The general problem discussing morality

[IQ170]

The general problem discussing morality.

When discussing any moral question, we have two components.

1. the problem itself and
2. the ethical system being used.

The same problem will be evaluated differently by two people who subscribe to different ethical systems. Those, who subscribe to some “objective” and “absolute” morality like to bring up a scenario, which deals with extreme circumstances, like torturing babies for fun. Pretty much everyone, except sadistic sociopaths will agree that no matter which ethical system you use, such an action will be considered immoral.

But that is the problem. Even sadistic sociopaths subscribe to some ethical system (probably “egoism”), which we disagree with. So the question is really a meta-ethical question: “how to evaluate different ethical systems, and how to decide which one is valid”? Here are a few of them:

• Utilitarianism.
• Deontology.
• Virtue ethics.
• Egoism.
• Religion or divine command theory.
• Natural Law.
• Social contract theory.

And quite a few more.

But none of these can be “measured” in litmus test, or placed on a scale. Of course not, since they do not deal with “IS” questions, rather with “OUGHT” type of questions. As such there is no objective epistemological method which can prove: “ethical system ‘A’ is better than ethical system ‘B’”.

And this leads to the next point. When someone argues that morality is subjective and relative, the next objection will come up: “if there is no absolute, objective moral system, then there is no ground to say about any behavior that it is immoral or incorrect.” Actually we can say that “in this particular ethical system it is disallowed”. Sad, but true.

The actions which are “seriously frowned upon” in any specific society are included in the criminal code. And what decides what the “criminal code” will consist of? The only method is the “rule of the fist”. In every society the topmost entity (usually the nation-state) rules, by enforcing a set of laws. The word is “enforcing” - which means that violations to the code will be punished - using force.

This leads to the “ethical” system: “might makes right”. I really hate this conclusion, but reality does not care about my preferences. As for discussions, without coming to some agreement about the “ethical system” we shall use… there can be no fruitful discussion. We are doomed to talk past each other. Any suggestions?

 

[Wozza]

The general problem discussing morality.

When discussing any moral question, we have two components.

1. the problem itself and
2. the ethical system being used.

The same problem will be evaluated differently by two people who subscribe to different ethical systems. Those, who subscribe to some “objective” and “absolute” morality like to bring up a scenario, which deals with extreme circumstances, like torturing babies for fun. Pretty much everyone, except sadistic sociopaths will agree that no matter which ethical system you use, such an action will be considered immoral.

But that is the problem. Even sadistic sociopaths subscribe to some ethical system (probably “egoism”), which we disagree with. So the question is really a meta-ethical question: “how to evaluate different ethical systems, and how to decide which one is valid”? Here are a few of them:

• Utilitarianism.
• Deontology.
• Virtue ethics.
• Egoism.
• Religion or divine command theory.
• Natural Law.
• Social contract theory.

And quite a few more.

But none of these can be “measured” in litmus test, or placed on a scale. Of course not, since they do not deal with “IS” questions, rather with “OUGHT” type of questions. As such there is no objective epistemological method which can prove: “ethical system ‘A’ is better than ethical system ‘B’”.

And this leads to the next point. When someone argues that morality is subjective and relative, the next objection will come up: “if there is no absolute, objective moral system, then there is no ground to say about any behavior that it is immoral or incorrect.” Actually we can say that “in this particular ethical system it is disallowed”. Sad, but true.

The actions which are “seriously frowned upon” in any specific society are included in the criminal code. And what decides what the “criminal code” will consist of? The only method is the “rule of the fist”. In every society the topmost entity (usually the nation-state) rules, by enforcing a set of laws. The word is “enforcing” - which means that violations to the code will be punished - using force.

This leads to the “ethical” system: “might makes right”. I really hate this conclusion, but reality does not care about my preferences. As for discussions, without coming to some agreement about the “ethical system” we shall use… there can be no fruitful discussion. We are doomed to talk past each other. Any suggestions?

I’m not sure that you are clear about where laws actually come from. Yes, they can be imposed from above. But almost always they bubble up from below. Because we, the people, decide who we want to represent our views and we grant them the power to enforce them.

And hey, that doesn’t always work as we’d like. But it’s the least worst system we have.

 

[IQ170]

I’m not sure that you are clear about where laws actually come from. Yes, they can be imposed from above. But almost always they bubble up from below. Because we, the people, decide who we want to represent our views and we grant them the power to enforce them.

And hey, that doesn’t always work as we’d like. But it’s the least worst system we have.

What you say is true, but it is a very recent development. But even today, in our somewhat “democratic” societies the laws come from a small number of legislators, whose only qualification was that they were able to bamboozle the general population to vote for them. Once they get into power, they can pass any kinds of laws, which have nothing to do with what they promised. And then their only concern is get re-elected. But, be as it may, those laws are enforced via “power”.

However, this is not the main point. The question of “which ethical system” shall we use makes the whole question of: “is this behavior moral?” irrelevant. The only answer is: “it depends on which ethical system we accept?”

 

[tafan2]

Any suggestions?

The Gospel

 

[Wesrock]

Of course not, since they do not deal with “IS” questions, rather with “OUGHT” type of questions. As such there is no objective epistemological method which can prove: “ethical system ‘A’ is better than ethical system ‘B’”.

Two quick comments.

Some ethical systems do deal with both Is or Ought.

The lack of falsifiable, repeatable testing does not negate that we have reason and logic.

 

[IQ170]

The Gospel

Thank you. But there are so many things not covered there. And even the “divine command” theory is problematic. It is hard to deal with a command leading to genocide - at least for me.

Some ethical systems do deal with both Is or Ought.

That does not help to decide, which ethical system is “better”.

The lack of falsifiable, repeatable testing does not negate that we have reason and logic.

Reason and especially logic rests on some foundation. See my previous objection.

My point is that there is no epistemological method to decide which ethical system is “superior”.

 

[Pug]

We are doomed to talk past each other

The conclusion seems unwarranted. A consequentialist say, and a deontologist may well agree on some things. To better understand each other, they should be clear about their own underlying axioms. Often people offer some type of “why” even if you don’t ask. I see no reason why with time they might not come to understand the position of the other to some extent. If they understand each other well enough, person X might even help person Y refine Y’s own position.

 

[Wesrock]

My point is that there is no epistemological method to decide which ethical system is “superior”.

Whichever one is most rational and conforms to reality.

You are attempting to make your case reasonably and logically. You also have used reason and logic to come to conclusions about what you feel is superior epistemology, by addressing questions on the philosophy of being (metaphysics).

By your own logic, it would seem that if we are unable to use reason to determine which system of ethics is superior, we can’t do the same with epistemological systems.

 

[Brian_K]

The inward movement of the spirit toward a higher way of living (ie, seeking an ethical system of any type) is universal to all humans. Yet no ethical system implants this notion of higher/better/virtuous. It either comes from God, or “randomly mutated” into every single human being. Reason concludes, therefore, it comes from God. Since God became a human being and founded the Catholic Church, it’s therefore most reasonable to follow Catholic moral teaching.

 

[DarkLight]

The conclusion seems unwarranted. A consequentialist say, and a deontologist may well agree on some things. To better understand each other, they should be clear about their own underlying axioms. Often people offer some type of “why” even if you don’t ask. I see no reason why with time they might not come to understand the position of the other to some extent. If they understand each other well enough, person X might even help person Y refine Y’s own position.

From what I’ve seen in practice, most moral systems develop by working backwards. People take basic, common sense moral statements and reason about why certain things are wrong. Then they use those principles to figure out what we should do with harder cases.

 

[Pug]

I agree some people seem to start their reasoning with a concrete case. Almost like the case is an axiom in their system, and then push reasoning about it to the limit.

 

[IQ170]

The conclusion seems unwarranted. A consequentialist say, and a deontologist may well agree on some things.

I am sure you are right in some instances (even in many instances). It would be impossible that they would disagree in EVERY scenario.

To better understand each other, they should be clear about their own underlying axioms.

Yes, this is also correct. But the point is, how can they agree with the other party’s axioms? To learn and understand someone else’s axioms does not necessarily lead to acceptance.

If they understand each other well enough, person X might even help person Y refine Y’s own position.

This would be a very welcome outcome. But I am afraid it is very rare.

By your own logic, it would seem that if we are unable to use reason to determine which system of ethics is superior, we can’t do the same with epistemological systems.

Not really. The epistemology is validated by its predictions. If the predictions cannot be substantiated, the whole prediction process “hangs in the air”. The point is that metaphysics deals with the objectively existing reality, and the epistemology would show if the internal model of the reality conforms to the reality. There is no such equivalence for ethics. Now, if the prediction of an ethical systems can be validated, that would be a deciding factor. But such a prediction usually cannot be validated or falsified.

There is a great book by Fred Hoyle, its title is “The Black Cloud”. The characters are all scientists dealing with a difficult situation. The details are not relevant here, however the basic concept is very important: “In science the only deciding factor is prediction!”. If you can predict the outcome and your prediction is validated by reality, then your epistemology was “good”. If your prediction is falsified, then your epistemology is incorrect.

The simplest way to put this: “The proof of the pudding is that it is edible!”

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Any suggestions?

There’s no hope.

 

[IQ170]

There’s no hope.

Sadly… I have to agree.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But almost always they bubble up from below. Because we, the people, decide who we want to represent our views and we grant them the power to enforce them.

Depending on the time and place this is certainly not always true.

 

[DarkLight]

I agree some people seem to start their reasoning with a concrete case. Almost like the case is an axiom in their system, and then push reasoning about it to the limit.

That’s how all the major moral systems developed, really - starting with concrete cases. It’s not like people empties their minds of all practical moral reasoning and then started thinking up moral systems. They took various cases of common morality and tried to develop a system that explained them.

 

[Pug]

But the point is, how can they agree with the other party’s axioms?

Well, if axioms of morality are like vanilla and chocolate, not much can be done. (Well, nothing satisfying anyway. People are often won over by ridiculous arguments).

In the case of two random people talking about moral systems, I see no need to win both over to one side. However if our goal is to engineer society, then one can win some people over with rational argument (or incentives) to promote the same moral system.

 

[Pug]

That’s how all the major moral systems developed

I wasn’t thinking of history, and it’s been a long time since I studied anything philosophical. I don’t recall Nietzsche, say, being case based, unless it was to say those people are all just plain wrong about everything.

 

[DarkLight]

I wasn’t thinking of history, and it’s been a long time since I studied anything philosophical. I don’t recall Nietzsche, say, being case based, unless it was to say those people are all just plain wrong about everything.

I don’t think Nietzsche really qualifies as having a moral system, honestly. I was thinking of the major ones like what you listed in your first post. The “big three” division in western philosophy is usually utilitarian/deontological/virtue ethics. (Natural law, divine command, and social contract are all considered subsets of the big three.)

But I think that’s really the big way we tell the difference between them. People aren’t starting from scratch, and many people have only a vague idea of an overarching moral system. Rather, we have an innate sense of ethics that tends in general to agree on the major principles most of the time. And then we look for an ethical system that makes sense of those.

 

[Wozza]

However, this is not the main point. The question of “which ethical system” shall we use makes the whole question of: “is this behavior moral?” irrelevant. The only answer is: “it depends on which ethical system we accept?”

At least we have moved away from ‘might is right’ (which is not an ethical system so is irrelevant as you intimate). But you are right. You might get different answers whichever system you use. Including religious ones.

I guess we need to pick one and make a case.