Considering an alternative foundation for morality (apart from pain v. pleasure)

Jerry

Up until recently, I believed, as a moral realist, that ethics was rooted in our undeniable experience of pain and pleasure. Generally speaking, we ought to avoid pain and seek pleasure, and this would lead to the common idea that the goal or basis of morality is human flourishing. However, I've recently examined a couple of observations that casts great doubt on this idea.

I'll get an unimportant, but still informative one out first: what would be the goal of such a hedonistic moral system? Is it to advance technology to the point we could just hook ourselves up to dream machines that feed us pleasurable experiences? A utopia where we reduce as much suffering as possible? By the same token, should we decide to end all life to ultimately eliminate suffering? There always seemed to be something off with these goals, particularly with the Wall-E scenario: is it good to forgo your true existence to live out a fantasy? Intuitively, I think no.

Another observation I have that casts doubt on the human flourishing aspect is to consider whether or not we are actually obligated to do good. I once overheard a genius kid I knew (IMO Olympian, etc.) in conversation with one of his friends. From what I recall, he was expressing how he felt negligent when deciding to take free time for himself, because he recognized that he had the potential to be a boon to society, and so partaking in activities that didn't help to achieve that goal was a waste of time. Is any one person ever obligated to help society? But then, shrinking that logic down to a more realistic level, to what extent are we obligated to make a difference? Furthermore, if there is any such obligation to do good, how do we go about determining which good actions are the "most" obligatory, for example giving money to a charity vs working at a local soup kitchen? It seems like if it is obligatory to do certain good things, even within your means, then you're almost a slave to the world around you.

So, what is the answer then? What should be the goal of a moral system? What is the grounding for the moral system, and if we aren't obligated to do good deeds, why should good deeds happen? My tentative hypothesis is what I think is a virtuous one: to put it simply, the ethical goal of any individual is to become the best version of themselves. Now, I wouldn't disagree this sounds tautological; what is someone's "best", and how does this explain why we ought to do good (if not obligated)? I can't say for certain how one should choose what actions are good or bad, and why a collective should agree on those judgements, but assuming we can do this, I'd say to be your "best" is to act in accordance with what you feel is right. That doesn't necessarily mean what you intellectually think is right, but what you perhaps subconsciously value. You may think cheating on a diet in a moment is permissible, and reason your way into it while truly feeling that it's something you ought not do. Of course, this seems not to be the complete picture, because one could imagine an agent who truly believes in the righteousness of their action, despite it seeming wholly unethical from a different perspective. How do you resolve such inconsistencies? I'm not sure yet...

However, this also resolves to me the trouble of an "end goal" to a moral system. Because the goal itself is to become the best version of yourself, but that's not something you achieve, it's something you must live. It means choosing to do right each day, and if a mistake is made, to fix the mistake; in this case, there is no utopia we must achieve, rather we must simply behave as optimally as possible. Furthermore, with regards to why good deeds should happen if we aren't obligated to do them, I would say if we are obligated to do anything, it is to act in accordance with our values, and those values in a rational agent would include doing good for others. So although I might technically say one is not obligated to help a drowning person, a rational agent would feel compelled to do something, and that compulsion must be acted upon.

I do hope I've made some sense here. I did not expect this post to end up this length, apologies. I would invite others to, as I'm sure you already will, pick apart some of those more contentious arguments., but I would also like to make sure the point was made clear, so I would appreciate and welcome requests for clarification.

Vera Mont

Moral systems are very old. They come from humans living together and depending on one another. For the group's and the individual's long-term survival, it is necessary to establish trust among the members of the group. You establish trust by sharing the same values and goals; by being available to help when another member is in trouble; by living up to your obligations and keeping your promises. It's not all that complicated: people need other people, but the only way they count on other people is by proving that other people can count on them.

Jerry

↪Vera Mont

This sounds like a fine assessment of the fact of the matter, but this doesn't address the foundations for the moral system. For example, are you saying this from an individualistic perspective, where what matters is one's own survival, and the rest of the group is just a means to that end? Or do we intrinsically value other members of our group? Also, why is survival, either as a group or an individual, desirable?

T Clark

Moral systems are very old. They come from humans living together and depending on one another. For the group's and the individual's long-term survival, it is necessary to establish trust among the members of the group. You establish trust by sharing the same values and goals; by being available to help when another member is in trouble; by living up to your obligations and keeping your promises. It's not all that complicated: people need other people, but the only way they count on other people is by proving that other people can count on them. — Vera Mont

A good summary.

jgill

Is any one person ever obligated to help society? — Jerry

No, only help society if one feels the urge. Otherwise, follow the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

T Clark

However, this also resolves to me the trouble of an "end goal" to a moral system. — Jerry

As I see it, "moral" behavior does not have a goal. Our path is not to "behave as optimally as possible." It's to act in accordance with our authentic selves, from our hearts if you will. That requires that we have faith in your our spontaneous action. In my understanding, the foundation of all this is our nature as social animals with family feeling, community feeling, and empathy. All "rational" moral systems are intellectual and ideological overlays we use to justify our actions after the fact.

Beyond that, I think some of what we call moral actions are behaviors we are socialized to perform as a form of social control - useful in making society run smoothly and to minimize conflict.

Jerry

No, only help society if one feels the urge. — jgill

Extend this further, if you will. Are we ever obligated to help by doing a good deed, or only when we feel the urge?

It's to act in accordance with our authentic selves, from our hearts if you will. That requires that we have faith in your our spontaneous action. In my understanding, the foundation of all this is our nature as social animals with family feeling, community feeling, and empathy. All "rational" moral systems are intellectual and ideological overlays we use to justify our actions after the fact. — T Clark

I'm pretty sure acting in accordance with ourselves is the point I was making. But as an objection I brought up myself, when we consider these natures of "community feeling", would you say humans intrinsically (in general) have a compulsion to cooperate with and help others, or might you say cooperating with others is simply a means to our own end, as

↪Vera Mont

implied?

Vera Mont

This sounds like a fine assessment of the fact of the matter, but this doesn't address the foundations for the moral system. For example, are you saying this from an individualistic perspective, where what matters is one's own survival, and the rest of the group is just a means to that end? Or do we intrinsically value other members of our group? Also, why is survival, either as a group or an individual, desirable? — Jerry

There are no conscious, deliberate foundations. Humans evolved from previous social species. There were no 'perspectives'; only needs, instincts, feelings and desires. Every organism is driven by a need for survival - whether desirable or not, it's intrinsic to life. Self-aware organisms are also connected to others of their kind by kinship, affection, interdependence and rivalry. Long before human groups - clans or tribes - developed language sophisticated enough to articulate their beliefs and the rules of behaviour, they had a system of interactions in place; they had a relationship to the environment and to other species. These were givens, long before humans formulated the concept of right and wrong.

Jerry

↪Vera Mont

Still, you're speaking about the way morals formed as part of our evolution, I'm more concerned with moral systems as they take place now. By foundation, I don't mean the "beginning" like where our morals came from, rather what grounds our current sense of right and wrong? Although we may have behaved on instinct to form the interactions that are now ingrained in us, why ought we now value kinship and survival? We are no longer the same agents we were a hundred thousand years ago.

Vera Mont

We are no longer the same agents we were a hundred thousand years ago. — Jerry

Sez who?

I'm more concerned with moral systems as they take place now. — Jerry

Everything is a result of what went before. Our religions grew out of our relation to the environment and the organization of our societies. Those religions, as they solidified into doctrines, set forth the moral framework our systems of governance, commerce and foreign relations. Those religious doctrines informed our secular legal codes. Although each of its tenets comes into question and is sometimes amended, western legal practice is still based on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Leontiskos

It seems like if it is obligatory to do certain good things, even within your means, then you're almost a slave to the world around you. — Jerry

Historically morality has been concerned first with "Thou shalt not." Prohibitions. Consequentialism obviously takes a different route, and Hedonism is one variety of Consequentialism. What's curious is that Consequentialism seems to preclude absolute prohibitions. Rape and murder, for example, can apparently always be justified on consequentialist systems in one way or another.

Of course, this seems not to be the complete picture, because one could imagine an agent who truly believes in the righteousness of their action, despite it seeming wholly unethical from a different perspective. — Jerry

So I think the first thing to realize is that Consequentialism does not provide prohibitions for unethical acts. The closest Consequentialism ever gets is, "Don't do this unless..." If you think there are unethical acts, then you will have to find a better system than Consequentialism.

180 Proof

What should be the goal of a moral system? — Jerry

Human flourishing (i.e. optimization of common agency via reduction of individual harms¹).

What is the grounding for the moral system, ...?

Reason (i.e. performative self-consistency of reducing risks of dysfunctions¹ due to neglecting / exacerbating our species functional defects (i.e. natural vulnerabilities e.g. thirst-hunger, bereavement, insecurity, shame, mortality, confusion, etc))

... and if we aren't obligated to do good deeds, why should good deeds happen?

Habits cultivated – reinforced – through 'moral' conduct, judgments & relationships are either more adaptive (flourishing, virtuous) or more maladaptive (languishing, vicious). "Good deeds happen" because, as most socialized children learn by trial & error, they tend to work more often in social circumstances than "bad deeds".

↪Vera Mont

:up: :up:

Jerry

↪180 Proof

Let's try taking this one at a time.

Human flourishing (i.e. optimization of common agency via reduction of individual harms¹). — 180 Proof

I'll just go ahead and ask, why ought this be the goal? You say the grounding for it is, from what I understand, supporting our own survival and acting to minimize the inherent negatives of our being. But I argue, as I think I stated in my original post, that minimizing harm is not necessarily a good thing. I could argue, and shall, that the true character of a person, and truly good deeds occur only when faced with adversity and harm. To minimize suffering is analogous to a child never leaving their room for fear of danger from the outside world. Rather than minimize suffering, we ought learn how to best equip ourselves to become resilient to harm.

The other aspect is why human flourishing for the species as a whole is desirable. Personally, I never really cared about the survival of the species as a whole. I did care for being good to our fellow man, but should we because being good to others is good in and of itself, or do we do good simply as a means for good to be imparted on us?

To clarify: I don't really care about the actual origins of our moral system. I care about what we ought to do now and how we can justify that.

↪Vera Mont

The reason I say "We are no longer the same agents we were a hundred thousand years ago" is because we have different, perhaps more evolved ideas of morality. That's shown by how I can undermine the usual story of the origins of morality by questioning those values and proposing alternatives.

Jerry

Rape and murder, for example, can apparently always be justified on consequentialist systems in one way or another. — Leontiskos

Probably a good reason why I now prefer more virtue-based ethics than consequentialism. While context is pretty much always required when evaluating whether a particular action is just, the idea of "This is bad, unless..." just sounds like making ad hoc excuses for a bad action.

Vera Mont

The reason I say "We are no longer the same agents we were a hundred thousand years ago" is because we have different, perhaps more evolved ideas of morality. — Jerry

I don't see that in action.

That's shown by how I can undermine the usual story of the origins of morality by questioning those values and proposing alternatives. — Jerry

What makes you think people didn't question and propose 100,000 years ago - and always?

The purpose of a shared morality is always to maximize the chances for the members and thereby the group surviving and thriving. Different cultures had and have different ideas on how that can be accomplished, according to their beliefs about what causes harm and how it can be mitigated by human behaviour. If a generally understood principle is to be successfully challenged and alternatives considered, they must be presented in that context. Not "You're wrong to want that outcome." but "I can think of a better way to achieve the desired outcome." Even then it's long, slow argument before people are convinced to change strategy.

180 Proof

I now prefer more virtue-based ethics than consequentialism ... — Jerry

And "the goal" of virtue ethics is flourishing (re last paragraph of my post

↪180 Proof

).

I'll just go ahead and ask, why ought this be the goal? You say the grounding for it is, from what I understand, supporting our own survival — Jerry

I stated "the goal" is flourishing and that reason provides "grounding" of a "system" to facilitate flourishing. I said nothing about "survival", Jerry. As for why flourishing "ought" to "be the goal"? That's as silly as asking why health-fitness ought to be the goal of medicine or why sustainability ought to be the goal of social ecology.

Jerry

As for why flourishing "ought" to "be the goal"? That's as silly as asking why health-fitness ought to be the goal of medicine or why sustainability ought to be the goal of social ecology. — 180 Proof

Pretty much my whole point is to reject this claim. First of all, "flourishing" is too vague. What do you mean by it? Flourishing for society? Flourishing for the individual? Does flourishing mean a life without harm, or building resiliency towards harm? Does it mean to feel happiness, or simply to survive as long as possible? It simply isn't as clear-cut as you say, like most things in philosophy, I might add. Saying it's silly is rather silly and dismissive in and of itself. Also:

And "the goal" of virtue ethics is flourishing — 180 Proof

As an example, to me, virtue ethics is about the individual "flourishing" where flourishing means to act in accordance with one's own values. This has much different implications from the flourishing you seem to be proposing, which is to make the human species as a whole "flourish", in terms of reducing harm and promoting good will towards others. Even if ultimately I agree that my virtue-based moral framework does result in a similar society, the motivation is much different, and may inform our evaluations of actions much differently.

Leontiskos

Probably a good reason why I now prefer more virtue-based ethics than consequentialism. — Jerry

:up:

While context is pretty much always required when evaluating whether a particular action is just, the idea of "This is bad, unless..." just sounds like making ad hoc excuses for a bad action. — Jerry

Oh, I wouldn't want to go that far. I think there is a lot of legitimate confusion tied up with consequentialism, and not merely ad hoc excuses. Generally speaking the consequentialist elevates a psychological theory to the level of morality. For example, the hedonist assumes that pleasure/pain provide the exhaustive basis for psychological motivation, and they then conclude that morality must be nothing more than appeals to pleasure or pain.

Vera Mont

I could argue, and shall, that the true character of a person, and truly good deeds occur only when faced with adversity and harm. — Jerry

What the heck is 'true character'? How are good deeds designated true or false? Adversity and harm to whom is required to prompt those good deeds?

To minimize suffering is analogous to a child never leaving their room for fear of danger from the outside world. — Jerry

No, it isn't. There is no harm to minimize when there is no risk. The concept of minimizing harm has meaning only in the context of life in the world - a world full of potential hazards.

Rather than minimize suffering, we ought learn how to best equip ourselves to become resilient to harm. — Jerry

Let's all become yogis - yes, even the tiny tots with fetal alcohol syndrome! There is nothing virtuous in being tough; that's a survival strategy, not a moral precept.

The other aspect is why human flourishing for the species as a whole is desirable. — Jerry

Moral systems were not set up or imagined as inclusive of the whole species, until very recently, when some of us began to think in global terms. The flourishing of a society, a nation or tribe is desired by those of its members who understand that divided, we fall.

Flourishing for society? Flourishing for the individual? — Jerry

Yes.

Does flourishing mean a life without harm, or building resiliency towards harm? — Jerry

It means living as near as possible to our potential of health, individual liberty, security, fulfillment and happiness as we can, in our given environment and era. That includes co-operating to build defenses against external harm and organizing internally to minimize conflict, mitigate physical dangers and provide support for the victims of harm, whether from natural causes or fellow citizens.

As an example, to me, virtue ethics is about the individual "flourishing" where flourishing means to act in accordance with one's own values. — Jerry

Sounds a bit Randish. Some people like to imagine they have their very own, original, self-created values, instead of the mish-mash of inherited, learned and recombined ideas we all accumulate in the first 18 years of life.

Jerry

What the heck is 'true character'? How are good deeds designated true or false? Adversity and harmto whom is required to prompt those good deeds? — Vera Mont

What I speak of (and in general, the principal of the ethics I'm outlining here) can be exemplified by a quote from "A Game of Thrones":

Bran thought about it. ‘Can a man still be brave if he’s afraid?’ / ‘That is the only time a man can be brave,’ his father told him.

Given the knowledge that a particular action is good, I believe that one who can do the action without deliberation may be acting well, but not virtuously, whereas one who must deliberate on the action (because of qualms or circumstances that make the action undesirable) is acting virtuously. To return to your questions, this would be a display of stronger "character", because the actor must overcome the harm/adversity to do the right thing. Again, assuming we already have an idea of what the right thing is to do; I don't at the moment have a good answer for where that knowledge comes from.

Let's all become yogis - yes, even the tiny tots with fetal alcohol syndrome! There is nothing virtuous in becoming tough; that's a survival strategy, not a moral precept. — Vera Mont

I don't understand the cynicism, your aversion to the concept of resiliency. Is it not better to confront a problem despite discomfort rather than avoid the problem entirely?

It means living as near as possible to our potential of accomplishment, freedom, health, fulfillment and happiness as we can, in our given environment and era. — Vera Mont

I feel compelled to agree with this generally, because it seems to align with my ultimate goal for the individual, which is, again, to become the best person one can be, to act in accordance with one's own values, despite perhaps feeling discomfort or an unwillingness to do the right thing. I don't know Ayn Rand, and I don't think I'm saying people's values are unique, only that, whatever values one has, they should be followed with conviction. Additionally, I do believe that the average, rational person does care about the well-being of others, and so will do good and should do good unto them because of that conviction.

180 Proof

First of all, "flourishing" is too vague. What do you mean by it? — Jerry

What I wrote should suffice ...

Human flourishing (i.e. optimization of common agency via reduction of individual harms). — 180 Proof

Apparently you intend to quarrel with a strawman or English is not your first language as evidenced here:

... the flourishing you seem to be proposing, which is to make the human species as a whole "flourish", in terms of reducing harm and promoting good will towards others. — Jerry

You ask what do I mean by "flourishing", then you claim I mean something I've neither stated nor implied. Please don't waste any more of your time or mine with tendentious twaddle like this, Jerry. Take issue with what I actually say or ignore it. :shade:

Jerry

↪180 Proof

I'm interested in what you have to say, but you don't seem to be interested in sharing, as evidenced by your refusal to clarify further than your, rather confusing, phrase, "optimization of common agency via reduction of individual harms". I interpreted "optimization of common agency" as "promoting good will" and "reduction of individual harms" as, um, "reducing harm". Maybe I don't understand English well enough to parse your sentence, or maybe you don't understand English well enough to translate your thoughts into digestible sentences.

180 Proof

↪Jerry

:ok:

L'éléphant

Furthermore, if there is any such obligation to do good, how do we go about determining which good actions are the "most" obligatory, for example giving money to a charity vs working at a local soup kitchen? It seems like if it is obligatory to do certain good things, even within your means, then you're almost a slave to the world around you.

So, what is the answer then? What should be the goal of a moral system? What is the grounding for the moral system, and if we aren't obligated to do good deeds, why — Jerry

There is a social contract. Living in a society obligates us to respect the social contract. That's why there's morality and the law. I wouldn't want to live in a world where people aren't obligated to help the victim of a kidnapper or rapist. Or a parent beating the child to death, literally. Or a spouse torturing the other.

A world where people aren't sure of the value of ethics and morals is a scary world. If a person walking along the sidewalk at the crack of dawn noticed a sinkhole big enough to swallow a car, he ought to warn the oncoming driver that there's a sinkhole waiting at the bottom of the slope. Stop the driver, for Christ's sake.

Vera Mont

Given the knowledge that a particular action is good, — Jerry

You're not given that knowledge; you have to learn it. From some source(s).

I believe that one who can do the action without deliberation may be acting well, but not virtuously,

So what? The outcome is still good.

whereas one who must deliberate on the action (because of qualms or circumstances that make the action undesirable) is acting virtuously.

Fine. To whom/what does this hesitation make a difference? Does a Cancer Society volunteer do less good if their life is generally comfortable and prosperous? It may be less virtuous to help out at the food bank if you are not hungry yourself, or maybe it's more virtuous if there is no self-interest involved - who can tell? It makes no difference to the clients.

To return to your questions, this would be a display of stronger "character", because the actor must overcome the harm/adversity to do the right thing.

Now, you've substituted 'strong' for 'true', so you're not answering my question at all. Why is a 'strong' character superior to a 'decent' or 'compassionate' character, and what way does 'strong' correlate to 'true'?

Again, assuming we already have an idea of what the right thing is to do; I don't at the moment have a good answer for where that knowledge comes from.

I see. Then how do you know it's correct?

I don't understand the cynicism, your aversion to the concept of resiliency. Is it not better to confront a problem despite discomfort rather than avoid the problem entirely? — Jerry

I should think an intelligent species would attempt both. If the problem were foreseen, we could have averted the bad outcome. If it was not foreseeable, we would have contingency plans. But there is really very little you can do to prepare a baby to cope with its birth defect; however, you can do something to minimize its suffering. The right thing for a society to do is reduce the chances of bad things happening to its members, prepare to meet whatever emergencies may arise, and alleviate the suffering of individual victims.

I don't know Ayn Rand, and I don't think I'm saying people's values are unique, only that, whatever values one has, they should be followed with conviction. — Jerry

No problem with that. Problem with separating the individual from his/her culture and environment, emotional attachments and human network. Life doesn't work that way. We may not always like it, but we are connected.

Considering an alternative foundation for morality (apart from pain v. pleasure)

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions