What creates morality?

[Fooloso4]

Gertie:

To try to sum up your position, you think that moral obligations will naturally emerge from reflecting on what brings an individual happiness and fulfilment, because you can't ultimately be happy and fulfilled without doing what you can to help others achieve happiness and fulfilment too?

Something like that. We are by nature social beings not as influential modern political theorist like Locke and Hobbes claim social atoms. My happiness and your happiness is not separate from the happiness of the community. Some modern approaches to ethics, but not Utilitarianism, begin with the question of what we are obligated to do. I think this is the wrong way to approach the subject. It is not, however, to deny that we have obligations.

It looks circular - a good life will result from the 'proper' type of study and reflection which results in a good life?

For Aristotle a good life is not guaranteed. There is always an element of good fortune. Abject poverty, famine, and poor health for example are anathema to a good life. He recognized that most people will not do much study and reflection on what the good life means, and so they may never reach the full potential of what humans are capable of, they will not fully achieve human virtue (this means something different than say Christian virtues) or excellence. But deliberation is only part of the good life. The development of good character and good habits can be achieved through upbringing, training, and education. Short of achieving the highest human potential we may achieve what we are capable of. We may, with good luck, live a good life relative to our capacities.

Good and Happy and Kind just naturally (and conveniently) go together if you think about it the 'right' way. But it's only the 'right' way because then they all go together. ?

One thing that should be pointed out is the problem of translation. Eudaimonia is often translated as happiness, but happiness connotes things for us that are not part of eudaimonia and leaves out things that are. Some translate it as flourish and here we get some sense of the connection with achieving one’s potential.

But... as we understand human nature better, we realise we're actually extremely complex.

I agree and this is one reason why some ethicists have rejected rule based ethics and returned to Aristotle, life is too complex to be covered by some set of rules. He was an astute observer of human behavior, but he’s been dead a long time. Any advances in our understanding of human nature and behavior fit seamlessly with his approach. This is part of the strenght of this approach, it begins with who we are and considers who we can be.

Isn't it inevitable that any lifestyle, no matter how rationally based on certain assumptions, will fulfil some needs and desires, but not others?

Yes, but he was not advocating a lifestyle. Phronesis or practical wisdom (keep in mind the problem of translation) is by definition adaptive. It is all about how we evaluate a situation and how we might respond in order to achieve a good outcome. Life is messy and involves compromises. Phronesis is about sorting through and weighing options. We all do this to some degree, but not always wisely.

And simply calling one type of Happiness the 'right one', isn't really getting to some deeper truth?

Yes and no. It is ultimately up to the individual to decide what is best for him or her within the social constraints of others. Some will choose well and others will not, but choosing well is not measured against some absolute standard. For Aristotle the philosophical life is the good life par excellence, but it is the life that only a few will choose and only a few are suited for.

An obvious extreme example, a psychopath's happiness simply isn't rooted in other people's happiness.

But a psychopath would not be happy as Aristotle understood the term. The psychopath is not mentally healthy and both physical and mental health are fundamental to happiness.

So isn't Aristotle making assumptions about others too narrowly based on himself, he being the result of his culture, experiences, learning and so on?

The question of the good life must be the question of the life that is good for me. It takes into account culture, experiences, learning and so on. It is the life that I want to lead. At the same time the question of the good life can, for those who are so inclined liberate us from the narrow confines of culture, experiences, learning and so on by calls these things into question.

What do you think? Am I not understanding it right? Too crudely? Are these obvious objections which ultimately don't matter because in practice it works pretty well?

You are asking many of the right questions. It should be kept in mind that it is not intended as a system or solution or methodology.

Have I nailed it and changed your whole outlook on morality?

No. Have I? We can keep working on it.

Apologies for giving you the impression I ignored you!

And my apologies for not giving you more time.

[Gertie]

Wilson

The bands of hunter-gatherers in which the members had more empathy and concern for others in the group tended to survive better than those in which the members were purely concerned with their own self-interest. Better survival meant more of their genes passed on to the next generation. That's how evolution works - through increasing the genes resulting in better survival and reproduction in subsequent generations. How do those genes cause particular personality traits - like empathy, sympathy, group identification, altruism, fairness, duty, and so forth? Through wiring the brain in ways that result in those characteristics - although nobody has a clue to how that's done. Maybe someday.

Actually, scientists are making progress there, tho it's very early days.

For me the most interesting moral philosophers are the ones getting themselves educated in things like neuroscience, anthropology and other fields, and trying to draw a range of empirical findings and inferences together to come up with the sort of explanatory account of morality people like you and I find compelling.

There's enough of them now to merit it being a field in its own right. I particularly like Pat Churchland's approach, she has a book Brain Trust which is aimed at the interested lay person. And some accessible youtube vids of her talks are out there. Here's an hour or so lecture she gave on Morality and The Mammalian brain if you want to get a taste of the way she formulates a Big Picture account using findings from different fields, and looking at how the evolution of some brain functions fit in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_PtnBacAP0

Only so much she can say in an hour, and it's a bit bitty. But I like how she tries to knit her trad philosophy background with what we're learning about how we work. Interestingly here she gives a nod to Aristotle's practical approach in terms of 'just getting on with it', when the reality is that morality isn't an objective 'thing-in-itself' out there, to be discovered, understood and implemented.

[Solatic]

For me, I believe that what is most beneficial to everyone and everything is the highest morality, while what is most harmful to anyone or anything is the highest immorality.

Yes, but that is so vague as to be useless. Many actions are beneficial to some and harmful to others. And each of us is more concerned about the welfare of certain people (family, friends, community) than others. How do we fill in the equation? Should something that was beneficial to Hitler have been seen as a moral positive?

If the beneficial outweighs the harmful, and it is universally applicable, then it is not at all so useless.

[Wilson]

(Nested quote removed.)

Yes, but that is so vague as to be useless. Many actions are beneficial to some and harmful to others. And each of us is more concerned about the welfare of certain people (family, friends, community) than others. How do we fill in the equation? Should something that was beneficial to Hitler have been seen as a moral positive?

If the beneficial outweighs the harmful, and it is universally applicable, then it is not at all so useless.

And how do you determine that the beneficial outweighs the harmful? Majority vote? Individual opinion?

[Gertie]

fooloso

Have I nailed it and changed your whole outlook on morality?

No. Have I? We can keep working on it.

Apologies for giving you the impression I ignored you!

And my apologies for not giving you more time.

Glad we're sorted .

I'm up for more, I'll have a ponder. First impressions I feel myself budging yourwaywards - but I'm sure I can put up a decent struggle!

[Wilson]

Wilson

The bands of hunter-gatherers in which the members had more empathy and concern for others in the group tended to survive better than those in which the members were purely concerned with their own self-interest. Better survival meant more of their genes passed on to the next generation. That's how evolution works - through increasing the genes resulting in better survival and reproduction in subsequent generations. How do those genes cause particular personality traits - like empathy, sympathy, group identification, altruism, fairness, duty, and so forth? Through wiring the brain in ways that result in those characteristics - although nobody has a clue to how that's done. Maybe someday.

Actually, scientists are making progress there, tho it's very early days.

I wonder how much progress, really. They can make general observations, but since the rewiring is presumably taking place at the neuronal level - and there are 100 billion neurons in the brain, with trillions of connections - it seems to me way beyond our capacity in the foreseeable future to get a firm handle on the mechanisms involved. It's hard enough to understand how particular genes through enzyme action cause specific body changes to result, much less in the area of personality, consciousness, and cognitive activity, which would be infinitely more complicated, it seems to me. But I'll vid the link you posted to see if they're further along than I thought.

[Gertie]

Wilson


(Nested quote removed.)


Actually, scientists are making progress there, tho it's very early days.

I wonder how much progress, really. They can make general observations, but since the rewiring is presumably taking place at the neuronal level - and there are 100 billion neurons in the brain, with trillions of connections - it seems to me way beyond our capacity in the foreseeable future to get a firm handle on the mechanisms involved. It's hard enough to understand how particular genes through enzyme action cause specific body changes to result, much less in the area of personality, consciousness, and cognitive activity, which would be infinitely more complicated, it seems to me. But I'll vid the link you posted to see if they're further along than I thought.

No, obviously I wouldn't have linked an hour long vid by a philosopher to illustrate that micro level of scientific description for how millions of individual neurons within brain sub systems evolved from functioning as a system designed to maintain homeostasis to a system which can concurrently work for the good of the group. There's a lot of room between that and 'haven't got a clue'. Processes can be understood at different levels of detail. This gives a taste, with a few specific examples, a few clues, of the way discoveries and thinking in different fields can be pulled together to give an account of the evolution of social mammals. It will be proven wrong in some details as we learn more, but we know enough now to bring together a rough big picture account of how it happened. And might interest you on that level. Or not.

-- Updated November 15th, 2016, 9:35 pm to add the following --

Fooloso

OK this isn't a point by point response, it's a response resulting from me thinking about your responses.

I think morality needs a principle to strive towards, some shared notion of what 'The Good' is. Regardless of your philosophical position on relativity, ontological truths, subjective morality or whatev - just Act As If. Acting As If there is something which is The Good is a sensible practical option.

Aristotle doesn't give us that. He gives us Libertarianism. DIY morality. There is no foundation, it can go anywhere, and we're not just social animals, we're selfish too. And our concerns for others are arbitrary, shaped by evolution and honed by the environment, not people's inherent value. I just googled 'Did Aristotle believe in slavery?' Top result -

'' He thought that slavery was a natural thing and that human beings came in two types - slaves and non-slaves. ... Some people, he said, were born natural slaves and ought to be slaves under any circumstances.''

Why wouldn't he, he's a product of his time and place. His virtue ethics don't raise any objection, his intuitions about flourishing can take him anywhere, he probably thought that was the limit of those people's potential, their eudaimonia.

That's why we need to ground Morality. I think you can have a very basic definition of The Good based on the well-being of conscious creatures. Because consciousness confers inherent value, and a stake in your existence and quality of life. A conscious entity is therefore an entity which must be shown moral consideration. So Morality is about our shared humanity, shared well-being, the welfare of others is central, not a happy by-product - sometimes. We're not just billions of individuals. It might be that this is the natural conclusion for many individuals following Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, if so, great. But it's a crap shoot. In the public sphere we need more.

We need that moral frame-work, guiding principle we can roughly unite behind. (Regardless of squabbling over details, which there has to be room for, freedom is a part of well-being). Which is reflected in institutions, rules, policy, mores, normative cultural narratives. And Utilitarianism can be an imperfect tool (not a rule) for guidance on implementation. And it would be dumb not to incorporate what we're coming to understand about human nature within that.

I say a practicality based pick n mix approach is fine, once you've established your basic Good. That's the approach I think would be for the best. We've sort of wobbled our way towards that in an ad hoc manner, differently in various times and cultures, but loosely based on our social impulses. We feel we've progressed, and I believe that. I believe in Progressivism, it matters, and it can be justified in the sort of framework I've outlined. And it's fragile and inconsistent without such a framework.

So what's up with that? Why is Aristotle's approach better? Which would likely result in better outcomes? Am I inevitably going to be a tyrant who silences dissent, forces compliance, and gets hung from a lamp post? It's a very basic principle, a foundation with a sign post.

[Solatic]

(Nested quote removed.)


If the beneficial outweighs the harmful, and it is universally applicable, then it is not at all so useless.

And how do you determine that the beneficial outweighs the harmful? Majority vote? Individual opinion?

If a cure for all cancers were to be created, then what would be more beneficial, and what would be more harmful?

To release the formula to the populace freely so that it may be developed and distributed freely?
Or to charge people a million dollars per cure? As to make a profit?

All the research and study into the cure might've completely gone in vain for the former. But at least having a good conscience and confidence could be the reward.

As for the latter, the funds raised from the profits, could be utilized to develop cures for all sorts of diseases. Albeit though, not as many would be cured of cancer.

The point I'm making is, that the morality I propose be irrelative and universally objective, it does not necessarily make it instances of black and white. To be absolutely moral in this regard, is to cure humanity by being present among them, alone. To be absolutely immoral in this regard is to harm humanity by being present among them, alone. Such things not be too possible. Although, there be mythological characters in human history with these sorts of abilities. And I always say this about history, I wasnt there to bear witness. So how would I know?

Is coercion and deception moral for the sake of the end's of whatever the greater good be defined as? Or is the nature of action is as such, that once fallen always fallen?

[Belindi]

Isn't what creates morality simply the need to cooperate?

-- Updated February 18th, 2017, 6:21 am to add the following --

Reciprocal altruism is the root cause of morality.

Sometimes killing other people is morally and legally justified , sometimes not, depending upon the state of cooperation (i.e. reciprocal altruism)between ethnicities, families, clans, nations, etc.

The ethic "do as you would be done by" accompanied by a very broad and liberal (i.e. humanistic) definition of personhood, is of comparatively recent origin. That ethic was established within Old Testament times as can be seen by the development of Jahweh from a tribal god to the god of justice as expounded by the OT prophets.

There were parallel developments in other parts of the civilised world: India (Buddha) China (Confucius) Persia (Zarathustra) Greece (classical philosophers).

-- Updated February 18th, 2017, 6:27 am to add the following --

There have been backslidings as has been mentioned ; slavery in the American South and slavery's profiteers in Europe. In present times we have an upsurge in fascism. However the ethic "do as you would be done by" accompanied by the other ethic regarding universla personhood is still going strong.

As we shall see those ethics are coming under increasing pressure from Trumpism, European new Right, Isis, and popular fears resulting from post- industrial economy and environmental deterioration.

It's apocalypse, Boys!

[Aristocles]

Isn't what creates morality simply the need to cooperate?

Reciprocal altruism is the root cause of morality.

So, doesn't this then beg the question of "What creates the need to cooperate, or what creates reciprocal altruism?"

[Belindi]

Isn't what creates morality simply the need to cooperate?

Reciprocal altruism is the root cause of morality.

So, doesn't this then beg the question of "What creates the need to cooperate, or what creates reciprocal altruism?"

We are evolved by natural selection to be social animals. As social animals we are capable of learning from experience.

[PD+LEUSA2010]

I am amazed/shocked at the dynamic Existence and instant Non of morality in society. When members of"Authorities" behaves in a certain the question of ethic/morality in nowhere to be seen. However, when questioned about its lack of moral\ethical behavior, the #Authorities deny such transgression.

For example, there is a recent and gruesome example in Asia of three women who killed and dismembered another woman. In stead of being heavily condemned for these actions, these women were treated by the police and news media as movie stars. The media swarmed around them and the police took selfies with these women. What a complete lack of professionalism and moral sense by these social role models.

[Aristocles]

So, doesn't this then beg the question of "What creates the need to cooperate, or what creates reciprocal altruism?"

We are evolved by natural selection to be social animals. As social animals we are capable of learning from experience.

So, morality comes from one’s natural capacity to be social?

[Belindi]

We are evolved by natural selection to be social animals. As social animals we are capable of learning from experience.

So, morality comes from one’s natural capacity to be social?

What else?

[Sculptor1]

We are evolved by natural selection to be social animals. As social animals we are capable of learning from experience.

So, morality comes from one’s natural capacity to be social?

SO much is obvious. But what is more important is who gets to set the agenda and what means do they use to mobilise and exploit that natural tendency.