Welcome to the forum.

Well... I agree with everything you've written, but you'd probably like something more than just that. Like you, I find most philosophical discussions of morality pointless for exactly the reasons you give. Here's how I've come to think about it. First, the morality I care about is personal. How should I behave. As you note "the layman already has a fairly solid intuitive grasp of how to act ethically based off sheer compassion and, for want of a better term, 'common sense'" I count myself among the laymen.

The formal systems of so-called morality you discuss are more about how someone thinks other people should behave. As I see it, that's not morality at all, it's social control - the rules and practices a society sets up to protect it's members and make sure things run smoothly. Murder is prohibited not because it's wrong, but because it hurts people that a community is obligated to protect.

Philosophically, the principles expressed in the "Tao Te Ching" and "Chuang Tzu," the founding documents of Taoism, are the ones I feel most at home in. This is from Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi).

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu

I broadly agree but perhaps for different reasons. A moral system doesn't connect to behaviour. The agent has to go further and say "Yea, I will adopt that system and abide by it." And that's a matter of will and not reason. Even if you prove that murder is bad for a million reasons, a murderer can still respond "Yeah, I see all that. I just really like stabbing people, and that is more important to me than anything else. I'm going to keep going."

But the question I wish to ask is, in some sense, aren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way and therefore rendered futile? — Dorrian

No. If its a true universal moral system, it will be objective. Not saying it can't be improved upon or more discovered, but it would be a solid science at that point.

What is the point in laying out moral edicts that are so abstract and impractical when the layman already has a fairly solid intuitive grasp of how to act ethically based off sheer compassion and, for want of a better term, "common sense"? — Dorrian

1. AI. We are rapidly creating intelligence without morality. This is incredibly dangerous.

2. "Common sense" is not so common and really just a comfortable cultural subjectivity based on context. So for the common everyday, sure. But I also don't need a ruler to see if one person is taller than another. Its pretty useful when I have to use specifics, height matters, etc. Moral precepts would be for the higher levels situations. If they're generally accurate we would think they wouldn't contradict the base moral too much. Essentially an objective morality should measure how 'tall' something is, not declare that the taller individual is somehow shorter.

If you're serious about it and not just lamenting, I've done a serious attempt at an objective morality here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1 Its a several part series, so ask for clarification on the first part but then go onto the second part linked at the bottom of the OP when you're ready.

I should preface by saying that I've never been all too enamoured with morality as a field of study quite frankly. Using obtuse thought experiments to parse what is good and bad simply always seemed like a rather pointless endeavour, and I personally feel it's more fruitful to investigate morality in specific terms rather than universal terms and evaluate morality more so from a personal and societal perspective than from a seemingly objective view-point. — Dorrian

I cannot claim to say I always felt this way, but I do now.

But the question I wish to ask is, in some sense, aren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way and therefore rendered futile? — Dorrian

I believe that all moral systems are flawed.

I do not believe that they are futile.

I can understand the feeling between the two. But upon examination it seems to not hold up.

A moral system can be flawed in this or that circumstance, and I have even less control over what circumstance I'm in than I have with respect to my believed moral system.

I'd point this out as at least an analogy for living: When I first started building wood structures I was terrible, now I'm OK. It takes time to become better, and on top of that there is more than one acceptable moral system to follow depending on what you're doing.

Continuing the craftsman analogy: You need to call a plumber, an electrician, a building maintenance manager, an automated engineering technology specialist, etc., to fix the job.

Why not treat morality as specifically as we treat the various industries where we make specifications?

In some ways I feel like it's the first social morality -- as I was influenced to pursue what I wanted as a child, so goes the moral systems.

They're not futile systems as much as incomplete, but necessary (in spite of their incompleteness!) ways of thinking. Or suggestions.

But the question I wish to ask is, in some sense, aren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way and therefore rendered futile? What is the point in laying out moral edicts that are so abstract and impractical when the layman already has a fairly solid intuitive grasp of how to act ethically based off sheer compassion and, for want of a better term, "common sense"? — Dorrian

There’s a hitch in the first question which you pose. To be futile presupposes the requisite of fulfilling some aim, which futility fails to allow for. So in this very question is presupposed an end pursued, one which ought to be obtained – thereby and end which is of itself good - which “universal moral systems” can only fail to actualize.

It might be that certain meta-ethical enquiries seek to better understand just what exactly this just mentioned good is, or at least what it could be. If so, these meta-ethical enquiries - which to be valid can only be universally applicable – must necessarily be descriptive of what already is, has always been, and will continue to be. They therefore don’t prescribe "moral edicts" in an authoritarian sense, but rather, it at all successful, describe what is and allow one to thereby more lucidly decide for oneself what one ought do, this given such and such scenario. Because of this,such meta-ethical enquiries, if successful, cannot be futile, almost by definition - for they would then make clear the very end relative to which you question the functionality of "universal moral systems" by wondering if they're all futile in their nature.

[A]ren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way ... — Dorrian

No.

... and therefore rendered futile?

No – this does not follow (i.e. hasty generalization fallacy).

... the concept of "goodness."

e.g. flourishing via preventing or, as much as practically possible, reducing harm to others, no?

If its a true[ly] universal moral system, it will be objective. Not saying it can't be improved upon ... — Philosophim

:up:

They're not futile systems as much as incomplete, but necessary (in spite of their incompleteness!) ways of thinking. Or suggestions. — Moliere

:up: :up:

To me the OP is a bit of a false conundrum. The idea of formally codifying the principles and issues involved in (an individual) making moral choices is reasonable and beneficial. Not because doing so leads to prospective derivation of moral decisions (which the OP criticizes and I agree with this criticism), rather that once the particular circumstances and details of a situation are known, those principles can be used to arrive at the optimal outcome.

Just like codifying to law (in general) doesn't remove the need for trials for specific cases.

What is the point in laying out moral edicts that are so abstract and impractical when the layman already has a fairly solid intuitive grasp of how to act ethically based off sheer compassion and, for want of a better term, "common sense"? — Dorrian

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's why a deliberation like this below is necessary.

The idea of formally codifying the principles and issues involved in (an individual) making moral choices is reasonable and beneficial. Not because doing so leads to prospective derivation of moral decisions (which the OP criticizes and I agree with this criticism), rather that once the particular circumstances and details of a situation are known, those principles can be used to arrive at the optimal outcome. — LuckyR

Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out — Chuang Tzu

What do you suppose ‘uncontrived condition of the inborn human nature’ means? Do we have an inborn nature? Or do we contrive our nature through our interactions with others? If the latter, then perhaps goodness is to be made as much as found?

But the question I wish to ask is, in some sense, aren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way and therefore rendered futile? — Dorrian

No.
While some philosophical discussions of morality may be futile and pointless, no society of sentient beings can function without a shared system of values on which its rules are made, obeyed and enforced.
While there is no universal, objective morality, each society has a moral basis that accords with the world-view shared by its members. On that belief system, that moral understanding, each society enacts its governing principles or constitution, its social organization and legal code.
Those pointless discussions are generally aimed at better understanding, communicating and articulating the moral principles by which we operate.

Do we have an inborn nature? Or do we contrive our nature through our interactions with others? — Joshs

Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Stephen Pinker think we have inborn natures. So do I. Others are skeptical.

What do you suppose ‘uncontrived condition of the inborn human nature’ means? — Joshs

Emerson calls it our "genius." Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu call it "Te."

To believe our own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, -- that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,--and our first thought, is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment...abide by our spontaneous impression with good-humored inflexibility then most when the whole cry of voices is on the other side. Else, to-morrow a stranger will say with masterly good sense precisely what we have thought and felt all the time, and we shall be forced to take with shame our own opinion from another. — Ralph Waldo Emerson - Self-Reliance

I sometimes call it my heart, but that's not really right. Our soul? I guess not. It's something I experience all the time. I imagine a spring bubbling up to the surface in a pool in the woods bringing ideas, motivations, metaphors, and memories into consciousness and directly into action without reflection. In Taoism that's known as "wu wei," action without acting, without intention. If that sounds loosey goosey mystical mumbo jumbo, so be it, but I'm a pragmatic engineer used to seeing the world in terms of concrete, abstract constructions. I don't find any conflict in seeing things both ways at the same time. As I said, it's something I personally experience.

So what is our human nature? I'll go out on a limb here. It is a bunch of inborn genetic, biological, neurological, mental, and psychological processes, structures, capacities, drives, and instincts which are modified during development and by experience and socialization. I'll try to be more specific. We are social animals. We like and want to be around each other. We care most for those closest to us - our families and especially our children. We are born with temperaments that express themselves from the very start. We are born with an instinctual drive and capability for language. We are born with an inborn drive to find a mate, usually, but not always of the opposite sex. This is from William James. I'm not sure whether it will seem relevant, but it does to me and I like it.

Nothing more can be said than that these are human ways, and that every creature likes its own ways, and takes to the following them as a matter of course. Science may come and consider these ways, and find that most of them are useful. But it is not for the sake of their utility that they are followed, but because at the moment of following them we feel that that is the only appropriate and natural thing to do. .. It takes, in short, what Berkeley calls a mind debauched by learning to carry the process of making the natural seem strange so far as to ask for the why of any instinctive human act...

...Why are we unable to talk to a crowd as we talk to a single friend? Why does a particular maiden turn our wits so upside down? The common man can only say, “of course we smile, of course our heart palpitates at the sight of the crowd, of course we love the maiden, that beautiful soul clad in that perfect form, so palpably and flagrantly made from all eternity to be loved!” And so probably does each animal feel about the particular things it tends to do in presence of particular objects. They, too, are a priori syntheses. To the lion it is the lioness which is made to be loved; to the bear, the she-bear. To the broody hen the notion would probably seem monstrous that there should be a creature in the world to whom a nestful of eggs was not the utterly fascinating and precious and never-to-be-too-much-sat-upon object which it is to her. — William James - What is an Instinct?

For what it's worth, as I noted, there are a lot of people who don't see things this way.

Hey, I know we don't often agree on much, but damn that's a nice post. Wanted to so say. :grin:

To the OP; there's good book by Sam Harris called the Moral Landscape which might be worth a read for you. I have my disagreements with Mr. Harris but his book is a fair attempt at addressing some of your conundrums. The gist of his book is that there is no absolute morality but there is a way to approach developing a moral system based on science which can get you close, where no religious belief is necessary to come to a moral framework which most everyone commenting here has acknowledged in some way, is necessary for a cohesive functioning society. That's the "why" of it and Sam claims the "how" of it although difficult, can nevertheless be arrived at through science. I'm not saying he's correct, just that it might be interesting for you even to just watch a podcast on it.

Clearly we all have our own natures as some have very eloquently stated here. Trouble comes when our own moralities collide with other individuals, group or whole societies. And I mean very big trouble. Eastern and Middle Eastern cultures have vastly different moral frameworks from Western cultures whom also have substantial variations within their own populations. One only has to pause for a second and consider the state of the world to realize just how an important a topic this really is. Our very existence depends on getting this right.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

So what is our human nature? I'll go out on a limb here. It is a bunch of inborn genetic, biological, neurological, mental, and psychological processes, structures, capacities, drives, and instincts which are modified during development and by experience and socialization. I'll try to be more specific. We are social animals. We like and want to be around each other. We care most for those closest to us - our families and especially our children. We are born with temperaments that express themselves from the very start. We are born with an instinctual drive and capability for language. We are born with an inborn drive to find a mate, usually, but not always of the opposite sex. This is from William James. I'm not sure whether it will seem relevant, but it does to me and I like it. — T Clark

:up: That pretty much sums it up.

So what is our human nature? I'll go out on a limb here. It is a bunch of inborn genetic, biological, neurological, mental, and psychological processes, structures, capacities, drives, and instincts which are modified during development and by experience and socialization. I'll try to be more specific. We are social animals. We like and want to be around each other. We care most for those closest to us - our families and especially our children. We are born with temperaments that express themselves from the very start. We are born with an instinctual drive and capability for language. We are born with an inborn drive to find a mate, usually, but not always of the opposite sex. This is from William James. I'm not sure whether it will seem relevant, but it does to me and I like it. — T Clark

What about culture? Could it also be human nature to devise myths and tables of values to pass onto the next generation?

No, not futile, but dangerous when assumed to be objective. But, this supposes I have a moral belief "people should not think morality is objective" which would defeat the view I actually hold (similar, very similar, to T Clark (who I cannot tag?).

Yes, all moral systems are flawed (comments to the opposite seem... silly. Where's the flawless moral system you think exists?). That doesn't render them futile. It just, again, makes it dangerous to pretend they are flawless.

What about culture? Could it also be human nature to devise myths and tables of values to pass onto the next generation? — ChatteringMonkey

The aspects of human nature I've proposed are not intended to be comprehensive - they're just examples. I think there's a lot more going on. Humans are story tellers so it seems plausible to me that there may be an inborn tendency and capacity for mythology. As for values, there are studies showing that children might be born with the fundamentals of a moral sense. Here's a link to a discussion.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/f/1145/files/2017/10/Wynn-Bloom-Moral-Handbook-Chapter-2013-14pwpor.pdf

T Clark (who I cannot tag?) — AmadeusD

The @ function won't automatically tag my name. I think that's because it includes a space. But if you type it in by hand, it will work.

I tried that too! @T Clark

Let's see if that works..

The aspects of human nature I've proposed are not intended to be comprehensive - they're just examples. I think there's a lot more going on. Humans are story tellers so it seems plausible to me that there may be an inborn tendency and capacity for mythology. As for values, there are studies showing that children might be born with the fundamentals of a moral sense. Here's a link to a discussion.

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/f/1145/files/2017/10/Wynn-Bloom-Moral-Handbook-Chapter-2013-14pwpor.pdf — T Clark

Yes, we have innate moral feelings, maybe even something like a directional moral sense, but I don't think its enough on its own to get fully functional morality. We have a long education period for a reason it would think, unlike other animals.

If there's a cultural component to how we get our values, if that is part of human nature, then it seem like pointing to human nature as an explanation misses something, or doesn't really answer the question, as there is a yet to be defined component to human nature.

I do think education, or moral systems, can go to far or go wrong if they veer to far from the basic moral feelings. This is how I see Taoism for instance, partly as a correction to an overbearing Confucianism. A lot of high Chinese officials were Confucian in public and Daoist in private.... But I don't think you could have had a functioning Chinese society with Taoism alone.

The formal systems of so-called morality you discuss are more about how someone thinks other people should behave. As I see it, that's not morality at all, it's social control - the rules and practices a society sets up to protect it's members and make sure things run smoothly. Murder is prohibited not because it's wrong, but because it hurts people that a community is obligated to protect. — T Clark

I think part of moralities function is social control. Murder derails societies as it tended to lead to bloodfeuds and the like... it was bad for social order. It seems weird to me that you would want to excluded that from morality, as a functioning society is a prerequisite for any kind of human flourishing it seems to me.

Maybe this is mostly just a definitional semantic thing. Nietzsche for instance saw (Christian) morality as just that, social control, and stifling to the individual because it does constrict the expression of their biological nature... that is why he considered himself an immoralist. So he's saying essentially something similar, but the terms and definitions used are the exact opposite.

Let's see if that works.. — AmadeusD

You have to use the @ function at the top of the comment box or write it with quotes around t clark.

Yes, we have innate moral feelings, maybe even something like a directional moral sense, but I don't think its enough on its own to get fully functional morality. We have a long education period for a reason it would think, unlike other animals.

If there's a cultural component to how we get our values, if that is part of human nature, then it seem like pointing to human nature as an explanation misses something, or doesn't really answer the question, as there is a yet to be defined component to human nature. — ChatteringMonkey

Although my focus was on inborn human nature, I specified that it works by interacting with environmental factors. As I wrote:

"

So what is our human nature? I'll go out on a limb here. It is a bunch of inborn genetic, biological, neurological, mental, and psychological processes, structures, capacities, drives, and instincts which are modified during development and by experience and socialization. — T Clark

Human nature isn't the explanation for who we are and what we do. It's part of the answer. We aren't blank slates.

I do think education, or moral systems, can go to far or go wrong if they veer to far from the basic moral feelings. This is how I see Taoism — ChatteringMonkey

I don't disagree, but I think Lao Tzu sends a much more extreme message than that. Whether or not Chinese society, or ours, would be impossible - it seems clear to me that they would be very different.

I think part of moralities function is social control. Murder derails societies as it tended to lead to bloodfeuds and the like... it was bad for social order. It seems weird to me that you would want to excluded that from morality, as a functioning society is a prerequisite for any kind of human flourishing it seems to me. — ChatteringMonkey

I think social control in the sense I'm talking about it is fundamentally different from morality. The judgment that a behavior is bad or wrong rather than disruptive is also fundamental. They will likely have a significant impact on how the behavior is addressed and how the person acting is treated.

Maybe this is mostly just a definitional semantic thing. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think so. It has a big impact on the actions chosen to address unwanted behavior.

Human nature isn't the explanation for who we are and what we do. It's part of the answer. We aren't blank slates. — T Clark

Fair enough, and I do agree with this.

I don't disagree, but I think Lao Tzu sends a much more extreme message than that. — T Clark

Could you elaborate on this, I'm curious what you mean with it. Is it something along the lines of the Chuang Tzu quote?

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.
— Chuang Tzu — Chuang Tzu

This seems remarkably similar to what Nietzsche is getting at. Goodness as springing from the body, from the particular physiology of an individual... as opposed to Goodness coming from the holy spirit or the logos, imposed from the outside via the 'word', universal and abstract, and therefor not geared to the individual.

While I certainly would agree that the former is better for the individual, this still seems like a bit of a problem for society, because what society needs is not necessarily allways congruent with what is best for the individual.

Could you elaborate on this, I'm curious what you mean with it. Is it something along the lines of the Chuang Tzu quote? — ChatteringMonkey

The best expression I've found of the sentiment I'm describing is the Chuang Tzu quote you reference. When I first read it, after already having read the Tao Te Ching, I was struck with a sense of recognition - insight. I think it is the natural expression of Lao Tzu's principles in relation to moral behavior. From what I've seen, the observation in the Tao Te Ching that expresses it best is this, which is from Gia-Fu Feng's translation of Verse 38.

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 38

[Edited]

Hi everyone, I just joined up, and it's conversations like this one that caught my interest in the first place. I came to philosophy through circumstance - I had a chance to take over a retiring teacher's grade 12 philosophy course, and since that would mean I could teach it my way until I retired, if I so desired, I decided to teach myself some philosophy.

Fifteen years later, I've come back to philosophy following some personal losses and trauma, that led to personal dissatisfaction with 'spiritual' answers to moral questions. Reading secular philosophy really helped me get through some dark stuff.

So apologies in advance if I miss something obvious to those with sharper minds than mine, formal academic training, etc. I predict I will make some mistakes... and I hope people point them out to me!

As for the topic, it seems to me like the concept of 'human nature' is in the same category as 'objective morality', in that both are aspirational and unknowable, but worthwhile pursuits nonetheless. It is in pursuing these ideals that we can honor our human nature / act 'morally'.

I also endorse the Sam Harris book, he makes a strong case, and I feel my personal stance is very close to his, except that I do believe religion, (human traditions of morality, as they were developed and situated in time, ever-evolving) and even spiritual traditions such as meditation, that can be practiced in secular fashion, all bring value to the pursuit of an 'objective' morality.

I'm an atheist, but am not hostile to religion itself. Like any ideology or belief system, flawed and imperfect, to my mind, but I respect the 'goodness' of some of the religious people I've known far too much to discount that this is a moral practice with tangible positive outcomes.

Much of my interest in moral philosophy came from my first encounters with moral relativism in 'the wild', at university in the 90s. It seemed that, in the rare circumstances (imagine that today) a professor addressed morality directly in my social sciences and English courses, they were expressing morally relativistic beliefs.

Since then, I've been somewhat repelled by the premise, not as a considered stance by those who have done the work to decide on relativism, but rather as a default premise amongst people who might not think much about anything philosophical. A 'lazy relativism' if you will.

I still think like the high school teacher I was, so I try to think of the 'simplest' way to summarize the subject being discussed - in that spirit, is this not simply a question of whether or not moral relativism is inevitable?

But the question I wish to ask is, in some sense, aren't all universal moral systems inevitably going to be flawed in some way and therefore rendered futile? — Dorrian

There had been some mad and deranged moral systems in practice in some parts of the world in the past. Who knows how the future generations will judge the current moral systems in place in the world.

Hi everyone, I just joined up — Jeremy Murray

Welcome to the forum.

sharper minds than mine — Jeremy Murray

There are plenty of unsharpened blades here on the forum. Judging from your post, you're not one of them.

As for the topic, it seems to me like the concept of 'human nature' is in the same category as 'objective morality', in that both are aspirational and unknowable, but worthwhile pursuits nonetheless. It is in pursuing these ideals that we can honor our human nature / act 'morally'. — Jeremy Murray

If you've read my posts on this thread, you can see I disagree with this strongly. Perhaps it's a matter of definition. Here's how I defined human nature previously in this discussion.

a bunch of inborn genetic, biological, neurological, mental, and psychological processes, structures, capacities, drives, and instincts which are modified during development and by experience and socialization. — T Clark

I noted that some people don't agree that such an inborn human nature is a major determinant of who we are, so my position is open to disagreement, but it's not "aspirational and unknowable." It's a matter of fact - true or false, open to verification or falsification.

...I do believe religion, (human traditions of morality, as they were developed and situated in time, ever-evolving) and even spiritual traditions such as meditation, that can be practiced in secular fashion, all bring value to the pursuit of an 'objective' morality.

I'm an atheist, but am not hostile to religion itself. Like any ideology or belief system, flawed and imperfect, to my mind, but I respect the 'goodness' of some of the religious people I've known far too much to discount that this is a moral practice with tangible positive outcomes. — Jeremy Murray

Your open minded and sympathetic attitude about religion is not a popular one here on the forum, which has a record of knee-jerk religious bigotry.

Since then, I've been somewhat repelled by the premise, not as a considered stance by those who have done the work to decide on relativism, but rather as a default premise amongst people who might not think much about anything philosophical. A 'lazy relativism' if you will. — Jeremy Murray

As I wrote previously in this thread, I'm with Chuang Tzu when he said -

Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu

I guess that would make me a relativist in your book. I see it more as taking responsibility for my own actions. As I note, stopping others from hurting people without justification does not call for morality - "that's evil" - it calls for reasonable control - "stop that."

Hello Mr. Murray,
(16 years of Catholic school and that’s the only way I can address high school teachers. And it was because of my senior year English class, where we read the Allegory of the Cave from the Republic, that I became a philosophy major in college.)

Welcome to the forum.

is this not simply a question of whether or not moral relativism is inevitable? — Jeremy Murray

Many people deep in the weeds of moral philosophy might disagree, but I see that as THE question.

Can a morality of universal, objective rules be built using logic? And by using logic, do we avoid the inevitable descent into relativity that being a mind itself seems to promulgate?

Personally, I don’t think so. If one doesn’t see objective truth in experience, morality discussions are always reducible to something like sentiment, or habit, or psychology, or a bit of bad beef - or some combination thereof.

But I also don’t see why it is so hard to see objectivity in our experience. Logic itself is objective. Only one universal reasoning could inquire into whether ‘logic is objective or not’, and any conclusion from that inquiry would be built using only logic; basically, you can only use logic to prove whether logic is objective or not, and so you prove ‘you can only use logic to prove’ as an objective experience of things. Some things we experience are universal, and that is an objective truth.

And human beings deliberate some of their actions. That’s demonstrable to myself about myself (as I edit and revise this post, deliberating my choice of words), and clearly the case when you observe, or better, ask, other people about their actions. We think, using logic, about what we do using our bodies. More objective truth.

To skip to the end, to play the game of morality at all, I think you need the following playing pieces, and if any one of them are missing, morality is no longer the discussion:

1. more than one personal subject (people/society)(if you are on a desert island, you either have to treat yourself in the third-person to care about morality, or interact with God, otherwise how could anything be immoral);

2. Reason. We have to know things. We have to be able to deliberate about what we know. We have to be able to express it, so language and logic and reasoning are just as essential as multiple people are to the discussion;

3. Responsibility. There is no point to moral judgement without subjects who take responsibility for their actions - the moon pulling the tides is not a moral act because the moon can’t admit it is responsible for that - and if the subjects on the game board of morality discussion are like the moon, then nothing they can do or say or be, or have done to them, is a moral act. There must be a deliberative subject with agency (even if this agency can be questioned) before we can talk morality;

4. Objectivity. If you take this piece off of the game board, then there is no means to distinguish between any of the other pieces. And further, because our logic and deliberations are only captured in language, objectivity becomes the ground to codify things as Law. If a law isn’t objective, to be applied and enforced universally, it’s not a law. And what would be the point of the whole discussion if we could not distill how to act and how not to act towards each other in some form that we can all share and look to - there must be law, law with the goal of it being universal/objective.

So yeah, maybe we are wasting our time thinking about all of this because we don’t believe in or experience some of those game pieces. Maybe we’re resisting the inevitable conclusion that all conclusions are temporary (so not conclusive), and relative (so not conclusive), and all objectivity awaits its implosion into the same stormy seas objectivity sought to fix as knowledge and morality seeks to make calm. I currently hope not.