In another thread there was a mentioned of doing something because it itself is good. Questions came up as to what that is, how we would recognise it and why we should do it. That tends to be the three big questions in meta-ethics - what is morality, how do we know whether something is moral and why should we act in a morally appropiate way? Here's my current understanding of morality. Where to start I've found that the best way to understand a practice that we do is to work out what its purpose is in our everyday lives - what we'd be missing without it. Scientific facts, for example, are less fundamental than the logical rules that they depend on. These rules of logic are in turn based on the language and purpose of our scientific practice. Science is about accurately describing the world around us. Morality seems to be about what actions we should and shouldn't do. So what role do 'shoulds' and 'shouldn'ts' play in our lives? Shoulds and shouldn'ts The most obvious 'should' is the one of hypothetical imperitives of practical reason. e.g. if you want a boiled egg then you should put it in boiled water. Another way we use the word 'should' is when there's a role we expect someone to be playing in a given situation. e.g. a goal keeper should stay by the goal. These 'shoulds' are based on the hypo-imperitaves of practical reason, as they are justified by the purpose/aim of the role. However, it recognises that sometimes the reasoning of the 'should' it not always how to acheive the aim, but also what they should be aiming for. If the goal keeper keeps going upfront trying to score a goal then they are aiming for the wrong things, given their role in the game. Sometimes the aims/values that we have go against our interests. Someone might desire something that they are allergic too. Someone might be ending a relationship, not realizing how important this person is to them. Often the issues are too complex be predicted by a single person's own reason and experience. That's why practical reason is often made up of practical 'rule of thumb' guidelines that have worked for most people in the past. Like the '3 date rule', and other social conventions that have evolved by 'working' for the people who adopted them. There does seem to be one thing in common about all these 'shoulds' though, they all tend to be for the purpose of the persons best interests. So let's have a look at what that is. Self Interest The first thing I should note is that 'self interest' is different to selfishness. Selfishness, when we use it in everyday terms, is when someone is excessively self-interested and lacks care for others. Self-interest, on the other hand, might specifically involve care for others. Many people agree that altruism is genuinely in a person's best interests. The only thing that I've found puzzling over 'self-interest' is as follows: Sometimes we see the purpose of an interest is the person's value, and that their is no reason why they shouldn't sacrifice their lives for this value. Other times we might point out that this interest/value isn't worth it if it's degoratory to their health. Sometimes a person will let go of an interest in the name of self preservation, and spending the rest of the life that preserved regretting this decision. (e.g. someone who ran away from protecting someone they cared about) On the other hand, we see people who give their lives for something and think that it was a silly thing to throw their lives away over. So the question now is, how do we decide whether the 'value' is more important than 'health'. When is the abstract ideal more important than the life here and now, and how do we determine this. A rule of thumb tends to be that it's a noble sacrifice, only when it's for the greater good, e.g. for the rest of humanity. This tends to be the general idea about morality, that's it's recognising the good of society as a whole and withholding impulses you might have the might damage that. The question is now, why should a person abide by morality. What's in it for them, so to speak? How does practical reason connect with these abstract ideals that would encourage a person to throw their life away for a greater good? Morality is about relationships An important part of our lives is how we relate to other people. There's the obvious facts that we need co-operation to get along, but we also have these psychological innate 'needs' for companionship and to be accepted in society. So maintaining relationships is very important. There's more to this than just the need to 'appear' to be moral. If social approval and disapproval was all there was to morality then it would simply be a means to social acceptance. While social acceptance is a large part of real life morality, it actually goes deeper than that. A good way to look at it is like a game of sports. While sometimes one might try and quickly break a rule for a competitive advantage, it is generally agreed that the rules are there for the purpose of a better game and so we all agree to enforce them, because without the rules, the game would fall to pieces. In the same way, our relationships, with other people, other groups, and society in general, certain rules need to be followed in order for them to work. As these relationships are naturally valuable then so is the following of the right rules to maintain them. So morality is about preserving what we all value, (or atleast would value if we understood how important relationships are to our life) and it's a matter of reminding ourselves and others what's really important when an impulse encourages us to do something that might damage that. That's my current take on it anyhow. No doubt it's full of holes! Thoughts?
When considering the role of self-interest in acts of self-sacrifice, "What's in it for them, so to speak?", I think it comes down to the ability and tendency of human beings to enlarge their sense of self to encompass others. We have the ability to identify ourselves not as individuals but as a part of a whole, be it a family, a local community, or an entire country. I don't think it's so much that we're sacrificing ourselves for others, but more that we're simply protecting our "self", which doesn't necessarily have to be limited to our own individual person. A soldier who spends enough time contemplating the importance of his country and bonding with his fellow soldiers will stop thinking of himself as an autonomous individual and start seeing himself as a unified whole, as a unit, as an entire nation. At that point, throwing yourself onto a grenade is no longer, to that person, a self-sacrifice, it's self-protection, in so far as their concept of "self" has grown to encompass others. As social animals our brains have the ability to encompass others in their concept of identity. From this, I think, stem actions of self-sacrifice and altruism.
Yeah. That "for us" rather than "for me" is another element of the relationship effect on our actions.
I think morality is ultimately about survival. I’ll explain how I view morality, but from the perspective of the origin of morality. From this, I think, we can understand the core root of morality from which all the various moral systems, opinions, ideas, etc are based. I hold to moral relativism, but not in the usual sense, since I do think that there are some fundamental values which most, if not all people share (with exception to sociopaths, whose mental capacities cannot be compared to the majority of people; they can be seen as amoral). I hold this view since I regard morality to have a two-fold foundation, explaining the similarities, and the differences in human morality. First we have common fundamental values which originate directly from our evolution, for example, societies (social groups) require people, and without people we have no society, so you would be hard pressed to find a society that valued behaviour which reduced the survival of people and thus the society. This can explain the similarities in our morality; why things like murder, rape, violence, etc, are universally considered to be immoral. But please be aware that this is not an objective morality, it is, rather, an inter-subjective morality, that is, a morality based around common values and desires (life, survival, etc) shared by almost all people as a result of natural selection. (E.g. those who did not value their life and did not fight for survival would therefore, most likely, not survive. Conversely, those who did value their life and hence fought for survival would be more likely to survive; hence the traits favourable to such behaviour would be passed on.) The second ‘branch’ of morality explains the differences in our morality, and it is rooted in variables such as environment and culture. So things like environmental conditions, along with the customs of the society, be they tribal rituals, religious customs, social laws, etc. For example, environmental conditions can be one explanation for reciprocal altruism: should the availability of food sources diminish, survival would depend on sharing what is available, accordingly, via natural selection, those that engaged in a system of reciprocation would be more likely to survive than those the did not. (For example, ‘cheaters’, those that did not reciprocate, could have been expelled from future exchanges.) Notice that evolution is still key factor, but here it is localised (i.e. environmental), rather than a universal (i.e. survival). So this could explain how one theoretical society values sharing (due to the lack of food supplies), while another theoretical society does not (due to an abundance of food supplies). Variables in environment and culture can create differences in values and desires, but of course, these can and do change. I think that what is regarded as ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ is dependant on the given situation and thus is subject to change. To use the previous example given--sharing--I think that if a necessary commodity is scarce, not sharing it would be immoral, but if the commodity were not scarce, while sharing might be desirable, I wouldn’t say it is immoral. I think this also applies to the fundamental universal values, such as murder. There are indeed situations in which fundamental universal values can, if not should, be broken.
So what would your objection be to murder then? Morality doesn't have to be about nit picky, "God is watching you when you masturbate", trivial things. Morality is simply what one 'ought' to do. Maybe you don't think there's 'oughts' that we should all abide by, but I'm sure there's atleast some you're against like murder and the like?
I really want to respond to this, but I've been kind of bussy and can't get in the mood or the energy for a "serious" internet discussion. I only skimmed it tonight, but I'll get to it .
Depends. I'm for a more flexible and relativistic idea of morality. You might argue that murder is always wrong, but what about this scenario: a woman and her children are beaten daily by her husband. One day, she decides enough is enough, snaps, and sticks a knife into him when she sees him coming towards her kids with a belt wrapped around his knuckles. It happens more often than you'd think, and I'd say she deserves a medal not a prison sentence.
I think that asking what people should be aiming for is the fundamental question of morality and I'm not sure you answer that. You suggest some possible consequences for acting a certain way, but don't show why we should aim for those consequences. What's the difference? Sometimes our interests are contradictory, but I don't think there is a genuine difference between aims and interests.
I think you'll find that most people are also flexible. Rigid rules over simplify things - they were clearly designed for particular situations and to try and apply the same rule to every situation is clearly missing the point. I disagree with the relativity though and I think that you yourself disproved it. Your case for the woman was quite good and convincing. Even those who disagree with you will atleast agree that it's a difficult case to decide and that there's no clear cut answer. You knew this when you wrote it. This doesn't sound very relativistic to me. While the grounds of morality might not be clearly definable, they're certainly not relative. LJoll, the difference between 'interests' and 'aims' as I was using them shows a difference between what a person is consciously aiming for, and what they feel they ought to have aimed for with a kind of 'hindsight' knowledge. Sometimes we don't really know what's good for us. Once again I argue that we are humans with human nature so we have needs that determine what is good for us. This is more or less universal to all humans. There will always be exceptions to the rule, but you have to remember that morality is a practical practice that grew out of practicality rather than absoluteness. So one off counter examples would not significantly knock my case. PS. I know I still haven't answered your question yet. However, I don't think I have time tonight so I'll get back to it another time. My post pre-supposed that we have an intuitive idea of 'goodness' that we should all aim for. I'll try and defend that presupposition another time.
I suppose the example I give isn't exactly relativistic- but I still think we should move the moral goalposts as and when we find it convenient. 'right and wrong' is not a mature understanding of human behaviour IMO.
Perhaps convenience was the wrong word to use. When people say "You can't change morality to suit your convenience" they kind of mean in doing morality depending on whether it suits you. e.g. caring about the environment until you want to drive somewhere i.e. I'll only do what's moral if I feel like it or if it suits me The whole point about morality is suspending what you 'want' to do or 'feel like' doing in favour of doing 'what is right'. But I absolutely agree with what I think you really mean. Morality is so complex that no set of rules will ever tie it down, so instead of thinking in specific 'rights' and 'wrongs' we should devellop a nose for a sense of 'rightness' and work the context given. That's why I see morality as more of a skill than a 'choice'. It's something you have to practice get good at rather than just simply discipline yourself to follow a set of blind rules.
Alright Mister Philosopher, I'm ready to tackle your abstract question. My starting premise, which I'm sure you'll agree on, is that we have a linguistic practice of decision making. We have concepts like belief, desire, decision, etc that we use to make decisions. Included amongst these are the concepts of 'happiness', 'satifactions', 'unhappiness' and 'dissatisfaction'. My second premise is that given that we have this practice with these concepts, that we have 'intrinsic aims' is transcendentally necessary, otherwise we could not have develloped such concepts or understood their meaning within our human lives. For one to understand the word happiness, one understand the concept of the situation where everything is satisfactory and they do not 'want' for anything. All our concepts of decision making, our 'oughts' and our 'ought nots' are all based around fullfilling desires to satisfaction. The complexity comes in when two desires clash - the fullfillment of one will be the suppression of the other. From here, it will depend on which desire is more fundamental. There are some obvious examples of this - e.g. an apple might look tasty but if it is poisoned, my desire to taste it will be insignificant compared to my desire not to die. So we have that 'oughts' are about fullfilling desires. We have that some desires are more important than others. There are obvious cases like the apple where it is intuitively obvious which which desire is more fundamental. Some are not so obvious and need thinking through. Some are so difficult is that it is impossible to know on intuition and you are only likely be to sure on hindsight. This is why it is important to have an understanding of human nature. When we recognise our 'needs' from an anthropological standpoint, we can make more accurate predictions on which of our 'desires' are more important than others. This is why moral decisions can seem counter-intuitive at times, because we are basing our decision on a prediction of what we will want rather than basing is on our experience of what we currently do want. We do this because we predict that acting on what we currently want will leave us unsatisfied and disappointed. Remember, I'm not simply assuming that 'satisfaction' and 'happiness' is what we aim for. Those words are defined by our nature of aiming for things. So if you understand the language of decision making then 'happiness' is the goal. There is the classic counter example of: "What if killing people made you happy?" I'd say that it isn't possible in real life. Killing people might give someone a temporary happiness, but it disallow a functioning society that is necessary for the rest of our needs. My opponent might then suggest the following possibility: "Imagine there was a person who didn't require such needs and merely needed to kill people to be happy. What should that person do?" By my reasoning, that person should go around killing people. This is not a counter example to my idea of morality though. I hold that morality is only possible if a group of people can find mutual happiness through co-operation. The person described in the thought experiment would not be capable of such a morality and perhaps should be described as a monster. In stories, such a monster is the kind of creature we say "good riddance" to when it finely meets its sticky end, rather than feel pity or regret for it. However, I'm not sure whether such monsters can really exist in real life. How's that for an answer? Is it making sense to you yet?
I think you're completely wrong. You're argument seems to be that the words "ought" and "should", when used in a decision making context, imply certain goals, i.e. our happiness. I think that is wrong and you haven't given a convincing argument that it's right. Your idea of what we ought to do seems confused with what we aim for. If when 'we' use the words "ought" and "should" we really do mean what you claim we mean, it is irrelevant. I am not asking that we "ought" to do, I'm asking what we ought to do. Why should we not not kill people? Because it will make us unhappy. Why ought we be happy? There is no good reason, it just happens to be that we do aim to be happy.
Yes, but that we understand the word 'happy' entails that we do happen to aim to be happy. You could say that we just happen to exist and you'd be right. However, "I'm thinking therefore I exist" still proves existence. Because if we hadn't 'happened' to exist then we wouldn't be thinking. In the same way, if we didn't 'happen' to aim for 'happiness' then our decision making words would not be the way that are. You could say that someone who denied aiming for happiness was kidding themselves in some way.
It doesn't change the fact that you're talking about what we ought to do in terms of desires, but ignoring obligations.
Obligations appear to be counter to desires, but they can ultimately be justified in terms of desire. One might justify their obligations through some abstract goal like to make a better world or to be a better person. Each of these are justifiable in terms of our needs, our most fundamental desires. You could say that obligation is suspending our minor impulses in favour of a more fundamental desire for a 'greater good'. Where an obligation doesn't lead to such a 'greater good' it is a false one. The reason why obligations appear to contradict desire is because our fundamental desires are often not at the forefront of our mind and it is an impulsive desire that we are feeling. It is this minor, impulsive desire that is being contradicted. Nevertheless, obligations are ultimately justified in terms of our needs, our most fundamental desires.
How about giving your lifejacket to a child on a sinking boat? Some people might consider that to be the moral thing to do, whether or not he happens to desires it. I'm still not convinced that you've shown how we ought to act. You've just said, we usually make decisions based on desires. Therefore the right thing to do is to make decisions based on our desires. That doesn't follow.
