This in itself was a quite a unbearable task, simply because far majority of older studies use words such as savages and so on. I only looked at recorded behaviors in the social paradigm not a biased assumption of these behaviors. I will also add many studies I used are from the order of Franciscan missionaries, many kept anthropological records of tribal societies before conversion.

First off I myself am Native American mix Cree, Metis, & half Irish heritage. I had always wondered why my ancestors existed so long yet were uncivilized and became uncivilized after introduction to the civilized world. I then asked perhaps these ancient cultures although lived differently were actually more civilized and therefor more moral. Well I truly find people confuse what morality is, morality is a social paradigm(way of being. thinking,& acting) and applies only to the social workings of a culture comparative to another. There is no morality unless we can compare our way with another way of being.

The common thread I found for the moral sate of tribal societies was their direct and obvious connection to one another. This connection led to the self being dramatically less important than the whole. I will state all these cultures had individuality as a member expressing their own self through dress, and adornment. To us from the outside this is not so apparent but it truly was. Now when I say `self`I mean individual achievement, for personal glorification or the better than mentality. Yes great individual achievements were celebrated and stories formed and past down, yet the reason was not for personal gain but for the betterment of the whole(community).

The majority aboriginal hunter gathers welcomed the first Europeans not because they thought they were Gods which seems to be indicated but by fascination and seeing these new peoples as a possible resource to make the community better. Now once such act that was carried out but many hunter gathers viewed by an outside more technologically advance people as immoral was infanticide. Yet within these cultures this practice was to prevent suffering due to lack of resources. These cultures understood that their survival came from nature and in turn could only support so many.

Okay, back on track, since having a obvious connection to one another, there was an innate importance or sense of belonging to the group. In the civilized world this importance or belonging is not obvious, civilized cultures have always had a ruling body of have`s over the have not`s. This in turn causes a loss of connection to one another therefor provides a platform to drive immoral acts of greed, corruption, and self justification. Now I am not inferring there wasn`t bad people in these societies but rights of a person(so to say) did not out way the collective good. Many were given second chance and banishment was the most widely accepted practice in these cultures. I should also state I have found feelings had nothing to do with what was moral in these cultures, being offensive was not common simply because your survival depends on members of your community. One great hunter wasn`t enough, one shaman, one leader, no there was always many.

In nearly all hunter gatherer societies stories of great leaders come from the time of European colonization. In most cases although there was a leader that leader was not alone and had a council to answer to. Yes they fought, committed murder, female abduction, and so on yet they did not enslave or attempt to convert others. They generally fought over resources for survival and not solely ideological principles of being better than. Yes skirmishes occurred over such things but they were relatively small and sporadic. Why? Survival drove these cultures not luxury.

I find it difficult surmise in one small coherent definition of morality but here it goes: Morality by hunter gathers was the act in which the whole(community) benefited, and immorality was the acts that benefited an individual but not the whole. One word I can best describe it is Sharing.

I want to add a bit more just because I find it very interesting. Cree depending on dialect has 5 words for gender each with there own meaning, in my studies I have found tribal societies have a much more complex understanding to gender and sexual orientation that we are only recently starting to accept as natural. I can't remember off hand but an Australian Aborigine tribe has 9 words to express gender. To me this is amazing comparative to our own civilized notion of gender.

[instantc]

I myself have surmised a anthropological hypothesis on social morality not based on nature but observation of beliefs and interactions of tribal societies(hunter gatherers).

Could you explain in laymans terms how that works. Is it merely an exercise in describing what those tribal societies have considered as moral, or is there more to it?

I will in most modest of terms will attempt to express. I will first say that although I took the social interactions within a tribal society(specifically hunter gatherers) these behaviors in many cases mimic that of all social animals. I choose hunter gathers that had no civilization and/or little interactions with the civilized world. For this I sifted through literally thousands of anthropological studies from the past. This in itself was a quite a unbearable task, simply because far majority of older studies use words such as savages and so on. I only looked at recorded behaviors in the social paradigm not a biased assumption of these behaviors. I will also add many studies I used are from the order of Franciscan missionaries, many kept anthropological records of tribal societies before conversion.

First off I myself am Native American mix Cree, Metis, & half Irish heritage. I had always wondered why my ancestors existed so long yet were uncivilized and became uncivilized after introduction to the civilized world. I then asked perhaps these ancient cultures although lived differently were actually more civilized and therefor more moral. Well I truly find people confuse what morality is, morality is a social paradigm(way of being. thinking,& acting) and applies only to the social workings of a culture comparative to another. There is no morality unless we can compare our way with another way of being.

The common thread I found for the moral sate of tribal societies was their direct and obvious connection to one another. This connection led to the self being dramatically less important than the whole. I will state all these cultures had individuality as a member expressing their own self through dress, and adornment. To us from the outside this is not so apparent but it truly was. Now when I say `self`I mean individual achievement, for personal glorification or the better than mentality. Yes great individual achievements were celebrated and stories formed and past down, yet the reason was not for personal gain but for the betterment of the whole(community).

The majority aboriginal hunter gathers welcomed the first Europeans not because they thought they were Gods which seems to be indicated but by fascination and seeing these new peoples as a possible resource to make the community better. Now once such act that was carried out but many hunter gathers viewed by an outside more technologically advance people as immoral was infanticide. Yet within these cultures this practice was to prevent suffering due to lack of resources. These cultures understood that their survival came from nature and in turn could only support so many.

Okay, back on track, since having a obvious connection to one another, there was an innate importance or sense of belonging to the group. In the civilized world this importance or belonging is not obvious, civilized cultures have always had a ruling body of have`s over the have not`s. This in turn causes a loss of connection to one another therefor provides a platform to drive immoral acts of greed, corruption, and self justification. Now I am not inferring there wasn`t bad people in these societies but rights of a person(so to say) did not out way the collective good. Many were given second chance and banishment was the most widely accepted practice in these cultures. I should also state I have found feelings had nothing to do with what was moral in these cultures, being offensive was not common simply because your survival depends on members of your community. One great hunter wasn`t enough, one shaman, one leader, no there was always many.

In nearly all hunter gatherer societies stories of great leaders come from the time of European colonization. In most cases although there was a leader that leader was not alone and had a council to answer to. Yes they fought, committed murder, female abduction, and so on yet they did not enslave or attempt to convert others. They generally fought over resources for survival and not solely ideological principles of being better than. Yes skirmishes occurred over such things but they were relatively small and sporadic. Why? Survival drove these cultures not luxury.

I find it difficult surmise in one small coherent definition of morality but here it goes: Morality by hunter gathers was the act in which the whole(community) benefited, and immorality was the acts that benefited an individual but not the whole. One word I can best describe it is Sharing.

I want to add a bit more just because I find it very interesting. Cree depending on dialect has 5 words for gender each with there own meaning, in my studies I have found tribal societies have a much more complex understanding to gender and sexual orientation that we are only recently starting to accept as natural. I can't remember off hand but an Australian Aborigine tribe has 9 words to express gender. To me this is amazing comparative to our own civilized notion of gender.

Thank you for the explanation, very interesting. However, I still don't understand how you would go about defining morality or finding out what's moral on basis of any of these observations. Surely you would already have to know what to look for, in other words, you would already have to have determined what constitutes a moral act. Otherwise, how could you tell which actions of the tribesmen are moral and which are not?

Lets take a concrete mock example, suppose a tribesman wakes up in the morning, takes out the trash, hunts down a deer, gives half of it to his neighbor, gets drunk and pisses on his other neighbor's front steps. Now you have observed the tribesman for the whole day. How do you go about making an empirical case on morality? How do you know which of those activities were moral and which weren't?

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 219 by instantc]

Morality is not empirical for one it is entirely subjective. I would like to personally accept that these cultures existence for so long compared to the of civilized societies give the clear non ambiguous indication of a set of moral behaviors. I am not sure what exactly you are asking but I think I do. Look for collective good, since morality is a social paradigm, moral behaviors are those that benefit group.