What is the justification for morality?
What is the justification for morality? Is it reciprocity? Is it self interest? Should we only consider behaving morally with respect to those who can reciprocate appropriately, ignoring the poor and the weak who cannot reciprocate in an adequate way? Or, does being moral require that we protect and provide for the weak and the poor? Why or why not?
Here's why I ask this question: if morality obligates us to care for weak and the poor, then why does this obligation not extend to all living things rather than just to people? Nietzsche said something like 'one negotiates with equals; one does not negotiate with inferiors, one simply takes what one wants from them'. This would be a description of motivation from self-interest, I think. If our sense of obligation extends only as far as people, then how can we criticize a rich and powerful person who restricts their range of obligation to only those who are nearly as rich and powerful as they are?
Thinking about this right now, it dawns on me that the poor are powerful in large numbers, as the reign of terror during the period of the French revolution shows. Is that it? Is the principle that morality should be based on the idea that we are only obligated to those who can affect us significantly? Or, is morality a "custom": patterns of habitual behavior which form our personality? In this case, few effect the individual as much as the individual affects him or her self. By our behavior we set the de-facto "rules" of the game called "Existence" or "Life" or "Civil Society" because others see our behaviors, or the effects of our behaviours, and follow suit to compete for survival. Here morality might be providing us with rules for cooperation so that we are not distracted from work, sleep, education and the other endeavors that we would not be able to undertake if we had to spend all our time protecting our interests from others who are not constrained by the rules of morality. Again, this is self-interest. It is mutually beneficial, but still motivated by self-interest. But if self-interest is the principle in play, why don't the superior individuals gang together with only other superior individuals and play as a team against the poor and weak?
Again, the reason I am asking this is because I think we have moral obligations to all living things, and not just to our equals or just to people. The problem I am having is determining whether this is grounded on good principles which can be logically determined or is this just a sentimental impulse, perhaps some vestigial instinct left over from our evolutionary heritage, as per Steven Pinker's "The Moral Instinct" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ei=5089&en=18a8d2d348782cdb&ex=1357880400&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss, a very interesting article from the New York Times online.
Please note, I am not looking for mere agreement that others feel obligated to care for the weak, poor, inferior or other species; I am looking for *reasons* why this is so, reasons that even a machine could understand; i.e. logically explicable.
posted by Joe Cash @ 9:46 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I think the fundamental question to ask is whether morality is rooted in any metaphysical system, and if so, our fundamental obligation must be a realistic attempt to describe such possible systems. If it can be shown that the system is understandable through human reason, then I think that many of the questions you pose can be answered.
A response! Good. In wikipedia I read about the "ultimate ensemble" suggested by Max Tegmark. While physicists are considering what other universes might be possible if they started with different initial conditions or different values of the fundamental constants, like the mass of the electron, but was still governed by the same natural laws that our universe is, i.e. the same set of differential equations, etc. then the universe would look much different that it is. The ulimate ensemble is different: he says that worlds governed by different sets of differential equations should be considered real, too. I like the idea, but how can it be falsified or tested if we can't affect or be affected by those other universes? In science, in our world, we test theories by doing experiments to see if experimental results match predictions made by our theories. If the experimental results don't match the predictions of the theory, then the theory is false in the sense that it does not match our reality or our universe.
Considering ethics, we have a "reality" with a set of initial conditions.
Thinking about all possible theories in both cases, science and ethics, is good because we won't find better theories if we only look at one theory, but not all scientific theories will be a good match for our reality, some will be better than others. I think that this is true of moral theories too.
So, to briefly sum up what I am trying to say, considering many moral theories is a good idea, but which one best matches our situation?
Kant called morality "practical philosophy". We can't consider theories indefinitely; we have to make decsions constantly in life. We need a working theory now, though obviously, as you see from my original post, I still try to find a better understanding of the justification for morality. I see morality as the way we make good decisions (in that decisions are the precursors of good acts), and I see morality as the way we get along together in society. That requires agreement.
I don't want to take you away from your family for too long, but I would like you to expound on your response. What do you mean when you ask if morality is founded in any metaphysical system? Especially what do mean by metaphysical system? Also, let's hope that such a system, if one exists, can be understood via human reason, as if it can't be reasoned about, how can we understand it, much less communicate about it? And, if it not amenable to reason, then how can we hope to get along with one another in society?
Thanks for the response.
I had replied to this, but unfortunately lost it after previewing it and saving something else. I don't have the time to write it again now, and will probably never recapture what I was truly thinking & expressing, but will just give an outline of my reply:
* Metaphysics starts with ontology. If existence and being are rooted in an objective framework, then they will transcend any level of interpretation and fashionable particularism. A group of existential declarations securely fastened to such a framework, that work together in tandem to form a cogent set of operating principles, forms the kernel of a metaphysical system.
* Metaphysics can be rooted in reason, but it's beyond the world of science & empiricism. At best, it can only be discoverable by the probing human mind.
* Natural properties will emerge from an affirmation of existence. These properties include the occupation of space/time, causality, functionality, sensitivity to change, contextual relationship to surrounding environment, the list goes on and on. Such philosophers as Aristotle wrote extensively about the nature and classification of such properties.
* Issues of existence and being imply inherent worth, meaning, values (valuation) and perhaps purpose if we subscribe to any of a group of belief systems ranging from divine creation to self-actualized individualism.
* There are issues of epistemology that must be considered. Theories of knowledge, what we know, how we know it, reliability of knowledge, can we confirm or prove what is known. Morality can only rationally be based on what is known. Faith in the "unknown" can form a set of moral guidelines to follow, but these won't be steeped in reason.
* Old school metaphysics vs new school (occult, mysticism, New Age beliefs). I subscribe to the old school. The new school topics are certainly a part of metaphysics, but don't truly form the kernel of this worthy discipline.
* Morality is derived from metaphysics, but also from physical phenomena (i.e. gravity). To push someone over a cliff, leading to a violent and painful death, is clearly a highly immoral act. If gravity didn't exist, perhaps it would be immoral to push someone against his/her will, but it wouldn't be as immoral since it wouldn't lead to the termination of his/her existence.
* There are different levels of morality (thought, articulation, action). See the next point for an example.
* There is a natural ordering of moral actions. To conceive a thought that someone doesn't exist, when it has been demonstrated that existence, is an immoral act. To tell someone they are a worthless non-existent blob, is more immoral. But the highest immoral act is to kill someone who has been told s(he) is a non-existent being, and hence it doesn't matter if s(he) is fatally stabbed.
A few principles can be derived from this discussion:
1) There are natural associations that are derived from a demonstration or affirmation of existence, like inherent worth, meaning, values, intention, etc. These associations form the backbone of any ethical system.
2) There is a natural ordering of moral actions (see above example).
3) Some people will be able to discern a core set of metaphysical truths, associated properties, and derived moral/ethical principles. Let's call these the wise people.
4) Other people won't be able to discern these. Let's call these the unwise people.
5) It might be the moral obligation of the wise people to teach the unwise people how to live morally virtuous lives, even if they don't understand why they are virtuous.
A few additional points:
A) There are different levels of morality. The highest level is what "ought" to be practiced. These include Kant's categorical imperatives which judge human actions based upon what is necessary, like attending to one's survival. At the next level are actions that "should" be practiced, those that might not be necessary, but will improve the quality of life if practiced, or will degrade it if not. Next would be "nice to have" actions. Lower than this would be "these actions might make things better, then again they might not", etc.
B) As previously stated, moral actions can't rationally be based upon what is unknowable. But it might be a moral imperative to attempt to discover what is currently unknowable (the part that can be shown or proved to be knowable) and acknowledge what is unknowable. There is an equivalency relationship between the wise people who can discern what is unknowable (and hence won't form a set of moral principles in this domain space) and the unwise people who can't discern what is perfectly knowable by the wise people. Both entail a lack of knowledge in certain domain spaces. The difference is that the wise people can teach those moral precepts to the unwise people.
C) Metaphysical topics can include the nature of the soul or spirit, the role of God in this world, issues of faith, revelation, mystical experience, etc. As I've mentioned, these can't (or most likely can't) be rationally knowable or discoverable. But they can form the basis of an ethical system that includes a moral imperative to attempt discovering the nature of these noumena (i.e. through expanding human awareness and consciousness that might expose the mind to the inner workings of such noumena, if they in fact do exist). Then, a set of principles can be derived based upon a faith that assumes they do exist. So if I in fact *believe* the soul exists, I must live a life that attends to my human soul, and if someone can't attend to his/her soul, attempt to help him/her out.
Good luck with your search for a rational basis for morality. I particularly like your idea of comparing & contrasting theories of morality (and likewise philosophical ones) and benchmarking against current reality and selecting the "best-fit" one.
Post a Comment
<< Home