David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 1:10 pm
But this is not a problem caused by objectivity. It is a problem in putting the right facts with the right problems.
No.
THe problem is the impossibility of detachment.

And the next problem you seem to have is your assumption that detachement is always desirable.

When a child has problems it is exactly detatchment that makes help impossible.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 1:57 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm

You seem to have ignored the parenthetical remark ("the same, of course, can be said about some heterosexual marriages"). The comment applies generally, not simply to gay marriage. For many people, getting married (regardless of whether it is same-sex or opposite-sex) is a terrible mistake. So, having an opportunity to marry is sometimes a bad thing, because someone marries when they should not, when doing so makes them terribly unhappy. Of course, that is not what they are expecting to happen when they marry, but their expectation is not a guarantee of anything.

So (and this is the main point), the opportunity to marry is not necessarily a good thing, and may turn out to be a horrible thing.

Do you think it is good for you to have the opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot? For some, they would be happier if they had done that rather than getting married.
Again, the problem is not in having the opportunity to marry, but in our choices as to what to do with that opportunity. Having the opportunity is not in itself harmful in any way.

The point is, having an ability to choose is not always a benefit, contrary to what you stated earlier (You stated: "Furthermore, it is a benefit to allow people freedom to do what they want so long as it does not harm others"). If you and I were in the same room right now, and if there were a large electric meat grinder in it, and I gave you the opportunity to stick your right hand into the meat grinder while it was on, would I be giving you anything good? I am not forcing anything; you get to choose if you stick your right hand into the meat grinder or not.

Is there an advantage for you in that situation, an advantage over the real situation, in which we are not together and I am not giving you a choice? Is the opportunity to stick your hand into a meat grinder beneficial to you? If not, then your previous claim is false, that having a choice is beneficial.


I will venture to affirm that not only is there not an advantage to getting such an opportunity, which gives you a choice, it is actually worse because, with the choice, you could, in a moment of insanity, stick your hand into the meat grinder. You certainly won't do that if you can't do that, if you don't have the opportunity to do that, if you don't have the choice to do it.

So, when you have a choice, you might grind off your hand, but if you don't have a choice, you won't grind off your hand. The choice in such a case is not beneficial.

With that, which I hope is an obvious example to you, I will now relate this to the previous example.


If you have the opportunity to marry someone who would make you unhappy, so you get to choose to marry the person or not, as it pleases you, is that opportunity an advantage over not having the option to marry the person who would make you unhappy if you married that person?

I say it is not an advantage, and not only is it not an advantage, it is a disadvantage, because one might make a mistake in the choice. It would be better to not have the option to make the wrong choice, and to have the better outcome automatic.

Now, to be clear, I am not saying that marriage is always a bad thing; far from it. But for anyone who could not be happy in marriage, because they do not have the right temperament or inclinations or whatever, for such a person, the option to marry is not a good thing; it can only be a bad thing, because they might do it, whereas if they don't have the option to do the bad thing, then they obviously won't do it.

Keep in mind, this applies regardless of whether we are discussing same-sex or opposite-sex marriage; that is entirely irrelevant to the point.

The general rule is, if one gets a choice to do something bad (which will be defined in subjective terms, meaning, the outcome will be something the person does not like), having such an opportunity to make that choice is a bad thing (subjectively). At best (subjectively), one will make the right choice (again, this is defined subjectively), which is the same outcome as having no choice, no opportunity, to do the bad thing (what is subjectively viewed as bad).

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 1:57 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm I will give a little digression, primarily for others (if anyone else is reading this, though I expect many will pass over our exchange as a waste of time), it is for others, not you, because it might distract you from the main point, and I do not want to distract you from the main point. You can ignore this part for responses, as it is irrelevant to the main point. The U.S. government has statistics on marriage and divorce, and it turns out certain things correlate with the divorce rate, some of which should not be surprising. One of them is the age of the people getting married. For reasons that are not altogether clear, in this government document that I am about to quote, they just used the age of the woman at the time of first marriage, not the age of the man. (And, just in case you might be confused by the expression, "first marriage," that does NOT imply that there will be a second marriage, nor does it imply that there will not be a second marriage.) Here is a bit from the text:



https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf

If one looks at the Table 21 referred to in that text, one finds that 59% of those who marry before 18 get have a "disrupted" marriage within 15 years of marriage. We can see from this that we probably should prohibit such marriages (which, by the way, I do think we ought to prohibit children from marrying), though that is not the case in the U.S.; people can, if one has parents stupid enough to approve of it (or gets a judge to approve of it), marry before one is 18, depending on the state of residence, with the exact minimum age varying by state.

It is worth noting that marriage before 18 must happen with great frequency, or they would not have enough statistical data to tell us about this, as there are some things in the report that they mention that they lack sufficient data to come to any conclusions about the particular thing that is of interest to those who wrote the report.

I might also note the fact that it is nothing short of idiotic to say that someone is old enough to decide to supposedly commit to someone for life in marriage, but not old enough to decide whether one will have a glass of wine with dinner; these two should be reversed in order of when one may legally decide to do them. But enough of this digression.
Interesting statistics. And they might be used to argue that marriage be postponed until 21. I've heard that the brain of an adolescent has not completed its development until some time after high school.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am But if the gay couple doesn't have the same opportunity to marry, they suffer the loss of the objective legal benefits we've discussed. They also suffer the continued social disrespect for their relationship. But if their relationship is recognized by law, they gain that social respect over time. For example, the Pope just recently endorsed civil unions for gay couples.
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm You mean, the gay man should have the same opportunity to make a mistake as the straight man.
Perhaps you should be having this discussion with your wife. 🙂
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am But no one is suggesting that we impose marriage upon anyone who does not wish to be married. The issue was whether they shall have the opportunity to marry.
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm You respond as if you did not read what I wrote at all. The legal aspects of a marriage may harm one. The idea that it is always good is ridiculous.
You seem to have the same problem. I've never said that marriage is always good.

You said that having the choice is always good. That is what I am disputing. Having a choice when the option is bad is not a good thing.

Let's try another example. Suppose there are two restaurants in town. They are identical in every way except one. One of them has two things on the menu, items 1 and 2. Item 1 is delicious and nutritious and makes you feel good when you eat it. Item 2 tastes terrible and is unhealthful and makes you feel bad if you eat it. The second restaurant has only one thing on the menu, and it is identical to item 1 at the other restaurant. Which of the two restaurants is better?

According to what you have claimed, the first one is better, because you have a choice. According to me, the second one is better, because one will not accidentally (or on purpose) order item 2 on the menu. If the choice gives you a bad option, then it is better to not have a choice; it is better to be "forced" to have the good option.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm Do you believe that all marriages are happy? That no one ever makes a mistake when they decide to get married? Well, if it is always a good, like you are pretending it is, then it would never be a mistake to get married. But that is absurd.
It is indeed absurd, that's probably why I never said it.

It is better to not have the option to choose a bad marriage than to not have that option, if all else is equal. However, you have claimed that having a choice is good. But the thing is, having such a choice will in fact lead to some bad marriages, which, if they could not be chosen, then there would not be bad marriages. To put this another way, legalizing gay marriage will be good for some gay people who get married and are happy with it, but it will be a bad thing for some gay people who get married and are miserable because of it. The ones who are miserable would have been better off if they had not been given a choice in the matter, if they had not been allowed to be married. The same thing, of course, can be said of heterosexual marriages, that the people in bad marriages would be better off if they had not been allowed to get married, if they had not been given the choice to marry.

I am disputing your claim that a choice is a good thing. I am saying that it can be a good thing to have a choice, but sometimes it is a bad thing to have a choice. If what one gets to choose is a bad thing, then getting the opportunity to choose is bad.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm ... The point is, what constitutes a "harm" and what constitutes a "benefit" will be judged differently be different people. Your claim that it is all objective is just silly. ...
And if nothing is ever objective, then everything is silly.

Matters of fact are objective. Feelings about them are another matter.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm It is no benefit to me to be able to marry a man, because I have no desire to do so. You see that, right?
Yes. I agree with the objective fact that you just stated. That objective fact is the basis of your conclusion that being able to marry a man is of no benefit to you.

It is a subjective preference that we are discussing. It is an objective fact that it is a subjective matter.

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm But, for a gay man who wants to marry a man, it is a benefit to him. You see that, right?
Indeed. That too would be an objective fact used to identify a benefit.
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm This means that what is a benefit and what isn't a benefit is dependent upon the individual, and, in this case, upon individual preference.
Hey, that's three objective facts in a row that you've used to support your moral arguments. Good work!

You seem to fail to notice that this is all about subjective preferences.


Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am ...
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm Well, one can reason about morality, and if one does that accurately, one will notice that the essential feature of it is that it is the result of feeling. It is how one feels about the facts of the world. But not just any feelings; it pertains to feelings of empathy or humanity or benevolence or whatever one wants to call such feelings, for reasons quoted in the opening post.
Feelings are attached to beliefs. When objective facts change beliefs, feelings change. Feelings are malleable. Objective facts are more secure.

The problem with what you are saying is that we are dealing with beliefs about objective facts, rather than just objective facts themselves. And beliefs about objective facts are malleable (to use your word).

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am Therefore, it is better to first determine what is good and what is bad by reasoning with objective information, and second, to attach the appropriate feelings to those beliefs.
That cannot work because what is good or bad is determined by feelings. Without feelings, nothing is good or bad.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Let me say that again: Without feelings, nothing is good or bad.

Whenever something is judged to be bad, it is because one does not like it in some way. Whenever something is judged to be good, it is because one likes it in some way. Get rid of what one likes, what one prefers, get rid of feelings, and one gets rid of all judgements of things being good or bad.

That applies to morality, when dealing with feelings of empathy or humanity or benevolence, and it applies to personal preferences, when dealing with feelings pertaining to self-interest.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 7:49 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 26th, 2020, 1:57 pm
Again, the problem is not in having the opportunity to marry, but in our choices as to what to do with that opportunity. Having the opportunity is not in itself harmful in any way.
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 7:49 pm The point is, having an ability to choose is not always a benefit, contrary to what you stated earlier (You stated: "Furthermore, it is a benefit to allow people freedom to do what they want so long as it does not harm others"). If you and I were in the same room right now, and if there were a large electric meat grinder in it, and I gave you the opportunity to stick your right hand into the meat grinder while it was on, would I be giving you anything good?
Of course not. But then again, in the same circumstances, I would also have the opportunity to grind your hand. And, at this point in our conversation that would be tempting.

You are using the same tactic over and over. You invent a ridiculous case, one that would never reasonably be covered by my statement that "it is a benefit to allow people freedom to do what they want so long as it does not harm others". And you pretend that my statement must cover the absurd case. It doesn't.

It is generally a benefit to allow people freedom to do what they want so long as it does not harm others.
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 7:49 pm I say it is not an advantage, and not only is it not an advantage, it is a disadvantage, because one might make a mistake in the choice. It would be better to not have the option to make the wrong choice, and to have the better outcome automatic.
So, you are proposing a new rule. The new rule is that one can only have the freedom to make good choices. The old rule is that the freedom to make your own choices includes the freedom to make both good and bad choices. (Our presumption is that in either case you cannot make choices that unnecessarily harm someone else).

And you are arguing that the new rule is morally better than the old rule, because the new rule it eliminates the harm of bad choices that we had with the old rule. That's a moral argument. But it is incomplete.

What about the harm of enforcing the new rule? How do we keep people from making bad choices? Well, parents routinely do this for their children, so it is not impossible in that context. But isn't there an objective harm in treating adults like children? How will they learn from their mistakes if mistakes are no longer allowed?

There is a category of mistakes that are already illegal, usually due to the harm that those mistakes inflict upon others, and we have police to enforce laws against those mistakes.

But there is another category of mistakes that are not illegal, because they only harm ourselves in some minor way. In this case we rely upon the person's own self-interest to govern their behavior. We do not hire a decision maker to make all of their choices for them.

And this latter category is where we find the opportunity to marry the wrong person. So, I would say that your new rule is not morally better than the old rule, mostly because it is impossible to enforce, and no one wants someone else telling them what to do.
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 7:49 pm Now, to be clear, I am not saying that marriage is always a bad thing; far from it. But for anyone who could not be happy in marriage, because they do not have the right temperament or inclinations or whatever, for such a person, the option to marry is not a good thing; it can only be a bad thing, because they might do it, whereas if they don't have the option to do the bad thing, then they obviously won't do it.
So, with your new rule then, we must hire a professional matchmaker to decide whether and who they get to marry. And, we pass a law that prohibits anyone from making such a choice for themselves.

Is that then the morally superior rule?
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 7:49 pm Keep in mind, this applies regardless of whether we are discussing same-sex or opposite-sex marriage; that is entirely irrelevant to the point.
Of course. Heterosexuals would also be required to use a professional matchmaker.
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 7:49 pm The general rule is, if one gets a choice to do something bad (which will be defined in subjective terms, meaning, the outcome will be something the person does not like), having such an opportunity to make that choice is a bad thing (subjectively). At best (subjectively), one will make the right choice (again, this is defined subjectively), which is the same outcome as having no choice, no opportunity, to do the bad thing (what is subjectively viewed as bad).
No. It would not work if it were subjective, because as you have pointed out throughout this discussion, people subjectively make the wrong choice, subjectively marry the wrong person, and almost half the time objectively end up divorced.

If you want to eliminate the harm of bad choices, you have to hire a professional, someone who is trained and certified to make only good choices. If you don't like this, then you are placing some value upon subjective choices that outweighs the harm of making bad choices.
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 7:49 pm You said that having the choice is always good. That is what I am disputing. Having a choice when the option is bad is not a good thing.
Then you'll have to provide some way to assure that people do not have the option of making a bad choice. One might do that with a professional matchmaker. Or, did you have some other mechanism in mind to enforce your new rule?
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 7:49 pm Let's try another example.
No need. You have enough problems with your current example.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 26th, 2020, 7:57 pm Let me say that again: Without feelings, nothing is good or bad.

Whenever something is judged to be bad, it is because one does not like it in some way. Whenever something is judged to be good, it is because one likes it in some way. Get rid of what one likes, what one prefers, get rid of feelings, and one gets rid of all judgements of things being good or bad.

That applies to morality, when dealing with feelings of empathy or humanity or benevolence, and it applies to personal preferences, when dealing with feelings pertaining to self-interest.
The reason that seems intuitive to you is that certain feelings come with the package. Most people feel pain when their bodies are damaged in some way. However, there are rare cases of congenital insensitivity to pain, where the child does not have that experience and repeatedly injures himself and usually has a short life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenit ... y_to_pain
When you're hungry, eating food feels good. There were probably short-lived variations of animal species that did not experience hunger and that simply starved to death. So, existing species, like us, come with a system of built-in feelings that help us to survive. These feelings help us to remember to eat and to avoid damaging our bodies.

But these built-in biological feelings are not sufficient to resolve all of our survival issues. That's why natural selection eventually resulted in a brain that could reason and choose. Intelligent species can imagine different ways to satisfy their biological needs. They can choose when and what they will eat, and when and how they will mate.

There is a form of empathy that comes built-in. The newborn child will mirror the expressions of the mother and acquire a recognition of how she feels about things. But dealing with a complex world of many people, there must also be the ability to set empathy aside, lest it overwhelms one with everyone else's feelings every waking moment. So, we rationally choose where and with whom we will invest our empathy.

Our built-in feelings are also insufficient when it comes to moral issues. These issues typically involve the needs of other people as well as our own. Knowing what is right and wrong does not come built-in. The rules for living with others are constructed by rational thought and by social agreement. How we feel about certain behaviors and events is learned. Our feelings on moral issues are, for the most part, trained into us by our social environment.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Gertie »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 25th, 2020, 4:30 pm
Gertie wrote: October 25th, 2020, 9:47 am Jack

Nice opening post and great quotes. Hume is so perceptive, smart, clear thinking and down to earth.
Thank you. I agree with your assessment of Hume in that sentence.

Gertie wrote: October 25th, 2020, 9:47 am ... Hume is essentially preferencing social rewards over self-interest rewards, arguing for them as ultimately more fulfilling, but both are aspects of our evolved reward system/self-gratification. But it's still a preference I think, which not everyone would have to agree with.

No, it isn't that there is necessarily a preference for the one sort of feeling; Hume clearly indicates that, for many people, the feelings of self-interest may be stronger (in this quote, he uses the word "benevolence" for what I have called "empathy"; bold emphasis is added; congratulations, by the way, for getting me to add in a new quote, not in the opening post):

David Hume wrote:It seems a happiness in the present theory, that it enters not into that vulgar dispute concerning the degrees of benevolence or self-love, which prevail in human nature; [271] a dispute which is never likely to have any issue, both because men, who have taken part, are not easily convinced, and because the phenomena, which can be produced on either side, are so dispersed, so uncertain, and subject to so many interpretations, that it is scarcely possible accurately to compare them, or draw from them any determinate inference or conclusion. It is sufficient for our present purpose, if it be allowed, what surely, without the greatest absurdity cannot be disputed, that there is some benevolence, however small, infused into our bosom; some spark of friendship for human kind; some particle of the dove kneaded into our frame, along with the elements of the wolf and serpent. Let these generous sentiments be supposed ever so weak; let them be insufficient to move even a hand or finger of our body, they must still direct the determinations of our mind, and where everything else is equal, produce a cool preference of what is useful and serviceable to mankind, above what is pernicious and dangerous. A moral distinction, therefore, immediately arises; a general sentiment of blame and approbation; a tendency, however faint, to the objects of the one, and a proportionable aversion to those of the other. Nor will those reasoners, who so earnestly maintain the predominant selfishness of human kind, be any wise scandalized at hearing of the weak sentiments of virtue implanted in our nature. On the contrary, they are found as ready to maintain the one tenet as the other; and their spirit of satire (for such it appears, rather than of corruption) naturally gives rise to both opinions; which have, indeed, a great and almost an indissoluble connexion together.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_597


The reason why it is empathy or benevolence or a feeling of humanity that is the source of morals is because of the universality of those feelings, and of them being of the right subject matter, pertaining to judgements of others, regardless of one's connection to them or lack thereof. Or, what is the next paragraph in Hume (that I did include in the opening post):

David Hume wrote:Avarice, ambition, vanity, and all passions vulgarly, though improperly, comprised under the denomination of self-love, are here excluded from our theory concerning the origin of morals, not because they are too weak, but because they have not a proper direction for that purpose. [272] The notion of morals implies some sentiment common to all mankind, which recommends the same object to general approbation, and makes every man, or most men, agree in the same opinion or decision concerning it. It also implies some sentiment, so universal and comprehensive as to extend to all mankind, and render the actions and conduct, even of the persons the most remote, an object of applause or censure, according as they agree or disagree with that rule of right which is established. These two requisite circumstances belong alone to the sentiment of humanity here insisted on. The other passions produce in every breast, many strong sentiments of desire and aversion, affection and hatred; but these neither are felt so much in common, nor are so comprehensive, as to be the foundation of any general system and established theory of blame or approbation.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_598


Although occasionally one will encounter someone saying, of a personal preference, that it is a matter of morals or ethics, it is typically a joke, as, for example, It would be morally wrong to not order the chocolate cake from the menu at this restaurant, because it is so good.

Joking aside, that is not the sort of thing that people typically regard as a matter of ethics or morals.


As for being in the right direction, we make moral judgements about people who have no impact on us. For example, we make moral judgements about dead people, about fictional characters, and about people on the other side of the world with whom we never interact. Consequently, those judgements cannot be based on self-interest, because they do not affect us personally. In the novel Pride and Prejudice, when Jane and Elizabeth are discussing the relative merits of Mr. Wickham and Mr. Darcy, it does not impact us who is and who is not at fault. You do not gain or lose anything, no matter which one is at fault. When the truth of their characters is later revealed, one's judgement of them cannot be based on self-interest, because they do not touch one's self-interest. I suppose I could have kept with an example that Hume used in a quote that I have in the opening post, of Oedipus, a character in a play by Sophocles, but it does not really matter which fictional character we discuss for this purpose. The source of the judgement must be some other sentiment than self-love.

Gertie wrote: October 25th, 2020, 9:47 am Some philosophers are trying new approaches which see the ''objective v subjective'' approach as inappropriate. Goldstein has come up with the notion of ''Mattering'' as the key basis for morality. Very broadly, it Matters if I harm or help you. Harris points to the reason it matters, when he talks about The Wellbeing of Conscious Creatures. Because conscious Subjects have qualiative conscious states. A Quality of Life which Matters to them - to each of us. We can all get this, and when we give it a moment's thought we realise that's why it's justified to call some actions Right or Wrong, why there should be Oughts. It's just that philosophy doesn't usually use the language of ''mattering''. We need a conceptual shift to realise Subjective experience, subjectivity itself, isn't a problem for morality, rather that being a conscious Subject provides the basis for morality. It's what makes our behaviour Matter. It's what makes self-care Matter, and how we behave to others Matter.

...

How is this "mattering" different from simply caring about it? In other words, how is it different from what Hume is saying, that the basis of morality is sentiment or feelings, about things that we care about?
I think you and I and Hume are mostly on the same page. Hume is right of course that we have both pro social (caring for others) as well as self-care evolved pre-dispositions. And that it is these caring/social sentiments which we have come to conceptualise as moral.

The problem remains imo to derive Oughts/moral duties from that 'Is' state of affairs. I'm suggesting the notion of Mattering can do that job (it matters how we treat other sentient beings because they, like us, have a quality of life, have interests). Mattering elevates subjective sentiments to their appropriate place re morality and oughts.

The common argument you'll find on boards like this is that morality isn't Objective, so it's ONLY a way we feel about things. Thus there can be no common standard, no right or wrong except how an individual feels about something, And we now understand why people's feelings tend to align in certain areas as a happenstance of our particular species' social evolutionary history. With God out of the picture, this is the problem for modern philiosophy I think, realising that our preferences about right and wrong are simply survival tools which can be seen in terms of how genes work. If we are trying to argue why pro social behaviours sometimes carry this extra moral burden of Ought, where is the independant measure or authority to justify such arguments which we can point to?

If we instead ask a different question, do Oughts matter regardless of whether they are subjective or objective, we re-frame the issue. If mattering is our foundational touchstone, we can say whether or not I care about your welfare, your welfare still matters. And the reason it matters is the same as why my welfare matters to me - we are both experiencing Subjects with a quality of life. For conscious beings, life is experiential and qualiative, which means we can meaningfully experience flourishing or harm. That's what makes our behaviour towards each other matter, and is the appropriate foundation for Oughts. Goldstein -


''Since the conditions that give rise to our irrepressible sense of categorically mattering, as well as to our agonizing over it, are universally shared, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that, when it comes to categorical mattering, we are all in the same boat.

This leaves us with two possibilities. Either none of us categorically matters—our sense that we do is a kind of trompe l’oeil thrown up by the existential pressure of our identity-mattering—or we all categorically matter and to the exact same extent.

Which of these two possibilities is true hardly matters, ethically speaking, since the consequence of both is the same: to the extent that we feel our own categorical mattering—which we do, which we must, since it provides the very infrastructure for the emotions that evolution has bequeathed us—we have to extend that same categorical mattering to all who share the mattering instinct, which is, of course, all of us.11

Though so many human goods are inequitably apportioned among us—riches and status, beauty and health, talent and love—when it comes to the distribution of categorical mattering, there is absolute and inviolable equality.

And if anything at all ought to matter to us, then surely it is that.''



https://secularhumanism.org/2017/01/con ... g-matters/
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:10 pm I think you and I and Hume are mostly on the same page. Hume is right of course that we have both pro social (caring for others) as well as self-care evolved pre-dispositions. And that it is these caring/social sentiments which we have come to conceptualise as moral.

The problem remains imo to derive Oughts/moral duties from that 'Is' state of affairs. I'm suggesting the notion of Mattering can do that job (it matters how we treat other sentient beings because they, like us, have a quality of life, have interests). Mattering elevates subjective sentiments to their appropriate place re morality and oughts.

The common argument you'll find on boards like this is that morality isn't Objective, so it's ONLY a way we feel about things.

My reply to that is that the motivation for all of our endeavors are feelings, so the foundation of ethics being feelings does not put it in a category different from anything else that people try to do. Also, morality pertains to shared feelings, not simply an individual's feelings.

Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:10 pm
Thus there can be no common standard, no right or wrong except how an individual feels about something,

They often do say that, but they are wrong about that for the reason stated in your next sentence:

Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:10 pm And we now understand why people's feelings tend to align in certain areas as a happenstance of our particular species' social evolutionary history.

The feelings of empathy or humanity or benevolence or whatever one wants to call such feelings, are common to most people, so that things based on those common feelings are not merely personal preferences; they are common preferences, preferences held in common with others. (Some philosophers like to use the term "intersubjective" in relation to this type of idea.) That is why there is so much agreement on the subject of which things are right and which things are wrong, though people tend to focus on differences and lose sight of the commonalities. So it is not simply what an individual feels about something.

Someone looking for "objective" ethics will not be happy with that, but it is what we have. Hume did not set out to write what he wished to be true; he set out to try to state what was true. (I have no idea what he wished to be true, and it does not matter since that is not what he wrote about.)

Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:10 pm With God out of the picture, this is the problem for modern philiosophy I think, realising that our preferences about right and wrong are simply survival tools which can be seen in terms of how genes work. If we are trying to argue why pro social behaviours sometimes carry this extra moral burden of Ought, where is the independant measure or authority to justify such arguments which we can point to?

If we instead ask a different question, do Oughts matter regardless of whether they are subjective or objective, we re-frame the issue. If mattering is our foundational touchstone, we can say whether or not I care about your welfare, your welfare still matters. And the reason it matters is the same as why my welfare matters to me - we are both experiencing Subjects with a quality of life. For conscious beings, life is experiential and qualiative, which means we can meaningfully experience flourishing or harm. That's what makes our behaviour towards each other matter, and is the appropriate foundation for Oughts. Goldstein -


''Since the conditions that give rise to our irrepressible sense of categorically mattering, as well as to our agonizing over it, are universally shared, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that, when it comes to categorical mattering, we are all in the same boat.

This leaves us with two possibilities. Either none of us categorically matters—our sense that we do is a kind of trompe l’oeil thrown up by the existential pressure of our identity-mattering—or we all categorically matter and to the exact same extent.

Which of these two possibilities is true hardly matters, ethically speaking, since the consequence of both is the same: to the extent that we feel our own categorical mattering—which we do, which we must, since it provides the very infrastructure for the emotions that evolution has bequeathed us—we have to extend that same categorical mattering to all who share the mattering instinct, which is, of course, all of us.11

Though so many human goods are inequitably apportioned among us—riches and status, beauty and health, talent and love—when it comes to the distribution of categorical mattering, there is absolute and inviolable equality.

And if anything at all ought to matter to us, then surely it is that.''



https://secularhumanism.org/2017/01/con ... g-matters/

I think what some subjectivists would say is that they do not care about that; they just care about what matters to themselves, and do not care about others. Which effectively would be saying that they do not have feelings of empathy.

Or to put this another way, I don't think anyone who lacks empathy is likely to be persuaded by that.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:53 pm I think what some subjectivists would say is that they do not care about that; they just care about what matters to themselves, and do not care about others. Which effectively would be saying that they do not have feelings of empathy.

Or to put this another way, I don't think anyone who lacks empathy is likely to be persuaded by that.
I think you are conflating people without empathy with subjectivists.
A subjectivist is a person that is capable of valuing the opinions of others in the face of rampant claims of objectivity by those wishing to impose their own world view onto others.
A subjectivist realises that making objective claims about matter which are inherently emotional or value laden such as morality is not so simple.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Sculptor1 wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:10 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:53 pm I think what some subjectivists would say is that they do not care about that; they just care about what matters to themselves, and do not care about others. Which effectively would be saying that they do not have feelings of empathy.

Or to put this another way, I don't think anyone who lacks empathy is likely to be persuaded by that.
I think you are conflating people without empathy with subjectivists.
A subjectivist is a person that is capable of valuing the opinions of others in the face of rampant claims of objectivity by those wishing to impose their own world view onto others.
A subjectivist realises that making objective claims about matter which are inherently emotional or value laden such as morality is not so simple.
After posting what I wrote, I thought someone might mistake what I stated for that. I used the quantifier "some" for a reason; it certainly is not about all subjectivists.

So, no, I do not mean to suggest that all subjectivists lack empathy, or even that most lack empathy. It is only "some", as stated in my post.


I would imagine, though, that someone who lacks empathy may well be drawn to ethical subjectivism, of a type that suggests that ethics is merely personal preference, as that would be compatible with lacking empathy. Of course, people who see the claptrap written in favor of ethical objectivism are also often drawn to some form of ethical subjectivism. When one considers that people have been trying for thousands of years to establish an objective system of ethics, and seeing the pathetic results, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is something terribly wrong with that project.


Regarding terminology, Hume's view has sometimes been described as a subjectivist view, though it depends on exactly how this term is defined. Certainly, he states that it is based on feeling, based on human nature, and not "out in the world" as a thing to be discovered. I think that, broadly speaking, the way the term is often defined, Hume's view is an example of subjectivist ethics. It certainly fits this:

Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

Ethical sentences express propositions.
Some such propositions are true.
The truth or falsity of such propositions is ineliminably dependent on the (actual or hypothetical) attitudes of people.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism


However, it is not the type that seems to be most often thought of when one just says that they believe in "ethical subjectivism". Very often, one encounters the idea that it is merely personal opinion, which is not Hume's position. So, if one defines "ethical subjectivism" as meaning "ethics is merely personal opinion", then Hume's theory is not a theory of ethical subjectivism.

Because of the common associations of the term, I have not been calling Hume's theory a subjectivist theory, though I am inclined to view the phrase "ethical subjectivism" in a manner like the quote above. Which would mean that the phrase applies to a number of different theories regarding ethics, including Hume's and the theory that it is just personal preference.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Sculptor1 »

Jack D Ripper wrote: October 28th, 2020, 4:59 pm
Sculptor1 wrote: October 28th, 2020, 9:10 am

I think you are conflating people without empathy with subjectivists.
A subjectivist is a person that is capable of valuing the opinions of others in the face of rampant claims of objectivity by those wishing to impose their own world view onto others.
A subjectivist realises that making objective claims about matter which are inherently emotional or value laden such as morality is not so simple.
After posting what I wrote, I thought someone might mistake what I stated for that. I used the quantifier "some" for a reason; it certainly is not about all subjectivists.

So, no, I do not mean to suggest that all subjectivists lack empathy, or even that most lack empathy. It is only "some", as stated in my post.
It is my view that most people who are enough intelligence to know that "subjecitivist" might be an approapriate label to attach to themselves are not likely to be non empathic.


I would imagine, though, that someone who lacks empathy may well be drawn to ethical subjectivism, of a type that suggests that ethics is merely personal preference, as that would be compatible with lacking empathy.
On the contrary. IN my experience those with no empathy are far more liley to be narcisistic enough to beleive that everything they think is purely objective and beyond critique.
People with no empathy are far more likely to think that it is only their view whcih is relavant, important or real. This is the hallmark of an objectivist.
Of course, people who see the claptrap written in favor of ethical objectivism are also often drawn to some form of ethical subjectivism. When one considers that people have been trying for thousands of years to establish an objective system of ethics, and seeing the pathetic results, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that there is something terribly wrong with that project.
Indeed actually something wrong with them! Many who tried to establish the moral basis for slavery were clearly without empathy; incapable of consdiering the views of other people, paricularly black people.
On the other hand a person who realises that others' might also have a point of view, such a as a black slave, are more likley to be subjectivists.


Regarding terminology, Hume's view has sometimes been described as a subjectivist view, though it depends on exactly how this term is defined. Certainly, he states that it is based on feeling, based on human nature, and not "out in the world" as a thing to be discovered. I think that, broadly speaking, the way the term is often defined, Hume's view is an example of subjectivist ethics. It certainly fits this:

Ethical subjectivism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

Ethical sentences express propositions.
Some such propositions are true.
The truth or falsity of such propositions is ineliminably dependent on the (actual or hypothetical) attitudes of people.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism


However, it is not the type that seems to be most often thought of when one just says that they believe in "ethical subjectivism". Very often, one encounters the idea that it is merely personal opinion, which is not Hume's position. So, if one defines "ethical subjectivism" as meaning "ethics is merely personal opinion", then Hume's theory is not a theory of ethical subjectivism.

Because of the common associations of the term, I have not been calling Hume's theory a subjectivist theory, though I am inclined to view the phrase "ethical subjectivism" in a manner like the quote above. Which would mean that the phrase applies to a number of different theories regarding ethics, including Hume's and the theory that it is just personal preference.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 25th, 2020, 5:34 pm So, are you saying you have no means for determining what behavior is good or bad, right or wrong?
No, I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying that what I think is good or bad, right or wrong, might not be what Joe thinks is good or bad, right or wrong, and that might not be what Betty thinks is good or bad, right or wrong, etc.
Or do you simply mean that your moral compass is so unique that you would never expect anyone to agree with you on any moral issue?
Lots of people, including me, are fairly unusual on some issues, not so unusual on others, and the differences can be on any issue.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 29th, 2020, 12:47 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 25th, 2020, 5:34 pm So, are you saying you have no means for determining what behavior is good or bad, right or wrong?
No, I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying that what I think is good or bad, right or wrong, might not be what Joe thinks is good or bad, right or wrong, and that might not be what Betty thinks is good or bad, right or wrong, etc.
Or do you simply mean that your moral compass is so unique that you would never expect anyone to agree with you on any moral issue?
Lots of people, including me, are fairly unusual on some issues, not so unusual on others, and the differences can be on any issue.
Okay. But what if you must make a group decision. Suppose the group, of you and others, must decide whether gay marriage should be allowed or not? Does everyone simply retreat from the issue, out of deference to personal opinions? And what if the opinions of some people in the group is that gays should be expelled from your society, or imprisoned, or subject to conversion therapy? My question is this: How do you proceed to reach agreement on what the law should be?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 29th, 2020, 4:08 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: October 29th, 2020, 12:47 pm

No, I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying that what I think is good or bad, right or wrong, might not be what Joe thinks is good or bad, right or wrong, and that might not be what Betty thinks is good or bad, right or wrong, etc.



Lots of people, including me, are fairly unusual on some issues, not so unusual on others, and the differences can be on any issue.
Okay. But what if you must make a group decision. Suppose the group, of you and others, must decide whether gay marriage should be allowed or not? Does everyone simply retreat from the issue, out of deference to personal opinions? And what if the opinions of some people in the group is that gays should be expelled from your society, or imprisoned, or subject to conversion therapy? My question is this: How do you proceed to reach agreement on what the law should be?
On issues like that I'm a minarchist libertarian: let everyone do any consensual action they'd like. It's no one else's business what consensual activities anyone engages in. You might not agree with what other people choose to do, and they might not agree with what you choose to do. So we just let everyone do their own (consensual) thing, and others will allow you the same courtesy.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Terrapin Station wrote: October 29th, 2020, 7:13 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 29th, 2020, 4:08 pm

Okay. But what if you must make a group decision. Suppose the group, of you and others, must decide whether gay marriage should be allowed or not? Does everyone simply retreat from the issue, out of deference to personal opinions? And what if the opinions of some people in the group is that gays should be expelled from your society, or imprisoned, or subject to conversion therapy? My question is this: How do you proceed to reach agreement on what the law should be?
On issues like that I'm a minarchist libertarian: let everyone do any consensual action they'd like. It's no one else's business what consensual activities anyone engages in. You might not agree with what other people choose to do, and they might not agree with what you choose to do. So we just let everyone do their own (consensual) thing, and others will allow you the same courtesy.
So, it is a good thing to let everyone do their own thing, because it is a good thing to be able to do our own thing. Can you drill down on that, I mean, do you have any thoughts on why being able to do our own thing is morally good?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: David Hume is Right: The Foundation of Ethics is Empathy

Post by Terrapin Station »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 29th, 2020, 9:17 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: October 29th, 2020, 7:13 pm

On issues like that I'm a minarchist libertarian: let everyone do any consensual action they'd like. It's no one else's business what consensual activities anyone engages in. You might not agree with what other people choose to do, and they might not agree with what you choose to do. So we just let everyone do their own (consensual) thing, and others will allow you the same courtesy.
So, it is a good thing to let everyone do their own thing, because it is a good thing to be able to do our own thing. Can you drill down on that, I mean, do you have any thoughts on why being able to do our own thing is morally good?
Anything that anyone thinks is morally good boils down to that person having a preference for that behavior. It can't boil down to anything else, because there's no way to derive moral stances from anything else. This is what the world is factually like. I have a preference for people not controlling other people, for letting people do whatever they'd like to do consensually, etc. Other people have other preferences.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021