Amazing article on Ethics

@Aedes,

Steven Pinker always has something interesting to say, I second the recommendation of the article. Note If you've read his recent books there's nothing really new in the article for you.

I'd be curious what folks thoughts are about the content of the article. Also how might these insights change the old moral debates?

(I have some rather depressing thoughts on the subject but I'll keep them to myself for now:) )

@Aedes,

All of this moralistic condescension is pure bigotry. All that modern morality, or ethics, or whatever you wish to call it, is the rejection of all other beliefs based on the idea that you are a better person and a better judge than anyone else. To be sure, conventional morality is nothing more than a tool to control others and should be clarified as a personal system, and not something that society should possess. After all, what may be right to you may be wrong to me and there's really no way to claim otherwise lest one's arrogance is so great as to step all over the dignity of every other human being that merely disagrees with you.

@Niemand,

Niemand, I'm not sure who's "moralistic condescension" you're referring to. Did you read the article? The article really makes no strong normative claims at all. Unless I completely misread the entire thing, in which case please do elaborate.

@Niemand,

Niemand wrote:

All of this ... is the rejection of all other beliefs based on the idea that you are a better person and a better judge than anyone else.

It doesn't say anything remotely like that anywhere in the article, so I'm not sure what you're actually referring to.

Quote:

After all, what may be right to you may be wrong to me and there's really no way to claim otherwise lest one's arrogance is so great as to step all over the dignity of every other human being that merely disagrees with you.

Again, not sure what you're talking about. The article shows that in general there is a lot of commonality among people pan-culturally when it comes to making moral judgements. And the experimental scenarios that generate these conclusions show that people's moral judgements are not based on classical moral principles or on a utilitarian calculus. The moral judgements are based on other factors that may actually be biologically determined.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

It doesn't say anything remotely like that anywhere in the article, so I'm not sure what you're actually referring to.

Again, not sure what you're talking about. The article shows that in general there is a lot of commonality among people pan-culturally when it comes to making moral judgements. And the experimental scenarios that generate these conclusions show that people's moral judgements are not based on classical moral principles or on a utilitarian calculus. The moral judgements are based on other factors that may actually be biologically determined.

I took the article to be a preachy one and so did not read it, as most articles on morality are as such. It was, in retrospect, a stupid mistake, but as the old adage goes, shit happens.

@Niemand,

That's a great article, Aedes, thanks for posting it.

Niemand wrote:

All of this moralistic condescension is pure bigotry. All that modern morality, or ethics, or whatever you wish to call it, is the rejection of all other beliefs based on the idea that you are a better person and a better judge than anyone else. To be sure, conventional morality is nothing more than a tool to control others and should be clarified as a personal system, and not something that society should possess. After all, what may be right to you may be wrong to me and there's really no way to claim otherwise lest one's arrogance is so great as to step all over the dignity of every other human being that merely disagrees with you.

So you're a moral subjectivist?

The truth is that there are some ethical systems that are better than others.

For example, do you honestly believe that the correct thing to do is to stone adulterers?

The best ethical system is the one that brings the most good into the world... which without a doubt is utilitarianism.

@krazy kaju,

krazy kaju wrote:

That's a great article, Aedes, thanks for posting it.

So you're a moral subjectivist?

The truth is that there are some ethical systems that are better than others.

For example, do you honestly believe that the correct thing to do is to stone adulterers?

The best ethical system is the one that brings the most good into the world... which without a doubt is utilitarianism.

I don't think an ethical system of any sort is the answer. I think it is fine to tell children who are incapable of reason to behave this way or that. Ultimately ethics rests on an emotional connectedness to people, which is something that cannot be taught, and yet my be expanded upon if it is present, which it nearly always is in the family, beginning with ones relationship to mother. All ethics begin with ones group, and what is customary or characteristic of them. What we do for our own when they are in distress we are unlikely to do for others without cause. So even the most moral person among his own may never seem moral to others. Construct systems as you wish, and you will never get it right no matter how often you try. Ethical action springs from an emotion people have or have not. If you can answer how any person can percieve another as a brother who is not his brother, and then behave accordingly, you will have found the source of all social ethics.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

I don't think an ethical system of any sort is the answer. I think it is fine to tell children who are incapable of reason to behave this way or that. Ultimately ethics rests on an emotional connectedness to people, which is something that cannot be taught, and yet my be expanded upon if it is present, which it nearly always is in the family, beginning with ones relationship to mother. All ethics begin with ones group, and what is customary or characteristic of them. What we do for our own when they are in distress we are unlikely to do for others without cause. So even the most moral person among his own may never seem moral to others. Construct systems as you wish, and you will never get it right no matter how often you try. Ethical action springs from an emotion people have or have not. If you can answer how any person can percieve another as a brother who is not his brother, and then behave accordingly, you will have found the source of all social ethics.

It's quite obvious that little children are not capable of the kind of reasoning needed to be a consequentialist and I never stated otherwise.

As for the rest of your post, you still fail to actually attack utilitarianism as an ethical theory. You simply state that different groups naturally form different ethical "theories." I never opposed that either. But this has nothing to do with ethical debate. You're simply stating that different people have different views on ethics. So? What's your point?

What I'm advocating is a rational, logical, and reasonable approach to ethics. We need to develop a rational and secular "code" of ethics that can be used universally.

I cannot see how one can argue that doing something for the benefit of everyone is not ethical or should not be considered ethical.

In any case if you want to create a utilitarianism debate thread with me, go ahead, but I don't want to be shitting up Aedes's thread with our little debate.

@krazy kaju,

krazy kaju wrote:

It's quite obvious that little children are not capable of the kind of reasoning needed to be a consequentialist and I never stated otherwise.

As for the rest of your post, you still fail to actually attack utilitarianism as an ethical theory. You simply state that different groups naturally form different ethical "theories." I never opposed that either. But this has nothing to do with ethical debate. You're simply stating that different people have different views on ethics. So? What's your point?

What I'm advocating is a rational, logical, and reasonable approach to ethics. We need to develop a rational and secular "code" of ethics that can be used universally.

I cannot see how one can argue that doing something for the benefit of everyone is not ethical or should not be considered ethical.

In any case if you want to create a utilitarianism debate thread with me, go ahead, but I don't want to be shitting up Aedes's thread with our little debate.

If you wish to use ethics as an argument for something else like utility, I think you have to get at the root of Ethics. My sense is that there is a practical value in utilitarianism, but not an ethical value. I think one could more easily make an ethical argument for all possible good for all the people, which is to say, leaving none out. Ultimately it is not arguments or systems that are ethical, but people. Ethics is character, and character is what the world knows us by. Ethical people do ethically. And this is easy to see with people who feel they are human, and identify with all of humanity, and less visible among people ethical to their own kind; but for each the motivation is the same, and that is affinity, or affection.

I am not sure I can jump into your discussion and really make much sense to you. I would only say that a system of behavior, or laws, or precepts, or norms will not ever get at ethical behavior. People can always find the loophole in the law. Loopholes are harder to find in emotions. If you love others you will treat them with justice and help them when they are down.

@krazy kaju,

krazy kaju wrote:

In any case if you want to create a utilitarianism debate thread with me, go ahead, but I don't want to be shitting up Aedes's thread with our little debate.

I think the discussion between you two could be taken as an interesting example of what the article discusses (in part anyway.) Smile

It's the way many such arguments go:
Ed: "I think that X is good because Y"
Willa: "I couldn't disagree more, it's obvious that X is false! One need only consider Z to show that this is true."

Ed: "I see your point, but clearly in light of Y, you should reconsider your opinion. Z is less important than Y. Surely, as an enlightened person, you agree; don't you?"

Willa: "No, It's obvious to any non-defective person that Z is of far greater importance than Y. I'm shocked that you would suggest otherwise!"

Ed: "You're a Jerk!"

Willa: "No, You ARE!"

Ed: "You!"

Willa: "YOU!"

Well that last part didn't happen in this case, but it often does, in the head anyway if not from the mouth. This article offers an explanation for why ethical and moral arguments are often unproductive. I'm unclear though how it helps.

If we assume that the article's position is true (essentially that morality is powerfully influenced by genetics) how does that really help us work out our differences?

I suppose it would be fair to inform you that I'm sympathetic to the idea that we are so. Though, I'd assert that it doesn't really mater if we speak of DNA or the soul in this case. The important bit is that we hold our perceptions of Virtue as a quality of our being, rather than a quality of our thought (To some significant degree.)

@krazy kaju,

krazy kaju wrote:

So you're a moral subjectivist?

The truth is that there are some ethical systems that are better than others.

For example, do you honestly believe that the correct thing to do is to stone adulterers?

The best ethical system is the one that brings the most good into the world... which without a doubt is utilitarianism.

Indeed I am a moral subjectivist because I am of the opinion that no one is right 100% of the time and therefore any and all moral systems must be called into question. Just because my arrogant opinion says one thing doesn't mean someone else's arrogant opinions are the same.

No, I don't think that adulterers should be stoned, but some do and that's their prerogative. If they got enough people to believe in that line of thought and carried it out then good for them.

@krazy kaju,

krazy kaju wrote:

The best ethical system is the one that brings the most good into the world... which without a doubt is utilitarianism.

No, the best ethical system is the one that allows me to experience the most joy for the largest portion of my very limited time in this world. The average of the masses subjective opinions is not an optimal solution for me. In fact it is often pretty crappy. Utilitarianism, can and often does justify folks trying to hit me over the head with various heavy objects, both real and proverbial.

This article does shed light on why utilitarianism is just as silly as subjectivism in practice. Utilitarians rarely even try to figure out what makes most people happier. They just assume that "most " people are like them and proceed to justify.

Those utilitarians who do try, must either give up the utility game, or engage in heavy self deception. Just read the hoops Mill (the younger) jumps through in his work on the subject.

Not that self deception is unusual for humans at all. It's one of our favorite pastimes. (And no I am not any better in this regard than anyone else. I relish self deception, when the voices in my head let me get away with it. It makes it easier to pretend that life doesn't suck.)

@Niemand,

Niemand wrote:

No, I don't think that adulterers should be stoned, but some do and that's their prerogative. If they got enough people to believe in that line of thought and carried it out then good for them.

Majority opinion may work for imposing laws, but it doesn't work to make ethical determinations. The ought would be coming out of the is in that case.

Polling a million people about their favorite ice cream flavor is not the same thing as polling a million people about right versus wrong in a specific context. Opinions may be subjective; but morals as a collective experience come out of the common threads in these subjective opinions. There may be something innate about moral decisionmaking, and it almost doesn't matter whether it's molecular or psychological or spiritual.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

The ought would be coming out of the is in that case.

This is an interesting turn of phrase, could you elaborate on this?

@Aedes,

Wish I could take credit for it. I'm not sure who originally said it, and it has become almost a cliche, but the point is that you can't use empirical observation to derive a moral, i.e. there is no evidence to support morals. Thus, you cannot derive an ought from an is.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Wish I could take credit for it. I'm not sure who originally said it, and it has become almost a cliche, but the point is that you can't use empirical observation to derive a moral, i.e. there is no evidence to support morals. Thus, you cannot derive an ought from an is.

I think that is a fair enough statement. Morals are not oughts, but they can be expressed as oughts especially when it is clear what one ought to do but does not. There is not a rule to fit every situation. There is no law that cannot be loopholed. There is no imperitive. Either you feel moral because you are moral, and feel connected to others; or you do not. No hypothetical situation can express a real emotion, and no amount of desire for the IS of morality, that result of good we all expect and desire from the moral person can result is a universal ought.

@Aedes,

[Thanks for that Aedes, I wasn't certain that I knew what you meant]

I think there is plenty of evidence for (some) moral/ethical statements. The problem is that much of it is contradictory. Smile

I don't even try to offer my own ethics to others anymore, as they don't seem to be compatible with them.

Then again I think I may be slightly damaged as I'm not nearly as bat-crap insane about morality as many/most people I talk to. The only thing I get morally outraged about is the act of using violence to coerce others to do your bidding (there are many forms this takes, murdering them included.) All else is "emotional commerce" as far as I'm concerned. (I do seem to make exceptions in the loose category of self defense.)

None of my inclinations towards helping others has a moral tinge for example; but I do derive pleasure from it. So I do a fair amount of that.

I do try to understand other folks morals however, so I can engage in more effective "emotional commerce" Wink

@Niemand,

Fido wrote:

If you wish to use ethics as an argument for something else like utility, I think you have to get at the root of Ethics. My sense is that there is a practical value in utilitarianism, but not an ethical value. I think one could more easily make an ethical argument for all possible good for all the people, which is to say, leaving none out.

So you're saying that it is easier to argue that an action which does not benefit one person but benefits all others is just as unethical as an action that does not benefit anyone?

Quote:

Ultimately it is not arguments or systems that are ethical, but people.

But didn't you just say that one could make an argument that an action that benefits everyone is ethical? BLARING contradiction.

Also, how do you decide if people are ethical or not? People cannot be ethical unless you have some kind of standard for ethics, and the goal of the field of study of ethics is to create this standard.

Quote:

Ethics is character, and character is what the world knows us by.

Ethics is the study of what actions are right and wrong.

It has nothing to do with character, unless you want to say that ethical actions are those which make you a better person/give you a better character (virtue ethics).

Quote:

Ethical people do ethically.

Well, what is "ethically?"

Is killing someone "doing ethically?" What about rape? Murder? What if you kill a criminal who would otherwise kill you and your entire family? Would that be "doing ethically?"

Quote:

And this is easy to see with people who feel they are human, and identify with all of humanity, and less visible among people ethical to their own kind; but for each the motivation is the same, and that is affinity, or affection.

No, it's not "easy to see." How is an action done with affinity and affection ethical? What if I'm a sadist, and I feel affection when I brutalize an innocent victim?

Please provide a logical rationale for your brand of ethics.

Quote:

I am not sure I can jump into your discussion and really make much sense to you. I would only say that a system of behavior, or laws, or precepts, or norms will not ever get at ethical behavior. People can always find the loophole in the law. Loopholes are harder to find in emotions. If you love others you will treat them with justice and help them when they are down.

There are no "loopholes" in ethical systems. Either an action is ethical or not.

In utilitarianism, an ethical action is an action that does the most good. If your action does not do the most good, then it is not ethical. In divine command theory, an ethical action is an action that follows the laws and rules of God. If you break one of those laws or rules, your action was not ethical.

There's no "well, I sorta was unethical, but..." That does not exist. Your action is either ethical or not.

Niemand wrote:

Indeed I am a moral subjectivist because I am of the opinion that no one is right 100% of the time and therefore any and all moral systems must be called into question. Just because my arrogant opinion says one thing doesn't mean someone else's arrogant opinions are the same.

So I take it you think that such heinous and destructive activities as female circumcision and beheading infidels are all ethically correct actions, right?

Quote:

No, I don't think that adulterers should be stoned, but some do and that's their prerogative. If they got enough people to believe in that line of thought and carried it out then good for them.

So Stalin's and Pol Pot's purges along with Hitler's holocaust were all ethical and moral?

After all, it was their morality and the morality of the hardcores of their respective parties, that the purges were morally justified.

Quatl wrote:

No, the best ethical system is the one that allows me to experience the most joy for the largest portion of my very limited time in this world. The average of the masses subjective opinions is not an optimal solution for me. In fact it is often pretty crappy. Utilitarianism, can and often does justify folks trying to hit me over the head with various heavy objects, both real and proverbial.

Really?

What if you had pleasure in rape? Or murder? Or torture?

So it's ethically justified for you to rape, torture, and murder people because it's pleasurable for you and because it allows you to "experience the most joy for the largest portion of my very limited time in this world?"

Quote:

This article does shed light on why utilitarianism is just as silly as subjectivism in practice.

No, the article does not shed any light on why "utilitarianism is just as silly as subjectivism in practice." It sheds light on the psychological aspects of making decisions that we perceive to be ethical.

Quote:

Utilitarians rarely even try to figure out what makes most people happier. They just assume that "most " people are like them and proceed to justify.

A priori logical fallacy.

Could you provide any examples of this in action? What utilitarians did not try to figure out what makes most people happier? When did they do it?

It's the job of utilitarians to decide what would be good for the people, so I'd be very interested in you providing examples showing otherwise (because then you fail to be a utilitarian in the first place).

Quote:

Those utilitarians who do try, must either give up the utility game, or engage in heavy self deception. Just read the hoops Mill (the younger) jumps through in his work on the subject.

Burden of proof.

Again, provide examples, otherwise you're just wasting bandwidth.

Quote:

Not that self deception is unusual for humans at all. It's one of our favorite pastimes. (And no I am not any better in this regard than anyone else. I relish self deception, when the voices in my head let me get away with it. It makes it easier to pretend that life doesn't suck.)

LOL

I think the article actually exposed some of the self deception of humans. It spoke of how people try to justify what action they would've taken - but then fail to provide a logical or rational explanation for it.

@krazy kaju,

krazy kaju wrote:

There's no "well, I sorta was unethical, but..." That does not exist. Your action is either ethical or not.

Actually it does in practice, mainly because people disagree as to what situations fall under what definitions. For example it is common for people to be more forgiving of a starving person who steals food, than a rich person who steals money. Neither the declaration "Thou shalt not steal," nor the definition "Theft=Taking another person's property without permission" make room for this distinction.

The application of one's ethical system to life is itself a worthy subject for philosophy.

krazy kaju wrote:

Really?

What if you had pleasure in rape? Or murder? Or torture?

So it's ethically justified for you to rape, torture, and murder people because it's pleasurable for you and because it allows you to "experience the most joy for the largest portion of my very limited time in this world?"

The key is "for the largest portion of my very limited time in this world?" This sort of behavior is likely to be met with violent resistance, including my own death, dismemberment, and or imprisonment, none of which would I particularly enjoy experiencing.

Lucky for me I don't enjoy the pastimes on your list, if I did though I could find employment with any number of government agencies that have the privilege of at least killing, and/or beating folks without much risk of reprisal.

As a less exaggerated example I'd offer you the various actions people take to illegal drugs. A great many folks partake of them, because getting high is fun (if it wasn't fun they wouldn't call it getting high! And yes addiction is not much fun.)

There is a large number of other folks who may like to get high, but choose not to do drugs because in the cost benefit analysis of risks vs rewards, they come to the conclusion that it's not worth the risk (of jail or whatever.) Others may choose not to do drugs out of concern for their effects on health (prudence.) Or any number of other non-moral reasons, based in various kinds of pragmatism. In the terms of the article, for these people drug use is a non-moral issue. For others it is. Currently in terms of law anyway the drugs are immoral crowd is in charge.

Yes I am one of those people who avoids drug use because I don't find the High worth a term in prison. So to answer your original objection, the first impulse for pleasure may not always be the best impulse for pleasure. Blind hedonism leads to unhappiness, and is self defeating. Enlightened hedonism on the other hand has some hope.

krazy kaju wrote:

No, the article does not shed any light on why "utilitarianism is just as silly as subjectivism in practice." It sheds light on the psychological aspects of making decisions that we perceive to be ethical.

The first statement, I must disagree with, because of the second Wink

krazy kaju wrote:

A priori logical fallacy.

Could you provide any examples of this in action? What utilitarians did not try to figure out what makes most people happier? When did they do it?

A priory applies to logic, not vaguely stated opinions. These are usually statements of the form "Most X are Y" Very few statements of this type should be interpreted logically. A better result can be had by mentally prefixing the statement with "I think/feel that..." This will lead you to a better understanding of the other person's actual position.

Anyway... I did give an example, but I guess it wasn't direct enough. Read: "Utilitarianism." Its a book by John Stewart Mill, any decent library should have it or be able to get it. He thought he tried, but I didn't buy it.

One of my aggravations with this work is that he tries to impose his own emotional attachments to certain kinds of happiness onto humanity as a whole. If you haven't read it you may find the book interesting as he is one of the early Utilitarians, along with his father: James Mill, and Jeremy Bentham)
[Yuck! You made me reference someone, now I have to go wash the "persons of importance" out of my mouth! I hope you're happy.]

krazy kaju wrote:

It's the job of utilitarians to decide what would be good for the people, so I'd be very interested in you providing examples showing otherwise (because then you fail to be a utilitarian in the first place).

I disagree. Such a person is still a Utilitarian, because the heart is in the right place, said person is just a delusional utilitarian.

krazy kaju wrote:

I think the article actually exposed some of the self deception of humans. It spoke of how people try to justify what action they would've taken - but then fail to provide a logical or rational explanation for it.

The worse offense is when they do provide a rational explanation ad hoc to make themselves feel better. Both are very common though.

Philosophy Forum

Amazing article on Ethics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know