What is morality?

[MikeNovack]

Could a parent simply say, "Good people don't do to others what they would not want done to themselves"? Would that work sufficiently? And if not why wouldn't it work sufficiently for a parent explaining why to do or not do X or Y?

Gary, don't help IC play his game.

Your answer is a good one for explaining WHY for certain rules, silly for others, and in particular, silly for the specific rule for which the question asked.

I had begun discussing what moral rules we might expect to find in common between human cultures.

[Immanuel Can]

Could a parent simply say, "Good people don't do to others what they would not want done to themselves"?

Why would we believe that we have a moral duty not to do to people things they don't want done?

Because if you treat others the way you would not want to be treated, it will get you a lot of enemies and no friends.

That's actually not how it works, of course. Lots of unethical people have become very wealthy, powerful and influential by being sneaks. And people fawn over them, in the hope that some of it will come their way.

Who told us we did?

Do you need someone to command you not to do something to others that you would not want done to yourself?

A moral axiom needs a reason to be believed. What's your reason for asserting that we have a duty to our neighbour to treat him the same as ourselves, and not to seize advantages over him, instead?

If there's no reason behind your axiom, then you're simply revealing that it's not obligatory at all. A person might choose to do the opposite, and would be no less "moral," in that case, since there's no fixed "morality" behind the injunction.

"Gary wants us to be nice" would be considerably less impactful, I think you'll admit, than "God requires it of us."

[MikeNovack]

A moral axiom needs a reason to be believed. What's your reason for asserting that we have a duty to our neighbour to treat him the same as ourselves, and not to seize advantages over him, instead?

If there's no reason behind your axiom, then you're simply revealing that it's not obligatory at all. A person might choose to do the opposite, and would be no less "moral," in that case, since there's no fixed "morality" behind the injunction.

"Gary wants us to be nice" would be considerably less impactful, I think you'll admit, than "God requires it of us."

Well there is no problem for us who believe "morality" co-evolved with us and our cultures. All required is that cultures (human bands) that did NOT have this moral rule were "less fit" than those that did.

You think introducing the fact that an individual MIGHT (personally) do better not following this misses the point. How does a human culture fare (competing with other bands of humans) if most did not follow this? How until perhaps recently (our large scale societies) did the group deal with the individual not following this?

BTW --- evolution is "messy". Contrary to the perception of how wonderfully planned/designed it all seems, if you instead look at where all these components come from, the "patchwork" will be obvious.

[Immanuel Can]

A moral axiom needs a reason to be believed. What's your reason for asserting that we have a duty to our neighbour to treat him the same as ourselves, and not to seize advantages over him, instead?

If there's no reason behind your axiom, then you're simply revealing that it's not obligatory at all. A person might choose to do the opposite, and would be no less "moral," in that case, since there's no fixed "morality" behind the injunction.

"Gary wants us to be nice" would be considerably less impactful, I think you'll admit, than "God requires it of us."

Well there is no problem for us who believe "morality" co-evolved with us and our cultures.

There sure is. That's a major problem. It would mean that the whole existence of the concept "moral" was merely conventional, merely happenstance, and not durable. For why can't a culture change? Don't they always? What, then, could be meant by saying, "You ought not to kill," if that prohibition is only local, temporary and changeable? The obvious response is, "Well, I'm changing the rule, now."

All required is that cultures (human bands) that did NOT have this moral rule were "less fit" than those that did.

So tell me which culture is "most fit." How do you know? Which standard beyond both cultures (yours and theirs) are you drawing on when you make that assessment? For it's manifest it cannot be a moral standard merely from inside their cultural construct: it must be a supra-cultural, objective one, if what you say can be true.

You think introducing the fact that an individual MIGHT (personally) do better not following this misses the point.

Well, not at all. If I can survive better by wiping out a whole bunch of other people, how do you prove to me I ought not to do it?

BTW --- evolution is "messy".

That's one word for it. "Incoherent" is another.

[MikeNovack]

All required is that cultures (human bands) that did NOT have this moral rule were "less fit" than those that did.

A) So tell me which culture is "most fit." How do you know? Which standard beyond both cultures (yours and theirs) are you drawing on when you make that assessment? For it's manifest it cannot be a moral standard merely from inside their cultural construct: it must be a supra-cultural, objective one, if what you say can be true.

You think introducing the fact that an individual MIGHT (personally) do better not following this misses the point.

B) Well, not at all. If I can survive better by wiping out a whole bunch of other people, how do you prove to me I ought not to do it?

BTW --- evolution is "messy".

C) That's one word for it. "Incoherent" is another.

A) You really don't understand "most fit". Perhaps related to your not understanding evolution. You "know" not by "standards" but by results.

B) No, obligatory social animals, cannot survive "in the wild" as individuals. We are not like orangutans. So no, the individual cannot thrive by eliminating their group. Cannot survive.

C) You don't know what I mean by "messy". What you perceive as miraculous design is the RESULT of a process akin to jury rigging. Modifying, always to be "more fit" until what you end up with bears little resemblance to what was started with.

[Immanuel Can]

A) You really don't understand "most fit".

Yeah, I do. But I think you maybe don't understand the problem.

B) No, obligatory social animals, cannot survive "in the wild" as individuals.

That's true, but also irrelevant to the question. There are many ways a society might "survive." Some "survive" by killing off other rival civilizations or tribes.

So what makes that right or wrong? Why can't I help my tribe survive by killing off yours, and taking their resources? It sounds like a perfectly reasonable survival strategy. Why is it still evil, then...if you think it is?

C) You don't know what I mean by "messy".

Yeah, I do. Evolutionism, as an explanation of the data, is full of half-cooked pseudo-explanations, guesses and loose ends. It's very, very "messy" indeed.

[MikeNovack]

That's true, but also irrelevant to the question. There are many ways a society might "survive." Some "survive" by killing off other rival civilizations or tribes.

So what makes that right or wrong? Why can't I help my tribe survive by killing off yours, and taking their resources? It sounds like a perfectly reasonable survival strategy. Why is it still evil, then...if you think it is?

No IC, you can't pretend to have been talking abut GROUP morality earlier. My answer was about why we wouldn't see morality saying K for the individual to exploit his/her own group.

I am NOT (repeat not) claiming that "primitive morality" will consider it wrong for my group to kill off yours and take over the resources. In fact, it is possible this behavior is innate. Might even serve a practical purpose.

[Immanuel Can]

I am NOT (repeat not) claiming that "primitive morality" will consider it wrong for my group to kill off yours and take over the resources. In fact, it is possible this behavior is innate. Might even serve a practical purpose.

You're not saying anything to the point, though.

To claim murder is "innate," or "useful," or "serves a practical purpose" doesn't suggest anything about whether or not it's "moral." You've made a category error in forming your answer, you slid from talking about what's "moral" to merely what's conducive to arriving at some [not necessarily itself good] result.

Enslaving people could be thought to be "innate," since it's one of humanity's oldest practices. It "serves the practical purpose" of saving the slave-master unpleasant labour. It's very "useful" for that. And it's very conducive to "survival," if it involved danger to the slave, but none to the slave-master. Therefore, according to the argument you've given above, slavery would be "moral."

[MikeNovack]

I am NOT (repeat not) claiming that "primitive morality" will consider it wrong for my group to kill off yours and take over the resources. In fact, it is possible this behavior is innate. Might even serve a practical purpose.

You're not saying anything to the point, though.

To claim murder is "innate," or "useful," or "serves a practical purpose" doesn't suggest anything about whether or not it's "moral." You've made a category error in forming your answer, you slid from talking about what's "moral" to merely what's conducive to arriving at some [not necessarily itself good] result.

If you are going to persist in misreading, not going to bother with you.

a) Not discussing MURDER. It is YOU with the bee in your bonnet that believes in universality for morality. No, killing "others" is NOT "murder". Killing members of one's group is murder.

b) Practical purpose implies not a matter of "morality". It has been a subject of debate WHY we humans (in our little bands) were so consistently "at war" with neighboring bands, what PURPOSE might it serve? On the surface, would appear to be costly. So why did we evolve to be a critter like that?

c)

[Immanuel Can]

No, killing "others" is NOT "murder". Killing members of one's group is murder.

Let me get that straight.

Killing Americans is murder. Killing Canadians is not murder. Is that what you mean by "one's group"?

b) Practical purpose implies not a matter of "morality".

Not necessarily. Something can be practical and still a matter of "morality." It is practical, at times, to co-operate with others. I don't think anybody believes it isn't moral to do, as well. But you're right to think that practical doesn't automatically entail that it's moral. It may be more practical to murder one's competitors for resources; but it might not be moral.

It has been a subject of debate WHY we humans (in our little bands) were so consistently "at war" with neighboring bands, what PURPOSE might it serve? On the surface, would appear to be costly. So why did we evolve to be a critter like that?

If you "evolved" to it, then there's no "why." I understand that evolution is supposed to be an unguided, impersonal, natural, non-teleologically-directed process. One cannot ask why it did something, any more than one can ask why we have gravity...according to Evolutionism, of course.

[MikeNovack]

Killing Americans is murder. Killing Canadians is not murder. Is that what you mean by "one's group"?

It has been a subject of debate WHY we humans (in our little bands) were so consistently "at war" with neighboring bands, what PURPOSE might it serve? On the surface, would appear to be costly. So why did we evolve to be a critter like that?

If you "evolved" to it, then there's no "why."

You and I are NOT talking about the same thing. I am having a hard time believing you do not understand that by "our group"/"their group" I am talking about how we humans lived before 10,000 years ago (give or take couple thousand). In other word, group sizes a MILLION TIMES smaller than the US or Canada. WHY? Because I think some "morality" from those times influences the odd results in modern moral thought experiments like "The Runaway Trolley Car Problem".

Correct, evolution has no "why" or "purpose" in the sense you mean. In THIS CASE "purpose" is being used in the sense why/how did this almost universal behavior make groups "more fit"? In what way, because otherwise would not have evolved to be so universal, especially when the costs are obvious. Yes "costly" though not immediately obvious to us used to large scale with millions killed << a person of the group killed "in war" every 10 years or so is actually a lot when the group size is 50-100 >> In other words, what the BENEFIT that outweighed the cost.

BUT ..... what served us when the size of our groups was 50-100 might be a PROBLEM for us now with our group sizes in the millions.

BTW, note that we share this behavior with our closest kin, the chimpanzees and bonobos, though more extreme with us as we are so much more efficient at killing. << oh yes, I know, you don't believe in evolution so don;t think of chimps and bonobos as very close kin >>

[Immanuel Can]

Killing Americans is murder. Killing Canadians is not murder. Is that what you mean by "one's group"?

It has been a subject of debate WHY we humans (in our little bands) were so consistently "at war" with neighboring bands, what PURPOSE might it serve? On the surface, would appear to be costly. So why did we evolve to be a critter like that?

If you "evolved" to it, then there's no "why."

... by "our group"/"their group" I am talking about how we humans lived before 10,000 years ago (give or take couple thousand).

So let's simply reword.

It's immoral for me to kill anybody from my tribe, but it is moral for me to kill anybody from the next tribe. Is that what you mean?

It doesn't seem obvious to me...or to anybody, really...that allegiance to a smaller group is more moral than allegiance to a larger group. In fact, the obvious error, the one most people would be inclined to make, would be to presume the opposite. Of course, both are illogical.

Correct, evolution has no "why" or "purpose" in the sense you mean. In THIS CASE "purpose" is being used in the sense why/how did this almost universal behavior make groups "more fit"?

But "fit" isn't particularly a moral property, so now you're not even answering the OP.

BUT ..... what served us when the size of our groups was 50-100 might be a PROBLEM for us now with our group sizes in the millions.

"Served us"? Who's "us," and how does it ever "serve" to murder your neighbours? If it did ever "serve," then why would it be less "serviceable" now? Numbers don't change the status of the morality of an action, of course: killing one person is immoral, and killing a billion is also immoral. If you only kill one, the mere fact that it's only one doesn't make that one killing "moral."

[RickLewis]

Reminds me of an amusing internet meme I saw back in 2002 that we then printed in Philosophy Now.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/35/Religious_Guidance

It is supposed to be somebody writing to a fundamentalist chat show host called Dr Laura Schlessinger, asking for Leviticus-based religious guidance.

One of the questions is:

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

[Immanuel Can]

Why can’t I own Canadians?

Because China already has ownership rights, apparently.

[MikeNovack]

BUT ..... what served us when the size of our groups was 50-100 might be a PROBLEM for us now with our group sizes in the millions.

"Served us"? Who's "us," and how does it ever "serve" to murder your neighbours? If it did ever "serve," then why would it be less "serviceable" now? Numbers don't change the status of the morality of an action, of course: killing one person is immoral, and killing a billion is also immoral. If you only kill one, the mere fact that it's only one doesn't make that one killing "moral."

The theory is that the benefit was the result that human bands lived with significant space between them thus leaving a large percentage of the total habitat unused. In normal years. Available during bad years because scrambling for food, too busy for "games" like war. This is a sale dependent effect. If you assume a grid of 10miles, groups occupying/intensely using a square, but not entering an adjacent square (too close to "enemy") you find that only 1/4 the land is being used << in normal times >>