moral foundation

[Immanuel]

I don t think there is much to be said about moral foundation. All there are are agreed upon conventions.

[Tigers!]

I don t think there is much to be said about moral foundation. All there are are agreed upon conventions.
Why aren't the agreed upon conventions a foundation?

[M.Talkingsworth]

I don t think there is much to be said about moral foundation. All there are are agreed upon conventions.

Hi Immanuel,

I would like to hear your thoughts on whether a moral foundation could be built on cause and effect relating to a goal which one wants to accomplish. What I mean is that generally, all non-pathological people want to have a peaceful, safe, environment in which to go about their daily business, I think.

Based on this, we can explore what sort of ideas and actions lead to such an environment, and based on these we can develop a foundation for morality which has a foundation in cause and effect and is less opinion-based. This seems beneficial because when someone challenges a moral law and says, "Why do I have to do X?", we can answer, "Because X leads to Y and that leads to a safe environment in which you do not have to fear things". This answer is much better than "Everyone just agrees that you should do X".

Now, in a sense this is similar to an agreed upon convention because the goal of a peaceful and safe society could be considered an agreed upon convention. If you would like to take this angle, then I will agree with you. I think it is also important to note that there is a practical reason for choosing safety and peace as every individual who is non-pathological desires safety and peace for him/herself.

So I think that this possibility plays upon basic human needs and also objective and observable causality which can make it a basis for morality which could be very helpful.

What do you think?

All the best,

Matt

[Apostate1970]

Class A: There are rules for indvidual behavior that annihilate themselves when the practicing individual is made a member of a group or groups each following their own rules (the same or others). Some do so fairly abruptly, and others do so only very slowly.

Class B: There are rules that do not so annihilate themselves but that prosper the groups.

Of Class B, there are rules that merely happen to prosper the groups as a result of some accident or artifact but which, under a broad variety of circumstances which simply fail to ever obtain for some freakish reason, would otherwise end up in Class A. Others of Class B are more robust, and prosper the groups under a wider variety of situations, for longer periods of time, etc.

The latter sort of rules... the robust class B rules are moral. Nothing else is.

[M.Talkingsworth]

Class A: There are rules for indvidual behavior that annihilate themselves when the practicing individual is made a member of a group or groups each following their own rules (the same or others). Some do so fairly abruptly, and others do so only very slowly.

Class B: There are rules that do not so annihilate themselves but that prosper the groups.

Of Class B, there are rules that merely happen to prosper the groups as a result of some accident or artifact but which, under a broad variety of circumstances which simply fail to ever obtain for some freakish reason, would otherwise end up in Class A. Others of Class B are more robust, and prosper the groups under a wider variety of situations, for longer periods of time, etc.

The latter sort of rules... the robust class B rules are moral. Nothing else is.

Does this refer to the development of what we now label morality or the foundation of morality, or do you distinguish between the two?

[Apostate1970]

Does this refer to the development of what we now label morality or the foundation of morality, or do you distinguish between the two?

I'm saying that morality is about equilibrium points in the economic sense of the word. The development of morality both from human social beginnings and now and in perpetuity is a process of seeking out optimific equilibrium points. Morality is a massive game theoretical exercise as well as the entire battery of emotional and cognitive faculties that we have evolved to "play" that game.

[Joe Bloe]

I don t think there is much to be said about moral foundation. All there are are agreed upon conventions.
Is there any basis for the agreements, any reasons why they agree, or are the points of agreement just groundless and arbitrary?

[faith_rifter]

There are three derivatives of moral principles.
1) logic-based initiative

ie, I do not believe it is acceptable to kill people because I do not want to try to survive in a society where people believe it is acceptable to kill each other.

2) emotional-based initiative

ie, I give starving people food because it makes me feel happy to reiterate happiness.

3) genetic-based initiative

ie, I tend to the needs of helpless puppies because I'm a sucker for things that look cute, due to the "cute gene."

[Apostate1970]

I don t think there is much to be said about moral foundation. All there are are agreed upon conventions.
Is there any basis for the agreements, any reasons why they agree, or are the points of agreement just groundless and arbitrary?

The basis is that if you don't pick the right conventions then your society doesn't prosper. Simple.

[madmax2976]

Is there any basis for the agreements, any reasons why they agree, or are the points of agreement just groundless and arbitrary? They are grounded in people's feelings, goals, sense of empathy, culture, etc.. Not arbitrary at all.

[Furiae]

Is there any basis for the agreements, any reasons why they agree, or are the points of agreement just groundless and arbitrary? They are grounded in people's feelings, goals, sense of empathy, culture, etc.. Not arbitrary at all.

But what are those based on?

I think that you can't just say that because there are cultural differences, many of which seem largely arbitrary on some level, that there is no basis upon which any agreement can be built. Fundamentally, all cultures are trying (with better or worse results) to express what it is to be human, which is itself basic and not merely arbitrary. That is, there are ways of living that can lead to a 'flourishing' human life, and ways that can't. So moral foundations are built on what is good for human beings, which though not 'good' in the sense of woven-into-the-fabric-of-the-universe, is nevertheless not at all arbitrary. What is good is not derived from agreement, but agreement is derived from the fact that we can share reasons about what is good.

[madmax2976]

[QUOTE=madmax2976;5441723] They are grounded in people's feelings, goals, sense of empathy, culture, etc.. Not arbitrary at all.

But what are those based on? So you mean if I can't justify everything all the way down that makes a thing "arbitrary"? If that's the case everything is arbitrary and there's no point in answering your question.

I think that you can't just say that because there are cultural differences, many of which seem largely arbitrary on some level, that there is no basis upon which any agreement can be built. Of course not. We are all human and that gives us plenty of basis on which agreement can be found.

That is, there are ways of living that can lead to a 'flourishing' human life, and ways that can't. This assumes each person cares about whether the other humans around them "flourish", and that they are interested in fostering it. Not everyone is. Not everying even agrees on what "flourish" means.

But even so, I have noticed that you seem to acknowledge that it all starts with individuals which then could proceed on to the issue of agreements.

So moral foundations are built on what is good for human beings,.. Define what is "good" such that there'd be no one who would disagree with you. You can't, hence the problem. If we're lucky, we can make compromises and agreements, sometimes we'll have to fight it out, but that's about it.

[Joe Bloe]

But what are [people's feelings, goals, sense of empathy, culture, etc.] based on?
So you mean if I can't justify everything all the way down that makes a thing "arbitrary"? If that's the case everything is arbitrary and there's no point in answering your question.
I didn't read Furiae to be implying that you'd have to justify everything all the way down. I interpreted the point to be precisely what you said next, that

We are all human and that gives us plenty of basis on which agreement can be found.
i.e. that our feelings, goals, empathy, culture, are rooted in our common humanity, so you can go down one more level to find a real basis for our feelings, goals, etc, as well as for making reasonable defensible judgments about those feelings, goals, etc. Human nature may be arbitrary in an ultimate sense -- we could have been such that being tortured is good for us -- but, given what we are, the basis for our moral judgments, and of our feelings, goals, etc, is nonarbitrary.

Define what is "good" such that there'd be no one who would disagree with you. You can't, hence the problem.
I don't see the problem with not being able to avoid disagreement. Especially if, as Furiae said, "there are ways [plural] of living that can lead to a 'flourishing' human life, and ways that can't," especially if this recognizes that there is a wide and fuzzy border between ways that can and can't do so, and that sometimes the ways that can conflict with one another. As the saying goes, "what's bad for the swimmer is good for the shark." We might all be humans, but goods for any one individual or group may conflict with goods for another; indeed, goods for one individual may conflict with each other (e.g. good taste vs. good nutrition).

Not everying even agrees on what "flourish" means.
If it's not Furiae's point, it is my point that people can be wrong about what 'flourish' means. What constitutes flourishing is not dependent on what people think or agree it means; rather, it refers to such things as long, healthy, happy lives, functioning well as the biological/psychological/social animals we are, and we can be wrong about what sorts of acts lead to those results. If our feelings, goals, etc, disagree, we have grounds to appeal to beneath those feelings, goals, etc, to make judgments about them and to work out our differences.

However, it is often the case that some of the things that really are good for us can conflict with others that are good for us, or with things that are good for other people. The problem isn't in being unable to agree on what 'flourishing' means; well, that's sort of a problem, but there is a basis in our real human nature, in things that really are good for us, to appeal to in order to attempt to resolve those disagreements. It may be difficult because the reality is often very imprecise, but we have grounds to appeal to for resolving disagreements, or at least to recognize the real imprecisions when they are there. The problem is that these real goods are not always compatible with each other, they don't always "agree" with each other. It is in those cases that
If we're lucky, we can make compromises and agreements, sometimes we'll have to fight it out, but that's about it.

So I disagree with the claim in the opening post. There is, I believe, quite a lot to say about moral foundations, much more than just agreed upon conventions.

[madmax2976]

I didn't read Furiae to be implying that you'd have to justify everything all the way down. That could be, I just wanted to clarify that, while I could justify human feelings based on evolution, culture, upbringing, personal preferences, etc., I could only go so far.

Human nature may be arbitrary in an ultimate sense -- we could have been such that being tortured is good for us -- but, given what we are, the basis for our moral judgments, and of our feelings, goals, etc, is nonarbitrary. Agreed.

I don't see the problem with not being able to avoid disagreement. Especially if, as Furiae said, "there are ways [plural] of living that can lead to a 'flourishing' human life, and ways that can't," Which only matters to those who consider flourishing human lives an important goal to obtain. They might not.


If it's not Furiae's point, it is my point that people can be wrong about what 'flourish' means. By what measure? More on this below.

What constitutes flourishing is not dependent on what people think or agree it means; rather, it refers to such things as long, healthy, happy lives,... No, I agree that's what you and I might take it to mean. Others might take flourishing to mean service/obedience/allegience to some deity, and that "happiness" can only be attained by following the supposed edicts of that deity. Longetivity and healthiness would be secondary to these features, to the point of an adherent becoming quite irate if someone else doesn't follow those precepts.

Right there is a description of "flourishing" that I would adamantly disagree with. Now, please explain what objective measure you are going to use to proclaim that that idea of flourishing is "wrong".

So I disagree with the claim in the opening post. There is, I believe, quite a lot to say about moral foundations, much more than just agreed upon conventions. Oh, you can say all kinds of things about moral foundations. That won't change the fact that they are based on what we prefer, and that in most civilizations today, agreement is the basis for codifying our morals into laws.

[Furiae]

Which only matters to those who consider flourishing human lives an important goal to obtain. They might not.

But who doesn't want to live a good life? The good life is what it is to flourish. There are some people who may be too defective to be able to flourish in a human way - like psychopaths or some insane people. It doesn't really matter if someone cares whether they flourish or not - their not caring can itself simply be a manifestation of their failing to live well, or even being able to live well.


No, I agree that's what you and I might take it to mean. Others might take flourishing to mean service/obedience/allegience to some deity, and that "happiness" can only be attained by following the supposed edicts of that deity. Longetivity and healthiness would be secondary to these features, to the point of an adherent becoming quite irate if someone else doesn't follow those precepts.

Right there is a description of "flourishing" that I would adamantly disagree with. Now, please explain what objective measure you are going to use to proclaim that that idea of flourishing is "wrong".

Well, I remember an example from Herodotus. The Persian King brought Greeks and some tribe of Indians together. The Greeks apparently burnt their dead parents, while the Indians consumed them. The King asked the Greeks if they would ever consider consuming their dead - the Greeks were of course horrified and swore they would never do such a thing. Likewise, the Indians were horrified at the idea of burning their parents.

The point is that while their behaviour was totally different, the underlying structure of thought was the same - that is, that they wanted to show respect for their parents.

Likewise in the example you gave about the difference between a religious and an atheistic conception of how life is to be lived. Certainly theists might believe that "service/obedience/allegience to some deity" is what we must do - but isn't that really all done in order to reach the same goal as atheists? Which is happiness, healthiness and longevity, among other things (after all, aren't they expecting eternal life? Not only that, but it is mostly expected to bring benefits on this life as well - a good family, etc, etc.)

They are merely different methods for arriving at the same human good.

If there were not underlying dispositions which drive the values of our cultures, from what would those cultural ideals be arising? They must eventually connect with our innate motivations. So in the case of religion - not only are they really going after the same things we are, they have another desire - which is not to be deceived. So, not only do they share the same human goals as us, but they always want to have them for the right reasons. That is, they believe the right reason to want them is somehow tied up with religion. Indeed the hardest thing for atheism at this point is convincing people that it is not true that these things do not have disappear into nihilism if they abandon God. That is only possible because they are not in fact merely religiously induced mirages, but are just a basic fact about what it is to be human, and how to flourish as a human. It is largely because nobody is willing, or even able, to give up what it is to be human that they still hold onto God, imagining atheism to take that away from them. But they are wrong about the source of morality. And yet, were they to realize that, they would still be substantially the same as they are now - because religion and culture are based on what it is to be human, not the other way around.

[Joe Bloe]

What constitutes flourishing is not dependent on what people think or agree it means; rather, it refers to such things as long, healthy, happy lives,...
No, I agree that's what you and I might take it to mean. Others might take flourishing to mean service/obedience/allegience to some deity, and that "happiness" can only be attained by following the supposed edicts of that deity. Longetivity and healthiness would be secondary to these features, to the point of an adherent becoming quite irate if someone else doesn't follow those precepts.

Right there is a description of "flourishing" that I would adamantly disagree with. Now, please explain what objective measure you are going to use to proclaim that that idea of flourishing is "wrong".
In their alternate description of flourishing, they are not just making moral claims, they are making factual claims: one claim is that there is in fact a deity, and another is that happiness can in fact only be attained by following that deity. Are they in fact right in those claims? If not, then their notion of what constitutes human flourishing, functioning well as the sort of beings we are, is wrong.

Discovering the objective truth of an issue, and then convincing someone else of that truth, however, are different matters. First, there is the possibility that we cannot, or at least cannot yet, discover what is in fact true; for example, something happens to the stuff that is sucked into a black hole, but there is disagreement about what does happen, with currently no adequate way of testing the different hypotheses. Also there is the problem that discovering, convincing, believing, accepting, rejecting -- these activities are all done by minds, and mental stuff is by definition subjective, as opposed to objective physical stuff. I can point to demonstrable facts, point to the lack of testable verifiable evidence that should be there if other alleged facts were true, but ultimately, in this or any other matter (this problem is not unique to matters of morality), it is a subjective mind that must understand, interpret, be convinced by, and accept that evidence.

That won't change the fact that they are based on what we prefer, and that in most civilizations today, agreement is the basis for codifying our morals into laws.
I won't argue against that, my only point is to add that there are reasonable grounds for making arguments and judgments about differences and conflicts in preferences, that you can go down a bit further than just "people's feelings, goals, sense of empathy, culture, etc." You started your last post by saying
I just wanted to clarify that, while I could justify human feelings based on evolution, culture, upbringing, personal preferences, etc., I could only go so far.
Adding evolution, which I interpret to mean that we include considering the sort of animals we are and how we got this way, is, I think, as far down as you can or need to go for a foundation for morality.

[madmax2976]

But who doesn't want to live a good life? What's a good life? To you and me, that might mean living in peace, not hurting anyone, helping others, etc.. To someone else it might mean pleasing their deity regardless of what happens to themselves or anyone else. Hitler might have thought part of the good life was eradicating the Jews. To southern slave owners, the good life meant having slave labor. To Jeffrey Dahmer, it might have meant eating people. To Muslims, it might mean killing all infidels. Yet they would all be seeking the same goal - to be happy.

I repeat the question: By what measure will you show that opposing ideas of what it means to flourish are wrong?

Likewise in the example you gave about the difference between a religious and an atheistic conception of how life is to be lived. Certainly theists might believe that "service/obedience/allegience to some deity" is what we must do - but isn't that really all done in order to reach the same goal as atheists? Which is happiness... What difference does that make when our ideas of what constitute "happiness" are at odds with each other? I know some theists who would say that happiness can be acheived by making homosexuality against the law. I on the other hand would believe happiness requires a live and let live attitude on such matters. You can say we're both striving for the same goal - happiness, but that doesn't seem to help much.

They are merely different methods for arriving at the same human good. No, they aren't. They are conflicting ideas for what is to be considered "human good".

If there were not underlying dispositions which drive the values of our cultures, from what would those cultural ideals be arising? They must eventually connect with our innate motivations. The innate motivation is to be happy, in most cases. (I'm not sure that's even always the case). But regardless, what each of thinks will bring us that happiness, and what we do to acheive it, are not innate.

So in the case of religion - not only are they really going after the same things we are... But that's just it. They aren't necessarily going after the "same things" we are. They might be going after happiness, but define what that is and how to reach it in a conflicting way.

Indeed the hardest thing for atheism at this point is convincing people that it is not true that these things do not have disappear into nihilism if they abandon God.. I'm not convinced theists really have the problem with morality under atheism they claim they do. I tend to suspect it's just a tool - on one hand it helps them to maintain the faith, and on the other, they believe it a useful conversion device.

[Furiae]

But who doesn't want to live a good life? What's a good life? To you and me, that might mean living in peace, not hurting anyone, helping others, etc.. To someone else it might mean pleasing their deity regardless of what happens to themselves or anyone else. Hitler might have thought part of the good life was eradicating the Jews. To southern slave owners, the good life meant having slave labor. To Jeffrey Dahmer, it might have meant eating people. To Muslims, it might mean killing all infidels. Yet they would all be seeking the same goal - to be happy.

They think those things will lead to human flourishing. By the way, I agree with you below when you suggest that happiness is not the ultimate (or at least, only) goal. That is why I use the word flourishing. We've probably all been offered the speculative choice of choosing between living in a machine that produces permanently blissful emotions/dreams and continuing on with our everyday not-so-blissful lives. Basically everybody will choose their regular lives, because they care more about living truly than about happiness. Or, as I would say, flourishing in a uniquely human way, which can't be traced to mere happiness.

As I was saying, they only think those things will lead to the good life. They can easily be wrong. If you look at the beliefs you listed above, all of them are really based on false beliefs.


I repeat the question: By what measure will you show that opposing ideas of what it means to flourish are wrong?

I think it's a messy business. Partly done by reason, partly by experience. The ideas that have slowly built up and argued over for centuries and the cultures affected by them have provided us with a basis for judging. We can look at cultures in which the good life involves treating women like the property of men with no rights, vs. cultures that give women full rights - and is it really difficult to see in which an individual flourishes? Likewise, we can see that tolerance is a virtue which leads to flourishing individual and cultural life. It may be that someone will see the modern effects of things like these two examples and still maintain that some fundamentalist woman-repressing, intolerant world view is most conducive to the good life. But is it really so hard to say that he would simply be wrong? It's just not true that they both lead to human flourishing. We can see the truth by looking at the lives of people produced by the ideals.


Indeed the hardest thing for atheism at this point is convincing people that it is not true that these things do not have disappear into nihilism if they abandon God.. I'm not convinced theists really have the problem with morality under atheism they claim they do. I tend to suspect it's just a tool - on one hand it helps them to maintain the faith, and on the other, they believe it a useful conversion device.

Perhaps I am reading too much of my own views when I was a Christian onto other Christians, but that was by far the most disturbing issue to me when I felt myself losing faith. Everything else paled in comparison. In any case, for that reason I don't think it is just a tool like say the ontological argument might be.

[madmax2976]

[They think those things will lead to human flourishing. No, you're not following me. For some, a life where homosexuality is outlawed, where one can be killed or imprisoned for insulting another's deity, holy person or artifact, where slavery is acceptable, IS the "good" life.


That is why I use the word flourishing. It doesn't matter. Underneath it all, the term is just as subjective. Sure, as long as all parties share certain core values, then we might be able to say what is best to acheive the goal. But that only works if those core values are the same. Change them, and everything else changes as well.

As I was saying, they only think those things will lead to the good life. No, I repeat: Those things aren't what lead to a "good life" - for some, they are the good life.


They can easily be wrong. If you look at the beliefs you listed above, all of them are really based on false beliefs. What you have to prove "false" is the very idea of what a "good life" means and what it entails.

I think it's a messy business. Partly done by reason, partly by experience. The ideas that have slowly built up and argued over for centuries and the cultures affected by them have provided us with a basis for judging. We can look at cultures in which the good life involves treating women like the property of men with no rights, vs. cultures that give women full rights - and is it really difficult to see in which an individual flourishes? What your doing here is smuggling in your own idea of what "flourish" means and attempting to evaluate a foreign way of things based on your own measure. That's not valid. For them, they have flourished, even if you disagree based on how you measure what it is to flourish. They don't share or agree with your way of measuring that.

Likewise, we can see that tolerance is a virtue which leads to flourishing individual and cultural life. And others will denounce with every fiber of their being that a society actually flourishes when this is allowed. In fact, they will label it in a very negative light, to the point of calling it evil.

It may be that someone will see the modern effects of things like these two examples and still maintain that some fundamentalist woman-repressing, intolerant world view is most conducive to the good life. But is it really so hard to say that he would simply be wrong?[/qujote] Not for me. But I realize where that comes from - my own personal view. It's not something I can prove objectively as there is no external measure I can use to do so.

[quote] It's just not true that they both lead to human flourishing. Again, based on what measure? Yours?

Define "flourishing" such that everyone must agree on what it specifically entails from a moral standpoint.

I know that we would find a great many people in this country that would not hestitate for an instant to label the allowance and proliferation of pornagraphy as contrary to a flourishing society. The same with homosexuality, gambling, drinking, etc. etc.