Moral Cluedo: who is who? A dilemma

Benj96

Let’s suppose for a moment that there is some form of ultimate objective good and evil. They are two ends of some spectrum upon which all of humanity lives. One person of the 8 billion of us today is currently the most virtuous pure being that humanity possesses and another is truly the most perverse and malevolent.
Everyone else then falls somewhere on the multiple increments in between these two individuals.

Here’s the dilemma. The logic of this spectrum would suggest that only the ends, the extreme poles of morality see the true distinction between good and bad. A perfect liar and a perfect truth teller. In order to be the worst most corrupted person possible one would have to understand their antithesis (the good) and reject it- so as to never accidentally do something beneficial for someone else. And vice versa.

Everyone in the centre cannot identify who is who. How could they? everyone in the middle is a mixture - both good and bad traits. Their moral compass isn’t perfectly calibrated, and so maybe one would claim that “yes this person A is definitely the best and that person B is definitely the worst” for reasons 1,2 and 3. But someone else will come along and argue that no C is the best because reasons 1 isn’t so bad, and reason 2,3 are actually good etc and another will argue something else: no X or Y or Z is worst because all of the reasons you said are good! Why did you think 1 was bad?! Are you crazy?
...and so the argument would continue endlessly because nobody is sitting on the “moral high ground” so to speak.

So If this case where true. And there is a terrible demonic person lurking on the earth and also an angelic person. Where are they? How would we ever find them out? Would there be a way to mathematically or systematically work it out?

DingoJones

↪Benj96

If there was an ultimate objective good and evil and you could measure it enough to know if she me one would qualify as the most good or bad then you would also be able to measure it at any point along the scale as well.
I’m sorry to say I don’t think your formalization of the dilemma is coherent. You start off with objective morality as part of your premise and then include the subjective morality of the “center” as part of your problem but if there is objective morality then we could just go by that, no subjective quagmire.

Benj96

↪DingoJones

That is the dilemma though. You just reiterated the incoherence I was highlighting. The task of distinguishing between most perfect and the most imperfect as semi-imperfect “middle ground” beings. It seems it’s not possible.
If the objective morality is only held by one individual - “the best one” then it can’t be proven as objective, only subjective because it seems to apply just to one subject regardless of how valid it actually may be for all subjects.

So the only thing we could possibly accept as objective morality is the popular vote of all people. Even if one person truly was the most virtuous as having applied their personal theory to everyone we could receive an accurate account of who is really good and who is really bad (lies and deceptions and all that removed). What reason would we have to believe them? We would merely say you’re also imperfect and flawed and therefore your moral code is no better than anyone else’s.

What I was saying though is qualitatively speaking someone’s has to have the most ideal worldview even if we can’t identify which person it is. Which is frustrating for the benefit it could do everyone. Out of all peoples input on the planet there has to be someone who has the most workable, justifiable mode by which we should be living to maximise benefit for everyone or minimise harm etc, or whatever parameters true morality would lie on.

god must be atheist

Interesting question. I suppose the question presupposes that people don't know what moral is; they just act according to what they think morality is.

This is a huge step away from reality. People find murder immoral, and theft and cheating, but they still do it. Not because they can't see the immorality in it, but because they decide that they had rather kill, steal and cheat, than be moral.

In this world this is funny, because in your world everyone acts according to their best perceived morality. At least that is what I get from your description.

In this case, there is no way of convincing someone to see the difference between good and bad if it's even just somewhat different from their own measure. In the global society you propose, everyone is the most moral, inasmuch as they stick to their own moral guide. Since they are blind to what constitutes absolute good and absolute bad, they can't decide because:
1. Everyone thinks of himself as the person who is absolutely good, because they all obey their own moral code to the letter.
2. Every deviation from their moral code is judged by them as "bad", as their own is perceived as perfect, so deviations from it must seem as imperfections, which ab ovo heralds an immoral quality in personality.

god must be atheist

So the only thing we could possibly accept as objective morality is the popular vote of all people. — Benj96

This would not work. Any deviation from one's own moral code in your proposed world would mean to that person that it is bad morality. Since he, the individual (all individuals and every one of them) beleive their own code is the absolute moral, they MUST regard deviation as badness, and similarity as goodness.

since the gradient distribution is even along the spectrum, of goodness and badness, from low to high and from high to low, therefore equally as many people will vote "good" as good, and "bad" as good, and vice versa.

god must be atheist

Out of all peoples input on the planet there has to be someone who has the most workable, justifiable mode by which we should be living to maximise benefit for everyone or minimise harm etc, or whatever parameters true morality would lie on. — Benj96

This is why philosophy is called the slippery rock by Edie Brickell. If morality is malleable, that is, the parameters are what we choose, then the only thing that morality would hinge on would be our collective will of what we call moral.

You expressed it by saying that morality is what the parameters dicate. In this case either we define the parameters, and deduce morality, or find morality, and reverse-engineer it to find the parameters. You leave both options open in the above paragraph, so it's a problem with two unknowns and two degrees of freedom... which leaves the entire thing up in the air, it's anyone's game what they call moral and immoral.

And that's one of the features of morality that I incorporated into my paper, reference here below by links.

In fact, my paper explains that perfectly, inasmuch as it compares consensus morality to unavoidable moral acts; There are two versions of my paper dealing with this on this site.

The long version:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

The shorter version:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

I got jeered at and sneered at, but I think it is defensible, I could defend it against criticism, if only anyone would care to look at it.

I wonder if you would do for me the honour of meaningfully reading it, Benj96.

god must be atheist

I’m sorry to say I don’t think your formalization of the dilemma is coherent. You start off with objective morality as part of your premise and then include the subjective morality of the “center” as part of your problem but if there is objective morality then we could just go by that, no subjective quagmire. — DingoJones

I think I got that covered in my analysis of arriving at my answer. If you care to read my answer.

tim wood

↪Benj96

Possibly a small point. The conjecture

of ultimate objective good and evil. — Benj96

is not to say that

the most virtuous pure being that humanity possesses and another is truly the most perverse and malevolent. — Benj96

are themselves ultimately ultimate.

But I think of evil instead as being like a bit of grit that found its way into the custard, knowable and known by its grittiness, even as its proportion is one part in thousands.

Benj96

But I think of evil instead as being like a bit of grit that found its way into the custard, knowable and known by its grittiness, even as its proportion is one part in thousands. — tim wood

Interesting. I see what you mean it’s not necessarily proportional in quantity with good despite us acknowledging it as a terrible possibility. As maybe the same idea goes with how many of us fear becoming old and decrepit or the process of decline to death when actually 70% of our life is not this stage but one of health and able-bodiedness. Those last few years of a standard healthy lifespan are the grit in the otherwise long lived healthy custard so to speak.

Benj96

Not because they can't see the immorality in it, but because they decide that they had rather kill, steal and cheat, than be moral.

In this world this is funny, because in your world everyone acts according to their best perceived morality. At least that is what I get from your description. — god must be atheist

No because remember the evil side is also aware of the true objective moral. How can it be truly evil if it does not know what is truly good? You cannot lie if you don’t know the entire truth from which you are trying to deceive. So being aware of something as immoral and doing it anyway is worst than being deluded - genuinely thinking you are helping and inadvertently causing harm

Benj96

1. Everyone thinks of himself as the person who is absolutely good, because they all obey their own moral code to the letter.
2. Every deviation from their moral code is judged by them as "bad", as their own is perceived as perfect, so deviations from it must seem as imperfections, which ab ovo heralds an immoral quality in personality. — god must be atheist

Nothing was implied that meant you believed your own moral code was correct. You can of course if you want claim that you are that extreme polarity of virtue. But i suspect many would be skeptical.

Or you can be of the type of person who admits they are simply a “middleman” and people ought not to take their word verbatim because perhaps they are closer to the immoral side than the moral side. They freely admit they do not know the true objective moral.
Which to me signals in an ironic paradox that perhaps they are more moral than they believe because they are inherently distrusting of their own agenda and seemingly humble. As is part of the game. In this hypothetical morality game we must judge or figure out who of us has the full deck of cards when we ourselves only have half the deck. And some would have you believe that their way is right when in fact they are the worst people of all.

Benj96

This would not work. Any deviation from one's own moral code in your proposed world would mean to that person that it is bad morality. Since he, the individual (all individuals and every one of them) beleive their own code is the absolute moral, they MUST regard deviation as badness, and similarity as goodness. — god must be atheist

Again, no one need say they have the ultimate claim of morality. Some may simply be like this is what I believe. Do you think I’m pouting you in the right direction toward to good side or no? Anyone who claims they have the ultimate say on objective morality is saying they are the purest good themselves. And I would imagine that the true good end of the spectrum would never claim such a thing wouldn't you agree? Authentic people don’t draw attention to themselves and self praise.

tim wood

As maybe the same idea goes with how many of us fear becoming old and decrepit or the process of decline to death when actually 70% of our life is not this stage but one of health and able-bodiedness. Those last few years of a standard healthy lifespan are the grit in the otherwise long lived healthy custard so to speak. — Benj96

Well, this returns to your observing that folks in the middle - or anywhere - can only see as far as their horizons. Live right, think right, eat right, work right, drink right, be a little lucky, and with a gun in your bureau drawer you can change that 70% to about 99.5% or more. As both Stoics and Epicures would have us do.

god must be atheist

Nothing was implied that meant you believed your own moral code was correct. — Benj96

Either (1) everyone knows what morality comprises, or else (2) nobody knows, but they do know that it exists, they just don't know what it is.

If (1), then everyone takes a note of their morality, as compared to the ideal. they score themselves on a sheet, hand it in, and someone tallies the good vs the bad performance of people as to their adherence of their moral code. The best and the worst are easily identified this way.

If (2), then everyone is at liberty to 2.1. believe that they are most moral, since everyone tends to adhere to their OWN personal moral code, in lack of an absolute moral code to their knowledge; and 2.2. they are at a liberty to choose their own moral code, in lack of an absolute moral code to their knowledge, which makes their adherence to stay moral according to their own criteria easy.

So is your question presupposing that everyone knows what the absolute moral good and bad are? No, you expressly said that only the two end guys know the true moral code.

The logic of this spectrum would suggest that only the ends, the extreme poles of morality see the true distinction between good and bad. A perfect liar and a perfect truth teller. In order to be the worst most corrupted person possible one would have to understand their antithesis (the good) and reject it- so as to never accidentally do something beneficial for someone else. And vice versa.

Everyone in the centre cannot identify who is who. How could they? everyone in the middle is a mixture - both good and bad traits. Their moral compass isn’t perfectly calibrated — Benj96

According to this, only the two end guys know what morality comprises.

This is what I took as starting point, then if you did mean what you wrote, why are you dinging me for taking it as nobody else knows what morality is?

This question and thread I am abandoning for I believe the original post was written in an ambiguous way, and now you are moving the goal posts.

Moral Cluedo: who is who? A dilemma

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions