Moral vs. Ethical

[The Terrible Sweal]

A proposition often expressed among vocal theists is that morality comes from and/or depends upon religion.

I would say that this proposition is wrong on two levels, but correct on a third. It is incorrect when it is meant in the sense that religion or religious belief is required in order to define and inculcate what is 'good' and abhor what is 'evil'.

It is also incorrect if it is intended to suggest that religion can claim to have a comprehensive or valid grasp of the concepts of 'good' and 'evil'.

However, if 'morality' is defined, generically, as simply such representations as to 'good' and 'evil' as religion may dispose itself to provide, then , ipso facto, morality comes from and is dependent on religion. This, of course, leaves any rubric of 'morality' completely subject to the same criticism as the religion(s) themselves -- irrationality, inutility, and invalidity, the True Trinity of Belief.

In contrast to such vapid 'morality', stands the concept of ethics -- a philosophy or science of right and wrong.

[idealisttotheend]

I'm no theist but I have a theory. I think that all institutions that are chosen as givers of moral legitamcy (deciding the good from the evil) require an equal amount of... faith.

Be it science, education, Darwininism, democratic majority, one's self or God, enough holes can be punched in any one of them to render them useless without a generous amount of faith in certain precepts underpinning each one of them.

Therefore:

It is also incorrect if it is intended to suggest that religion can claim to have a comprehensive or valid grasp of the concepts of 'good' and 'evil'.

It is correct if you believe it, what other reason would there to be for it be incorrect?

In contrast to such vapid 'morality', stands the concept of ethics -- a philosophy or science of right and wrong.

Sure... if you believe it.

This, of course, leaves any rubric of 'morality' completely subject to the same criticism as the religion(s) themselves -- irrationality, inutility, and invalidity, the True Trinity of Belief.

can apply equally well to the science of any number of years ago, as they will our science when viewed by the science of the future.

In short you cannot prove science provides a better basis for morality than religion. You can argue it ( and I often have) but you cannot prove it and therefore by your own belief system it cannot be necessarily "true."

There a relativist position on relativism.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You describe the perspective of what I'll call 'futile relativism', i.e. a pessimism about the hope for any meaning so deep as to amount to philosophical nihilism. This is both res ipsa loquitur and irrefutable (but not undeniable) at the level of metaphysics.

My interest is at the level of pragmatics, however. At the pragmatic level, we can usefully compare the plausibility of assumptions between, for example, chemistry and theoretical physics, or modern economics and libertarian idealism, or skepticism and belief.

Still at the pragmatic level, we could also compare utility and effectiveness of these systems to eachother if we define a purposive rubric with which to test them.

[idealisttotheend]

This is both res ipsa loquitur and irrefutable (but not undeniable) at the level of metaphysics.

Oooooo. I won the argument on the first post. *Mr. Burn's voice* "Excellent."

Just kidding. I don't know a damn thing about metaphysics which I suppose I should correct some day.

You describe the perspective of what I'll call 'futile relativism', i.e. a pessimism about the hope for any meaning so deep as to amount to philosophical nihilism.

I like your term but I think it encompasses the negative result of my theory and not the positive result (which I take, being the Idealist and all). I argue not for no solution to the problem of the source of moral legitamcy but for many solutions. Furthermore I argue for these sources of moral legitamacy are able to coexist equally and simutanously.

At the pragmatic level, we can usefully compare the plausibility of assumptions between, for example, chemistry and theoretical physics, or modern economics and libertarian idealism, or skepticism and belief.

Indeed we can. We can evaluate which of these systems best describes our world as we understand it. Since both our world and our understanding of it change we will constantly and always be evaluating (comparing) these systems as a specis even if only at the level of "don't consider x for it is evil." (In order for x to be understood we must at least briefly consider it). At the pragmatic level I think it is entirely possible for an absolute Truth (of any kind, say string theory or any political system) to exist but it is impossible for us to know it (we can always learn something new therefore we can reevaluate it until we are no longer able to learn).

Still at the pragmatic level, we could also compare utility and effectiveness of these systems to eachother if we define a purposive rubric with which to test them

I take it that you purpose the 'rubric' to be based on this:

In contrast to such vapid 'morality', stands the concept of ethics -- a philosophy or science of right and wrong.

You must consider though that science fails unless you can islolate each variable. If you can't say "variable x and only variable x correlates to systematic change y in manner z each and every time" you don't really have science (or alternatively if you feel you can eventually work your way to that point based on the work you are doing now).

I don't see how you can have a science of right and wrong for the simple fact that you can't isolate the variable.

I mean, even if you took the simplest solution to morality:

"Do what helps people, don't do what hurts people"

you have all sorts of problems. Temporal problems (what is done now may have the opposite effect in time, morphine takes away the pain but destroys the kidneys), equibilibrium (doing one person good will cause another pain in time or yourself) etc. etc. In short I think it is impossible to isolate that one variable that would allow a science to define right and wrong.

A faith/belief/myth is required.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... We can evaluate which of these systems best describes our world as we understand it.  Since both our world and our understanding of it change we will constantly and always be evaluating (comparing) these systems as a specis even if only at the level of "don't consider x for it is evil."  (In order for x to be understood we must at least briefly consider it).  At the pragmatic level I think it is entirely possible for an absolute Truth (of any kind, say string theory or any political system) to exist but it is impossible for us to know it (we can always learn something new therefore we can reevaluate it until we are no longer able to learn). 

You describe a milieu of general uncertainty. Accordingly, I submit that the best technique for operating within this milieu are those that best allow for the possibility of uncertainty.

Still at the pragmatic level, we could also compare utility and effectiveness of these systems to eachother if we define a purposive rubric with which to test them

I take it that you purpose the 'rubric' to be based on this:

In contrast to such vapid 'morality', stands the concept of ethics -- a philosophy or science of right and wrong.

No. A purposive rubric would establish the objectives, purpose, raison-d'etre by which we could tell whether a choice has been effective or ineffective. Let's say we settle on the purposive rubric our earliest ancestors may have had: Today, no-one dies; everyone eats.

...I don't see how you can have a science of right and wrong for the simple fact that you can't isolate the variable.

I'll change my term: instead of science, read: systematic rational technology.

I mean, even if you took the simplest solution to morality:

"Do what helps people, don't do what hurts people"

you have all sorts of problems.  Temporal problems (what is done now may have the opposite effect in time, morphine takes away the pain but destroys the kidneys), equibilibrium (doing one person good will cause another pain in time or yourself) etc. etc.  In short I think it is impossible to isolate that one variable that would allow a science to define right and wrong.

A faith/belief/myth is required.

You're going for the metaphysical again. A faith is not required, merely an agreement. You say the sea is green, I say it is purple. We can still sail together, right?

[DAC]

I mean, even if you took the simplest solution to morality:

"Do what helps people, don't do what hurts people"

you have all sorts of problems.

Yes - and the first is the question, "Why?" What makes helping people good or hurting them wrong?

[DAC]

In contrast to such vapid 'morality', stands the concept of ethics -- a philosophy or science of right and wrong.

Fine words. Now let's have some meat. What are the basic principles of your philosophy of right and wrong? Where do they come from? Why should others accept them? What makes them better than the ethics of others who begin with different principles?

[Michael Hardner]

Still at the pragmatic level, we could also compare utility and effectiveness of these systems to eachother if we define a purposive rubric with which to test them.

Hmmm... Sweal, have you modified your stance on this in the last year or so ? I have read your arguments on this in the past, and you seem to have added a nuance. Or maybe no one asked you about 'futile relativism' before...

[The Terrible Sweal]

In contrast to such vapid 'morality', stands the concept of ethics -- a philosophy or science of right and wrong.

Fine words. Now let's have some meat. What are the basic principles of your philosophy of right and wrong? Where do they come from? Why should others accept them? What makes them better than the ethics of others who begin with different principles?

The basic principles:

1. There is an inevitable element of uncertainty (relativism) in anything I or my fellow entities conceive. Whatever does or does not 'truly' exist, we can never absolutely know.

2. It appears that the common state of each human being comprises a distinct consciousness, to some extent unbridgeably separate, from any other human.

3. It appears that the consciousness noted above imbues each human being with a capacity to discern various elements of their environment and formulate preferences to act upon.

...The rest is simply elaboration.

Provenance:

They come from reading, education, observation and careful thinking.

Acceptance:

Others should accept them because they are useful, fair, reliable, etc.

Superior merit:

My basic principles are better starting points than other basic principles for three essential reasons: they acknowledge uncertainty, they capture/import the relevant pragmatic concerns, and they are rationally defensible.

[DAC]

Oh, Sweal ...

The basic principles:

1. There is an inevitable element of uncertainty (relativism) in anything I or my fellow entities conceive. Whatever does or does not 'truly' exist, we can never absolutely know.

2. It appears that the common state of each human being comprises a distinct consciousness, to some extent unbridgeably separate, from any other human.

3. It appears that the consciousness noted above imbues each human being with a capacity to discern various elements of their environment and formulate preferences to act upon.

...The rest is simply elaboration.

1. Nothing is certain

2. Each human appears to be distinct

3. Human beings make choices

From this ethics is obvious. Sorry, but not to me. What ethic do you build on this explicitly uncertain base? And how?

Others should accept them because they are useful, fair, reliable, etc.

Useful to whom? Fair to whom? How reliable if everything is uncertain. What was useful and to southern whites 250 years ago was not useful or fair to their slaves.

I assume you mean useful and fair to encompass everybody. The problem I’m pointing out above is that people think of such things selfishly, from different points of view, and come up with different answers. What is there about your principles that compels people from those divergent viewpoints to agree?

But cut deeper. Why do usefulness and fairness matter? They do not appear to derive in the least from your principles. So where do you get those concepts? Why should the desirable ethic not be survival of the fittest, “Nature red in tooth and claw”?

My basic principles are better starting points than other basic principles for three essential reasons: they acknowledge uncertainty, they capture/import the relevant pragmatic concerns, and they are rationally defensible.

What is there about uncertainty that is superior? Do you give top marks to the student who is uncertain about his solutions in mathematics? Is the best doctor the one who is least certain?

Then we have to ask, why does prgamatism become a standard? Pragmatism sounds suspiciously like a survival of the fittest viewpoint.

Are they rationally defensible? You haven't shown that yet.

Your claims are large, but the development of them is pretty shaky.

[August1991]

Why not simply define as "ethical" anything that achieves a particular objective at least cost? That is, something is unethical if it leads to waste.

For this rule to apply, one must think of consequences. Murder is unethical because not only does it waste a life but also because many will exert efforts to avoid being the next victim.

This definition avoids many subjective disagreements.

[idealisttotheend]

Why a faith is required in the consideration of morality

August gives me just what I was waiting for. Sweal, I'm with DAC I don't understand how your three points does anything but suppose consiousness. I don't see how it lead to a systematic rational technology to describe morality, a preference for example is not a moral unless you are arguing for a hedonistic paradigm. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't, just that I don't understand how it does.

Why not simply define as "ethical" anything that achieves a particular objective at least cost? That is, something is unethical if it leads to waste

Here August descirbes his utilitarianism. The thread is subtitled religion vs. reason and on the surface August's would seem to be be anti-faith (and it certainly is anti-religion but not anti-faith.) The ultimate left brain position if you would.

His personal faith is obvious and he has stated it over and over again in these forums. August has faith in mathematics. His faith tells him that mathematics will allow he (and everyone else) to place one linear value on the good (achiving a particular objective) of any action and another linear value on it's cost (resources expended). We then select the action with the biggest difference between the two numbers and we have acted correctly and morally. Tredeau would be proud.

This certainly seems to be ultimate rational viewpoint. But if August were to post a thread debating the merits of utlitiarianism and there were enough people willing to debate it, we could go 15-20 pages on the subject (and it would be an interesting debate to be sure). There would be many different viewpoints with some agreeing and some savegely disagreeing (math can't describe good, it's impossible to precisely define the amount of good done and the cost incurred, too many variables and considerations and back to the original problem, how to define a worthy objective from an unworthy one).

Therefore if we could cast enough doubts on his assumption that mathematics can prodive a solution to the morality we would stop his utilitarianism from being a uselful moral system for him. If I could convince him that he couldn't reliably cost any given action he would be unable to use his system to define his moral and he cannot rationally prove rationality because it is ultimately a circular argument as are arguments supporting any moral system . Since all it would take is enough doubt to do this I submit that he had to have faith in his underpinning of mathematics to begin with and there is no strictly 'rational' base for his moral system.

That's the negative of my "ultimate relativism", I'll try to post on the positive later.

[DAC]

  Why not simply define as "ethical" anything that achieves a particular objective at least cost? That is, something is unethical if it leads to waste.

For this rule to apply, one must think of consequences. Murder is unethical because not only does it waste a life but also because many will exert efforts to avoid being the next victim.

This definition avoids many subjective disagreements.

Sorry August, but it doesn’t escape subjective disagreements. I think it was Hannah Arendt in The origins of totalitarianism who said that to establish a totalitarian regime you needed to kill 10% of the population. Then everybody would put their faith in the government as their only hope. Assuming she was correct, it would be immoral, by your rule, for Stalin to kill 12%, but perfectly fine for him to kill 10% to achieve his objective.

Aside from that, the definition itself is subjective. I have the same question for you as for the Sweal. Why should others accept that definition? What makes it compelling?

In asking that question, I recognize that some will object to any definition. The question is why they ought to accept yours, not why they will. I think Idealisttotheend is right in saying that it rests on faith as much as any other does.

[August1991]

Assuming she was correct, it would be immoral, by your rule, for Stalin to kill 12%, but perfectly fine for him to kill 10% to achieve his objective.

WTF?

True, I mean that if Stalin can accomplish a task by Method A in 12 hours and by Method B in 10 hours, then Method B is the morally superior method.

But if the task at hand is to kill people, I am certain that not only Stalin's time will be required. To start with, people are not going to sit idly by while Stalin murders. And they didn't.

My point is that something is moral if the derived benefit is greater than the required effort. Most of us act in purely personal matters this way. The challenge is to extend the principle to life at large - that is, to a world with billions of people or a universe with innumerable creatures.

Here August descirbes his utilitarianism.

I believe utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number. But how to add up benefits for one person against efforts exerted by another? How to add up different benefits for different people? IMV, this is where utilitarianism falls apart.

math can't describe good, it's impossible to precisely define the amount of good done and the cost incurred, too many variables and considerations and back to the original problem, how to define a worthy objective from an unworthy one.

Yet we all seem to do it. Even the very young. When we choose to have waffles for breakfast, we've made the calculation. (Heck, once we decide to get up, we've done the math.)

His personal faith is obvious and he has stated it over and over again in these forums. August has faith in mathematics.

I'll accept the word "faith" to describe my belief that people try to make good choices. But is that really faith?

[DAC]

August 1991:

My point is that something is moral if the derived benefit is greater than the required effort. Most of us act in purely personal matters this way. The challenge is to extend the principle to life at large - that is, to a world with billions of people or a universe with innumerable creatures.

But the problem is that your system has no definition of benefit - which I tried to make clear by reference to Stalin’s Gulag. What was “beneficial” to him was anything but, to others. All you measure is efficiency, with no base for assessing whether or not the goal is good or bad.

[The Terrible Sweal]

DAC, you wrote:

Useful to whom?

Everyone.

Fair to whom?

Each individual.

How reliable if everything is uncertain.

As reliable as possible under that circumstance.

... people think of such things selfishly, from different points of view, and come up with different answers.

People who allow their self-interest to cause them to deny the consequences of the three basic principles (et. seq.) are not acting ethically. Ergo, their unethical deeds are not a basis on which to critique any ethics except theirs.

What is there about your principles that compels people from those divergent viewpoints to agree?

Putting these principles to the test of logic will reveal their benefits. (Persons whose views are not amenable to logic, or who take a solipsistic view of ethics, will not be convinced, I suppose.)

But cut deeper. Why do usefulness and fairness matter? They do not appear to derive in the least from your principles.

Think deeper: the criterion of usefulness derives from and is measurable in terms of the prefernces refrd to in prop. 3. Fairness, meanwhile, on the one hand is instrumental to usefulness (extrapolation), and on the other hand necessary to give full effect to proposition 2.

Why should the desirable ethic not be survival of the fittest,

Out of rational self-interest. Out of everyone's preference to serve their preferences.

My basic principles are better starting points than other basic principles for three essential reasons: they acknowledge uncertainty, they capture/import the relevant pragmatic concerns, and they are rationally defensible.

What is there about uncertainty that is superior?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Uncertainty isn't an option, it's an elemental condition of our experience.

Then we have to ask, why does prgamatism become a standard?

Pragmatism is simply the philosohpy of usefulness (discussed above).

Are they rationally defensible? You haven't shown that yet.

I guess we're in that process right now.

[August1991]

1. There is an inevitable element of uncertainty (relativism) in anything I or my fellow entities conceive. Whatever does or does not 'truly' exist, we can never absolutely know.

2. It appears that the common state of each human being comprises a distinct consciousness, to some extent unbridgeably separate, from any other human.

3. It appears that the consciousness noted above imbues each human being with a capacity to discern various elements of their environment and formulate preferences to act upon.

Relativism arises because of combining Point 2 and Point 3. I don't see uncertainty and relativism as being synonyms, as you imply.

I would add uncertainty to Point 3, where it truly belongs.

Hence, Point 3 would read:

3. It appears that the consciousness noted above imbues each human being with a capacity to discern "imperfectly" or "without certainty" various elements of their environment and formulate preferences to act upon.

This would eliminate Point 1.

Also, in Point 2, why do you say "to some extent unbridgeably separate" and why is it only separate from other human beings and not the universe around one.

I note too that you impose no conditions on your preferences.

-----

So, we can say, je pense donc je nuis?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I prefer to retain the three part structure with uncertainty first, because uncertainty also necessarily conditions points 2 and 3.

The only ethical measurement of preferences arises from the three propositions.

I'm sorry but with my lame French, I didn't get the Descartes pun. Explain?

[August1991]

nuire

nuire, Ces termes sont des traductions directes : cause damage, cause damage to, damage, harm, injure, prejudice

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

My point is that something is moral if the derived benefit is greater than the required effort.

I think you mean 'profitable', not 'moral'.

The Terrible Sweal wrote

Pragmatism is simply the philosohpy of usefulness

This should be expanded to not only include the detrimental, but also the amoral and unethical.

[DAC]

People who allow their self-interest to cause them to deny the consequences of the three basic principles (et. seq.) are not acting ethically. Ergo, their unethical deeds are not a basis on which to critique any ethics except theirs.

Sweal, I think this admirably expresses your logic. You give on your own authority three principles which you claim are a logical base for ethics. When they are challenged you say that anybody who disagrees with you is unethical. Sounds to me like you are trying to claim that you are God; your ideas are not open to any challenge or demand for proof.

Well, by your definition I am unethical. You claim your propositions are useful for everybody. I don’t find them useful. You claim that self-interest should lead everybody to adopt them. Unfortunately, pragmatism can be used against everybody just as much as for them. An employer’s pragmatic goals can run contrary to his employees. Certainly the pragmatic goals of many of our politicians run against the pragmatic goals of many of us.

Affirming a position does not make it either true or logical. If you think everybody should accept your propositions, then if you really are logical, you should be able to show why they should, not just say again in other terms that they should. I’m waiting for that logical demonstration, still.

[August1991]

Dear August1991,

My point is that something is moral if the derived benefit is greater than the required effort.

I think you mean 'profitable', not 'moral'.

The Terrible Sweal wrote

Pragmatism is simply the philosohpy of usefulness

This should be expanded to not only include the detrimental, but also the amoral and unethical.

No, I meant moral - although it may be profitable too.

Thelonious, why would you undertake a task if the effort exerted was greater than the benefit received? To my mind, that's foolish and, let me say, immoral.

[Why immoral? Well, in purely practical terms, some good could have been done if your efforts had been otherwise employed. That good is now lost.]

As to profitability, forget about money and think in terms of how you spend your time. Do you not choose to spend it in a way that makes you happiest (or will make you happiest) given the choices available?

[DAC]

My point is that something is moral if the derived benefit is greater than the required effort.

I think you mean 'profitable', not 'moral'.

No, I meant moral - although it may be profitable too.

Thelonious, why would you undertake a task if the effort exerted was greater than the benefit received? To my mind, that's foolish and, let me say, immoral.

[Why immoral? Well, in purely practical terms, some good could have been done if your efforts had been otherwise employed. That good is now lost.]

As to profitability, forget about money and think in terms of how you spend your time. Do you not choose to spend it in a way that makes you happiest (or will make you happiest) given the choices available?

Let’s try a case. At 11:30 at night, I was about to climb into bed after a long day’s work, and a friend called me to talk about her problems. For three hours she talked about her problems. She was not willing to hear any advice or accept any help. She just wanted me to know how badly she hurts. She got no benefit from it. Rehashing the problems without any answers just digs them deeper into her mind, makes the ruts deeper and more painful. I certainly got no benefit from it! By your definition it was immoral for me to listen to her.... The cost was far greater than the benefit. Do you really want to maintain that?

And it certainly did not make either my friend or myself happy!

It seems rather obvious to me that cost benefit analysis or pragmatism simply don’t cover the territory of morality and ethics, except in very limited cases.

[August1991]

She was not willing to hear any advice or accept any help. She just wanted me to know how badly she hurts. She got no benefit from it.

I somehow doubt she got no benefit - when she phoned you, I suspect she expected a benefit . And I suspect you got benefit too, or the expectation of a future benefit.

I obviously don't know the details. And I certainly don't mean that people make a cost-benefit analysis. But when we say "To do good is to be moral" then I take the idea seriously.

And it certainly did not make either my friend or myself happy!

Maybe you both should have gone to sleep instead.

[The Terrible Sweal]

People who allow their self-interest to cause them to deny the consequences of the three basic principles (et. seq.) are not acting ethically. Ergo, their unethical deeds are not a basis on which to critique any ethics except theirs.

Sweal, I think this admirably expresses your logic. You give on your own authority three principles which you claim are a logical base for ethics. When they are challenged you say that anybody who disagrees with you is unethical.

You fail to understand my point, I guess. I posited the basic principles for a system of ethics. Your critique amounted to saying 'yes, but some people will be unethical'. My reply is that this fact in no way amounts to an argument against my position. Just as the fact that some people will be immoral isn't a substantive critique against religious morality.

Well, by your definition I am unethical.

Are you shure?

You claim your propositions are useful for everybody. I don’t find them useful.

I think you have yet to give them thorough logical assessment.

An employer’s pragmatic goals can run contrary to his employees. Certainly the pragmatic goals of many of our politicians run against the pragmatic goals of many of us.

I don't understand what you are trying to get at here. What do you mean by 'pragmatic goals'? If you have a goal which strongly conflicts with the goals of those around you, it is not a pragmatic goal, as they will prevent you from acheiving it.

Affirming a position does not make it either true or logical.

I've told you that myself many times. BTW, neither does denying a position make it either untrue or illogical.

If you think everybody should accept your propositions, then if you really are logical, you should be able to show why they should, not just say again in other terms that they should.

How would you propose I 'show' you that?