What is moral in life?

[Gertie]

This seems to be a confusing topic in the world, with the media seemingly promoting things such as procreational activities outside of marriage, gay marriage, teenage love, dating, drinking, smoking, love triangles, swearing, pornography, etc. There does seem to be a lot of people who are preaching against some of this stuff, but they seem to go unnoticed because of the loads of things that I just listed.
The question here is: What is moral? Not just what people say is moral, but what is moral without people's opinions butting in. Either there is a thick line drawn between morality and immorality, or it is up to us to decide.

My view is that what we've come to call 'Morality' is the way societies create norms of accepted behaviour rooted in our evolved social impulses. It has no independent objective existence outside that, which we can discover and find out what is objectively Right and Wrong.

Many of the items on your personal list LT might be classified under a list of 6 broad descriptions of 'universal moral impulses' as concerned with Sanctity/Degradation, something obviously important to you personally. This is how Moral Foundations Theory briefly describes it - http://www.moralfoundations.org/

5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).


However, your bigger question is the much trickier one of Can we get from an Is to an Ought? We may have evolved with this sense that some things are right and wrong for good useful evolutionary reasons, that's the 'Is'. But can we still find something beyond that worth the name 'Morality', an 'Ought'?

And I do think a case can be made for a quasi objective morality, on the basis of Value. I'd suggest that the qualiative nature of subjective experience (consciousness) introduces something of innate Value into the world. Conscious creatures have a Quality of Life. They (we) can experience flourishing in a qualiative way. Can be happy and suffer, and all things in between. If we die, something of inherent Value has therefore been lost.

Trying to create an Objective Morality grounded in Subjective Experience may at first look paradoxical, but I think if we see it in terms of Value, or Mattering, it makes sense. It matters if I treat you badly because you suffer. It matters if I kill you because you lose the ability to experience any quality of life, you've lost something of inherent value. This obviously has implications for how we treat other conscious species too.

[Eduk]

I'd suggest that the qualiative nature of subjective experience (consciousness) introduces something of innate Value into the world.

Actually this raises more questions. Do we need to look outside of subjective truth? Does morality need an objective truth? Would it be more moral if it were objective? Should everyone have the exact same morals? Should a dog have the same morals as a human? Or we the same as an alien (even more conscious) species?

You could of course argue that you personally have subjective reasons and so do other people. So you could say there was some objectivity to the subjectivity. A bit like cooking or art.

Of course your innate value of consciousness is in my opinion an axiom. If you define that consciousness has value then perhaps a moral truth can naturally follow. But you still have to start with the axiom.

[Gertie]

I'd suggest that the qualiative nature of subjective experience (consciousness) introduces something of innate Value into the world.

Actually this raises more questions. Do we need to look outside of subjective truth? Does morality need an objective truth? Would it be more moral if it were objective? Should everyone have the exact same morals? Should a dog have the same morals as a human? Or we the same as an alien (even more conscious) species?

You could of course argue that you personally have subjective reasons and so do other people. So you could say there was some objectivity to the subjectivity. A bit like cooking or art.

Of course your innate value of consciousness is in my opinion an axiom. If you define that consciousness has value then perhaps a moral truth can naturally follow. But you still have to start with the axiom.

Good questions, thanks for the feedback - can't say I've got it all clear in my own mind yet, so it's helpful.

I suppose I'm saying that the old types of framing don't work any more, in light of us beginning to understand the utilitarian evolutionary origins of our 'natural' moral impulses, and not everyone still cohering around the belief in a Perfect Law Giver/Axiom Machine. But still we live in a world which needs some consensus on Right and Wrong, a basis for how to formulate Oughts.

I'm suggesting that the appropriate category for such discourse and consensus is Value and Mattering. Goldstein suggests Mattering can be a bridge between Is and Ought, I think it's a fairly new approach, but I like the sound of it. And it works well with my way of thinking about it.

So in a universe without conscious critters such as ourselves, nothing matters, oughts are irrelevant, value is irrelevent, morality is irrelevant. They don't exist. But with the advent of Subjects which consciously experience existence, quality of life and interests come into being. And such Subjects have inherent Value. Because they (we) can experience a quality of life. And that quality of life Matters to experiencing subjects.

It's not subjective in the sense that I can decide you don't matter to me, have no value to me, so I can harm or kill you at whim. I'm saying qualiative experience is the basis of all Value, all Mattering. Yours and mine, it's rooted in each of us, in our interests. And that this is the territory of Oughts. The justification for Oughts, and what should guide them. The very foundation of a new framing of morality.

Make sense?

As regards other species, well what constitutes a quality of life for a rat or dog or goldfish (or alien) will be different. So the sort of moral considerations (oughts) we apply should be commensurate. I'm not advocating Votes for Hamsters! that would be fun, but the grants for tiny wheel makers would get out of hand. But any animal which has a quality of life, has something of inherent value to lose if we kill it. So killing animals is necessarily a moral issue.

[Eduk]

It's not subjective in the sense that I can decide you don't matter to me, have no value to me, so I can harm or kill you at whim.

I may be wrong here but I get the feeling that saying morals are subjective may be slightly loaded. It often seems to mean that anyone can do anything and be moral if morals are subjective, like your example. But personally I don't see that this naturally follows. For example I doubt you could decide to kill me on a whim in practice, it would likely be very traumatic for you (not to mention me ). So morals could be subjective and what would normally be considered good. I actually think most people have a reasonable moral sense day to day, although other desires can trump moral desires, so for me it's not necessarily a question about what is moral or what is immoral but more of a question of where do morals come from in the first place.

[Gertie]

Eduk

I may be wrong here but I get the feeling that saying morals are subjective may be slightly loaded. It often seems to mean that anyone can do anything and be moral if morals are subjective, like your example. But personally I don't see that this naturally follows. For example I doubt you could decide to kill me on a whim in practice, it would likely be very traumatic for you (not to mention me ). So morals could be subjective and what would normally be considered good.

Well as I say, I'm trying to move away from the Subjective vs Objective framing, into Value/Mattering. It might pan out that I'm just calling subjective something else, dunno. Not sure it erm... matters.

I actually think most people have a reasonable moral sense day to day, although other desires can trump moral desires, so for me it's not necessarily a question about what is moral or what is immoral but more of a question of where do morals come from in the first place.

Well science has pretty much answered that, in general terms, even if the
boffins haven't worked out all the details yet. We evolved certain traits
specific to our utilitarian evolutionary needs as social mammals. Over time
these basic impulses became honed by cultural circs into conceptualised
principles and took on something of a life of their own, becoming seen as
independently existing 'Morality'. With god or whatever as their source.

So the rather stark fact of the matter is that the concept of objective morality
as such is a human invention, an uninformed misunderstanding of how it could
exist through the mere mechanism of evolutionary utilitarian survival. Or at
least its instinctive under-pinnings can be explained in those terms, without
invoking anything else. You might still believe god engineered evolution that
way, or we're in a computer game, and the user pressed the button for 'human
moral settings', or something like that. But evolution (honed by rationality,
psychology, culture, etc) does the job on its own.

The bare bones of where the current science is pointing is thus -

There are certain universal traits which play out differently in different times
and cultures, but form the under-pinnings of human morality (some of which we have in common with other species).

Our evolution of moral instincts goes very briefly as follows -

We are 'designed' by evolution for survival and reproduction.

However, mammals like ourselves with offspring which are helpless for years also need to be 'designed' to hang around and ensure their survival. (Unlike say
turtles which can lay eggs and bugger off). It's also the case that our big
plastic brains offer great survival advantages, but rely on early parental
teaching. This led to the initial evolutionary leap from being designed for
self-care/homeostasis, to caring for off-spring. Mate bonding too.

Then the genetic maths extended to caring for the welfare of other kin.

Some of the biological mechanisms involved will also be triggered by others
you're in contact with, extending bonding to kith. Plus we're a social species
which reaped the benefits of co-operating in groups, resulting in further social
'care and co-operation' instincts being reinforced. At least at an in-group
level, as other tribal groups might be seen as competitors for life or death
resources.

That's my rough n ready version of the emergence of caring and co-operative
impulses, which form the under-pinnings of human morality. (Pat Churchland is
very good at laying it out if you're interested, she has youtube lectures and a
book called Brain Trust http://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/W ... rality.php



I'm taking that as a given, and saying if we're left without a belief in Objective Morality, can we find another way of grounding the Ought questions life inevitably throws at us? Could something like Value/Mattering work?

[Eduk]

can we find another way of grounding the Ought questions life inevitably throws at us?

I think you have just expanded on what I said, to survive is moral. Out of interest what specific ought questions does life throw at us which can't be answered by this subjective outlook?

[Gertie]

Not sure what you mean by this subjective outlook - survival?

For many people, myself included, self survival, self-care generally, isn't what morality is essentially about. That comes naturally enough for most of us and is understood as natural. The challenge of acting morally is acting selflessly, altruistically, considerately, compassionately, co-operatively, fairly. This is also what used to be considered hard to explain in scientific, evolutionary terms. Survival of the fittest was crudely thought of as dog eat dog, look after number one.

That's why understanding the evolution from self-care to care for others in social mammals like us is important. I'd say. Do you see it differently? Morality = survival is a bit vague.

I'm also suggesting that not just life (survival), but quality of life is key. You don't agree?

Examples, well any act which impacts on the welfare of others can be viewed as an act with moral implications. The old lady down the road hasn't been seen around for a while, ought I knock on her door and check she hasn't had another fall? A disabled person struggles getting onto the bus, ought I offer a hand, offer my seat? Ought I vote for higher taxes and a good welfare state? Ought I be polite to people on the internet? Ought I beat my kids to teach them? Ought I cheat on my partner?
I can do this all day... These aren't questions of survival, my Value/Mattering model would encompass them as quality of life issues.

[Eduk]

Morality = survival is a bit vague.

Yes it's a bit vague. Sorry I was trying to start at what I thought was the beginning.
1. When I say survival I don't mean of individuals I mean of your constituent parts i.e. genes. So it makes sense to protect your children and other humans as there is a lot of sharing of parts. It makes sense to do morally correct things as this is better for you and those around you.
3. From a moral stand point you could probably think of immoral things which would aid your ability to replicate into the future. So I guess morals would be better defined as to what others would desire you had to aid their replication? But this would equally apply to yourself from other people's perspectives. So biologically immoral people make perfect sense as sometimes that is the best way to replicate but on the whole moral people are better suited to long term replication.

[Gertie]

I guess you could make a case for defining morality that way.

I've outlined my 'starting position' based on the work of biologists and
neuroethicists like Churchland, which explains what came to be seen as
objectively existing/god given morality in naturalistic evolutionary terms. Perhaps that's just a more detailed explanatory approach to your proposed definition. I'm saying the explanatory work is essentially done, you can look it up. My suggested new foundation for morality takes that as a given, as I've said.

[Lark_Truth]

Maybe think about it this way:
What is not moral is damaging to individuals. If we get enough of it, we want more, and that lust for pleasure is what enchains and makes slaves out of us. What is immoral limits our choices and we are metaphorically (and sometimes literally) living in spiritual and physical muck.
What is moral does the opposite. It is healthy, the equivalent of eating a mixed diet instead of eating just red meat and junk food. We retain our freedom to choose moral things, good things. Not only do we stay spiritually and physically clean, we are protected from carnal harm and we are able to fly on the wings of virtue instead of being chained down to sink in a swamp.
I don't know about you guys, but I enjoy reading a good book that has no swearing, sex, people taking the lord's name in vain, showing of skin, mentions to disgusting body parts, or anything that makes one feel unclean while reading the story. You can still have a very good story without the good characters acting like a bunch of animals in season or as if they set out to disrespect everyone, including themselves. Maybe the bad guys can be vile and evil, giving the good guys legitimate reason to kill them off or set them in a bad light for the readers to dislike, but I love to read the clean stuff. Just feels better that way to me.

[Ace9]

Isn't what's moral in life simply an individual trying to find a 'set point' in relation to other individuals?
It's all about survival, so behaving in a manner that is at worse benign (will not normally illicit a competitive threat), or moderately competitive (which may illicit a moderately competitive response) or extremely competitive (which may illicit a pronounced Fight or flight response)

What maybe described as moral behaviour or as leading a moral life is an individual who has learned a trade off between what is needed for survival, and that which is not really needed for same

In other words a series of successful outcomes based on risk. Just enough risk to achieve survival, but not so much as to risk harm or death to themselves or others.

There seems to be some agreement in societies as a whole as to what constitutes the opposite. For example; an individual who exhibits behaviors outside of the normative range in relation to others maybe labeled as immoral because their pursuit of sexual opportunity (reproductive extinct) is too aggressive,...or actions outside of the law, that may cause harm or deprive their fellow humans of their rightful possessions etc...

[Wilson]

My opinion is that morality is entirely subjective and therefore asking what is moral can only be answered by an individual, and will vary from person to person. Since everybody has his own ideas as to what's morally acceptable, the only way you could say that there are absolute rules is if there is a God who has laid them down. Personally I don't believe that God exists, but even if He did, there are and have been thousands of religions, each with its own rule book, so it's unlikely that any one of them has it exactly right.

Each of us (with a very few exceptions) has within us this tendency to believe that certain things are morally right and others morally wrong. This sense of right and wrong is built into us - through the actions of evolution, I believe, to help us live with and cooperate with each other, in order for our hunter-gatherer ancestors to have a better chance to survive. And almost all of us want to some degree to be good people. That moral sense was implanted along with a number of other tendencies that encouraged us to live as social creatures - empathy, sympathy, trust, group identification, altruism, friendship and love, and so on. Morality is the motivation that evolution gave us for being good to others and not being concerned only with our own well-being.

In a way it is true that without universal, absolute moral rules, that "anything goes", but happily most of us - atheist and religious alike - share distaste for cruelty, bullying, unprovoked violence, and evil of all sorts. In general we get our own moral sense from empathy and sympathy for others, a general belief that the greatest good for the most people is moral, a sense of fairness, an admiration for decent people, and so on. Most of us within a society agree generally on what is moral and immoral, but everybody's a little different.

Some of us here may believe that morality consists of what's in our own self-interest, or what promotes survival, what damages others, and so forth - but that's just an attempt to try to craft a hard and fast definition - which isn't possible, because every person has his own moral sense, and it's impossible to prove that one is better than another - unless you start with a definition of morality - and personally I don't believe that can even be valid. That's because the next guy will believe something else.

It might be nice if there were a universal morality - absolute rules of what's right and wrong - but there's no such thing. Each of us is own his own, morally speaking. That doesn't mean that I'm not as ready as anyone else to criticize (and possibly punish) someone who commits what I consider evil (or at least is morally wrong). For instance, the moral sense of a sociopath killer may not tell him that what he's doing is wrong, but I'm all for putting him in jail. A terrorist's moral sense may tell him that mass murder of infidels is a moral act, but I'm all for putting him away forever.

[Ace9]

Wilson...I agree that morality is subjective, and that there is no moral 'code', only that which society may deem, through experience, (cultural evolution) as acceptable or not. This is the basis of our Folk Psychology, which in turn is the founding of jurisprudence. In other words, our justification for punishing 'wrong doers'. Simply a practical means to maintain order in large groups. For this 'moral' system to work, individuals sense that this way of settling disagreements and disputes is more practical and preferable to revenge and the like (less risk).

"...Some of us here may believe that morality consists of what's in our own self-interest, or what promotes survival..."

I would say that in the end, all individuals are acting in their own self interest. That is survival. To your point though, individuals have acquired a much more sophisticated means to achieve survival through "...empathy,sympathy, trust,altruism...." and I would add, working collaboratively with others within the group to achieve the same end.

[Wilson]

I would say that in the end, all individuals are acting in their own self interest. That is survival. To your point though, individuals have acquired a much more sophisticated means to achieve survival through "...empathy,sympathy, trust,altruism...." and I would add, working collaboratively with others within the group to achieve the same end.

In a sense that's true, but take the example of someone who sacrifices his life for his child, or the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades rather than running away. Now you could say that the mother or the soldier couldn't live with themselves if they had the chance to save the other(s) and didn't, that the psychic pain would be worse than death, but I think that's playing with words. Obviously sacrificing oneself isn't acting in his own self interest. In my opinion morality was instilled in us so that we don't always act strictly in our own self-interest - that sometimes the interest of the group we identify with, or especially that of a family member or friend, takes precedence.

[Ace9]

'...In a sense that's true, but take the example of someone who sacrifices his life for his child, or the soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades rather than running away. Now you could say that the mother or the soldier couldn't live with themselves if they had the chance to save the other(s) and didn't, that the psychic pain would be worse than death, but I think that's playing with words. Obviously sacrificing oneself isn't acting in his own self interest. In my opinion morality was instilled in us so that we don't always act strictly in our own self-interest - that sometimes the interest of the group we identify with, or especially that of a family member or friend, takes precedence...'

Wilson,...I agree with what you are trying to say, many neuro-biologists, and social anthropologists would hold that Altruism is a de facto act of selfishness. That we have acquired this innate ability that seemingly defies our self interest. When the opposite is true. As social animals we are wired to give up a measure of our individual worth (fitness) to secure the fitness of the group which in turn increases the potential opportunities for reproduction.