Let me begin by saying that I am not a philosophy professor. It's entirely possible these questions have already been answered. I'm open to anyone who can point me toward any sources that might help me refine the following ideas. That said, I would like a polite yet serious discussion. To that end, I ask that everyone who wishes to participate in this thread please read all comments thoroughly and thoughtfully before replying. I make no claim to authority on this forum, but I humbly ask that you respect the spirit of the thread. If you are looking only for fluff or a way to display your wit, there are hundreds of other threads, or you can start your own. Please keep that to a bare minimum here. Thanks.
In the most recent gay marriage thread, I submitted that all laws were essentially the imposition of one particular morality. Recognizing that, I argued that the only morality one could justly impose in a pluralistic society is an objective* morality (as opposed to one that a particular subset of that society subjectively interprets as divine command, for instance). It was asked if such a thing as an "objective morality" were possible. I submitted that Murder, Theft, and Lying were all objectively wrong. This invited the question, "why?" from jeniwren. I didn't have a ready answer.
starLisa, brought in the idea of axioms. She mentions "real axioms" and defined that as "things that must be true regardless of anyone's opinion". I'm not sure that such a thing exists in regards to a moral framework, (though I invite anyone to try to come up with a few). On the other hand, I think if a group of people decide on a few axioms and agree to accept them as such one can build from that a moral framework that is objectively true, or at least objectively true within that over-arching axiomatic framework.
If this is true, what might some of those axioms be? I submit the following, but my list is by no means meant to be complete. I'd appreciate any other ideas of axioms - i.e. things we can all agree are true.
1. All humans have equal rights. 2. All humans are free within their personal domain.
Can we agree on these two, at least? I realize that some may have differing definitions of "human", "right", and "personal domain", but can you at least accept these as axioms using your own definition of those three words? If not, why, exactly?
This brings up, of course, the issue of definitions. It's OK, I believe, to use your own definition in accepting axioms for a personal morality. However if this morality is to be a basis for law, it stands to reason that we must agree on the definitions of the words used to express the axiom. To remain true to the spirit of an objective morality, we should make the definitions as objective as possible, too, I believe. So if you can submit an axiom, feel free to provide an objective definition for discussion. To that end, here are my attempts:
Human: an individual homo-sapien. (I realize this is ultimately inadequate, but I don't want to debate abortion in this thread. At least not yet. So I submit this as a working definition.)
Right: Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
Personal Domain: One's sphere of activity, concern, or function insofar as it does not intersect the personal domain of another individual. The area where two personal domains intersect becomes common domain.
Again, I'm just throwing this out for discussion. If you agree with the idea of an objective morality, but disagree with any of my points above, please feel free to comment. Additionally, if you reject the idea of an objective morality as it is being defined, please feel free to comment. But let's please be polite and respect one another's thoughts. (It pains me that I have to plead that, but there you go.)
*Objective: treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices. (I realize there are other definitions, but this is the one I'm working from. If you find this to be inadequate or if you think you get the spirit of what I'm saying but think "objective" is the wrong word, I invite suggestions.)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:On the other hand, I think if a group of people decide on a few axioms and agree to accept them as such one can build from that a moral framework that is objectively true, or at least objectively true within that over-arching axiomatic framework.
Agreeing to accept an axiom as true does not make it objective. It just makes it agreed-upon. After all, if we agree upon something, it might just be that we all share the same prejudice, and thus our axiom is still just as distorted by prejudice as it would be had just I decided on it by myself.
quote:1. All humans have equal rights. 2. All humans are free within their personal domain.
I disagree with (1). I am older than 21 so I have a right to drink, but many kids do not have that right. Therefore, all humans don't have equal rights.
As for (2), I agree, except I'm not sure if there is any sphere of activity that does not intersect the domain of other people. Even the beliefs in your mind influence your behavior and thus influence others.
I would propose the following: (2b) All humans are free to do anything that is not wrong.
If (2b) is true and (2) is true then I think there is an interesting implication. If you are free to do anything that is not wrong AND anything that doesn't impact another human being, then we can conclude the following: (2c) An act can only be wrong if it impacts another human being.
And that, in turn, might suggest the following: (2d) The effects of an act on other human beings determine whether it is right or wrong.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:I disagree with (1). I am older than 21 so I have a right to drink, but many kids do not have that right. Therefore, all humans don't have equal rights.
But isn't that because other humans have taken that right away from those under 21? It certainly doesn't apply to all humans under 21.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
But, remember our definition of "Right":
Right: Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
If I am due something by law and children are not, regardless of why, we don't have equal rights... under that definition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: As for (2), I agree, except I'm not sure if there is any sphere of activity that does not intersect the domain of other people. Even the beliefs in your mind influence your behavior and thus influence others.
I would propose the following: (2b) All humans are free to do anything that is not wrong.
If (2b) is true and (2) is true then I think there is an interesting implication. If you are free to do anything that is not wrong AND anything that doesn't impact another human being, then we can conclude the following: (2c) An act can only be wrong if it impacts another human being.
And that, in turn, might suggest the following: (2d) The effects of an act on other human beings determine whether it is right or wrong.
I heartily encourage people to read Hobbes, Sartre and Ayn Rand before going much further. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Done. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
oooh, this could be a fun thread.
Now, first off, I believe that morality is not relative. That is, as starLisa suggests, there are some universal truths or axioms that all rational beings would agree upon when pressed. This is not an idea often presented in our society, where we like to say that anyone has the right to believe whatever they want, and that all belief/value systems are equal. I humbly suggest that they are not.
For instance, I believe that the axiom "Torturing innocent babies only for fun is immoral," and I believe that upon consideration, all rational beings ought to agree with this. I can imagine a situation such that torturing a baby may be the right course of action (say, the lives of millions of other babies depends on the torture of this one baby), but I don't think "fun" can ever justify the torture of innocents (or others, for that matter).
Now, I disagree with your suggestion, KarlEd, that "all humans have equal rights" and "all humans are free within their personal domain" are always true axioms. I think they are certainly generally true, and are good rules of thumb to go by, but I can think of situations where a very large good (again, the lives of millions of people, say) would override the need to give all humans equal rights, and freedom within their personal domain. That being said, I think it would have to be a very large good in order to override this, as a society that ignores these rights whenever it produces some good would be an immoral one.
I hope that's clear enough...
Basically, I'm subscribing to a version of rule utilitarianism, which suggests that a action is moral as long as if everyone else followed it in the same situation the outcome would be good. For instance, if a hospital has seven people who all need a different organ transplanted, or they will die, and a pretty healthy person comes in to be treated for a cold, the hospital should not kill the healthy person to save the seven others. While this may be for the "greater good" in the short run (7 lives and only 1 death vs. 7 deaths and 1 life), if this rule was applied in all similar situations then most people would start avoiding hospitals like the plague, and the health of society as a whole would suffer.
I realize I haven't discussed most of your post, but I think I've rambled for long enough...
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Tres: I disagree with (1). I am older than 21 so I have a right to drink, but many kids do not have that right. Therefore, all humans don't have equal rights.
OK. There are a few ways to rectify this.
1. Change the word Human. 2. Conclude that drinking isn't a "right". In this case, a "right" would then only be those things we can agree apply to all humans (like a right to life.) 3. Provide an axiomatic distinction between Child and Adult, or even Infant, Child, Adolescent, Adult.
Tres, do you at least agree with the spirit of what I'm trying to convey in "axiom #1"? Can you help come up with an alternative? I believe in "equality". I'm trying to refine that belief. I do not believe that "all men are created equal" literally (some are smarter, some are stronger, etc.), but I believe that there are some things that should apply equally for all.
Maybe we have to drop "All humans have equal rights" in favor of listing individual rights as axiomatic.
1. All humans have the right to life. 2. All humans have the right to freedom of thought. 3. etc.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think that people can give up these rights through their own actions: for instance, if there's a man with a gun in a crowded building, and he's starting to fire it (with the clear intent to hit innocent people), then he's given up his right to life - it'd be nice if law enforcement could keep him alive by shooting him in the thigh, but I think their first priority is to stop him from killing others, even if that means taking away his life.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I agree with "All Humans have equal rights."
I'm not going to complain that I am oppressed because my grandparents draw Social Security and I don't, so we must not have equal rights. Things like that are responsible for most of the woes of our legal system -- the deliberate misinterpretation of the spirit of the constitution to obey the letter of it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Jhai: For instance, if a hospital has seven people who all need a different organ transplanted, or they will die, and a pretty healthy person comes in to be treated for a cold, the hospital should not kill the healthy person to save the seven others. While this may be for the "greater good" in the short run (7 lives and only 1 death vs. 7 deaths and 1 life), if this rule was applied in all similar situations then most people would start avoiding hospitals like the plague, and the health of society as a whole would suffer.
I agree with you here, but I disagree with the reasoning you give at the end. I think the immorality of killing one to save 7 others is that the one has as much right to life as any one of the 7 others. The one might heroically give himself to the survival of the others, but I don't think that the 7 others can morally pool their individual rights to life and override that of the one.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think that people can give up these rights through their own actions: for instance, if there's a man with a gun in a crowded building, and he's starting to fire it (with the clear intent to hit innocent people), then he's given up his right to life - it'd be nice if law enforcement could keep him alive by shooting him in the thigh, but I think their first priority is to stop him from killing others, even if that means taking away his life.
I agree with this. How might we re-word "All humans have the right to life" to make it axiomatic? Would "All humans have an equal right to life" work? That would allow for situations where an act of infringing upon others diminishes one's individual right in that area.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I agree that seven people can't, but what about 100 people? Or 1,000,000 people? I would be willing to personally kill one person if I knew it would save one million others - I'd feel horrible about doing it, but I still think it's the right choice.
I think there is a point at which all of the "basic" rules of morality fail in the face of the greater good. Edit: by basic, I mean the typical rules of "do not lie, do not kill, do not hurt others," etc. /edit Some moral philosophers, such as Kant, would disagree with this, of course.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The classic example of why Kant's claim that "lying is always wrong" is false:
An insane man walks into your house, says that he plans to kill another man, John Doe, and asks you where this man happens to be. You cannot physically stop this man, you have no way to warn John Doe, and you can't reason with the insane man. And you happen to know where John Doe is at this precise second. Kant would say that you should tell the insane man the truth - even if he ends up killing John Doe, that was his moral action, not yours. You are not responsible for his actions - you're only responsible for your actions, and telling a lie is morally wrong.
I think most people's innate concept of ethical actions would suggest a different course of action: lie to the insane man and send him in the opposite direction from John Doe. That would be the moral action in this case.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
What's wrong with saying "I will not tell you."? Wouldn't that be more consistent morally than lying?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Well, if you refuse to tell him, he'll kill everyone in your house, including your sleeping children. But if you tell him something, he'll thank you and go politely on his way.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I agree that seven people can't, but what about 100 people? Or 1,000,000 people? I would be willing to personally kill one person if I knew it would save one million others - I'd feel horrible about doing it, but I still think it's the right choice.
Why not the other way? Why 1 million and not 999,999? Then why not 100? Why not 10? Why not 2? Why not 1 who is younger than the victim? I don't think it is a numbers game. Such examples, vague and theoretical to the point of non-existence in the real world might have some limited value in testing the soundness of a moral principle, but I don't think they help arrive at a morality that is definable and practical in the real world.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I think there is a point at which all of the "basic" rules of morality fail in the face of the greater good. Edit: by basic, I mean the typical rules of "do not lie, do not kill, do not hurt others," etc. /edit Some moral philosophers, such as Kant, would disagree with this, of course.
I think a moral system can be an ideal toward which we strive. In this case, it is recognized that we will fall short in some cases. I do not think that all moral failings are equal.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Well, if you refuse to tell him, he'll kill everyone in your house, including your sleeping children. But if you tell him something, he'll thank you and go politely on his way.
To me this illustrates the limited usefulness of such complete hypothetics. One case in which lying is excusable does not negate "lying is wrong" as a whole. In a practical sense, I doubt it is possible to formulate a moral code that foresees all possible loopholes, or conflicts between its own principles.
How would you modify "Lying is wrong" to include the above exception?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: One case in which lying is excusable does not negate "lying is wrong" as a whole.
It negates "lying is wrong" as an axiom. Ergo, "lying is wrong" is no longer axiomatic.
In other words, the axiom here is that "harm is bad." By making a choice which reduced the total harm, you have made the right choice -- even if, by lying, you have committed a minor harm; overall, less harm resulted from your action than would have resulted from the alternative.
But it's useful to remember that the real actor here is the person choosing to kill someone else, not the person choosing to lie. The intended killer here is forcing the issue, and has reduced the available alternatives to the liar to ones which are in one way or another harmful.
For this reason, my own personal morality -- by which I can't always live, but by which I try -- quite strongly emphasizes the need to position oneself in advance of any potential problems in a strategic position where it is less likely that you will not only be harmed but, more importantly, be forced into committing harm.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Karl, are you speaking of morality as in what is right or wrong, or simply what should be made legal or illegal? This will dramatically affect how I respond to this.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
In those terms, Tom, what harm has been done in lying to an intended murderer?
This is mostly a sidetrack as far as I'm concerned as I'm not arguing for "Lying is wrong" as an axiom anyway. I have sugggested previously that it could be part of an objective morality, but I think it would have to be defined specifically to fit. There are many things that I do not believe are Wrong that are forms of lying. (Bluffing, white lies, etc.)
Are you submitting "Harm is Bad" as an axiom? I'm not sure I could agree to that. In life, harm is inevitable. You cannot live without harm in some form or another. "Unnecessary Harm is Bad" isn't much better since you ultimately have to define unnecessary and I'm pretty sure that can't be done objectively.
Maybe "Objective" is the wrong word for what I'm trying to arrive at. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Karl, are you speaking of morality as in what is right or wrong, or simply what should be made legal or illegal? This will dramatically affect how I respond to this.
Well, I'll admit that I've probably gotten sidetracked, but I think Legal/Illegal is what I'm trying to formulate. I'm not sure right/wrong is possible to define objectively.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Is an act moral or immoral if you never see or feel any effects of the act? Or if you don't interpret any effects as having directly resulted from the act?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I think Legal/Illegal is what I'm trying to formulate.
Ok, good, because I would have disagreed with pretty much everything written so far otherwise.
More thoughts to follow while I adjust my thinking.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In those terms, Tom, what harm has been done in lying to an intended murderer?
Assuming you believe that lying is in general unethical, and unethical behavior encourages further unethical behavior, any lying is a form of harm that can lead to greater harm.
By lying to the murderer, you have harmed the murderer by giving him false information and harmed yourself by permitting yourself to lie.
But you have presumably harmed the two of you considerably less than the murderer would harm your target (and himself, if you accept that murderers also harm themselves). So your action is still "correct," because the total harm is minimized.
Note that it is not necessary for harm to be eliminated for an action to be correct. It is merely necessary for harm to be minimized. In other words, the statement "harm is bad" IS in fact axiomatic. The fact that it is not possible to eliminate all harm merely means that some bad is inevitable in any conflict. (Note: this can lead to the conclusion that conflict should be minimized to reduce potential harm.)
Note that "harm is bad" is one of the very few things I think we can say ARE axiomatic. Every single moral assertion we make is weighed against this truth. For example, "harm is bad" justifies white lies, because presumably insulting someone and/or hurting their feelings is worse harm than giving them false information about something unimportant -- unless you believe that lying is bad in all cases, in which case "harm is bad" still applies, since you believe you're doing less harm by telling them the truth based on your elevated perception of the harm done by lying.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think using "Empirical" rather than "Objective", might better suit your focus, Karl.
-Bok
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, I think Karl's described objective is more like a system of ethics than a system of morals.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I guess, kind of. We're a bit schizophrenic about it, IMO, and certainly don't always go about it efficiently.
I feel like Karl is saying the objectivity is proven in part by its effects, which is why murder, theft, and false witness can be objectively true in a general sense.
-Bok
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Also, I think Karl's described objective is more like a system of ethics than a system of morals.
How do you differentiate between the two?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The pat, mostly academic answer is "Ethics is the study of right and wrong within a given society/framework; morality is the study of universal attributes of good and evil."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, morality tends to be more focused on the individual, whereas ethics tends to be focused on group action (note, these are just tendencies).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: It sounds like in order to formulate the axioms one (or a group) must have absolute knowledge of people individually and societies as a whole, infinite wisdom in ranking the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few, the ability to be completely objective, and the understanding of what makes humans achieve their greatest potential, as well as what that potential is. The magnitude of the understanding that would have to be involved to lay out an objective moral code is mind boggling. In short, it sounds like a job for a god.
My first response to this was that regardless of the difficulty it is essential to formulating true justice in a pluralistic society. On further thought, though, I think you're requiring too much. I don't think infinite wisdom is required at all. (If it is, we're all sunk at any rate.) I also don't think any particularly great understanding of human potential is necessary for building the system. It might be useful in working within the system, but the system itself, I think, is more concerned with human limitations than human potential.
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: Currently, we are still in the process of massive social experimentation on a local/nationwide/worldwide scale. We're just not sure what works best. Perhaps the most effective government and/or economic system has yet to be invented/discovered.
I think it's possible that it will yet be discovered. Do you think that a new system of government could be instituted within the framework of the US Constitution or do you think that our Constitution could be re-written at some point in a peaceful change of government? Or do you think such a change would have to take place by means of a secession or revolution?
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: A final question: Do people that do not accept these axioms, or those that choose not to live by them indicate a problem in the system?
I don't think so. I think that there is enough variety in human culture that two cultures might start with the same axioms and come up with differences in their final system as a whole. I think a perfect system would provide some method of option out of it, (albeit with clear and perhaps drastic consequences.)
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Unfortunately, I don't have time today to read this whole thread, but I did want to respond to the thread header. At least, I did, until I saw this:
quote:Well, I'll admit that I've probably gotten sidetracked, but I think Legal/Illegal is what I'm trying to formulate. I'm not sure right/wrong is possible to define objectively.
Which helped me realize that I had a fundamental misunderstanding of KarlEd's original statement in the Gay/Children thread. I was taking morality to mean a system of values governing what is right and wrong, not a system of values governing what is legal and illegal. I'm not sure what I think about the latter, I think the former is possible only from a higher power, without human input except interpretation.
I think my only opinion is that morality governing legal/illegal must be organic rather than rigid, as population's needs change. Where one community may not need a law against harrassing red spotted toads (whereas harrassing greenspotted toads makes sense), another one may need the exact opposite. So I'm still not sure that axioms are really of use, except for public scrutiny as to their continued truth. Which goes back to that need for organic morality rather than something more rigid (ie. Ten Commandments, which I would call a morality of right/wrong since its origin is reputedly spiritual).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think the former is possible only from a higher power, without human input except interpretation.
Whereas I disagree, and believe that all human morality is exactly that: created by humans.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I didn't expect anyone to agree with me.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
(Largely browsing the thread)
My gut reaction to the Kant discussion is that protecting human life is always the higher moral action than telling the truth.
Karl, I would change number 1 to, "All humans (of any age) should be entitled to equal protections under the law" (Should, because they currently aren't, in so many ways).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there is a continuum of rights/desires. Everything that impacts us falls somewhere on that continuum. We also have a gradually decreasing (going outward) "personal domain". The closer in to our personal domain the more seriously we need to value our rights/desires.
Here is an example (cuz I know I'm not clear):
My right/desire (R/D) to look at icky pornography needs to be balanced with the R/D of others to not be impacted by my looking at porn. Clearly, if I am staying in my own home doing this, the impact on others is slight. If I want to put up a billboard of porn next to a primary school that has a bigger impact on others which trumps my r/d to read what I want. More important r/d get trumped by lesser r/d and lesser r/d become more important when they get closer to one's personal domain.
It is all fuzzy and mushy and fluid and takes constant rebalancing.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I think how we exercise our own personal rights/desires has a lot more impact on larger society than we may be able to perceive. Which is why I asked my (ignored) question above.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: Is an act moral or immoral if you never see or feel any effects of the act? Or if you don't interpret any effects as having directly resulted from the act?
I can still think an act is immoral without thinking it needs to be illegal. I think all infidelity is immoral, whether I know the person or not, but trying to arrest people for being unfaithful is ridiculous.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
How about immoral from a societal standpoint? I would contend that violating societal norms even in private can have a negative effect on society even if you can't perceive the effect. First and foremost, you are not upholding society from your end, so it is getting no strength from you.
I would say one of our rights is to function as part of a society. I believe morality is tied up with society--that is, it's less meaningful to define morality on only an individual level.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: How about immoral from a societal standpoint? I would contend that violating societal norms even in private can have a negative effect on society even if you can't perceive the effect. First and foremost, you are not upholding society from your end, so it is getting no strength from you.
I would say one of our rights is to function as part of a society. I believe morality is tied up with society--that is, it's less meaningful to define morality on only an individual level.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with attempting to change your societal norms. One way to do this is to ignore, or act counter to them. This is often an effective change for good. We have to remember that even the fringes of society are part of that society and their individual input is at least as valuable as the input of more toe-the-line members. In fact, it can sometimes be much more valuable in the long run.
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
The preceding discussion gets at the idea that social classes have rights over the individual, which contradicts the two axioms presented in the first post. An axiomatic defense of morality is untenable because rational people will disagree with the axioms.
The axioms need to be defended with a metaphysical argument. Only the individual exists. The individual, not society, is concrete because the individual acts, deliberates, lives, dies, and exists. The existence of society depends entirely on the existence of the individual, and when people say that good or bad is done for society or that society acts, these statements are reducible to individual action, goodneess, or badness because society takes its existence from individuals. Since only the individual exists, rights are meaningful only for the individual.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Since only the individual exists, rights are meaningful only for the individual.
And this is where I ultimately deviate from the Objectivist POV. Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
This isn't just an "Objectivist" POV. It is the point of view of a liberal democracy.
Why do you deviate from this view?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Because there's an enormous philosophical gap between "individuals are the core units of a society," which I believe is correct, and "societies do not exist," which I believe is not.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't know about a liberal democracy, there never having existed such a thing, but as for liberal republics like ours, their philosophical basis most certainly allowed for societal constructs having meaning. In fact, in many ways the principles of a liberal republic are dependent on that assumption.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, this topic has moved on, but...
quote:Tres, do you at least agree with the spirit of what I'm trying to convey in "axiom #1"? Can you help come up with an alternative? I believe in "equality". I'm trying to refine that belief. I do not believe that "all men are created equal" literally (some are smarter, some are stronger, etc.), but I believe that there are some things that should apply equally for all.
Do a murderer and an innocent child have an equal right to life? Those who believe in the death penalty think it's okay to kill one but not the other, so I don't think even that right can be agreed upon as equally held by everyone. Or wait... I'm going to change my mind.
We DO have equal rights, but only when we consider a person as distinct from his or her circumstances. Instead, circumstances should be built into the right.
For instance, when we say an adult has the right to drink but a child does not, we are factoring their circumstances (their age!) into their personhood. We are saying they are a child, rather than a person who happens to currently be a child. Instead, we could just as easily say both the child and the adult DO have the right to drink when they are an adult but DON'T have the right to drink when they are children. In this second case, we are separating the person from their circumstances, and instead are including their cirumstances as a part of the right they have.
For the murder example, we might say both the murderer and the innocent have the equal right to life provided they don't kill someone.
So, here's what I'd make the axiom: All human beings have equal rights, when relevant circumstances are taken into account.
You can't deny someone a right to one person while giving it to someone else, UNLESS there is something relevant about their circumstances that would justify doing so. You can't do it for an arbitrary reason. Or, to put it otherwise, if I were to jump into your circumstances, I should have the exact same rights that you do.
In morality's eyes, I think you are an entity distinct from your circumstances.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: How about immoral from a societal standpoint? I would contend that violating societal norms even in private can have a negative effect on society even if you can't perceive the effect. First and foremost, you are not upholding society from your end, so it is getting no strength from you.
I would say one of our rights is to function as part of a society. I believe morality is tied up with society--that is, it's less meaningful to define morality on only an individual level.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with attempting to change your societal norms. One way to do this is to ignore, or act counter to them. This is often an effective change for good. We have to remember that even the fringes of society are part of that society and their individual input is at least as valuable as the input of more toe-the-line members. In fact, it can sometimes be much more valuable in the long run.
That's fine, I don't dispute that. Individuals do have the right to effect changes on societal norms, because it's the individuals who uphold society after all. If the society is stagnant or going the wrong direction, then it probably does need to be overhauled and probably will be.
However, the individuals who go against societal norms would be seen as immoral until they form a new society in which their actions can be defined as moral. It all depends on who's telling the story. But it does depend on having a society to define things as moral or immoral. I don't think morality can really exist in the "vacuum" of individualness because it's defined by our interactions with others.
I think the point I'm getting at is that there's no fence-sitting. You're either supporting or subverting your society by your actions, public or private. Whatever you do has consequences one way or the other.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
I think the one thing we can all agree on is that "societal" is one of the ugliest words ever.
Please, everyone, for the sake of aesthetics if not ethics, use "social."
Thank you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've often imagined moral prinicples as a set of planets, each with a particular position and gravitational pull. In a given situation, all will technically exert some control over the "moral path." But in most cases, only a few will actually be relevant terms in the equation.
Of course, small disagreements about the position and relative mass of particular principles will have huge outcomes on the actual path. In addition, even if position and velocity were perfectly known, the equations may be too complex to be totally solveable.
This means that right to life could be the super black hole in the middle of the moral galaxy and still not be the only significant factor in a particular moral analysis. And, when two lives are at stake, the principle can be exerting conflicting pulls which must be overcome by other principles.
It's much clearer in my head.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dante: I think the one thing we can all agree on is that "societal" is one of the ugliest words ever.
Please, everyone, for the sake of aesthetics if not ethics, use "social."
Thank you.
IMO, "societal" and "social" don't mean exactly the same thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It occurs to me that I left out the entire point of my previous post. If small errors can lead to major changes in outcome, then axiomitic morality may not be possible even if there is an objective absolute morality external to humanity.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:IMO, "societal" and "social" don't mean exactly the same thing.
But certainly, afr, any perceived difference can't be enough to actually warrant using a word like "societal." I mean, come on. Just look at it. And then say it. Bleh.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think we have two possibilties:
1) We create precise axioms knowing full well that we are only striving to achieve them (a vision statement, so to speak), as KarlEd has said,
or
2) We create fuzzy axioms that are imprecise but cover more situations (and thus get "excepted" less often than the more precise axioms.
An example of the latter would be:
We should always select that choice which results in the greatest number of people having the greatest freedom for self-determination as possible.
I will offer a brief defense of this type of "axiom" knowing full well that it probably does not meet the apparent need for strongly worded moral statements that is usually implied by the term.
This type of axiom is, by design, less liable to accrue a mound of exceptions throughout its history of use than is the more rigid type of axiom.
The "fuzziness" of it leaves open the possibility of change or revision without, at the same stroke, running the risk of "destroying the moral fabric" of whatever society we've based on this rubric.
It is more practical. Morality is only important in the expression of it anyway. The goal of something like the sample statement is to provide some sort of practical guideline for action, not to support endless navel-gazing. To the extent that it becomes a matter for philosophical debate rather than a guide for action, it actually is weakened and made LESS valuable or important. As one who also takes this stuff to be important for the creation and application of laws, I personally value the practical outcomes, and not so much the philosophical discourse.
And, I can see at least one downside...just to be fair: There are always new challenges -- terra incognita -- to be dealt with. Building a rule that is practical (can be put into practice today) is not the same as having a true guiding morality (whether it is universal or simply the result of majority consensus). As a result, we will always have new rules. For example, were we to adopt the one stated previously, we would almost certainly, and almost immediately need one that talks about what to do when you can't tell which of "n" alternatives would be the right choice under the rule. Do you make no choice? Do you make provisional choices? Do you gather more data? Or do you just choose and hope for the best? All of these alternatives have real-world implications that would have to be considered. Having an over-arching belief system would be better in the sense that the "reason" for the ultimate unfairness of whichever course we took in times of uncertainty would be clear to everyone. We did that way because we hold THIS to be true...
That sort of salve to the inequities of life just isn't available to us if we don't have a commonly agreed upon set of axioms.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:afr: I think the point I'm getting at is that there's no fence-sitting. You're either supporting or subverting your society by your actions, public or private. Whatever you do has consequences one way or the other.
This might be true, but I think it is an academic distinction and also a completely subjective distinction. For instance, if a man picks up a woman in a bar and has sex with her, the majority of people here will agree that his actions are immoral (though I'm not one of them). However, his actions, in my opinion are not subverting society. He is doing what a significant portion of society does regularly.
If a man picks up a prostitute off the street and has sex with him/her, he has done something illegal and largely considered immoral. However, in a very real way, he is participating in society as it has been almost everywhere in almost every time. There is a reason they call it the world's oldest profession. Is he subverting society? I say, "no". He is participating in society as it is. He is very much maintaining the status quo. Whether that is good or bad is subjective. My point is: Society is what it is. Society is not one man's idea of it that is being subverted by everyone who doesn't hold to that ideal.
This brings up the idea that maybe morality isn't just about the way things are, but about the way things ought to be, or the way we feel they ought to be. (Or the way we feel God has told us things ought to be.)
For that matter, laws are probably also about the way we want things to be. We wouldn't be making them laws if current society didn't include those who would run counter to them.
So the question is, who's idea of society should we pursue? Perhaps "objective morality" is an oxymoron. Perhaps a better term would be "common morality" (using "common" not as "commonplace" but as "belonging equally to all"). So the point of this thread, then, is this: Is it possible for us to come up with a common morality in a pluralistic society? If so, should our laws be limited to the enforcing of this common morality?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
"Who's idea of society should we pursue?" is the wrong question, if we are talking about objective morality. The goal of an objective morality is to choose what is actually the right way, regardless of whether anyone believes it... much like the goal of an objective science is to determine how things actually work, whether anyone believes they work that way or not.
"Common morality" is just the subjective moral bias of the masses, not anything objective. Since there is no morality that seems universally agreed upon by everyone everywhere at all times, common morality is going to end up deciding right and wrong by majority vote - and often, especially in moral issues, the single individual understands the right thing to do better than the masses.
The trouble with objective morality, though, is that it is tough to prove. After all, we can't observe it objectively, or point to any physical evidence telling us what is right or wrong. We have no certain premises which we all agree upon that we can use to derive other conclusions. At best, we can only approach it in a circular fashion - we can attempt to say a certain axiom is right because it gives us the answers we think are right to moral problems, and then turn around and use that axiom to determine what is right in certain moral problems. But if we need to know the right answers to those problems in order to prove the axiom, why do we need the axiom to give us the answers to those same problems? For this reason, I think it's pretty much impossible to prove a moral axiom to someone who doesn't believe it. Instead, it's truth must simply be observed.
But just because an objective moral axiom is unprovable doesn't mean it's not useful or true or objective.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Tres, can you take that one step further into something less academic and more practical. You say it isn't provable. If it isn't provable, how is it useful in the context of discovering (or building) and objective morality? How would you use an axiom you can't prove if by nature of being unprovable it can't really be shown to be objective?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I don't think "who's idea of society should we pursue?" is the wrong question. I just think the answer is "ours". Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
More on "Common Morality":
Tres, I disagree that "common morality" must necessarily end up deciding right and wrong by majority vote. By "common morality" I mean the morality that we (all of us) hold. For instance, if homosexuals as a group do not believe non-marital sex is morally wrong that tenet cannot be part of the common morality of any society which includes homosexuals. Even if Mormons are the majority and vote that non-marital sex is wrong and enact laws against it, those laws are not based on the common morality. They are based on Mormon morality. In fact any law (or concept of right/wrong) decided by majority vote is by definition not based on common morality, but on majority morality.
The first step in deciding on a common morality, I guess is deciding who "us" is. This could conceivably be decided by majority vote, giving some (but incomplete, in my opinion) validity to what you said above. Also, who "us" is can change, so common morality would be subject to that change. I'm not sure this is a bad thing though.
In America, we've agreed that "us" will not be restricted by religious belief. Therefore, I think it is untenable as an American to expect that laws should be formed to enforce morality that one can only justify because of his religious beliefs. Granted, there are other opinions, I guess. Maybe it depends on how you view America. Is it an attempt to create a diverse, pluralistic society where we can all live in freedom and peace, or is it a test chamber where we try to convince enough people of our philosophy to sieze control and force the rest to live according to our morality? I believe it is the former, but a lot of people seem to believe it is the latter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: We should always select that choice which results in the greatest number of people having the greatest freedom for self-determination as possible.
I'd go even farther back than that, Bob, since we first need to establish that the greater good can be measured numerically, and that self-determination is empirically a good.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If it isn't provable, how is it useful in the context of discovering (or building) and objective morality? How would you use an axiom you can't prove if by nature of being unprovable it can't really be shown to be objective?
Let me put it this way: I can't prove murder is wrong. But I can believe it is wrong. I can even believe it is objectively wrong, which I do. And I can choose not to murder people in accordance with that belief, and encourage others to do the same.
When it comes to belief, all that really matters in a practical sense is what seems to be true, not what is proven to be true. Even if you can't prove something, you're still going to believe it as long as it still seems true.
quote:By "common morality" I mean the morality that we (all of us) hold. For instance, if homosexuals as a group do not believe non-marital sex is morally wrong that tenet cannot be part of the common morality of any society which includes homosexuals.
What's the value of figuring out "common morality" though? For one thing, the number of things we ALL agree upon is extremely small. I'm not sure there's anything we all agree upon. I'm fairly certain it won't allow us to answer any practical moral conundrums - because any moral situation that is even the least bit tricky is going to entail disagreements from different segments of our society. "Common morality" would only cover situations we already all think we know the answers to.
More importantly, even if we all agree upon it, it could still be wrong. So, you couldn't call common morality unbiased or objective in any sense. A cult living in isolation may have a common morality that entails eating their young - that doesn't mean it really is right for them to eat their young. Any society is going to be shaped by common biases (that's part of what makes a society a society) and those biases are going to skew any moral reasoning members of that society agree upon.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Tres, The point of this discussion, for me, is to define the moral basis of a legal system in a pluralistic society. I stated in the first place that I believe that all law is the imposition of some specific morality. I'm trying to develop the idea that justice demands that the moral basis of law in a pluralistic society not be based on the narrow moral code of a subset of that society. If not the moral code of only one subset of society, then what moral code?
I'm coming to the conclusion that an objective moral code is an oxymoron as even something as obviously correct (to me) as "murder is wrong" is fraught with differing ideas of what constitutes "murder", or even if you consider all killing murder, then is all killing wrong? Based on the conversation so far, and my own thinking outside this thread, I am reaching the conclusion that there are no moral axioms that will be accepted by any significantly diverse poplulation, or at least that our language is terminally ambiguous as far as elucidating such axioms goes.
Therefore, I'm testing the concept of "common morality" - taking the axioms or moral tenets of the various participants of a pluralistic society and seeing which things we hold in common. (So, you see, I'm switching on you here. I'm not trying to call "common morality" "objective" in any sense. ) My ultimate goal is to determine if a pluralistic society can come up with a common morality (from scratch) upon which they could base a legal system.
I think we, (the US) are moving toward a common morality, but I'm not sure that was our starting point. Maybe it was, I don't know enough history at this point and haven't studied the philosophy behind our legal system to make an educated determination. I do think our system is among the best in the world for dealing with a changing and pluralistic society. But we seem to have a lot of conflict, especially between those who think all morality comes from their god and those who think religion should not determine the codes that must be followed by those not of that religion. I'm just trying to see if there might be some better way, at least theoretically, that a pluralistic society could minimize such conflicts from the start.
Does that make any sense?
{Edit to add that I'm not discounting the value of anything you've posted thus far. I just think that maybe we're having two separate discussions or somewhat tangential discussions around the same subject.}
[ October 14, 2005, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by IdahoEEBoy: But Karl, then it becomes a numbers game. After all we have murders and theives and the dishonest in our society right now many don't consider their actions wrong. Therefore even the right to live or freedom cannot be considered a commonly held moral. Where do you say these peoples opinions matter, and those don't?
Do you believe that the average murderer believes that murder is OK? I don't. Do you believe that the average thief believes that stealing is OK? I don't. I believe that most criminals know that what they have done is wrong. At any rate, I find it extremely hard to believe that among a group of people trying to formulate a common morality you would have anyone arguing for the right to kill, rape, or steal at will. That is partly why I believe there must be a "common morality" if not an actual "objective morality".
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm coming to the conclusion that an objective moral code is an oxymoron as even something as obviously correct (to me) as "murder is wrong" is fraught with differing ideas of what constitutes "murder", or even if you consider all killing murder, then is all killing wrong? Based on the conversation so far, and my own thinking outside this thread, I am reaching the conclusion that there are no moral axioms that will be accepted by any significantly diverse poplulation, or at least that our language is terminally ambiguous as far as elucidating such axioms goes.
Doesn't that conclusion just eliminate the possibility of a common morality, while leaving the possibility of an objective morality?
A common morality is "the morality that we (all of us) hold", thus if "there are no moral axioms that will be accepted by any significantly diverse poplulation" then it seems like a common morality is impossible.
An objective morality, as you suggested, is one that treats and deals with morality "without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices", thus it is not prevented by diverse populations or an inability to agree upon it. Even if no other segment of society agrees with you, it is still possible for you, by yourself, to deal with morality without distortion by personal feelings and prejudices.
I don't think we should attempt to base the law on common morality, even if a common morality could be found. Instead, the law should be based on the correct morality - the one that is true no matter what people think is true. In a practical sense, this means that if I am voting for a law, I should vote according to what I think is actually right, rather than according to what I think is commonly agreed upon as right.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you believe that the average murderer believes that murder is OK?
But the problem is that if even one individual does believe it's OK to murder, "Murder is wrong" can no longer be a common morality (as you've defined it) for any group that includes that individual. All it takes is one outlier to undo any significant consensus if 100% commonality is required.
<edit> I didn't read your post completely (I apologize). I see now that in the latter half of your post you say that no one would actually argue that murder is OK. I disagree, though. I think U.S. society alone is diverse enough that such a viewpoint could, and sometimes will, exist </edit>
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's a thought, perhaps off topic:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Jefferson seems to present an objective morality that he believes is also a common morality. The truths (objective) are self-evident (common).
The power of the statement lies in the ambiguity of the components. "All men are created equal." Well, not really. In fact no two men are truly equal, in a genetic sense. But on another level I believe this is true. And my sense of how it is true might be different from yours, but we can probably both agree it is true on some level. Commonality through ambiguity.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
100% might not be possible. If common morality were to be used as a basis for law, then what percentage would you think should be reached. I believe it should be well over 50%, so I'd reject a simple majority arguement. And in a population as large as the US discounting the opinions of a group as large as 1 percent seems callous.
So there are problems with a common morality and with an objective morality. Still, I can't believe that morality thrust upon us by an apparently capricious God (in that he apparently doesn't reveal the same morality to all) is the way to go, either.
Any other suggestions? Dag? Have I confused the issue so far beyond any sense that you've given up commenting here? Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Here's a thought, perhaps off topic:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Jefferson seems to present an objective morality that he believes is also a common morality. The truths (objective) are self-evident (common).
The power of the statement lies in the ambiguity of the components. "All men are created equal." Well, not really. In fact no two men are truly equal, in a genetic sense. But on another level I believe this is true. And my sense of how it is true might be different from yours, but we can probably both agree it is true on some level. Commonality through ambiguity.
I've been thinking along these line a little, too. As I said, I think the system we have is pretty brilliant, though I also suspect it is far from perfect. And it is certainly slow in some respects. (Sometimes that can be good, and sometimes that can be bad.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Do you believe that the average murderer believes that murder is OK? I don't. Do you believe that the average thief believes that stealing is OK?
I think that many of them probably manage to convince themselves that what they do is okay for them and in that situation .
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Do you believe that the average murderer believes that murder is OK? I don't. Do you believe that the average thief believes that stealing is OK?
The state does both of these things all the time. The people that do them are proud to do them. Of course, when the state does it, it calls it something else. But isn't that the way of justifying something?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you believe that the average thief believes that stealing is OK?
I've seen many of them say that stealing is OK. I don't know how many believe it.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I think that if we talk about morality as a "majority vote" or products of intention, then we are inherently giving up on an objective morality. Any morality that is made (even by God) is subjective (to the person who made it) so for an objective morality to exist it must be independent of a subject. In other words, one of the necessary conditions of a true objective morality is that is discoverable. Now, whether or not that can be done is up for debate, but because there is good reason (I think) to believe that we have not yet found said objective morality, we must look at morality from a strictly pragmatic and social sense. Thus, morality must be a product of society where absolutes are not explored. The successful society is one who basically tries to get it as correct as they can and then achieves a balance between survival and ethics. Of course, this may sound like a bastardized version of social contract theory and of course, you would be correct.
I dont think there are such things as absolutes but morality is an essential part of society. The problem with this relativistic look at morality is that we cannot say things like the holocaust where absolutely wrong, but the thing is, philosophically speaking, while we may want to say so (I do, holocaust=horrible) we have no solid basis from this standpoint to make such a claim.
Think of it this way: we are presented with a moral situation and we want to know what the morally correct action would be. Now there will always be two ways to look at the problem (at least), and those two ways will usually fight for the titles of "right" and "wrong". How then, are we to place the products of our choice into these categories? In other words, what makes one thing right and the other alternative wrong? To make the situation even more complicated, say that the alternatives in our scenario are placed exactly opposite of the way you would choose to place them. The best example I can give is the case of abortion and pro-life vs pro-choice. Obviously, each group will argue for what is right much differently, but how are we to determine which camp is correct? Without an objective morality, we cannot do so unless we embrace the pragmatic and social components of morality. Thus, while our choice may not be absolutely correct, we are basically doing what we think is best.
In essence, I am arguing for a social contruction of a relative morality because there is no such thing as an objective morality. Of course, that last bit is quite up for debate, but I believe that until we can come upon an objective or absolute morality (if it does exist) this is our best bet.
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
quote:I dont think there are such things as absolutes [...]
What about the absolute that there are no absolutes?
quote:[...] we are basically doing what we think is best.
But you have no moral justification for doing so because morality is relative.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Can I make a proposition for some MORAL POSTULATES (as a basis for a MORAL CODE, to be developed next)? 1)All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live. 2)All “individuals” have the right to equal opportunity. 3)All “individuals” have equal right to be educated and have equal right to access available information/knowledge. 4)Any other rights are to be earned by each “individual” separately.
Of course, there is a definition needed:
“Individual” = human being that is capable of expressing herself/himself, from the first cry of a newborn to the contents of his/hers will when speech might be too hard to accomplish due to advanced age.
Note: by this definition, the embryo/fetus/unborn baby is not an “individual” but merely a part of his/hers mother’s body.
Of course, I’ll come back with details (if needed) and comments, but I’m curious what do you (all) think of this postulates, “simply” stated above
A.
PS: I've read all the comments on this thread so far, and they are not to be ignored in future comments. (That is why I didn't start a new topic).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:1)All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live. 2)All “individuals” have the right to equal opportunity. 3)All “individuals” have equal right to be educated and have equal right to access available information/knowledge. 4)Any other rights are to be earned by each “individual” separately.
I don't think that any of those can be considered postulates. I'd be very surprised if any statement about rights is a first principle - rights (assuming objective rights exist) would seem to be the result of more basic principles, from which these postulates could be proved.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Dagonee, would using "equally deserve" instead of "have equal right" make it better?
For me a postulate is something that doesn't need "proof". I proposed these postulates, as such. It might suppose a change of paradigm, of how people “define” the concept of “having the right to”. But hey, any revolution starts with a change of paradigm
A.
PS: Remember the 2nd postulate of the Theory of Relativity, the one about the speed of light?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: 1)All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live. 2)All “individuals” have the right to equal opportunity. 3)All “individuals” have equal right to be educated and have equal right to access available information/knowledge. 4)Any other rights are to be earned by each “individual” separately.
I have a hard time thinking that any of these are basic 'rights.' 1) The point of equal right to life is moot because no one has equal circumstances. 2) What defines opportunity? I suspect my idea of an opportunity may be quite different from yours. 3) Educated in what? By whom? To what extent? Who decides what knowledge is available? How available does it have to be? 4) Rights can be earned? How?
My point is not to be deliberately obtuse. These are honest questions that would need to be answered. I think Karl's idea in starting this thread was starting much simpler, almost with an axiomatic approach and building from there.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think that many of them probably manage to convince themselves that what they do is okay for them and in that situation .
I think that most sin is a result of us being able to lie to ourselves and say exactly that.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Wow. That was a pretty dense read. I'm not sure I fully understand what everyone has said so far, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway because who knows how long that could take.
It seems to me that some Nussbaum might be useful here. She talked about Aristotelian* spheres of experience that were common to people and argued that humans, in virtue of the kinds of beings we are, will have certain experiences that are common to everyone. That is to say, because we are a) biological organisms, b) rational entities, and c) social creatures, the same (or at least very similar) problems will arise everywhere for everyone.
It seems to me that a good (or at least valid) way to procede towards an objective morality would be to: 1. Identify the most common spheres of experience. 2. Determine the most effective response to each sphere.
This approach makes quite a bit of sense to me because it begins by laying out a problem, or goal, if you will. Once we have that goal isolated, the problem is empirically solvable.
*Aristotle, If I remember phil 101 correctly, argued that for each sphere of experience, there is a corresponding virtue. For example, all people will have concerns/experiences regulating their bodily appetites, and the virtuous response, according to Aristotle, is moderation.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I have a hard time thinking that any of these are basic 'rights.' 1) The point of equal right to life is moot because no one has equal circumstances. 2) What defines opportunity? I suspect my idea of an opportunity may be quite different from yours. 3) Educated in what? By whom? To what extent? Who decides what knowledge is available? How available does it have to be? 4) Rights can be earned? How?
Good questions Here you go:
1) Valid observation, “(perfectly) equal circumstances” are not attainable, so postulate #1 simply states that “equal right to live” is also unattainable, so each case has to be judged separately. [The closest case of “equal circumstances” would be for the newborn babies that get born in the same hospital/room at the same hour. But that is just anecdotic ] The reason behind the existence of the postulate #1 is to grant from the start the right to live for every individual (even if it would never be perfectly equal.)
2) With “opportunity” I mean that for any “position/job” there is to fill, anybody could apply. There would be a test and the best according to some previous established criteria is the one to get that position/job. What is opportunity for you?
3) Educated in everything that is available, guided by the student’s choice as the education goes along. You know, you start with (at least) one language, basic math, basic science, art, philosophy etc, and the student follows in depth whatever appeals to him/her best. The education is to be assured by those who earned previously the right to be teachers. There would be no “limit” to the extent of education. All knowledge should be available. Completely available. Of course, there is no way to “get all knowledge at once”. Therefore there should be “a list of priorities”. It’s no use to learn about Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity before learning about the “simpler” (i.e. basic) Newtonian mechanics.
4) Any other right (except the ones in the first 3 postulates) is to be earned by a “proof of worthiness”. The same way [i.e. concept] one earns the right to drive a car nowadays. So you’ll have to get educated and then pass a test to become a politician, to become a parent, to become a jet pilot etc.
quote:I think Karl's idea in starting this thread was starting much simpler, almost with an axiomatic approach and building from there.
I understand that, and it is the exact same thing I’m proposing (thus reviving this very thread). Postulates and axioms are the same thing for a formal system. As for any formal system, if the postulates/axioms are “invalidated” then anything that was “built” on them is also “invalid”. The idea is to start with a minimum number of postulates, and build something that is consistent (within the given “axiomatic basis”), to a maximum extent possible.
Therefore I proposed the postulates. I propose to debate their “validity” and then build on them a “moral system”. I am sure that the “repercussions” of those postulates are far more deep than anyone (myself included) can imagine at first glance, but that is the beauty “rational thought”
A.
PS: If KarlEd says that this is not in the spirit of his thread, I’ll start a new one. I know where the “New topic” button is. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: It seems to me that a good (or at least valid) way to procede towards an objective morality would be to: 1. Identify the most common spheres of experience. 2. Determine the most effective response to each sphere.
This approach makes quite a bit of sense to me because it begins by laying out a problem, or goal, if you will. Once we have that goal isolated, the problem is empirically solvable.
I agree that this would be a valid way to proceed towards a (rational) goal. What I propose is quite different, but I think it is also valid.
When we analyse different parts of our “Universe” (or spheres of experience) and come with a “partial solution” for each of them, we might get to a point where we see that our solutions are not compatible with each other on a “large scale”. So instead of "patching the system", I propose to “build the system from scratch” and see what solutions come as a result for each particular (i.e. partial) problem that presents itself .
A.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:PS: If KarlEd says that this is not in the spirit of his thread, I’ll start a new one. I know where the “New topic” button is.
This is totally in the spirit of this thread. I'm glad someone thinks it's worth reviving. Go for it! Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I don't get how people can at the same time try to justify gay marriage as equal because the participants should have equal rights as people under the law, and then keep, say, plural marriage, illegal.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
cheiros do ender, are you sure you're on the right thread?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Yes. Plus I'm likely one the most objective here since U.S. law doesn't apply to me. Homosexuals argue for equal treatment as hetereosexuals in marriage laws. So why not push for plural marriages equal treatment under the law at the same time? And I don't know if I've missed any types that are illegal, but if there's more than them too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So why not push for plural marriages equal treatment under the law at the same time?
Because, by definition, recognizing plural marriage wouldn't be "equal treatment." It's different, in appreciable ways related to the distinguishing factor. See p. 7 of the thread on the amendment for more detail.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: 1) Valid observation, “(perfectly) equal circumstances” are not attainable, so postulate #1 simply states that “equal right to live” is also unattainable, so each case has to be judged separately. [The closest case of “equal circumstances” would be for the newborn babies that get born in the same hospital/room at the same hour. But that is just anecdotic ] The reason behind the existence of the postulate #1 is to grant from the start the right to live for every individual (even if it would never be perfectly equal.)
2) With “opportunity” I mean that for any “position/job” there is to fill, anybody could apply. There would be a test and the best according to some previous established criteria is the one to get that position/job. What is opportunity for you?
3) Educated in everything that is available, guided by the student’s choice as the education goes along. You know, you start with (at least) one language, basic math, basic science, art, philosophy etc, and the student follows in depth whatever appeals to him/her best. The education is to be assured by those who earned previously the right to be teachers. There would be no “limit” to the extent of education. All knowledge should be available. Completely available. Of course, there is no way to “get all knowledge at once”. Therefore there should be “a list of priorities”. It’s no use to learn about Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity before learning about the “simpler” (i.e. basic) Newtonian mechanics.
4) Any other right (except the ones in the first 3 postulates) is to be earned by a “proof of worthiness”. The same way [i.e. concept] one earns the right to drive a car nowadays. So you’ll have to get educated and then pass a test to become a politician, to become a parent, to become a jet pilot etc.
I apologize, I'm not trying to suggest that what you're doing isn't in the spirit of the thread- it's very much on topic. It just seemed to me that there were more basic rights than the ones you listed. I'm not saying what you listed aren't rights, I just think that they may not be foundational.
3) As an example of what I was talking about above, wouldn't the right to an education necessarily be founded on the right to freedom of speech (both for the student and teacher)? 4) What you are using as right, I think of as privilege. To me, most things that you must earn qualify as a privilege rather than a right. 1) That's more what I'm thinking about as far as basic rights. The right to life. I know this was debated earlier in the thread, but if someone doesn't even have the right to not be killed, then most other rights don't mean much. 2) With opportunities to apply to work in places outside the home, how could they apply without a basic travel right?
Again, I'm not disagreeing that what you are listing may be rights. My opinion is just that there are other more fundamental rights that must exist and be built on in order to enjoy the rights you listed.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: Yes. Plus I'm likely one the most objective here since U.S. law doesn't apply to me. Homosexuals argue for equal treatment as hetereosexuals in marriage laws. So why not push for plural marriages equal treatment under the law at the same time? And I don't know if I've missed any types that are illegal, but if there's more than them too.
Are you sure you're sure? I mean, the thread isn't about US law at all, per se. It's about finding a moral code that can be agreed upon through objective reasoning, so in that you would be no more objective than anyone else, at least not by virtue of your place of residence.
Another part of suminonA's confusion is also because of the specificity of your question. The discussion on this thread hasn't really gotten anywhere near questions of marriage law since we're still working on base-level axioms people can agree on, upon which a moral code might be built. Questions of marriage laws seem like they would come WAAAAAY down the line from where we are now.
But to address your question, I have no problem with either SSM or polygamous marriages. I think both could be a benefit to society at large in the long run.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The question do people actually believe lying is wrong reminds me of the story of The Other Wise man. I don't wish to provide a long back story suffice to say the wise man is in Bethlehem when Herod is slaying all the babies in his madness to kill any future rivals to his throne. As the guards go door to door the wiseman goes to the door of the womans (who had a baby) house he was visiting and as the captain approaches he says
"There is not child in here and I have a ruby for the prudent captain who leaves this house in peace."
The captain takes the ruby and takes his men past the house.
In this situation the wiseman was lying, but certainly the captain knew the words the wiseman had uttered had very different implications then their literal meaning. Was this lying then in the truest sense of the word?
The wiseman in the story is grieved that he lied even to protect a child and alot of people wrote the author questioning the righteousness of this act.
I like KarlEd's attempt to find a few Axioms that all can accept. Finding a common foundation for morality is always interesting.
Might I suggest the axiom (I am totally ripping this off from John Stuart Mill):
"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign"
and
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."
You can hash and define "self-protection" all you want, but its a principle I think can be worked off of. Also I am not including children yet in my question of morality as children complicate things. I consider children the responsibility of their parents until they are of age and as such do not have the same rights adults have until they come of age. (not interested in stating how old "of age" is.)
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: It just seemed to me that there were more basic rights than the ones you listed. I'm not saying what you listed aren't rights, I just think that they may not be foundational. […] Again, I'm not disagreeing that what you are listing may be rights. My opinion is just that there are other more fundamental rights that must exist and be built on in order to enjoy the rights you listed.
Ok, that is great. Could you come up with a list of such (fundamental) rights? The sharing of ideas is essential, as always
quote: 1) That's more what I'm thinking about as far as basic rights. The right to life. I know this was debated earlier in the thread, but if someone doesn't even have the right to not be killed, then most other rights don't mean much.
You mean that we agree on postulate/axiom #1 ?
quote: 2) With opportunities to apply to work in places outside the home, how could they apply without a basic travel right?
Very good point Here I think we enter the next “level”, that is services. If you want to use “common (i.e. for anyone) means of travel” you are asking for a (public) service. If your using a personal vehicle, you’re still going to use a “public space” (i.e. route, highway, railroad etc) so that also qualifies for a service. So access to a service should be regulated by some rules/laws. [I’m still avoiding the concept of selling/buying because that is a major point to be seen soon ] Therefore, in this specific case (applying to work outside the “home region”) I’d say there is no real problem. The opening of any position should me made public (see postulate #2). That means that the conditions are known, such as the latest date for applying (some jobs are “urgent” in nature). So, if someone who wants to apply cannot get “there” for the test in time (supposing that the testing cannot be done remotely – e.g. online) then that someone “loses” his/hers “right” to apply, by default. I mean, it is nobody’s fault that the opening is not available in the particular area accessible in a specific time frame to one potential candidate. There is inherent risk/chance in living. Oh, and if by “right to travel” you meant “right to cross the frontiers of any country”, then I’d like to note here that no concept of “country” has been yet defined in this system.
quote:3) As an example of what I was talking about above, wouldn't the right to an education necessarily be founded on the right to freedom of speech (both for the student and teacher)?
I see this as an analogue of “the right to live” as a “consequence” of the “right to breathe in and out”. As long as someone lives, breathing and expressing are inevitable (i.e. cannot be “stopped” by any kind of rule/law). I mean, anyone could get up in a movie theatre and yell “Fire! Fire!”. So postulate #3 is no talking about that. What postulate #3 actually says is that all individuals have the right to LISTEN to the teachers (and to look for themselves for any specific piece of information/knowledge). There is no implication as to how much they will actually understand/learn, obviously. As for the right of the teachers to be HEARD, that in turn has to be earned. In tone with my comment on the previous point, postulate #3 stipulates that “access to the teachings”(as a service) is a fundamental (basic if you will) right.
quote:4) What you are using as right, I think of as privilege. To me, most things that you must earn qualify as a privilege rather than a right.
Actually, I like a lot the term “privilege” in this context, therefore I’d be 100% for using it.
Here you have the new “improved” postulates: 1)All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live. 2)All “individuals” have the privilege of equal opportunity. 3)All “individuals” have equal privilege to be educated and have equal privilege to access available information/knowledge. 4)Any other privileges are to be earned by each “individual” separately.
I’m not sure if “being alive” is a privilege, some would say it is a “burden” or a “curse” …
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Was this lying then in the truest sense of the word?
Yes.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Okay..
My take:
"I'd appreciate any other ideas of axioms - i.e. things we can all agree are true."
The human condition is much too varied to have 'axioms' of agreement. One man's feast is another man's famine. Generalizing on morality is one sure way to impose what 'we' think is 'right' on 'them' who do not agree. Zero moralizing. Zero interferece. Roddenberry had it right. We need to follow the prime directive.
"1. All humans have equal rights."
Really? So rich people have the same rights as poor people? I don't think so.. "Rights" speaks of entitlements. The truth is we are all anarchic but few of us realize it.
"2. All humans are free within their personal domain."
I would expand that to all domains. Jailers and other folks who would take away your 'freedom', cannot ever really triumph because 'freedom' is an internal condition, not necessarily external. Again, the difference is between being 'empowered' and 'entitled'. We are all free to rob a bank. Not all of us will get away with it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: Okay..
My take:
"I'd appreciate any other ideas of axioms - i.e. things we can all agree are true."
The human condition is much too varied to have 'axioms' of agreement. One man's feast is another man's famine. Generalizing on morality is one sure way to impose what 'we' think is 'right' on 'them' who do not agree. Zero moralizing. Zero interferece. Roddenberry had it right. We need to follow the prime directive.
"1. All humans have equal rights."
Really? So rich people have the same rights as poor people? I don't think so.. "Rights" speaks of entitlements. The truth is we are all anarchic but few of us realize it.
"2. All humans are free within their personal domain."
I would expand that to all domains. Jailers and other folks who would take away your 'freedom', cannot ever really triumph because 'freedom' is an internal condition, not necessarily external. Again, the difference is between being 'empowered' and 'entitled'. We are all free to rob a bank. Not all of us will get away with it.
Even if we compared humans to say numbers and every number was completely different from another (in reality they are in fact different, 1 is not 2 is not 3 is not 4, ad infinitum)
You could still say "all are numbers" or "one number cannot be another." Perhaps "Every number ought to be recognized as such." Those paticular statements though not neccesarily useful for humans, still show that in a universe of infinite differences there are still unifying statements that are true.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Wow - this thread sure has moved along since I last visited it.
A number of posters have been discussing objective morality as if it requires proof through observation, societal agreement or belief, or other such things. However, it's not apparent that moral truth requires this kind of proof. It could fall into the same epistemological category as logic and math, for instance.
Take the logical rule of modus ponens: 1) If A then B 2) A 3) Therefore, B
Now, you know this is true not through experimentation, observation, or testing. You don't need to know something about the world to know that this is true. Simply through your understanding of the meaning of A and B and the relationship of if-then, you understand this logical argument. If you were a mind in a bubble out in space, you could still grasp this principle, and realize that it's true.
Moral knowledge may also be similar to this, when you get down to its axiomatic tenets. If they're truly axioms, then they shouldn't require explanation - anyone who fully understands the relationship and ideas the words are expressing ought to also understand that the moral claim being presented is true.
It's for this reason that I don't think that we can call suminonA's rules axiomatic - they're still vulnerable to the question of "why?" Why is it that
quote:All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live.
is true? I'd suggest that it has something to do with the fact that we consider life a good thing. Life isn't an end in and of itself.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: The human condition is much too varied to have 'axioms' of agreement. One man's feast is another man's famine. Generalizing on morality is one sure way to impose what 'we' think is 'right' on 'them' who do not agree. Zero moralizing. Zero interferece.
Robin, the probleme is that objective moral truth isn't about agreement anymore than mathematics or (true) science is about agreement. You can say that 2+2=5 - heck a whole society could believe it if they wish to (although they'd have trouble engineering anything). But they'd be wrong. Same thing with moral truth - if it exists, then it's true whether you want it to be or not.
The search for moral truth isn't about generalizing the human condition. It could be that one small segment of the population (or none at all) has the whole morality thing right. If we can somehow come to know what, in fact, is moral truth, then it may be the moral thing to do to impose this truth on others who think differently.
Obviously, we're a long way from figuring it all out, so I'm not suggesting we actually go out and proclaim that we have the truth and everyone else is wrong.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Finding "objective morality" is what political groups do, and then, like Jhai has suggested, they do everything in their power to "impose this truth on others who think differently."
Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party is a pretty good example.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Attempting to find objective morality is also what (some) good philosophers do. I'm not sure you should put Kant, Mill, Aristotle, or any of the other philosophers working on this problem in the same catagory as the Nazis
(And there goes the thread, of course - corollary of Godwin's law.)
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: It's for this reason that I don't think that we can call suminonA's rules axiomatic - they're still vulnerable to the question of "why?" Why is it that
quote:All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live.
is true? I'd suggest that it has something to do with the fact that we consider life a good thing. Life isn't an end in and of itself.
Are you familiar with Einstein’s Standard Theory of Relativity? It rests on (exactly) two postulates. You can still ask the question “why” on both of them, but if you don’t accept them as true (i.e. valid), all that follows from them is also invalid (for you). More even, if you can demonstrate (using the Scientific Method) that one of them is false (i.e. wrong), then all the theory based on that postulate is also wrong. Starting with postulates (even counterintuitive ones!) that DON’T require a demonstration is all that a THEORY is all about. You observe something, take it as true and start deducing more and more complex consequences from it. This is what we are trying to do in this thread And epistemologically speaking, it is a valid way (among others) of dealing with this world.
KarlEd’s idea in this thread is to look for some postulate/axioms for a Moral System that would be as Objective as possible. The ones that I proposed stand the “trial” of being valid or not. If we see that they (one, some or all) are invalid then we drop them and search for other postulates.
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
Originally posted by Robin:
quote:The human condition is much too varied to have 'axioms' of agreement. One man's feast is another man's famine. Generalizing on morality is one sure way to impose what 'we' think is 'right' on 'them' who do not agree. Zero moralizing. Zero interferece. Roddenberry had it right. We need to follow the prime directive.
It sounds like Robin would generalize the PD to something like 'do not interfere,' which puts Robin on the same page with Tres, who wrote:
quote:As for (2), I agree, except I'm not sure if there is any sphere of activity that does not intersect the domain of other people. Even the beliefs in your mind influence your behavior and thus influence others.
I would propose the following: (2b) All humans are free to do anything that is not wrong.
If (2b) is true and (2) is true then I think there is an interesting implication. If you are free to do anything that is not wrong AND anything that doesn't impact another human being, then we can conclude the following: (2c) An act can only be wrong if it impacts another human being.
And that, in turn, might suggest the following: (2d) The effects of an act on other human beings determine whether it is right or wrong.
quote:The Prime Directive dictates that there be no interference with the natural development of any primitive society, chiefly meaning that no primitive culture can be given or exposed to any information regarding advanced technology or alien races. It also forbids any effort to improve or change in any way the natural course of such a society, even if that change is well-intentioned and kept totally secret.
The Roddenberry model is interesting in that it sets up a super framework for a dramatic series. The fact is, each culture/society encountered by the Federation was presumably at some stage of determining the answers to the very questions we're debating here.
It was rather subversive TV. The 'Star Trek Ethic' had the effect of teleporting a Protestant fundamentalist to a planet that, say, killed babies in the womb, or allowed SSM (not real S-T examples), and forced them to confront what it meant to adhere to the Prime Directive. At the very least, this usually resulted in deferring action/interference, during which time the particular morality, axioms, circumstances, etc., of that culture could be understood and appreciated. Often things were not as they seemed.
Edit: typo. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Are you familiar with Einstein’s Standard Theory of Relativity? It rests on (exactly) two postulates. You can still ask the question “why” on both of them, but if you don’t accept them as true (i.e. valid), all that follows from them is also invalid (for you). More even, if you can demonstrate (using the Scientific Method) that one of them is false (i.e. wrong), then all the theory based on that postulate is also wrong. Starting with postulates (even counterintuitive ones!) that DON’T require a demonstration is all that a THEORY is all about. You observe something, take it as true and start deducing more and more complex consequences from it. This is what we are trying to do in this thread And epistemologically speaking, it is a valid way (among others) of dealing with this world.
KarlEd’s idea in this thread is to look for some postulate/axioms for a Moral System that would be as Objective as possible. The ones that I proposed stand the “trial” of being valid or not. If we see that they (one, some or all) are invalid then we drop them and search for other postulates.
I'm not questioning whether they're valid or not - I'm questioning whether they can be counted as axioms - the building blocks of a moral system. Because they're vulnerable to the "Why?" question, just as the Theory of Relativity is, they aren't axiomatic.
When you're discussing philosophy, at least, the word axiom is defined as follows (third definition in the OED):
quote:‘A self-evident proposition, requiring no formal demonstration to prove its truth, but received and assented to as soon as mentioned’ (Hutton).
Neither your propositions, nor the theory of relativty fit this description, because they aren't immediately self-evident. If you believed that life was something bad, something that people didn't want to have, or that, say, a person's life didn't belong to him, but to his family, then it's very easy to question your premise that "All “individuals”, given equal circumstances, have equal right to live." To convince a person of these beliefs that your premise *is* true, you'd have to discuss why life is good and something all individuals should have a right to have control over. Once you start explaining - once it becomes clear that an explanation is required - you've automatically ruled out the possiblity that the premise you've presented is an axiom.
I'd also like to point out, that, as my earlier post suggests, there are very good reasons to believe that morality falls into a different epistemological catagory from the natural sciences, and thus comparisions between how we gain knowledge of the natural world (from the scientific method) and how we gain knowledge of morality are invalid. I doubt we can gain knowledege about morality from observing the world in the same way we can gain knowledge about physics by observing falling apples
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'm not questioning whether they're valid or not - I'm questioning whether they can be counted as axioms - the building blocks of a moral system. Because they're vulnerable to the "Why?" question, just as the Theory of Relativity is, they aren't axiomatic.
When you're discussing philosophy, at least, the word axiom is defined as follows (third definition in the OED):
quote:‘A self-evident proposition, requiring no formal demonstration to prove its truth, but received and assented to as soon as mentioned’ (Hutton).
Neither your propositions, nor the theory of relativty fit this description, because they aren't immediately self-evident.
So what you’re saying is that this thread is pointless (i.e. worthless), and along with it, the Theory of Relativity? If you reject the epistemological validity of building a theory starting with axioms, then anything I can say on this thread might look at most hilarious to you. I’m “defending” here my “axiomatic basis” for a “Moral (objective) System”. I have no argument against something like “your endeavor is invalid”. For me, “this endeavor is valid” is an AXIOM. Or maybe it is a “meta-axiom”. A true one (by Hutton’s definition).
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'd also like to point out, that, as my earlier post suggests, there are very good reasons to believe that morality falls into a different epistemological catagory from the natural sciences, and thus comparisions between how we gain knowledge of the natural world (from the scientific method) and how we gain knowledge of morality are invalid. I doubt we can gain knowledege about morality from observing the world in the same way we can gain knowledge about physics by observing falling apples
Ok, so you do make a distinction between natural sciences and morality. I would agree to that (i.e. there is a distinction) too. That is why “morality” is so “hard”. Yet, I stand by my meta-axiom.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Might I suggest the axiom (I am totally ripping this off from John Stuart Mill):
"Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign"
and
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."
You can hash and define "self-protection" all you want, but its a principle I think can be worked off of.
You have my vote for those axioms
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Also I am not including children yet in my question of morality as children complicate things. I consider children the responsibility of their parents until they are of age and as such do not have the same rights adults have until they come of age. (not interested in stating how old "of age" is.)
The concept of “of age” is quite interesting for me. Why do people think it has anything to do with a certain age? We’ve already noticed that there are no “equal circumstances”. Society defined an arbitrary “age range” for certain “rights”. You can drive/drink/marry/etc only if you’re at leas X years old. Why? Why not set some (less arbitrary) standards related with the abilities of each person? I see at least two essential requirements needed: 1) proving the ability to “act” (i.e. the associated knowledge, physical abilities etc) 2) proving the ability to take the responsibility for his/hers actions Neither of the two are related to a specific age. Nor are they perpetual once that they are acquired.
What I’m trying to say here is that maturity is not strictly related to age. It’s about education and self-responsibility.
A.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I'm going to have to go with suminonA on this one. Our society just kind of draws a line in the sand as far as age limits go. While this is probably necessary for consistancy's sake, I don't know that coming of age & maturity would be so uniform enough across the board that we could call it axiomatic.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: So what you’re saying is that this thread is pointless (i.e. worthless), and along with it, the Theory of Relativity? If you reject the epistemological validity of building a theory starting with axioms, then anything I can say on this thread might look at most hilarious to you.
suminonA - I think you're misunderstanding my point. I am a *defender* of objective morality, and believe it exists. I also think that one can develop a system of morality from axioms which are self-evident in the same way logical axioms is self-evident.
But I don't think that the statements you put forth as axioms are actually axioms. This doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily true - just that they aren't things we can take as axiomatic in order to build the foundations of a moral system. This is analogous to the Theory of Relativity - it is in all probability true, but it's not axiomatic - instead its validity rests on other, more fundamental principles of physics.
A stronger candidate for a moral axiom than the ones you suggest would be, for example, Tom's statement on the first page of this thread: "harm is bad." If all parties agree that is axiomatic, then it gives us a place to start - which may then lead to the conclusion that some (or all) of the statements your propose are, in fact, true.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
“harm is bad” sounds good but we must first define “harm” … What is “harm” for one, might be “pleasure” for others (e.g. the hunting). Then there is the “principle” that “minimizing harm is good” but that is even harder to “implement”, because not only “harm” is yet undefined, but who is to say that “harming one person” is better that “harming (less) 100 persons” ?
So even while I agree that “harm is bad” and that “minimizing harm is good”, I don’t think that they are too useful at an Objective level (because they are by definition Subjective).
That is why I proposed some axioms that, while not being “the most basic imaginable”, are there to form a base of a Moral System (because they have to be "validated" at an Objective level). I understand that you “reject” them not because they might be “not true” but because you hope to find a more “fine base” underlying them.
We still wait for propositions, that is why we’re having this conversation
And at the end, I’m sorry but I want to defend the Theory of Relativity as being based on the (two) most BASIC axioms that Physics ever had. The principle of relativity (“physical phenomena are identical in any inertial frame of reference”) and the principle of constant velocity of light in vacuum do not rely on any other “more fundamental principles”. And again I say, the fact that they are “counterintuitive” at first glance (taken together) doesn’t stop the Theory based on them explain in detail more than Newtonian Physics ever could.
A.
PS: The biggest obstacle in our development are the things we already take for granted.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:“harm is bad” sounds good but we must first define “harm”
Luckily, definitions are not axioms. And there's already a commonly-accepted definition of "harm."
Hunting does not give this axiom any trouble, as the obvious "harm" of a dead animal may be considered more or less harmful than the "harm" of a bored person by various individuals.
What I think is fascinating is that you consider "harm is bad" excessively subjective, when it is in reality the root of Objectivism.
In my first post in this thread, I strongly recommended that people read some basic philosophy before continuing. I suggest that to you again.
quote:I’m sorry but I want to defend the Theory of Relativity as being based on the (two) most BASIC axioms that Physics ever had.
See, again, you're using the word "axiom" incorrectly. Physics is based on the axiom "if something happens, it has an effect."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And there's already a commonly-accepted definition of "harm."
What is it? I have a hunch that whatever definition you are thinking of is not going to be that commonly-accepted....
You could say "harm is something bad" and I think most people would accept that, but that makes "Harm is bad" into a useless axiom. All that would mean is that bad is bad, which tells us nothing.
What morality is concerned with is not whether harm is bad, but rather what qualifies as harmful and bad, or what qualifies as good.
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
Are we still discussing Taboo? I loved the movie, you know?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
What's so great about "objective" morality?
I haven't closely read this thread, but I haven't seen much discussion of that question beyond Karled's initial post. He said that in order for us to justifiably impose a morality, it needs to be objective.
Why? It seems to me that in order to be justified in imposing a morality, the imposition merely needs to be justified by the morality itself. Ie, my moral system includes the command to impose my moral system.
If by "objective" you mean something everyone can agree to, that will never happen. How people develop and view their morality is far too personal and individual, in the same way as taste in art is.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Luckily, definitions are not axioms. And there's already a commonly-accepted definition of "harm."
Really? Please provide one here. And then, apply it to these two (hypothetical) situations:
1) My dog likes to run outside. That’s ok. It also likes to jump all over the couch. That’s ok too. But then, after running in the mud on a rainy day, it is not allowed to enter the house, even less to jump all over the couch. Yet it does not have enough “reason” to see this my way, so I have to teach it “the lesson” by means of prise/punishment. I acknowledge that the physical punishment is a form of (physical) harm but I have to apply it to teach the dog this particular lesson. Is it ok for me to “harm” my dog this way? (I say it is)
2) My daughter likes to talk to other people and learn all she can from them. But I’m worried that she might get “the wrong influence” of some particular friends of hers so I forbid her to see and/or talk to them. She is upset and defies my wish, therefore I have to keep her at home, and send her to a very strict school where I’m sure she will get the “right” education. I cannot accept to see her “harmed” by the “wrong influence”. So she has to obey and at age 20 she leaves school (and home) knowing only what I consider that “it is right”. So she will inevitably meet other people who will notice her naiveté and ignorance and will take advantage of her. At that point I realise that I "prevented harm" while she was young, but she is now suffering because I have truncated the available information, and now it is way too late to REPARE that. So, was it ok for me to do that ? (I say no).
This is the kind of argument I raise when someone tells me that objectively “harm is bad”.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Hunting does not give this axiom any trouble, as the obvious "harm" of a dead animal may be considered more or less harmful than the "harm" of a bored person by various individuals.
Are you a hunter by vocation? I see your statement as very demeaning for the “dead animals”. Why is your boredom more “harmful” than the loosing of some wild animal life? I personally don’t get it. By the way, did you know that there was a time where an entire “race” of people was considered just “as good as any other animal”? Please don’t take this personally, I’m making a general point here, to show that depending on our “absolute definitions” we might get to justify despicable things/acts.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What I think is fascinating is that you consider "harm is bad" excessively subjective, when it is in reality the root of Objectivism.
In my first post in this thread, I strongly recommended that people read some basic philosophy before continuing. I suggest that to you again
Are you talking about this Objectivism ? I didn’t notice where is this “harm is bad” at its root … I have to admit that I do not have an exhaustive knowledge about “basic philosophy” so if you find relevant references on the points you are making, some links would be quite helpful. Thanks.
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: See, again, you're using the word "axiom" incorrectly. Physics is based on the axiom "if something happens, it has an effect."
Well, if you asked me, “if something happens, it has an effect” is not “at the base” of the postulates of the Theory of Relativity. Can you prove otherwise? (If you say that the “axiom” you are suggesting is not necessarily at the base of those particular postulates, but at the base of “physics in general” then you’re saying that the Theory of Relativity is just not included in Physics…)
Yet, it is an interesting “axiom” if applied to “beliefs”. I mean: If I believe (in) something, does it really exist? I might argue that “the effect” of its existence is my belief. I might even say that I don’t need to “see” something “happen” to have my belief. So, what is this “axiom” leading to?
A.
[edited for spelling]
[ June 14, 2006, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: suminonA ]
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: What's so great about "objective" morality?
Objective Morality would be great for people living in a (wide and rational) society. “Morality/Ethics” is, as you say, personal. But when an Objective Moral System is set up, those who chose NOT to live by it are free to go and live by themselves and by their own rules. Life in society means responsibility beyond “personal interest”.
A.
[edited for clarity]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is the kind of argument I raise when someone tells me that objectively “harm is bad”.
Which is why I'm telling you to read more philosophy.
--------
quote:Is it ok for me to “harm” my dog this way?
Yes. Because while "harm is bad" is axiomatic, you justify doing a lesser harm -- the punishment -- to ward off a larger harm. A common derivative of "harm is bad" is, as I've said before, "harm should be minimized." Punishing your dog in order to train it is an example of minimizing harm through the application of harm.
quote:So she will inevitably meet other people who will notice her naiveté and ignorance and will take advantage of her. At that point I realise that I "prevented harm" while she was young, but she is now suffering because I have truncated the available information, and now it is way too late to REPARE that...
You're again confusing an axiom with a moral law. Axioms are NOT moral laws, and moral laws are pretty much never -- by my argument -- axiomatic. Your daughter may have been harmed by your protectiveness. You may have also protected her from other harm. If in balance your protectiveness proved over-protective, and thus did her more harm than good, then yes, you DID harm her by being excessively protective. But you did not deliberately harm her; you simply did not know that the result of your action would be a net harm.
quote:I’m making a general point here, to show that depending on our “absolute definitions” we might get to justify despicable things/acts.
Yes. Exactly. Although a more correct way to put that would be "depending on our definitions, we might justify acts that appear despicable to other people."
quote:Can you prove otherwise?
Yes. I can't do it as well as some philosophers already have, though. Like I said, read some philosophy now, then come back to this thread when you're done.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Objective Morality would be great for people living in a (wide and rational) society.
Who says society is rational?
quote:But when an Objective Moral System is set up, those who chose NOT to live by it are free to go and live by themselves and by their own rules.
It seems like you're saying that "objective morality" is synonomous with "a list of rules that one must follow to be a part of the group." That's what the law is; do you want "objective morality" to be synonomous with "the legal system"?
quote:Life in society means responsibility beyond “personal interest”.
Responsibility to who? You're always going to have to short change one person for another; you can't possibly have equal responsibility to everyone.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Like I said, read some philosophy now, then come back to this thread when you're done.
Thank you.
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend, or even to be dismissive. Here's the problem: you're making assumptions about the meaning of the word "axiomatic" which aren't correct. Basically, you're attempting to invalidate an axiom based on what you believe would be an incorrect application of a derived principle.
This makes it hard to discuss axiomatic truth with you, because you're saying things like "harm can be good because I harm my dog in order to train him," not understanding that "good" and "bad" are not defined as zero-sum values for this purpose.
Your general observations are valid, but you're not using the right language for the task and are objecting to people's correct use of wording based on your misunderstanding of the terminology. I don't know how to correct this in this thread without suggesting additional study.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Doing philosophy is a lot more helpful than reading philosophy... I'd recommend both if you are interested in objective morality, but that's no reason to not continue this thread.
I'd also think that the meaning of "axiom" is irrelevant to the discussion. Whether we are talking about "axioms" or "moral laws" or "postulates" or just "assumptions", I think it's fairly clear that suminonA is looking for some objective rule that can be used to determine good from bad. Whether we are calling that rule an "axiom" or something else is academic.
The trouble with the dog example is not a confusion about what are "axioms" but rather a mistaken hidden assumption. The dog example makes the following logical leap:
1. Harm is bad 2. It is always wrong to do something bad THEREFORE: It is always wrong to harm
But Assumpiont #2 is false, because in the dog example, all options involve doing something bad. Since we MUST do one thing or another, we have to do something bad, and thus in that case doing something bad is the right choice. So premise #2 is false - sometimes it is right to do something bad, if all the other alternatives involve doing things even worse.
Morality needs to do more than simply say harm is bad. It needs to say how we deal with situations in which some bad will come from anything we choose. How do we measure what is less bad and what is more bad? Even if we say harm is bad, we will need to determine what harm is before we can apply that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How do we measure what is less bad and what is more bad?
And that takes us right to utility. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, it needs to take us beyond utility, because that's just another abstract term for what is good. It's just another word for the measure of what is less or more bad. It doesn't tell us how to measure it, or what actually is less or more bad.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I agree with Tom that if all the members of this conversation had a basic grounding in philosophy, particularly ethics, the discussion would be much more productive. This is simply because the terminology used by modern philosophers has historical signifigance - just like the language used by any other field of study. Additionally, there's a tradition of ethical "moves" and their responses similar to opening chess moves. If everyone is familar with at least the opening moves, then we can go into greater detail about the later moves, which is where the game is won.
Hmmm... hope I didn't string out that analogy too far. I run into this problem a lot with my boyfriend - he's a religious studies and English major (pretty much the antithesis of my econ/philosophy majors). He's a smart guy, but because he lacks the vocabularly and background in philosophy, our discussions of philosophy are often riddled with frustration on both sides.
To those of you considering studying philosophy, - I think the best place to do it is with a teacher, or at least a couple of other learners, simply because a lot of philosophy involves challenging the views presented, and that's best done with more minds.
If you're interested in getting a grounding in philosophy, I'd suggest Sophie's World as a good introduction - plus it's an excellent novel in its own right. If you're interested in ethics in particular, I'd suggest A Companion To Ethics edited by Peter Singer (who is an extremely controversial ethicist, but knows his stuff).
Of course, none of this beats reading the primary sources themselves, but life is short, and so is free time. Use the introductory books as a spring board to find the primary works of the philosophers you find most interesting.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
] The reason behind the existence of the postulate #1 is to grant from the start the right to live for every individual (even if it would never be perfectly equal.)