Philosophy Now Forum

Since the subject has come up in a couple of other topics, I'd like to present my view on ethics here, rather than going off on tangents in those other topics. It's proably familiar stuff to some of you, since it's mostly taken from earlier posts by me in other threads:

• I believe that both a need for morality and morality itself emerges naturally and necessarily from the existence of others. I choose the words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to show how morality emerges and what morality is, by making these clear and useful definitions:
  
  good = what I want
  
  evil = what I don't want
  
  right = what others want
  
  wrong = what others don't want
  
  The need for morality and morality itself emerges when we discover that good doesn't always equal right and evil does not always equal wrong.
  
  It follows from the definitions that when two people disagree on a moral issue, they must both be wrong, because what others want is defined as right. This is also consistent with the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement. Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.
  
  It also follows from the definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good, something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want. The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.

If that was a bit condensed, let's go over it in more detail:

1. In a solipsist universe, there is no need for a moral code. If you are the only person in existence, then there can be no right or wrong.

2. The need for a moral code arises from the fact that other people exist.

3. Each of us has a unique subjective experience and viewpoint.

4. There is no objective way to judge any experience or viewpoint as more valid than any other.

5. We all want different things and sometimes we want the same thing.

6. We are never in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, since the need for morality arises from others. Only others can judge the morality of an action and only those affected by the consequenses of the action are qualified judges. This is what makes this moral code "objective" since your own subjective view is always wrong when confronted by a contrary moral opinion voiced by any other concerned party.

7. To do something that somebody, anybody, don't want us to do, is morally wrong.

Admittedly, this moral code renders most actions morally wrong, but that's the price you have to pay for making it bulletproof. However, it's worth considering seriously.

Some suggest that God could be used as a moral absolute, but a moral statement made by God would still be subjective. God might have a much better view than any human, but it's still a subjective view. Rather than trying to please God, we should try to please each other, since I think it boils down to the same thing. We are all sinners, not against some divine law, but against each other.

This moral code might appear inconsistent because it attempts to create some sort of absolute and objective standard where there can be none. The only obvious moral absolute is that other people exist. The point is to highlight what others want, as opposed to what you want yourself. It is consistent, in that it consistently takes the side of the other. It's really logical. If we disagree, we can't both be right, but we can both be wrong.

The problem with moral relativism is that everybody might think that they can decide for themselves what is morally right or wrong. I have turned the perspective around and claim that nobody is in such a position. We are never in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, since the need for morality arises from others. Only others can judge the morality of an action and only those affected by the consequences of the action are qualified judges.

The point of the rule is that almost every action is morally wrong to some extent, since somebody at least remotely affected by the action would probably see it as wrong. It forces us to think outside ourselves, to indeed put ourselves in the position of others. That's the whole point. If we realise that we are not in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, then we have to imagine how others would judge our actions, especially how those directly affected by our actions would judge them.

Only through empathy can we have any idea of what is right or wrong.

Having read through this about three times, I think I agree with just about all of it. Mind you it's 2.30 am, and I've necked an entire bottle of Cab Sauv, so I'll have another look tomorrow!
'Night!

Notvacka wrote:Since the subject has come up in a couple of other topics, I'd like to present my view on ethics here, rather than going off on tangents in those other topics. It's proably familiar stuff to some of you, since it's mostly taken from earlier posts by me in other threads:

• I believe that both a need for morality and morality itself emerges naturally and necessarily from the existence of others. I choose the words "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" to show how morality emerges and what morality is, by making these clear and useful definitions:
  
  good = what I want
  
  evil = what I don't want
  
  right = what others want
  
  wrong = what others don't want
  
  The need for morality and morality itself emerges when we discover that good doesn't always equal right and evil does not always equal wrong.
  
  It follows from the definitions that when two people disagree on a moral issue, they must both be wrong, because what others want is defined as right. This is also consistent with the only useful definition of objectivity as common agreement. Only when we agree can we be right on a moral issue.
  
  It also follows from the definitions that what we should strive for is what's both right and good, something that can be achieved by wanting what others want, or by making others want what we want. The Buddhist solution, to not want anything at all, is an interesting third option.

If that was a bit condensed, let's go over it in more detail:

1. In a solipsist universe, there is no need for a moral code. If you are the only person in existence, then there can be no right or wrong.

2. The need for a moral code arises from the fact that other people exist.

3. Each of us has a unique subjective experience and viewpoint.

4. There is no objective way to judge any experience or viewpoint as more valid than any other.

5. We all want different things and sometimes we want the same thing.

6. We are never in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, since the need for morality arises from others. Only others can judge the morality of an action and only those affected by the consequenses of the action are qualified judges. This is what makes this moral code "objective" since your own subjective view is always wrong when confronted by a contrary moral opinion voiced by any other concerned party.

7. To do something that somebody, anybody, don't want us to do, is morally wrong.

Admittedly, this moral code renders most actions morally wrong, but that's the price you have to pay for making it bulletproof. However, it's worth considering seriously.

Some suggest that God could be used as a moral absolute, but a moral statement made by God would still be subjective. God might have a much better view than any human, but it's still a subjective view. Rather than trying to please God, we should try to please each other, since I think it boils down to the same thing. We are all sinners, not against some divine law, but against each other.

This moral code might appear inconsistent because it attempts to create some sort of absolute and objective standard where there can be none. The only obvious moral absolute is that other people exist. The point is to highlight what others want, as opposed to what you want yourself. It is consistent, in that it consistently takes the side of the other. It's really logical. If we disagree, we can't both be right, but we can both be wrong.

The problem with moral relativism is that everybody might think that they can decide for themselves what is morally right or wrong. I have turned the perspective around and claim that nobody is in such a position. We are never in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, since the need for morality arises from others. Only others can judge the morality of an action and only those affected by the consequences of the action are qualified judges.

The point of the rule is that almost every action is morally wrong to some extent, since somebody at least remotely affected by the action would probably see it as wrong. It forces us to think outside ourselves, to indeed put ourselves in the position of others. That's the whole point. If we realise that we are not in a position to judge the morality of our own actions, then we have to imagine how others would judge our actions, especially how those directly affected by our actions would judge them.

Only through empathy can we have any idea of what is right or wrong.

I appreciate that you start with definitions. This makes what you say very clear, although good and evil are most normally attributed to some objective force in the universe, rather than personally located opinions.
But I think that what you have is faulty and you hint as much.
There can be no right and wrong according to your scheme. For it only takes one person to disagree with any moral law - for the whole tower of cards to come tumbling down without any means by which we are all able to judge the objectivity, value or morality of any given moral law. A further problem is that you have denied the right of an individual to judge his own actions, by making it the exclusive right of 'people affected' (point 6). Let's take the example of a group of murderers that you want to punish - need I say more?

chaz wyman wrote:There can be no right and wrong according to your scheme. For it only takes one person to disagree with any moral law - for the whole tower of cards to come tumbling down without any means by which we are all able to judge the objectivity, value or morality of any given moral law.

In practice it's of course common agreement that decides what is regarded as right and wrong in any society. It basically comes down to some imagined majority vote. But as you point out, it only takes one person to disagree to make something less than 100 percent "right". My intention is to show that we are more "wrong" than we might think most of the time.

chaz wyman wrote:A further problem is that you have denied the right of an individual to judge his own actions, by making it the exclusive right of 'people affected'.

That's not exactly how I meant it. You can judge your own actions, but only through empathy, by assuming the perspective of the people affected. Judging your own actions from your own point of view is pointless, because anybody can justify anything to themselves, and everybody is doing the "right" thing in their own mind. Again, my intention is to point out that we are more in the "wrong" than we'd like to think.

Notvacka wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:There can be no right and wrong according to your scheme. For it only takes one person to disagree with any moral law - for the whole tower of cards to come tumbling down without any means by which we are all able to judge the objectivity, value or morality of any given moral law.

In practice it's of course common agreement that decides what is regarded as right and wrong in any society. It basically comes down to some imagined majority vote. But as you point out, it only takes one person to disagree to make something less than 100 percent "right". My intention is to show that we are more "wrong" than we might think most of the time.

chaz wyman wrote:A further problem is that you have denied the right of an individual to judge his own actions, by making it the exclusive right of 'people affected'.

That's not exactly how I meant it. You can judge your own actions, but only through empathy, by assuming the perspective of the people affected. Judging your own actions from your own point of view is pointless, because anybody can justify anything to themselves, and everybody is doing the "right" thing in their own mind. Again, my intention is to point out that we are more in the "wrong" than we'd like to think.

The main problem still seems to be the abnegation of personal judgement. The difficulty with how you are expressing your theory is that it is in normal circumstances impossible to truly understand what is the most commonly understood "right" way to behave, and you need a way for the moral laws that follow to have a mechanism to be judged and for them to be able to change historically, as they must.
The answer has to be that you have to at some point allow individuals to make those judgements; even the common stock of humanity is made of individuals! Human groups do not make choices, period.
You solution seems plain...
I think what you are leaning towards here is Kant's categorical imperative.
In this way humans are eventually treated with equality. Right becomes defined as that which we all assume would be acceptable for any person's "good". This firmly puts the judgement of what works as a general principle of ethics into the hands of individuals.

chaz wyman wrote:The main problem still seems to be the abnegation of personal judgement. The difficulty with how you are expressing your theory is that it is in normal circumstances impossible to truly understand what is the most commonly understood "right" way to behave, and you need a way for the moral laws that follow to have a mechanism to be judged and for them to be able to change historically, as they must.

Despite the title of this topic, what I present is not really a moral code as such. It's more a method of placing any action in a moral context, and it's intended to make us see what is "wrong" with what we think is "right". Because I believe that the biggest problem with ethics in any society, is that each of us tend to believe that we are in the right.

chaz wyman wrote:The answer has to be that you have to at some point allow individuals to make those judgements; even the common stock of humanity is made of individuals!

Yes. Individuals will always make those judgements whether they are "allowed" or not. And so will groups. What I humbly try to provide is a tool.

chaz wyman wrote:Human groups do not make choices, period.

That's just a matter of perspective. Groups make choices all the time. Group chocies are of course always the result of individual choices within the group, but can be viewed as group choices for practical purposes. How do you think we elect our political leaders?

I think what you present here is an accurate representation of how many people experience ethics.

The problem is that you do not actually say what morality is. What is its relationship to punishment for instance? When someone is wrong does this mean that they can be punished or that they ought to be punished or that others ought to punish them?

And are there only moral values or are there other values? For instance if I don’t want ice-cream for desert does that make ice-cream evil? And can I judge spelling for myself or do I have to ask someone else if what I have written is wrong or right?

The reason morality is poorly defined is because it is a deception and obviously for a deception to be successful it must remain hidden. If someone were to accept what you are presenting here it would render them incapable of detecting and avoiding being lied to. Within the precepts of what you are saying there is no way of challenging someone, no way of declaring that someone is lying. For instance if I want you to buy and eat my particular brand of breakfast cereal and in order to do this I tell you that eating my breakfast cereal will make you happy and attractive and successful if you then purchase my breakfast cereal then it is both good because it is what I want and right because it is what you want – though if you are buying breakfast cereal to be happy, attractive and successful these things are not going to happen but rightness is dependant on you doing what you want not making accurate judgements.

It’s not a pleasant way to live but many people believe the assertion that everyone is more wrong than they realise and should not trust their own judgement but do as they are told by others it’s the reason why human society is so unfair and the reason that despite being able to see what a mess we are making of things we tend to feel powerless to do anything about it.

S G R wrote:The problem is that you do not actually say what morality is.

So, what is it? To me it's how we treat each other.

S G R wrote:What is its relationship to punishment for instance? When someone is wrong does this mean that they can be punished or that they ought to be punished or that others ought to punish them?

I don't believe in punishment. But for every action there is a reaction.

S G R wrote:And are there only moral values or are there other values? For instance if I don’t want ice-cream for desert does that make ice-cream evil? And can I judge spelling for myself or do I have to ask someone else if what I have written is wrong or right?

My defintions of "good", "evil", "right" and "wrong" in this context are very clear, but you can't use the same definitions in other contexts. The "right" and "wrong" in spelling has nothing to do with what's morally "right" or "wrong". Nothing is "good" or "evil" in itself. It's a matter of context. But if you don't want ice-cream, it becomes an evil thing if you have to eat it.

S G R wrote:The reason morality is poorly defined is because it is a deception and obviously for a deception to be successful it must remain hidden. If someone were to accept what you are presenting here it would render them incapable of detecting and avoiding being lied to.

How so? Because they must do what's right all the time? It works both ways.

S G R wrote:Within the precepts of what you are saying there is no way of challenging someone, no way of declaring that someone is lying.

Why not? Everything works both ways here.

S G R wrote:For instance if I want you to buy and eat my particular brand of breakfast cereal and in order to do this I tell you that eating my breakfast cereal will make you happy and attractive and successful if you then purchase my breakfast cereal then it is both good because it is what I want and right because it is what you want – though if you are buying breakfast cereal to be happy, attractive and successful these things are not going to happen but rightness is dependant on you doing what you want not making accurate judgements.

It’s not a pleasant way to live but many people believe the assertion that everyone is more wrong than they realise and should not trust their own judgement but do as they are told by others it’s the reason why human society is so unfair and the reason that despite being able to see what a mess we are making of things we tend to feel powerless to do anything about it.

I don't understand how you can come to these conclusions, S G R, but from our previous discussions I know that we have a particularly hard time communicating, you and I, probably due to some fundamental difference in how we think.

If you lie to me about your cereal in order to make me buy it, that's wrong from your perspective and evil from my perspective in this context, because I don't want to be lied to.

Notvacka wrote:because I don't want to be lied to.

But how can you know if statements are all subjective?

S G R wrote:

Notvacka wrote:because I don't want to be lied to.

But how can you know if statements are all subjective?

Our best moral tool is empathy. And how hard can it be? Who wants to be lied to?

Notvacka wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:The main problem still seems to be the abnegation of personal judgement. The difficulty with how you are expressing your theory is that it is in normal circumstances impossible to truly understand what is the most commonly understood "right" way to behave, and you need a way for the moral laws that follow to have a mechanism to be judged and for them to be able to change historically, as they must.

Despite the title of this topic, what I present is not really a moral code as such. It's more a method of placing any action in a moral context, and it's intended to make us see what is "wrong" with what we think is "right". Because I believe that the biggest problem with ethics in any society, is that each of us tend to believe that we are in the right.

chaz wyman wrote:The answer has to be that you have to at some point allow individuals to make those judgements; even the common stock of humanity is made of individuals!

Yes. Individuals will always make those judgements whether they are "allowed" or not. And so will groups. What I humbly try to provide is a tool.

chaz wyman wrote:Human groups do not make choices, period.

That's just a matter of perspective. Groups make choices all the time. Group chocies are of course always the result of individual choices within the group, but can be viewed as group choices for practical purposes. How do you think we elect our political leaders?

Individuals put a cross on a piece of paper. Individuals make a choice.
I think you need to read what I wrote in full rather than nit-pick.

chaz wyman wrote:Individuals put a cross on a piece of paper. Individuals make a choice.
I think you need to read what I wrote in full rather than nit-pick.

To me, the comment about groups not making choices seemed like an entirely new level of reductionism, coming from you. And, perhaps from debating politics with libertarians, I'm a bit wary of focusing upon the individual rather than the group. Individuals exist and make choices on their level. Groups exist and make choices on another level.

Notvacka wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Individuals put a cross on a piece of paper. Individuals make a choice.
I think you need to read what I wrote in full rather than nit-pick.

To me, the comment about groups not making choices seemed like an entirely new level of reductionism, coming from you. And, perhaps from debating politics with libertarians, I'm a bit wary of focusing upon the individual rather than the group. Individuals exist and make choices on their level. Groups exist and make choices on another level.

Good, now back to the topic.

If people accept Kant's categorical imperative then that guarantees that what they good is both 'good', and "right", by your definitions.
Without individuals applying this rubric to choices - be they 'collective' or otherwise, then what might be right and good for the group may not be right and good for the rest of humankind. Groups can choose Hitler and make exceptional choices that lead to the holocaust. It's a shame that Germans had not listened to the council of their own philosopher.

chaz wyman wrote:If people accept Kant's categorical imperative then that guarantees that what they good is both 'good', and "right", by your definitions. Without individuals applying this rubric to choices - be they 'collective' or otherwise, then what might be right and good for the group may not be right and good for the rest of humankind. Groups can choose Hitler and make exceptional choices that lead to the holocaust. It's a shame that Germans had not listened to the council of their own philosopher.

Kant's categorical imperative is all good, though I think the Golden Rule is more beautiful. The problem, as with any principle, lies in the condition "if people accept". If people lived by Kant's categorical imperative or the Golden Rule, then the world would be a much better place, of course.

Except that Eichmann cited Kant in his defence.
Discussed recently here