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.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 1 by sickles]

Well, it's a definition of something, to be sure, but I think your mileage will vary from person to person on whether you are "really" talking about "morality".

For me, "morality" needs to be about imperatives ("oughts") or it isn't really morality that we are talking about.

My working definition of morality is "logic associated with value axioms". Presuppose something as valuable, be it "human life" or "the fulfillment of God's will", and imperatives naturally arise.

[instantc]

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

For me, this is just another way of mixing apples and oranges. There are plenty of things that ease the difficulties of living in groups that are morally neutral. It is, for example, a good strategy for family members to let each other know of their plans. It makes it easier to live together in a group, but there is nothing morally great in such behavior.

[Divine Insight]

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

This may well be a seemingly "objective" definition of morality. I won't argue with this because I have no problem with morality being based upon seeming objectivity. I can propose several models for such "objective morality" myself.

However, even whilst these naively seem to be "objective" (and actually are in part), they are also subjective as well.

In your case the subjectivity is "let in" through the door of the concept of "stable behaviors". Precisely what constitutes a "stable behavior" is open to personal opinion.

After, in your so-called "Objective Morality" would homosexuality be moral or not?

Seems like the question boils down to one of asking whether or not homosexuality can be seen as "stable behavior".

And that opens this up to extreme subjective controversy for certain.

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.

I would so no. On the contrary all you've done here is trade off the subjective controversy over "Morality" to become a subjective controversy over what constitutes "stable behavior".

Other than having changed labels I don't see where you have removed the subjective nature of the problem.

~~~~~

There is another point I would like to make as well.

Your definition defines "morality" in terms of an entire group of individuals. It focuses on the group rather than considering individuals. Therefore your definition of morality is dependent up, and "relative to" this notion of a group.

This also brings into question whether the group can truly be any more important than the individual, especially in terms of what is "good"

If an individual is immorally harmed by what is good for the group then this morality does not extend to individuals. And this is a bit of an irony since the entire group is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Therefore if the morality is not good for the individual, then how can it be said to be good for the group since the group is nothing but a collection of individuals?

So I would say that you have a further problem in the fact that you are attempting to define morality based on what's good for the group in favor over what might be good for the individual.

Your definition may be "objective" in some degree in terms of the "group" (although even then subjective opinions of what constitute "stability" comes into play as well). But your "objective" morality would not be "objective" with respect to any particular individual.

In other words, you couldn't claim to have an "Absolute Morality" in any lofty philosophical sense, because your "group morality" may conflict with what might be considered moral (or stable, or good) for an individual.

~~~~~

This also brings up another point.

You are basically defining morality in terms of "stability" rather than in terms of "goodness", so in a sense you are actually ignoring the original concept of morality to begin with.

Goodness itself is a subjective notion.

You seem to have made some attempt to address this by including "ease the difficulty", no doubt thinking that easing difficulties might suggest a good thing. But that's not necessarily true. We could kill off the sick and elderly to "ease the difficulty" of the group. So an argument could be made that in your "Objective Morality" killing off those who aren't pulling their weight could be considered to be "Objectively Moral".

Do you see the problem here?

Killing off those pesky criminals could also be seen as "easing the difficulty" for the group and even adding to "stable behavior".

I think your definition of morality could justify tons of atrocities. And it would surely be fodder for extreme subjective arguments.

[sickles]

[Replying to FarWanderer]

Yes I agree that it is defining something. However, this is an assertion that I am making. And whatever name we want to give it, it does define moral behaviors. Why would it not be defining morality, and why should morality contain an ought? If you cannot knock my assertion down (in other words, you have no good reason to reject it) , then it still has power?

[sickles]

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

For me, this is just another way of mixing apples and oranges. There are plenty of things that ease the difficulties of living in groups that are morally neutral. It is, for example, a good strategy for family members to let each other know of their plans. It makes it easier to live together in a group, but there is nothing morally great in such behavior.

This is exactly my point. All those behaviors are moral. If they ease the difficulty, then it is moral. Language is moral , by this definition. Not killing, stealing, adulterating, etc is also considered moral. Am I correct in assuming that your response boils down to "I dont like it"?

[sickles]

"In your case the subjectivity is "let in" through the door of the concept of "stable behaviors". Precisely what constitutes a "stable behavior" is open to personal opinion. "

Actually, its "evolutionarily stable behavior". Not just stable behavior. As in, natural processes dictate what is stable and what isnt. What "precisely constitutes stable behavior" is not open to personal opinion. It is open to personal induction before it happens (a guess into the future), but retroactively, it either objectively meets the definition, or it doesnt. It seems that the most damage you have done with this objection is to point out you have to use induction to make predictions, and that using induction is somehow a problem for you.

"After, in your so-called "Objective Morality" would homosexuality be moral or not?
" In the current context, homosexuality would be considered moral. This is because homosexuals can and do employ evolutionarily stable strategies that ease the difficulty of their groups living together. For a clearer look at this, lets examine a bee hive. What advantage could there possibly be to having only one member of the community able to breed, and all the other members are the same sex and support the single breeder? What advantage I wonder? If you can answer this, then you can explain why homosexuality is moral for great apes such as ourselves.

"Seems like the question boils down to one of asking whether or not homosexuality can be seen as "stable behavior". Think " Evolutionarily stable. This is very different than just some subjective measure of stability. But yes, you got the gist of it.

"And that opens this up to extreme subjective controversy for certain. " natural processes, not me.

You are claiming i have A priori problems. I have explained how I am not subject to a priori problems in my original post. I am describing something that empirically is this way. Remember that my definition holds for human groups, wolf packs, dolphin pods, bee hives, and so on. All socially complex animals. I am fine in accepting that I may have a problem. But I do expect that this problem will be explained clearly.

"Your definition defines "morality" in terms of an entire group of individuals. It focuses on the group rather than considering individuals. Therefore your definition of morality is dependent up, and "relative to" this notion of a group. " This can be a useful spectrum, of what is your group and what isnt. Something to play with. However, according to the definition, your entire species is a group. Indeed, it could be expanded to include the entire living community as the group. But, if you just go by the definition, the "socially complex group" is all of human kind. The definition does not appeal to the group to judge what is evolutionarily stable and easy and what is not.

"This also brings into question whether the group can truly be any more important than the individual, especially in terms of what is "good" " Any individual of a group of socially complex animals is also part of the group, and the definition holds.

"If an individual is immorally harmed by what is good for the group then this morality does not extend to individuals."
Please remember that the definition does not demand that all individuals or even entire groups have to be moral. It says that if they are moral, then they are meeting this definition. I am just explaining what morality is. As opposed to immorality. It can extend to individuals, but they must consider their actions in the context of the group.

"And this is a bit of an irony since the entire group is nothing more than a collection of individuals. Therefore if the morality is not good for the individual, then how can it be said to be good for the group since the group is nothing but a collection of individuals? " I never said good. I said the behavior must be "evolutionarily stable" and "ease the difficulty". At no point do good and bad enter into it.

" You seem to have made some attempt to address this by including "ease the difficulty", no doubt thinking that easing difficulties might suggest a good thing. But that's not necessarily true. We could kill off the sick and elderly to "ease the difficulty" of the group. So an argument could be made that in your "Objective Morality" killing off those who aren't pulling their weight could be considered to be "Objectively Moral". " If killing off the sick and elderly is evolutionarily stable and it eases the difficulty of socially complex animals (individuals is what this says) living together in groups. I think that you are not reading my definition carefully enough. Each word is there for a reason. But, that as it is, about the old and sick people. If you wanted to take action and kill off these people, you must first make an assertion. The assertion is that doing so is both evolutionarily stable, and that it eases the difficulty of living together in groups. So you present your case, and they present theirs. You could only tell who actually met the definition of morality after the fact. Meaning, in hindsight. They might argue that eliminating their collective wisdom (old people) will necessarily make it more difficult for the group. Or that even eliminating elders is not evolutionarily stable. As for the sick, You will introduce an artificial bottleneck. Eliminating genes that might be needed for future generations. This may or may not run counter to evolutionarily stable. The point is, you cannot know ahead of time 100% if something will be moral or wont it. You only can inductively guess. But you get better at inductively guessing after you use the definition for awhile.

As far as killing criminals, if you wanted to do this, you would have to prove that killing them wouldnt violate the definition (if you wanted to be moral), a difficult thing to do. And you would also have to prove the inverse that letting them stay is making living in groups more difficult or less evolutionarily stable. Considering everyones genes go here through the processes of natural selection, it will be very hard to assert that their actions would not be evolutionarily stable,but it could be done. What other atrocities could this definition justify?

[sickles]

Most people define Morality as PRINCIPLES.. I am defining Morality as BEHAVIORS. So when you say that "you are defining something, but im not sure what" you are essentially saying "I dont like that definition, But I am unable to say why." I hope you could see how this is not a valid objection.

[Divine Insight]

Actually, its "evolutionarily stable behavior". Not just stable behavior. As in, natural processes dictate what is stable and what isnt.

And you're going to us that as a basis for "objective morality"?

It seems to me then that modern medicine and taking care of the sick and elderly would be a violation of "natural processes".

In fact, most people recognize that nature can be extremely cruel. And far from what humans would consider to be "moral behavior".

So I don't think your "evolutionary stable behavior" idea would fair very well. It also sounds like it could be used as an excuse for a genetically engineered society. Many people would argue that surely a "designed evolutionary stable behavior" would be better than a "naturally-driven evolutionary stable behavior".

There are people who are making these kinds of arguments already. They argue that the time has come for humans to take their own evolution into their own hands, since we have naturally evolved to the point where this has become possible.

In fact, we have actually already been doing this for centuries anyway without really realizing it. We're doing it more and more every day as medicine keeps people alive to procreate who would not naturally procreate, etc.

I'm not saying whether any of this is "right or wrong". I'm just pointing out that this is the way things are already. And yet we are faced with many "moral choices" associated even with this process.

I don't think you've hit a "Gold Mine" at all. On the contrary I don't think you have a valid basis for "morality" at all.

IMHO, the concept of morality is far better off beign recognized to be subjective to human values. The sooner we recognize this the sooner well be able to make good moral choices.

[instantc]

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

For me, this is just another way of mixing apples and oranges. There are plenty of things that ease the difficulties of living in groups that are morally neutral. It is, for example, a good strategy for family members to let each other know of their plans. It makes it easier to live together in a group, but there is nothing morally great in such behavior.

This is exactly my point. All those behaviors are moral. If they ease the difficulty, then it is moral. Language is moral , by this definition. Not killing, stealing, adulterating, etc is also considered moral. Am I correct in assuming that your response boils down to "I dont like it"?

Whether or not I like it is irrelevant. You are not talking about morality, you are simply redefining the term for your convenience to mean something that it does not mean in ordinary language.