There is no "ought"

[Cavemonster]

A common topic of discussion here are questions of morality.
What living things is it right to kill for food?
At what stage is it wrong to terminate a pregnancy?
Should all humans have a right to health care?

But I think that right, wrong, should and ought are all meaningless or at least incomplete concepts.

What does it mean that we "Should" act in a certain way? What material, observable consequences does that have?

The only way these words start making real observable sense is if we fill in the "if". We "ought" to act in such and such a way "if" we want such and such an outcome. Now, that outcome may be near universally desirable, but in most cases, it is not.

I ought not to kill other humans describes a reality that isn't measurable in any way. All abstract arguments about oughts that leave out the ifs are essentially unresolvable because there is no logical construction to prove something fundementally unobservable.

Let's change the dialogue, here and elsewhere. Instead of talking about "morality" let's talk honestly about all the interesting underlying social, biological and psychological phenomena that that crude word is meant to envelope. Let's talk about self interest, both narrow and enlightened, both long term and short and extended. Let's talk about mirror neurons, not just as evidence that we don't need a god for morality, but as a fact in specific moral debates. Let's talk about memes, and innate and learned behavior and conditioning.

But please, let us not talk about what is right and wrong and what we should do. To me that's like talking about Earth, Air, Fire and Water as the elements, an outdated construction with very little descriptive power.

 

[Brainache]

A common topic of discussion here are questions of morality.
What living things is it right to kill for food?
At what stage is it wrong to terminate a pregnancy?
Should all humans have a right to health care?

But I think that right, wrong, should and ought are all meaningless or at least incomplete concepts.

What does it mean that we "Should" act in a certain way? What material, observable consequences does that have?

The only way these words start making real observable sense is if we fill in the "if". We "ought" to act in such and such a way "if" we want such and such an outcome. Now, that outcome may be near universally desirable, but in most cases, it is not.

I ought not to kill other humans describes a reality that isn't measurable in any way. All abstract arguments about oughts that leave out the ifs are essentially unresolvable because there is no logical construction to prove something fundementally unobservable.

Let's change the dialogue, here and elsewhere. Instead of talking about "morality" let's talk honestly about all the interesting underlying social, biological and psychological phenomena that that crude word is meant to envelope. Let's talk about self interest, both narrow and enlightened, both long term and short and extended. Let's talk about mirror neurons, not just as evidence that we don't need a god for morality, but as a fact in specific moral debates. Let's talk about memes, and innate and learned behavior and conditioning.

But please, let us not talk about what is right and wrong and what we should do. To me that's like talking about Earth, Air, Fire and Water as the elements, an outdated construction with very little descriptive power.

OK.

 

[MikeSun5]

But please, let us not talk about what is right and wrong and what we should do.

Seconded. Anarchy is more fun anyway.

 

[Sledge]

So you're saying it's wrong to talk about right and wrong?

 

[Cavemonster]

So you're saying it's wrong to talk about right and wrong?

No, I'm saying IF you want a logical discussion, you OUGHT not use those terms in isolation. The thought is not complete without the IF filled in.

I'm saying that it isn't productive to talk about right and wrong unless you include what ideal condition that thing is right or wrong FOR.

 

[Cavemonster]

Seconded. Anarchy is more fun anyway.

The alternative is very much NOT anarchy, in any meaningful sense of the word. Non-logical constructions assuming some invisible overarching "ought" are anarchy, in that they are only ordered by emotions and are immune to logic at the base level.

 

[MikeSun5]

No, I'm saying IF you want a logical discussion, you OUGHT not use those terms in isolation.

So every court decision ever made has been illogical? Morality is the basis for many laws, you know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stance appears like this:

Why can't I kill someone?
NOT YOU: Because it's against the law.
YOU: You can.
Why shouldn't I kill someone?
NOT YOU: Because it's wrong.
YOU: Illogical question.

I'm all for simplifying definitions, but I think the fact that humans are the only known species capable of morality means we should not ignore it.

 

[Manopolus]

From another thread:

Originally Posted by Trent Wray
Excellent. And if you read this before you take off to go drinking ... I mean go to your social event (j/k) ..... I agree that just because something might fall into the realm of human invention doesn't mean it's worthless. BUT .... how can that invention/idea/concept have the greatest worth and operate most efficiently? Is it to cling to it, fight for it, defend it? Or is it to put it down and leave it untouched so to speak? I am immediately thinking of a monkey with his hand in a jar, trapped, as he's grabbing a banana. I think of that analogy often (yes, I opened a door for jokes )

My first notion was that one should certainly examine ethical behavior, rather than leaving it untouched, but I'm not sure that this is directly related to what you are saying.

Fight for it? Cling to it? I should not judge others by my own standards of ethical behavior. I can, however, try to convince them of my position. It is through such a discussion that perhaps both of us might learn something new. I think this is related to what you are saying.

Let me go back to the earlier post for a moment...

Quote:
So are you finding a problem with ethical conversion because it's still, essentially, enslaving a person to some kind of manmade concept or subjective principle?

Here is where I think we may have a bit of a difference of opinion. I don't think ethics is an enslavement of any kind. Functionally, ethical behavior is as helpful to the one it limits as it is to another party it protects or directly benefits in its application.

I would consider morality, first and foremost, as a form of communication in terms of its functionality. By treating others kindly, you are showing them that you care. The bond that results gives you the right to expect the same type of consideration in return. The Golden Rule is the result of this.

Another function of morality has to do with the consistancy of expectations, which is required for trust. I must be able to expect that you will behave in a certain way (such as eventually give me a product, or provide me with a service) when I perform certain actions (such as give you money and make a verbal contract). It is in the ethical person's best interest in the long term to behave in the proper manner, although short-term interests may lead him to do otherwise. Unfortunately, this is infinately more obvious in a smaller group than it is in a larger society. You can get away with things a little easier when people don't know you.

Finally, there is something that could be called ethics when completing a common task, as well. In this case, the ethic is based on how to best get the job done. Legitimate differences of opinion here would result from quality vs quantity issues, etc.

In all these cases, we can easily show how one ethic might be better than another. Yes, ethics are subjective, and to some degree when one is in Rome, he should do what the Romans do. However, as I know you've heard me say before... ethics are not completely dependant upon opionion, or on culture -- there are other considerations involved. This is why morality should be constantly questioned and examined.
In any case, the "enslavement" has to do with putting long-term relationships above short-term desires. The eventual benefit to all parties involved is enormous.

I think that about sums it up. Pay particular attention to the part after the second quote (up to and including the hilight). A different question was posed, but the same answer applies.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

A common topic of discussion here are questions of morality.
What living things is it right to kill for food?
At what stage is it wrong to terminate a pregnancy?
Should all humans have a right to health care?

But I think that right, wrong, should and ought are all meaningless or at least incomplete concepts.

What does it mean that we "Should" act in a certain way? What material, observable consequences does that have?

The only way these words start making real observable sense is if we fill in the "if". We "ought" to act in such and such a way "if" we want such and such an outcome. Now, that outcome may be near universally desirable, but in most cases, it is not.

I ought not to kill other humans describes a reality that isn't measurable in any way. All abstract arguments about oughts that leave out the ifs are essentially unresolvable because there is no logical construction to prove something fundementally unobservable.

Let's change the dialogue, here and elsewhere. Instead of talking about "morality" let's talk honestly about all the interesting underlying social, biological and psychological phenomena that that crude word is meant to envelope. Let's talk about self interest, both narrow and enlightened, both long term and short and extended. Let's talk about mirror neurons, not just as evidence that we don't need a god for morality, but as a fact in specific moral debates. Let's talk about memes, and innate and learned behavior and conditioning.

But please, let us not talk about what is right and wrong and what we should do. To me that's like talking about Earth, Air, Fire and Water as the elements, an outdated construction with very little descriptive power.

Very well said, Cavemonster. The people who speak about nature in terms of "ought", "moral", "right", "wrong", "fair", "unfair" and such, are people who cannot help projecting human values on a process that, as has been studied by the most eminent scientists, has been proven to have no sense of moral, no sense of consciousness and just acts blindly. Nature is, if anything, the worst of all the possible role models for morality. Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and A River Out of Eden are good illustrations of that.

As the great Richard Feynman once said:



Nature, simply IS. You don't like it? Go somewhere else.

 

[Cavemonster]

From another thread:

I think that about sums it up. Pay particular attention to the part after the second quote (up to and including the hilight). A different question was posed, but the same answer applies.

I agree with this, up to a point. There are ethical positions that are better FOR general human happiness of parties involved, or FOR the general physical welfare of that society as a whole.

My issue is that leaving out what a particular ethical construct is better FOR, makes it very difficult to discuss the issue rationally.

By including the FOR or the IF (whatever end result that decision better acheives) you're able now to recognize and analyze competing moral end goals that may not always mesh.

 

[Cavemonster]

So every court decision ever made has been illogical? Morality is the basis for many laws, you know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stance appears like this:

Why can't I kill someone?
NOT YOU: Because it's against the law.
YOU: You can.
Why shouldn't I kill someone?
NOT YOU: Because it's wrong.
YOU: Illogical question.

I'm all for simplifying definitions, but I think the fact that humans are the only known species capable of morality means we should not ignore it.

No, not every court of law has been illogical. Most (at least many) legal scholars understand that murder isn't prohibited because it's wrong, but because allowing murder in a society compromises the safety of every member including me and the people I love. This prohibition has practical roots, and it's by understanding those roots that we best forge new laws and refine existing ones.

 

[Manopolus]

I agree with this, up to a point. There are ethical positions that are better FOR general human happiness of parties involved, or FOR the general physical welfare of that society as a whole.

My issue is that leaving out what a particular ethical construct is better FOR, makes it very difficult to discuss the issue rationally.

By including the FOR or the IF (whatever end result that decision better acheives) you're able now to recognize and analyze competing moral end goals that may not always mesh.

But there is another way (other than functionality), by extension of my second example, to debate morality. Ethics must be consistent, in order to be valid. This also opens us up to symbolic metaphor. To debunk the metaphor, you must show a pertinent difference between the original question and the metaphor. This admittedly requires a mutually agreed upon set of premises before we come to a conclusion.

 

[Cavemonster]

But there is another way (other than functionality), by extension of my second example, to debate morality. Ethics must be consistent, in order to be valid. This also opens us up to symbolic metaphor. To debunk the metaphor, you must show a pertinent difference between the original question and the metaphor.

I'm not sure what you're saying as it applies to my point.
Can you phrase it a different way?

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think one thing to emerge from several of the "morality" threads here is that if you don't have a clear definition of what a word means, it's hard to discuss it meaningfully.

My own working definition of morality is basically "Individual survival behaviour in a herd context". I don't pretend that's the last word in definition and it leads to the contradictory opposites of either moral relativism or moral absolutism, but it's somewhere to start.

The slightly more extreme view that the entire issue is nonsensical is one I'm also open to.

 

[Manopolus]

I'm not sure what you're saying as it applies to my point.
Can you phrase it a different way?

If we both agree that murder is wrong, we don't have to debate that point when somone claims that it also proves that killing in war is always wrong. Instead, we consider the differences between the two. The functional debate can certainly be considered, but there are other directions we can take the argument.

Clear enough?

 

[Cavemonster]

If we both agree that murder is wrong, we don't have to debate that point when somone claims that it also proves that killing in war is always wrong. Instead, we consider the differences between the two. The functional debate can certainly be considered, but there are other directions we can take the argument.

Clear enough?

I disagree. I think this is exactly the sort of situation where that extended definition is very useful.

We say murder is wrong BECAUSE, within a societal structure, allowing murder increases the chances of myself or my loved ones being killed, undermines general stability, and goes against my innate and trained emotional responses.

Then, when we talk about killing in a war, it is those very underlying issues which should be the substance of the discussion. Does killing in a war effect those underlying issues differently than killing in a peaceful society? Are there benefits to killing in a war that outweigh the negatives that still apply?

The important differences between the two are at that level at which I'm urging the discussion be conducted.

 

[Cavemonster]

I think one thing to emerge from several of the "morality" threads here is that if you don't have a clear definition of what a word means, it's hard to discuss it meaningfully.

My own working definition of morality is basically "Individual survival behaviour in a herd context". I don't pretend that's the last word in definition and it leads to the contradictory opposites of either moral relativism or moral absolutism, but it's somewhere to start.

The slightly more extreme view that the entire issue is nonsensical is one I'm also open to.

I'd say that partly because there are so many meanings, it makes discussion of the issue nonsensical. There is no level of clarity acheivable through the umbrella of "morality" that isn't better served by investigating the component drivers. "Individual survival behaviour in a herd context" is one of them, successful memes is another, mirror neurons and the biology of sympathy is yet another. When we lump all this together, we do a disservice to our attempts at a stronger understanding of the issue at hand.

 

[Manopolus]

I disagree. I think this is exactly the sort of situation where that extended definition is very useful.

We say murder is wrong BECAUSE, within a societal structure, allowing murder increases the chances of myself or my loved ones being killed, undermines general stability, and goes against my innate and trained emotional responses.

Then, when we talk about killing in a war, it is those very underlying issues which should be the substance of the discussion. Does killing in a war effect those underlying issues differently than killing in a peaceful society? Are there benefits to killing in a war that outweigh the negatives that still apply?

The important differences between the two are at that level at which I'm urging the discussion be conducted.

Well, yes... you could go that direction with it, but there are other legitimate directions as well. For instance:

Murder implies malice... you are specifically attacking another person for your own selfish reasons, whether it be vengeance, hate, or personal gain. In war, you are not attacking the person, but fighting for a higher ideal... whatever that may be. Also note that soldiers on both sides of the conflict agree to participate (I won't get into civilian casualties here, I am also not addressing the draft). In the case of war, justification is not a matter of the ethics of killing, but is a question of the principle for which you are fighting. The question: Is it worth it?

There is a small bit of functionality implied here, but it isn't the main thing argued.

(added) I'll admit that the argument here makes many assumptions, but it also cuts past a lot of unnecessary explanation.

 

[Trent Wray]

I agree with this, up to a point. There are ethical positions that are better FOR general human happiness of parties involved, or FOR the general physical welfare of that society as a whole.

My issue is that leaving out what a particular ethical construct is better FOR, makes it very difficult to discuss the issue rationally.

By including the FOR or the IF (whatever end result that decision better acheives) you're able now to recognize and analyze competing moral end goals that may not always mesh.

Are you basically saying that when a person asserts something as falling under a moral or ethical principle, they should clarify WHY they choose that specific moral or ethical principle as applicable?

If so, I think you're basically asking others to explain the reasoning behind why they hold a specific subjective POV, more or less. And dissecting those reasons down usually lead to personal and/or psychological origins. Would you agree?

If you do agree, I think that in general, most people only throw their psyche and motives on a table to be examined under certain circumstances, and there is a reason in and of itself why most are unwilling to show you the root of their ethical/moral tree .... even though they are usually very willing to share it's fruit, for better or worse.

 

[Cavemonster]

Are you basically saying that when a person asserts something as falling under a moral or ethical principle, they should clarify WHY they choose that specific moral or ethical principle as applicable?

If so, I think you're basically asking others to explain the reasoning behind why they hold a specific subjective POV, more or less. And dissecting those reasons down usually lead to personal and/or psychological origins. Would you agree?

If you do agree, I think that in general, most people only throw their psyche and motives on a table to be examined under certain circumstances, and there is a reason in and of itself why most are unwilling to show you the root of their ethical/moral tree .... even though they are usually very willing to share it's fruit, for better or worse.

I think that the extent that participants are willing to share that deeper view of "morality" determines the capacity of that discussion to be reasonable and fruitful.

You're right that many people would be unwilling to share those deeper motivating sources for their morality. In my opinion, that unwillingness is a kind of intellectual dishonesty.