What is morality?

[Immanuel Can]

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 >>

I'm not seeing how any of this relates to morality. Maybe you can clarify?

[Walker]

Regardless of the author's intent, what I gather from that is a type of subjective morality dependent upon conditions.
When the conditions offer no alternative, then subjective becomes objective.
That way, one doesn't live a pre-programmed life of rules, and one is not conditioned by ideology.
Modern man doesn't have that luxury so much.
One must endeavour to not be conditioned by modern, fragmented society.
Then again, do holistic savages have the luxury of philosophy?
Perhaps they do.
It seems like the natural way.

Or, when there's enough to go around, there's no need for war.
The comanches are a quick refutation to that.

However, if I want to challenge the author concerning the validity of his reasoning or facts, I'll want to know exactly what he is saying ... which he exactly said. But that's from my POV, and I just wandered in.

Excusez if wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Regardless of the author's intent, what I gather from that is a type of subjective morality dependent upon conditions.
When the conditions offer no alternative, then subjective becomes objective.

Well, no...but they often get treated as if they had been objective, but backed by power rather than any logical or moral rationale.

In other words, the culture uses power to silence critics and dissenters from their cultural practices. That doesn't tell us they were morally right to do so, only that having the power, they could bludgeon objectors into obedience...which is, itself, hardly moral.

...do savages have the luxury of philosophy?
Perhaps they do.
It seems like the natural way.

Here's the paradox, I think.

Philosophy takes time, space and leisure to do well. People who are harried and distressed, made to move and think too fast, start to take for granted things that they really shouldn't. They don't always have time to question, or leisure to doubt. So they just tend to accept and go on as if all the big questions have been settled already.

The problem is that now, everybody in our society is relatively harried and distressed. When we have five minutes, our phone rings or pings, there are things to be bought, or bills to be paid, or video games to be played, or email calls our attention, or something else intrudes. We have little time to think.

Until we're older, and maybe retired. Then it gets harder and harder to quiet the inner voices. And we wonder whether our lives have been lived well, or even lived as we hoped. And maybe we realize that big questions, when put off, take their revenge in later life.

I think a lot of people find themselves there. And they don't necessarily enjoy the experience.

[Walker]

Those are great insights.

Also an interesting comment about objective and subjective.

When the conditions offer no alternative, then subjective effectively becomes objective. (much better)
However, this brings into question the nature of objectivity.
It must have measure, which makes it relative. Oy.

It's true that when conditions force action, objective morality still exists as an ideal.
However in that case, life is no longer the measure.
Morality has become the measure.
In that way morality, and self-concept, is what causes ... well, a lot, such as self-sacrifice to a cause.
This means that the objective morality of an ideal requires a subjective measure.

But ... that's enough, word play.

I intruded on MikeNovak's discussion and any trains of thought which I haven't been following.

[Immanuel Can]

It must have measure, which makes it relative. Oy.

I wouldn't suppose so. Things can be measurable AND objective.

If somebody's dead, that's an objective fact. It's also measurable...by his lack of a pulse, his lack of breathing, the fact that he's turning green and fuzzy...

[Walker]

It must have measure, which makes it relative. Oy.

I wouldn't suppose so. Things can be measurable AND objective.

If somebody's dead, that's an objective fact. It's also measurable...by his lack of a pulse, his lack of breathing, the fact that he's turning green and fuzzy...

If a man jumps on a grenade to save his buddies, is he following the morality of the golden rule, or is his own life the measure? Obviously, not his own life but then, would he expect others to do the same for him? Maybe those others, would. Maybe not. What would be the required elements for either their action, or non-action?

Maybe his own life is the measure, and he values theirs more than his own. Why?

Oh gosh, sorry Mike. That's what you get (interruption), for me just wandering in. I'll remember next time.

[MikeNovack]

A) 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?

B) 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.

A -- precisely........how it was for 99% of our existence as humans. Remember, YOU, not I are arguing for an eternal, immutable morality. I have indicated what the current thinking is about how that might have evolved.

B --- WHAT LARGER GROUP? Ah yes, in the last/most recent 1% of our existence as humans we have lived in larger, MUCH LARGER groups, and so thge morality evolved no longer fits well. We may even have to use our rational abilities instead of our builtin quick calculators.

1) I am NOT suggesting that our evolved morality will work for us in our modern, large scale societies.

2) I am, however interested in how/when our underlying primitive morality will make its voice heard. Either overriding our rational decision r at least making us feel uncomfortable, that there is something wrong. Or situations/games where the decision one way if made quickly/individually but the other of forced to rationality (say must be a collective decision)

[Immanuel Can]

A) 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?

A -- precisely........how it was for 99% of our existence as humans. Remember, YOU, not I are arguing for an eternal, immutable morality. I have indicated what the current thinking is about how that might have evolved.

If our "current thinking" merely "evolved," then it can "evolve" again, and stop being "current." In which case, literally ANYTHING could become "moral"; in which case, even at this current moment, there actually is nothing at all that is "moral," since the word "moral" fails to refer to any particular thing at all.

Murder is only "current thinking." Slavery is only "current thinking." Rape is only "current thinking." Pedophelia is only "current thinking." We could "evolve" a society in which any or all of these are celebrated, and it would not be morally distinguishable from any other society.

And if you think it cannot happen, just look at Islamism, and you know it can.

So what you're channelling there is simply Moral Nihilism, by implication. You're not saying anything about "morality" at all. You can't believe it has any definition.

B) 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.

B --- WHAT LARGER GROUP?

Any group larger than your local tribe.

How is slaughtering a tribe any different from slaughtering a nation, except in raw numbers? It's the same action, just on a larger scale. If the action itself is righteous, then it's righteous for any number. If the action is evil, it's evil for any number. Numbers don't change the moral equation.

1) I am NOT suggesting that our evolved morality will work for us in our modern, large scale societies.

"Work for us"? If it "evolved," then there's no such thing anyway. Instead, we're going with some form of crass pragmatism...whatever "works" to achieve for us whatever we desire -- be it personal happiness, corporate dominance or ethnic cleansing -- becomes what we do, and we don't even have to think about morality.

I think what you're achieving with your view, Mike, is simply the abolishing of any meaning to the concept "moral." After all, what does is mean to say, "Mike is a moral person," if "moral" means no more than "whatever Mike's society happens to approve of in the current moment"? Then it wouldn't make a stitch of difference whether Mike was a saint or a Neo-Nazi, so long as he happened to live in a society which approved his choice. Societies "evolve" many different kinds of approvals...again, think of what some societies approve...forcible female genital mutilation, child "marriage," the slitting of the throats of 'infidels,' and the blowing up of Christmas markets, among other things.

[MikeNovack]

You persist in not paying attention to what I am saying.

A) I am saying that we had an evolved morality, evolved during most of our existence. It was suited/correct for that context. IT STILL AFFECTS US TODAY (how we feel bout moral decisions).

B) It is unsuited/insufficient to how we live today in large scale societies. We need a current morality, and we will need rationality to apply it. HOWEVER, we will sometimes feel "something is wrong" with our rational decision.

C) Notice my emphasis on "feel". Conscience is internalized, we feel when we are doing right or doing wrong.

I am NOT saying/suggesting "right or wrong is whatever society says it is".

[Immanuel Can]

You persist in not paying attention to what I am saying.

No, I paid attention, and then I asked you what the implications of such a view were. You made the claims, and I simply pointed out what they would entail.

A) I am saying that we had an evolved morality, evolved during most of our existence. It was suited/correct for that context. IT STILL AFFECTS US TODAY (how we feel bout moral decisions).

This says nothing about any real existence for morality. It just says, "We had a feeling that still affects us." So what? Feelings mean nothing without facts, and that they affect us might well be something to be regretted -- unless we have a way of showing otherwise.

So far, you've not offered any.

B) It is unsuited/insufficient to how we live today in large scale societies. We need a current morality, and we will need rationality to apply it. HOWEVER, we will sometimes feel "something is wrong" with our rational decision.

"We need"? Maybe...but can we have? That is, is there anything we can call "morality" that is not simply a matter of the more powerful forcing their will on the less powerful?

C) Notice my emphasis on "feel". Conscience is internalized, we feel when we are doing right or doing wrong.

This demands an obvious test: is what we "feel" always right? Is what we "feel" morally obligatory? Is there any reality or justification to these feelings of "right and wrong," or are they just feelings?

I am NOT saying/suggesting "right or wrong is whatever society says it is".

Okay, but then, what is it? You've said it's not "whatever society says it is," but you haven't said what it IS.

If it's a feeling, then who knows whether it's a good or a bad feeling, and whether we owe it any obedience or not. So it's got to be more than a feeling -- especially because people's feelings are not all the same, about anything.

So is it something universal? It it bigger than culture or consensus? It would have to be, if we can judge cultures or consensuses as "good" or "bad." But where do we get the code to do that?

[MikeNovack]

If it's a feeling, then who knows whether it's a good or a bad feeling, and whether we owe it any obedience or not. So it's got to be more than a feeling -- especially because people's feelings are not all the same, about anything.

So is it something universal? It it bigger than culture or consensus? It would have to be, if we can judge cultures or consensuses as "good" or "bad." But where do we get the code to do that?

You are not understanding HOW anything "built in" (instincts) or internalized training will be EXPERIENCED.

FEELINGS

<an aside for instinct> We know very few of these as human instincts hard for humans to study. Consider one that we have been able to research, the mutual "I recognize you" signal. When you encounter somebody and they make this signal YOU DON'T SEE (the eyebrow flicker) and THEY DON'T KNOW THEY MADE IT (automatic.involuntary). You simply get a FEELING "that person knows me". If you don't recognize that person you may be puzzled and try to rationally figure out how/where and fail. But the feeling is correct << POSSIBLY the person knows somebody so like yourself a mistake was made >>

<Back on track> CONSCIENCE is a FEELING, a case where right/wrong have been internalized. When you say "just a feeling" if you can't recall the process of training you are ignoring that ONLY once encoded as a feeling will it cause you to act/not act.

[Immanuel Can]

If it's a feeling, then who knows whether it's a good or a bad feeling, and whether we owe it any obedience or not. So it's got to be more than a feeling -- especially because people's feelings are not all the same, about anything.

So is it something universal? It it bigger than culture or consensus? It would have to be, if we can judge cultures or consensuses as "good" or "bad." But where do we get the code to do that?

You are not understanding HOW anything "built in" (instincts) or internalized training will be EXPERIENCED.

I'm certainly "understanding" it. I'm understanding it a lot better than you are, I think. What one "experiences" is just as irrelevant as what one "feels," because both are variable by person. They're also variable by culture. And they're SO variable, they offer no reliable information at all to the outside observer who's trying to figure out what "morality" might actually be, which is the whole point of this thread.

If "morality" is a thing at all, it has to be something that transcends each person, and transcends each culture. Because you get a raft of opposite answers anytime you try to dissect the feelings of persons or the preferences of culture, and then nothing clear emerges from the mist of variability. You still know nothing about how to judge persons or cultures as moral or not.

[MikeNovack]

And they're SO variable, they offer no reliable information at all to the outside observer who's trying to figure out what "morality" might actually be, which is the whole point of this thread.

If "morality" is a thing at all, it has to be something that transcends each person, and transcends each culture. Because you get a raft of opposite answers anytime you try to dissect the feelings of persons or the preferences of culture, and then nothing clear emerges from the mist of variability. You still know nothing about how to judge persons or cultures as moral or not.

We are most definitely NOT in agreement on this point.

This is not entirely unlike the situation of TRUTH and "knowledge of the truth". Can most certainly judge persons or cultures as moral or not, but your judgement is going to be based on YOU, what you feel to be morally right or wrong. If you think you are going to be able to determine the correct absolute standard upon which to base your judgement you are deluding ourself.

BUT -- you re being consistent. You do believe you can have certain knowledge of TRUTH.

[Immanuel Can]

And they're SO variable, they offer no reliable information at all to the outside observer who's trying to figure out what "morality" might actually be, which is the whole point of this thread.

If "morality" is a thing at all, it has to be something that transcends each person, and transcends each culture. Because you get a raft of opposite answers anytime you try to dissect the feelings of persons or the preferences of culture, and then nothing clear emerges from the mist of variability. You still know nothing about how to judge persons or cultures as moral or not.

We are most definitely NOT in agreement on this point.

Well, if I were wrong, it would be dead easy to prove me wrong. Just point out one moral precept -- just one, any one -- that somebody else's, or some other culture's "feeling" or "experience" makes obligatory to me.

Go ahead.

But if you can't, then you know I'm right: feeling and experience provide no secure basis for a moral claim, whether from an individual or a culture.

Can most certainly judge persons or cultures as moral or not, but your judgement is going to be based on YOU, what you feel to be morally right or wrong.

Then it has no binding force whatsoever.

If IC is in favour of forcible female genital mutilation without anaesthetic, at age 13, like, say Somali culture is, but Mike thinks it's ghastly, who is right? Without a meta-system to arbitrate between IC's Islamist preferences and Mike's Judeo-Christian upbringing, there is no way of knowing whether 13 year old girls being mutilated is an act of barbarism or a kindness in preserving their purity and marriage value within their culture.

If you think you are going to be able to determine the correct absolute standard upon which to base your judgement you are deluding ourself.

But I'm not the moral touchstone. My ignorance would mean nothing. The standard of truth is God. I could be wrong; but He never can.

And if God were to have told me what was moral, say in Torah, and I pretended not to understand, or not to be capable of deciding what was right, then to ignore that would be worse than ignorance; it would be rank, mendacious disobedience.

[MikeNovack]

The standard of truth is God. I could be wrong; but He never can.

And if God were to have told me what was moral, say in Torah, and I pretended not to understand, or not to be capable of deciding what was right, then to ignore that would be worse than ignorance; it would be rank, mendacious disobedience.

You are in effect saying the standard of truth/morality is the Great Pink Unicorn.

Don't you see that you are not making progress toward an absolute standard? You aren't going to be able to convince me or anybody else of the truth of The Great Pink Unicorn. YES, you have faith, you feel, so you know THIS IS GOD.

HOW is that different from "I believe, I have faith, this is right and that is wrong"?