Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone

[Marvin_Edwards]

1: Arguments used to compare the morality of two competing rules or courses of action are ultimately based upon the benefits and harms of one versus the benefits and harms of the other.

What do we mean by "ultimately"? We mean that moral arguments often begin by applying familiar social rules, like "lying is bad, so one ought not lie", as axiomatic assumptions. But then we run into exceptions where our instincts tell us that "We really ought to lie to the Nazis about the Jews in the attic, or they will kill them".

What justifies this exception? A consideration of the benefits and harms of telling the truth. Tell the truth in this situation and people will die. So we lie.

Telling the truth is better in most situations, but in this situation it is morally wrong. Why is it morally wrong? Because of the objective harm. Why "objective"? Because it is not a matter where someone's feelings will be hurt. It is a matter of people being killed in a gas chamber.

2: When asked to justify any existing rule, like "do not lie", we ultimately end up justifying it in terms of benefits and harms, because other justifications fail. Justifications based upon God's will, or Nature's will, fail unless you can get God or Nature to show up and speak for themselves. Justifications based upon human authority will fail because human authorities have a long history of errors. Any form of justification will itself require justification for its use.

But justification in terms of benefits and harms give us something that we can test and demonstrate. So, this is the measure by which all other justifications will ultimately be judged. When God or Nature or human authority tells us to do something that unnecessarily harms someone, we would judge that instruction to be morally wrong. In the end we all resort to considering the benefits and harms.

Therefore, the ultimate criteria of moral judgement is by an analysis of benefits and harms.

3: In most cases, objective benefits and harms would be better than subjective benefits and harms. For example, a restaurant owner places a "Whites Only" sign in his window because he or his customers are offended by the presence of negro customers. They experience feelings of disgust when a black person sits down beside them. But the only thing being hurt is their feelings. They suffer a subjective harm, but not an objective harm. The black person, on the other hand, is forced to find another restaurant. For example, when people working in the same factory take their lunch break, the whites walk across the street to the "Whites Only" restaurant, but the black person must find another restaurant. In a town that is predominantly white, there will be fewer, if any, convenient places to eat. That is an objective harm to the black person.

4: Why everyone? Ideally, if the benefits and harms for specific individuals and groups can be objectively measured, then both involved parties can assure that one side does not benefit at the expense of the other. The selected solution (the rule or course of action) should meet the real needs of all stakeholders without inflicting any unnecessary harms on anyone, including those not directly affected.

As each solution to a specific problem is resolved in this fashion, either benefits will go up or harms will go down for the involved parties. These add up to an overall increase in benefits and an overall decrease in harms for everyone.

And because everyone benefits overall, everyone can find these solutions agreeable, at least until someone comes up with a better rule or course of action. And moral disputes can actually be resolved instead of debated interminably.

[Sculptor1]

Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone

What do you really mean by this?
This is so obviously emprically false, you have to admit.
Do you mean you wish that is was so?
If not what or who do you think sustains this idea?
Where is morality generated?
Who makes the rules?

[Marvin_Edwards]

Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone

What do you really mean by this?

I mean that this simple principle describes the function of morality in our society. You observe someone helping an elderly lady cross the street. We say to ourselves, that was a good thing to do. Why was it "good"? And why would anyone feel they "ought" to do something like that? Because it helps prevent elderly ladies from getting run over by traffic. It reduces harm.

This is so obviously emprically false, you have to admit.

It would be empirically false to suggest that we already live in a world where the best good and least harm for everyone is already the state of things. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the goal of achieving good and preventing harm is what supports our notions of morality.

Do you mean you wish that is was so?

Yes. But it is an ideal, and the purpose of an ideal is to guide us in the right direction, even if we never arrive at that destination.

If not what or who do you think sustains this idea?

We have personally experienced good things and we have personally experienced harm. In our families we love our spouses and our children, and we want things to work out well for them, and we don't want them to come to any harm. In our society we create rules and laws to prevent people from harming each other. So, I think that the idea of improving benefits and reducing harm for ourselves an others is built into us and reinforced by society.

Where is morality generated?

Concerns about what we should and should not do are part of us.

Who makes the rules?

Theoretically, in a democracy, everyone gets to participate in making the rules. But different people, with different interests, may prefer rules that benefit themselves without concern for what benefits others. So, in order to get an agreement, the criteria for judging rules must be something that all interested parties can buy into. The guiding principle would be to seek the rule that is more likely to produce the best good and the least harm for everyone.

[Terrapin Station]

I never arrive at a moral stance by considering the "best good and least harm for everyone."

And often I arrive at moral stances purely by reacting to behavior or the idea of some behavior, so that no rationality is involved at all.

[Sculptor1]

Morality is Based on the Best Good and Least Harm for Everyone

What do you really mean by this?

I mean that this simple principle describes the function of morality in our society. You observe someone helping an elderly lady cross the street. We say to ourselves, that was a good thing to do. Why was it "good"? And why would anyone feel they "ought" to do something like that? Because it helps prevent elderly ladies from getting run over by traffic. It reduces harm.

From my experience of the UK and the US. One striking difference is the tendancy to step over or walk round dead people in the street.
The other thing I observe is the many moral injunctions from some, especially the religiously minded, to do harm for moral reason by restricting other's activities.
So, as I say, empirically your idea is dubious at best.

This is so obviously emprically false, you have to admit.

It would be empirically false to suggest that we already live in a world where the best good and least harm for everyone is already the state of things. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the goal of achieving good and preventing harm is what supports our notions of morality.

You are not making sense.
"Morality" is an abstract concept. It cannot have volition. It cannot have goals. When you say "our notions" you really mean YOU. Why can't you be honest about that?
It's what YOU want. What you would wish morality to be. Not what it is. And not how others behave.

Do you mean you wish that is was so?

Yes. But it is an ideal, and the purpose of an ideal is to guide us in the right direction, even if we never arrive at that destination.

W TF are "we"??
Come on this is philosophy, not church meeting house.

If not what or who do you think sustains this idea?

We have personally experienced good things and we have personally experienced harm. In our families we love our spouses and our children, and we want things to work out well for them, and we don't want them to come to any harm. In our society we create rules and laws to prevent people from harming each other. So, I think that the idea of improving benefits and reducing harm for ourselves an others is built into us and reinforced by society.

Where is morality generated?

Concerns about what we should and should not do are part of us.

Who makes the rules?

Theoretically, in a democracy, everyone gets to participate in making the rules. But different people, with different interests, may prefer rules that benefit themselves without concern for what benefits others. So, in order to get an agreement, the criteria for judging rules must be something that all interested parties can buy into. The guiding principle would be to seek the rule that is more likely to produce the best good and the least harm for everyone.

You need to be more honest with yourself before you can be honest with others.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I mean that this simple principle describes the function of morality in our society. You observe someone helping an elderly lady cross the street. We say to ourselves, that was a good thing to do. Why was it "good"? And why would anyone feel they "ought" to do something like that? Because it helps prevent elderly ladies from getting run over by traffic. It reduces harm.

... the many moral injunctions from some, especially the religiously minded, to do harm for moral reason by restricting other's activities. ...

Note that the basis of your challenge to the "religiously minded" is the harm that they do in the "name" of morality.

It would be empirically false to suggest that we already live in a world where the best good and least harm for everyone is already the state of things. But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the goal of achieving good and preventing harm is what supports our notions of morality.

... "Morality" is an abstract concept. It cannot have volition. It cannot have goals.

I'm speaking of your own goals, like the goal of preventing hypocrites from doing harmful things in the "name" of morality.

... it is an ideal, and the purpose of an ideal is to guide us in the right direction, even if we never arrive at that destination.

W TF are "we"?? Come on this is philosophy, not church meeting house.

It's still you. And it is still philosophy. See Plato about the notion of "ideals". However, the ushers will now pass among you to collect the offering.

We have personally experienced good things and we have personally experienced harm. In our families we love our spouses and our children, and we want things to work out well for them, and we don't want them to come to any harm. In our society we create rules and laws to prevent people from harming each other. So, I think that the idea of improving benefits and reducing harm for ourselves an others is built into us and reinforced by society.

Concerns about what we should and should not do are part of us.

Theoretically, in a democracy, everyone gets to participate in making the rules. But different people, with different interests, may prefer rules that benefit themselves without concern for what benefits others. So, in order to get an agreement, the criteria for judging rules must be something that all interested parties can buy into. The guiding principle would be to seek the rule that is more likely to produce the best good and the least harm for everyone.

You need to be more honest with yourself before you can be honest with others.

Show me how you do that.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I never arrive at a moral stance by considering the "best good and least harm for everyone."

Not in those words, perhaps. But think of your position on something recent, like Trump's attempt to overthrow the election. Is his behavior something good or something bad? How would you defend your moral stance on that issue?

And often I arrive at moral stances purely by reacting to behavior or the idea of some behavior, so that no rationality is involved at all.

Sure. There are some responses that are habitual or reflexes. Depending on the nature of your reaction, there may be some rationality involved later, when someone asks you to explain what you just did.

[Sapien]

I am a newbie but if I'm going to swim I have to jump in somewhere. Using history as a guide I am probably out of my league. I have not read Marvin's 952 posts, Sculptor 1's almost 3,000, or Terrapin Station's 4,400+ so I do not know if I am unaware of a context that all of you share, but I have read the six posts above and have an opinion:

I may not agree with Marvin in all cases but I think I have some idea where he's coming from. Personally, I think it is a mistake to assume we can know nothing about morality simply because we have not developed perfect morality that applies in all cases. I liken morality to health. We do not know everything we need to know in order to have perfect health but we can have certainty about some things. We know for certain that doctors should wash their hands before an operation. We have certainty that we will be generally healthier and live longer if we do not drink sulfuric acid. We know we will live longer and healthier if we eat right and exercise some. So, even though we do not know everything about optimum health we know some actions we can take or avoid that are more likely to lead to better health.

We can apply the same logic to morality, The actions that provide the greatest good for the greatest number while maintaining freedom are best. Good people may debate legislation like we debate GMO’s or gluten but we do not debate murder and stealing.

To me, it is perfectly moral to have laws prohibiting murder and theft. Isn’t this the greatest good for the greatest number?

[Newme]

... But then we run into exceptions where our instincts tell us that "We really ought to lie to the Nazis about the Jews in the attic, or they will kill them".

...3: In most cases, objective benefits and harms would be better than subjective benefits and harms. For example, a restaurant owner places a "Whites Only" sign in his window because he or his customers are offended by the presence of negro customers. They experience feelings of disgust when a black person sits down beside them. But the only thing being hurt is their feelings. They suffer a subjective harm, but not an objective harm. The black person, on the other hand, is forced to find another restaurant. For example, when people working in the same factory take their lunch break, the whites walk across the street to the "Whites Only" restaurant, but the black person must find another restaurant. In a town that is predominantly white, there will be fewer, if any, convenient places to eat. That is an objective harm to the black person.

4: Why everyone? Ideally, if the benefits and harms for specific individuals and groups can be objectively measured, then both involved parties can assure that one side does not benefit at the expense of the other...

And because everyone benefits overall, everyone can find these solutions agreeable...

Relevant current examples are masks & social distancing. Imagine your example of blacks in the past, with mask-less people today, instead. Is it best to tell on your neighbor and have them arrested for exercising their rights to their person (4th US Constitutional amendment, & no forced medical treatment/masks) &/or to peacefully assemble (1st amendment)? Media has systematically censored studies that show masks don’t limit respiratory viruses - & when you actually THINK about it, it makes sense because you can still breath (viruses) in & out when wearing a mask. Masks increase carbon dioxide & limit oxygen, besides cause skin & dental problems. What masks were created for & what they do help with is stopping spit when talking - but again they don’t stop breathing (obviously or not). So why are there tyrannically enforced mandates forcing masks? Why are people being made to suffer in wearing masks & being threatened, harassed &/or arrested etc for not going along with what is known to be more harmful than helpful??

Why?

Maybe because people allow appeal to emotion to cloud their ability to reason & too many go along with seemingly innocent oppression that is paving the way to more. Nazi’s started out not by killing but first a declaration of emergency that was used to deny rights - similar to today.

So the problem is the subjectivity by which “greater good” is determined & implemented.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I am a newbie but if I'm going to swim I have to jump in somewhere. Using history as a guide I am probably out of my league. I have not read Marvin's 952 posts, Sculptor 1's almost 3,000, or Terrapin Station's 4,400+ so I do not know if I am unaware of a context that all of you share, but I have read the six posts above and have an opinion:

I may not agree with Marvin in all cases but I think I have some idea where he's coming from. Personally, I think it is a mistake to assume we can know nothing about morality simply because we have not developed perfect morality that applies in all cases. I liken morality to health. We do not know everything we need to know in order to have perfect health but we can have certainty about some things. We know for certain that doctors should wash their hands before an operation. We have certainty that we will be generally healthier and live longer if we do not drink sulfuric acid. We know we will live longer and healthier if we eat right and exercise some. So, even though we do not know everything about optimum health we know some actions we can take or avoid that are more likely to lead to better health.

We can apply the same logic to morality, The actions that provide the greatest good for the greatest number while maintaining freedom are best. Good people may debate legislation like we debate GMO’s or gluten but we do not debate murder and stealing.

To me, it is perfectly moral to have laws prohibiting murder and theft. Isn’t this the greatest good for the greatest number?

I believe you're mostly correct. But "the greatest good for the greatest number" seems to leave a hole that suggests it is okay for a majority to take advantage of a minority. That's why I use "the best good and least harm for everyone". On the other hand, "everyone" is "the greatest number", so the goals can also be viewed as the same.

[Sapien]

I see what you mean:

..."the greatest good for the greatest number" seems to leave a hole that suggests it is okay for a majority to take advantage of a minority.

I am also a tad uncomfortable with this phrase which is why I added, "...while maintaining freedom" because I view Majority Rule as anathema to freedom.

[Marvin_Edwards]

Relevant current examples are masks & social distancing. Imagine your example of blacks in the past, with mask-less people today, instead. Is it best to tell on your neighbor and have them arrested for exercising their rights to their person (4th US Constitutional amendment, & no forced medical treatment/masks) &/or to peacefully assemble (1st amendment)? Media has systematically censored studies that show masks don’t limit respiratory viruses - & when you actually THINK about it, it makes sense because you can still breath (viruses) in & out when wearing a mask. Masks increase carbon dioxide & limit oxygen, besides cause skin & dental problems. What masks were created for & what they do help with is stopping spit when talking - but again they don’t stop breathing (obviously or not). So why are there tyrannically enforced mandates forcing masks? Why are people being made to suffer in wearing masks & being threatened, harassed &/or arrested etc for not going along with what is known to be more harmful than helpful??

Why?

Maybe because people allow appeal to emotion to cloud their ability to reason & too many go along with seemingly innocent oppression that is paving the way to more. Nazi’s started out not by killing but first a declaration of emergency that was used to deny rights - similar to today.

So the problem is the subjectivity by which “greater good” is determined & implemented.

The medical experts do not claim that masks block the transmission of the virus. But they do claim that masks reduce the transmission by some percent. And they point out that if both persons are wearing a mask then the transmission is reduced twice as much. The virus may ride on an aerosol or spit. Spit is well-controlled by a mask. Coughing is not required to expel spit. Speaking also expels it, and the louder you speak the farther it goes. There was one case where a choir was infected by one singer.

So, you need to ask yourself whether that one infected choir member had a "right" to expose the rest of the choir to the disease. There is nothing in the bill of rights that protects anyone's right to infect someone else with a disease. And there are state laws that make it a crime to knowingly infect someone else with HIV and other diseases.

Reckless driving and negligence are against the law. And one could make the argument that failing to wear a mask is reckless behavior that can endanger others.

I agree with you that objective evidence of benefits and harms should be used to guide our rule-making. It should never be based upon someone's personal feelings when a real risk of harm exists.

[Wossname]

by Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 2:18 am

Marvin I feel this has not really addressed the issues discussed in the other thread, which is what you were hoping to do I think. But it is an important topic, and it merits a proper reply. To some extent this touches on discussions with Angel Trismegistus about a moral universe, and also with GEM about natural rights (which I won’t revisit here).

Once you have an axiom like “morality is based on the best good and least harm for everyone” you can argue about how to objectively measure good and harm. That is hugely problematic, and as I have said before, I think Maslow’s argument is flawed, but that is not my key objection, since all measurement here is problematic. Whether it is so problematic as to be unworkable is an issue for another time perhaps. I would set it aside for now if you will.

What I want to raise here is the question of why anyone would accept your axiom. It has egalitarian appeal but it is not self-evident. It has certainly never been the basis for much human behaviour. You have referred elsewhere to morality being species specific and ultimately about life and survival. This touches on the motivations for behaviour and I quite like Dawkins notion that species act to maximise the inclusive fitness of the gene pool. In other words we are to some extent “gene machines” whose biological purpose is to preserve and replicate genes similar to our own. Note that last phrase. It points to an inbuilt prejudice for “our own”, not all life, and not all people. The bloody history of humanity is ample testament to the truth of this. I am not interested in discussing the morality of carrots, so let us stick with people. I have argued elsewhere that psychological mechanisms that seem likely relevant here are perceived similarity and familiarity. (I can’t remember where I did this and I will rehash if needed, and that is a threat you should take seriously).

Now you can argue that in the modern era we need to expand notions of our own beyond the family or tribe for reasons of enlightened self-interest, and I would agree with you. That is not an easy thing to do, and politicians and social systems that seek to exploit our natural tendencies for prejudice don’t help. It is important this message is understood I think, since how we think about things can affect how we feel about them and vice versa. But note this is a practical approach rather than an agreed moral axiom. Look after others for your own sake is an argument people will understand and accept, but only so far. Tell people they should worry about other peoples’ children as much as their own and they will likely just laugh in your face. They certainly won’t behave as you suggest.

So yes, we have some feeling for our fellows (perceived similarity, which in general terms means humans more than other mammals, dogs more than fish etc.) and it is how we feel about things that motivates, so Hume was right on both counts. But your axiom is all yours. It is not objective in the sense discussed. It is not universally accepted. It is not how most people behave. It may be your perceived ideal, but if you want that even close to realised you are going to have to accept the biology here, and accept that Hume was right. Change the way people feel about each other. Help them recognise their common bonds of shared humanity. Increase feelings of empathy. Dusty argument alone won’t come close to doing it. Social systems and structures that promote such attitudes seem the way to go. Systems that promote the freedom of the individual to be unremittingly selfish, and politicians who promote division (so easy to do), are not likely to be helpful. Religions can sometimes have a message of unity, but it seems to me that religious groups can be as good as any other social group at demonising the other.

[Marvin_Edwards]

I see what you mean:

..."the greatest good for the greatest number" seems to leave a hole that suggests it is okay for a majority to take advantage of a minority.

I am also a tad uncomfortable with this phrase which is why I added, "...while maintaining freedom" because I view Majority Rule as anathema to freedom.

I think there is a natural desire to control ones own life which, at least in theory, would guarantee the maximum freedom for everyone. If laws apply to everyone, and not just minorities, then the majority's freedoms would be equally restricted by their own laws. So, in theory, laws would only exist when absolutely necessary. But, in practice, many people want decisions already made for them, so that they don't have to make decisions for themselves. And that leads to strict and sometimes oppressive regulations for everyone. I'm thinking now of religious practices in church-run states and communism's central planning and "mob bosses" who rule by coerced loyalty like Trump.

Arguments for and against laws will ultimately be expressed in terms of whether a new restriction causes more harm than good. And arguments based on objective evidence of benefits and harms rather than subjective feelings should (in theory) win more often.

[Marvin_Edwards]

by Marvin_Edwards » Yesterday, 2:18 am

I'm not trying to do anything complicated here. What I've laid out is not "prescriptive", but simply descriptive. When people argue for a new rule or a new course of action, they either make their case deductively from old rules, or inductively from expected consequences. All old rules, I believe, had to be originally conceived by considering consequences. Someone noticed that things were not going well, and came up with another way of doing things that would be better.

Moral rules evolved. Perhaps there was a point in time when community ownership was the rule, and someone was bothered by the fact that his club and his spear were never around when he needed them. So he suggested that everyone should have their own clubs and their own spears, and leave his stuff alone, or he would club them over the head.

Notions of a God enforcing rules by inflicting bad luck upon rule breakers now, or punishment in the afterlife, were likely used to convince people to follow the community's rules. So, it became a rule that one must stick to that God and worship no other.

In any case, if we don't like a current rule, like marriage being limited to opposite sexed couples, we naturally argue for a new rule by laying out objective evidence as to the harms of the old rule and the benefits of the new one. And the same was done to abolish slavery. And the same was done to give women the vote. And the same was done to prohibit alcohol consumption. And the same was done to remove that prohibition. Etc.

I am not prescribing any particular new rule. I am simply describing what we are already doing.