The Foundation of Ethics

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

We don't see a lot of arguments that create or modify moral rules. Most rules are simply handed down to us by others. For example, we are taught that "stealing is bad" and we are scolded or we are told of others being punished for stealing, and we acquire that "feeling of badness" about the behavior of stealing.

But, have we considered what may have gone through the heads of our earliest ancestors who first had to decide whether stealing was a good or bad thing? We know, for example, that tribes like the Vikings routinely raided other towns to acquire the things they needed. So, the notion that stealing is universally wrong was not the accepted moral rule for everyone. Some people felt very good about stealing.

So, how would one go about deciding whether stealing was good or bad? Well, suppose we have two competing rules:
(A) Stealing is good and everyone can acquire new things for themselves by taking things from others.
Versus
(B) Stealing is bad, and no one should be permitted to take things from others without permission.

How would we determine which rule is morally better than the other? What is the criteria by which these two rules (or any two rules) can be morally compared?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Gertie »

By trying to assess which better promotes the wellbeing of conscious creatures.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Gertie wrote: October 27th, 2020, 7:12 pm By trying to assess which better promotes the wellbeing of conscious creatures.
I generally agree. But the wellbeing of tigers may be promoted by killing antelopes. And the wellbeing of humans may be promoted by killing chickens, pigs, and cows. So I think that what is good for one species may be harmful to another.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Alias »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am We don't see a lot of arguments that create or modify moral rules. Most rules are simply handed down to us by others. For example, we are taught that "stealing is bad" and we are scolded or we are told of others being punished for stealing, and we acquire that "feeling of badness" about the behavior of stealing.
Well... sorta. At the same time, momma is bringing home pens, Scotch tape and yellow pads from work and poppa's fudging his peripheral income on the tax return and both are telling you to let baby bro have the cookie he filched off your plate.... so... it's bad, but maybe not always and maybe not all that bad....
But, have we considered what may have gone through the heads of our earliest ancestors who first had to decide whether stealing was a good or bad thing?
They were very bright people, but their social organization was a lot simpler than ours. You took another guy's harpoon without permission, he'd thump you. ("This is not good," you thought.) A couple of young warriors got into a tussle over ownership of a really good spear, each accusing the other of taking it without asking. ("This is not good," thought the chief; "They'll get to thumping each other and their friends will take sides and there will be discord in the tribe.") So the next time somebody wanted somebody else's hide scraper, they snuck up quietly and took it with nobody noticing and the concept of theft came into the human consciousness (birds and rodents had been familiar with it for millions of years) and everybody from grandmothers in need of a chili for their stew to little boys wanting a better slingshot started sneaking around, abstracting other people's stuff and everybody was running around, yelling insults at one another and pulling hair. So, the chief called a council of the elders and they made A Very Solemn Declaration: From now on, anybody caught stealing anything at all will be banished for two moons. (Hell, all alone out there in the wilderness for two moons, a person could die!) (Well, okay, the elders amended, not old people and little kids - they can do their penance time on the edge of the camp and their family can bring them food. But no affection!!)
We know, for example, that tribes like the Vikings routinely raided other towns to acquire the things they needed.
That's not theft; that's armed robbery. Vikings probably would have been ashamed to sneak around taking things without being seen; they came directly at their prey with weapons. And they killed a lot of the people who objected, so it's robbery and murder. And that's never wrong, as long as you're doing it to another tribe/ nation/ ideology.
So, the notion that stealing is universally wrong was not the accepted moral rule for everyone.
No moral rule is universal. No definition of a crime/ sin/ transgression / wrongdoing is universal.
All morality is circumstantial and provisional and all law is unequally applied.
How would we determine which rule is morally better than the other? What is the criteria by which these two rules (or any two rules) can be morally compared?
The only criterion is whether a society survives. If it keeps making bad laws, it won't.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Wossname »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am by Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 12:25 pm

We know, for example, that tribes like the Vikings routinely raided other towns to acquire the things they needed. So, the notion that stealing is universally wrong was not the accepted moral rule for everyone. Some people felt very good about stealing.

So, how would one go about deciding whether stealing was good or bad? Well, suppose we have two competing rules:
(A) Stealing is good and everyone can acquire new things for themselves by taking things from others.
Versus
(B) Stealing is bad, and no one should be permitted to take things from others without permission.

How would we determine which rule is morally better than the other?



False dichotomies, you either love them or hate them.

A point worth noting is that the Vikings considered it wrong to steal from each other but OK to steal from other people.

Why do you think that was?
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Wossname wrote: October 28th, 2020, 5:21 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 27th, 2020, 8:25 am by Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 12:25 pm

We know, for example, that tribes like the Vikings routinely raided other towns to acquire the things they needed. So, the notion that stealing is universally wrong was not the accepted moral rule for everyone. Some people felt very good about stealing.

So, how would one go about deciding whether stealing was good or bad? Well, suppose we have two competing rules:
(A) Stealing is good and everyone can acquire new things for themselves by taking things from others.
Versus
(B) Stealing is bad, and no one should be permitted to take things from others without permission.

How would we determine which rule is morally better than the other?

False dichotomies, you either love them or hate them.

A point worth noting is that the Vikings considered it wrong to steal from each other but OK to steal from other people.

Why do you think that was?
I think that when there is plenty of food to go around, everyone feels secure about sharing, but when food is scarce, people have to fight for food to survive. So we have both instincts, cooperation and competition. Familial instincts lead us to strive to feed our own families at the expense of others. Extended families become tribes. Tribes become nations. But at each level of organization we still treat our own differently than we treat "them".

So, the Vikings would care about the welfare of their own, and would enforce a "do not steal" rule within, but would raid the property of others.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Wossname »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 6:17 am Marvin_Edwards » 37 minutes ago

I think that when there is plenty of food to go around, everyone feels secure about sharing, but when food is scarce, people have to fight for food to survive. So we have both instincts, cooperation and competition. Familial instincts lead us to strive to feed our own families at the expense of others. Extended families become tribes. Tribes become nations. But at each level of organization we still treat our own differently than we treat "them".

So, the Vikings would care about the welfare of their own, and would enforce a "do not steal" rule within, but would raid the property of others.


Agreed.

Such attitudes seem to apply to families, tribes and empires.

And even with plenty of food to go round it may not get shared equally.

Moral rules reflect how we feel about things. (Did we not agree this recently)?

So by large the view seems to be that some stealing is OK, and some is not (not in your list of options).
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Wossname wrote: October 28th, 2020, 7:00 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 6:17 am Marvin_Edwards » 37 minutes ago

I think that when there is plenty of food to go around, everyone feels secure about sharing, but when food is scarce, people have to fight for food to survive. So we have both instincts, cooperation and competition. Familial instincts lead us to strive to feed our own families at the expense of others. Extended families become tribes. Tribes become nations. But at each level of organization we still treat our own differently than we treat "them".

So, the Vikings would care about the welfare of their own, and would enforce a "do not steal" rule within, but would raid the property of others.


Agreed.

Such attitudes seem to apply to families, tribes and empires.

And even with plenty of food to go round it may not get shared equally.

Moral rules reflect how we feel about things. (Did we not agree this recently)?

So by large the view seems to be that some stealing is OK, and some is not (not in your list of options).
How we feel about things is a product of how we see things. If our vision is clouded by prejudice and false beliefs, then how we feel may be an inaccurate view of what is right and what is wrong. But if our vision is clear, then our feelings are more likely to be correct guides to moral behavior. When I use the term "objective", I am referring to a clearer view of empirical reality. And that also goes by the name "truth".
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Wossname »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 7:42 am Marvin_Edwards » 23 minutes ago

How we feel about things is a product of how we see things. If our vision is clouded by prejudice and false beliefs, then how we feel may be an inaccurate view of what is right and what is wrong. But if our vision is clear, then our feelings are more likely to be correct guides to moral behavior. When I use the term "objective", I am referring to a clearer view of empirical reality. And that also goes by the name "truth".

I agree that how we think about things can affect how we feel about them and vice versa.

Of course what is clear to some is not to others.

Which means that people often think that stealing is OK sometimes and other times not.

I suspect that you do not see that as a correct guide to moral behaviour. But then, you are not, I think, a Viking, and from a Viking viewpoint you have a very poor understanding of morality.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Sculptor1 »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 7:42 am
Wossname wrote: October 28th, 2020, 7:00 am



Agreed.

Such attitudes seem to apply to families, tribes and empires.

And even with plenty of food to go round it may not get shared equally.

Moral rules reflect how we feel about things. (Did we not agree this recently)?

So by large the view seems to be that some stealing is OK, and some is not (not in your list of options).
How we feel about things is a product of how we see things. If our vision is clouded by prejudice and false beliefs, then how we feel may be an inaccurate view of what is right and what is wrong. But if our vision is clear, then our feelings are more likely to be correct guides to moral behavior. When I use the term "objective", I am referring to a clearer view of empirical reality. And that also goes by the name "truth".
Oh Great One we all bow down to your superior vision.
Tell us oh prophet what shall we do?
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Wossname wrote: October 28th, 2020, 8:07 am ... Which means that people often think that stealing is OK sometimes and other times not. ...
Right. So how do people justify petty thefts, like
Alias wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:26 am ... bringing home pens, Scotch tape and yellow pads from work and poppa's fudging his peripheral income on the tax return and both are telling you to let baby bro have the cookie he filched off your plate.... so... it's bad, but maybe not always and maybe not all that bad....
while they would never steal a car?
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Wossname »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:05 pm by Marvin_Edwards » 50 minutes ago

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 12:07 pm
... Which means that people often think that stealing is OK sometimes and other times not. ...
Right. So how do people justify petty thefts, like
Alias wrote: ↑Today, 5:26 am
... bringing home pens, Scotch tape and yellow pads from work and poppa's fudging his peripheral income on the tax return and both are telling you to let baby bro have the cookie he filched off your plate.... so... it's bad, but maybe not always and maybe not all that bad....
while they would never steal a car?

You would need to ask the people concerned for their justifications. They may not all be the same.

I guess issues like your existing moral outlook or values, how much you care about yourself and your own needs, how you evaluate the needs of your loved ones, how much you care about the people you are stealing from, what the perceived risks and benefits were and a bunch of other stuff too are involved in decisions about whether or what to steal.

Some people are happy to steal cars of course.

Some bankers seem to have been happy to steal billions.

We agree then, that people come to different conclusions, and they often think it OK to steal sometimes and not others. Reasons for many decisions can be complex. That goes for moral decisions too. We consider likely outcomes that matter to us, particularly outcomes for those we care about (or not).
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Wossname wrote: October 28th, 2020, 2:02 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 1:05 pm by Marvin_Edwards » 50 minutes ago

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 12:07 pm
... Which means that people often think that stealing is OK sometimes and other times not. ...
Right. So how do people justify petty thefts, like
Alias wrote: ↑Today, 5:26 am
... bringing home pens, Scotch tape and yellow pads from work and poppa's fudging his peripheral income on the tax return and both are telling you to let baby bro have the cookie he filched off your plate.... so... it's bad, but maybe not always and maybe not all that bad....
while they would never steal a car?

You would need to ask the people concerned for their justifications. They may not all be the same.

I guess issues like your existing moral outlook or values, how much you care about yourself and your own needs, how you evaluate the needs of your loved ones, how much you care about the people you are stealing from, what the perceived risks and benefits were and a bunch of other stuff too are involved in decisions about whether or what to steal.

Some people are happy to steal cars of course.

Some bankers seem to have been happy to steal billions.

We agree then, that people come to different conclusions, and they often think it OK to steal sometimes and not others. Reasons for many decisions can be complex. That goes for moral decisions too. We consider likely outcomes that matter to us, particularly outcomes for those we care about (or not).
I think that is all true. I suspect the reason many people feel it is okay to take office supplies is that it seems like a very small harm and not worth stressing over. I tend to stress over small things, though. At the state hospital where I worked as a computer programmer, there were strict rules about accepting gifts from vendors. At a meeting with one vendor they gave out token gifts to every one, and I dropped mine in the trash can on the way out. Probably a neurosis from growing up in a church that believed in eternal torment in Hell for sinners.
Wossname
Posts: 429
Joined: January 31st, 2020, 10:41 am

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Wossname »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 3:13 pm by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 7:13 pm

I suspect the reason many people feel it is okay to take office supplies is that it seems like a very small harm and not worth stressing over. I tend to stress over small things, though. At the state hospital where I worked as a computer programmer, there were strict rules about accepting gifts from vendors. At a meeting with one vendor they gave out token gifts to every one, and I dropped mine in the trash can on the way out. Probably a neurosis from growing up in a church that believed in eternal torment in Hell for sinners.

The church can be good at sin and guilt. Any God that consigned someone to torment for eternity must be very wicked IMO.

I hope you have outgrown such ideas even if you are still a believer.

Of course, back in the day we might both have made creditable Vikings. Now not so much I think. Neither of us.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: The Foundation of Ethics

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Wossname wrote: October 28th, 2020, 4:53 pm
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 28th, 2020, 3:13 pm by Marvin_Edwards » Today, 7:13 pm

I suspect the reason many people feel it is okay to take office supplies is that it seems like a very small harm and not worth stressing over. I tend to stress over small things, though. At the state hospital where I worked as a computer programmer, there were strict rules about accepting gifts from vendors. At a meeting with one vendor they gave out token gifts to every one, and I dropped mine in the trash can on the way out. Probably a neurosis from growing up in a church that believed in eternal torment in Hell for sinners.

The church can be good at sin and guilt. Any God that consigned someone to torment for eternity must be very wicked IMO.

I hope you have outgrown such ideas even if you are still a believer.

Of course, back in the day we might both have made creditable Vikings. Now not so much I think. Neither of us.
Yes, it was the notion of eternal torture that resulted in the same judgement of God. Ironically, He wasn't a good Christian.
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