Morality Made Simple

[joe1776]

This is my first trial run of my proposal that morality can be made simple. It begins by assuming that we humans are much too proud of our ability to reason. Because of that, we have complicated and confused the relatively simple problem of using our intuitive moral sense (conscience) to make judgments.

We have two brain functions involved in making judgments on moral questions. The reasoning function will collect the facts involved in a specific case. The moral instincts function will then take over and make an instinctive judgment on questions that concern right or wrong and fair or unfair.

Seven guidelines learned from our intuitive moral sense (conscience):

1. Don't use your reasoning function to make moral rules or laws and don't be guided by moral rules or laws about any type of act like killing, stealing, incest, lying, and so on.

2. An act is immoral if it intentionally harms an innocent person.

3. Any act is moral if it is done in self-defense, to protect innocent others, and when the harm done is only sufficient to stop the attack.

4. Any act is moral if it does the least harm in a moral dilemma.When two option both feel intuitively wrong, the reasoning function of the brain probably weighs for the lesser harm and makes the final judgment.

5. If an act is morally wrong, it will immediately feel wrong. The judgment will be followed by a desire to see the wrongdoer punished.

6. If an act is unfair, it will immediately feel unfair and it will be hard to explain why it is unfair.

7. Intentionally endangering innocent people is morally wrong.


Some examples:

Traffic accidents cause harm but, absent the intent to harm, they are not immoral.(See #2)

"Abortion is murder!" This self-made moral rule (See #1) forms a bias which sends judgment off course. The judgment of murder is unconfirmed when there is no desire to see the woman who terminates her pregnancy severely punished (See #5).

The countries which legalize prostitution are morally right since there is no harm done to an innocent person (See #2).

The states which allow euthanasia are morally right because the intent is not to harm but to prevent suffering (See #2).

You should not kill, (See #1) when interpreted as a general rule is useless when we need guidance in a specific case which could be an exception. And when interpreted as an absolute rule -- You should never kill -- it becomes a bias which will send judgment off course when we are presented with a clear case of self-defense (See #3).

The Christian law prohibiting fornication should be ignored (See #1). Consensual sex between two adults who aren't cheating on anyone is not immoral because there's no intent to harm an innocent person (See #2).

The writers of the TV series 24 gave Kiefer Sutherland a moral dilemma every week. In one show, he murdered a friend in order to save thousands in L.A. from a dirty bomb. There is no act that is always immoral since a real life moral dilemma could offer it up as the lesser harm. (See #4)

Driving drunk is morally wrong because it intentionally endangers innocent people (See #7).

I invite criticism, but please bear in mind that if you add facts or alter the facts in any of my examples, you haven't challenged my judgment, you have presented a different moral case.

Questions or comments?

 

[LuisDantas]

I just don't see how morality could ever attempt to be a non-rational activity.

 

[joe1776]

I just don't see how morality could ever attempt to be a non-rational activity.

We would have no knowledge of morality whatsoever if not for the intuitive judgments of conscience because "all knowledge begins with an observation of the senses." Since our ancestors couldn't see, hear, taste, or smell right from wrong, they must have felt it.

 

[Augustus]

Traffic accidents cause harm but, absent the intent to harm, they are not immoral.(See #2)

If I'm driving my car after 10 pints, 6 pills and a couple of tabs of acid I don't intend to harm anyone, but there is a good chance that I will.

Lack of concern for how your actions might affect others could be considered immoral.

 

[joe1776]

If I'm driving my car after 10 pints, 6 pills and a couple of tabs of acid I don't intend to harm anyone, but there is a good chance that I will.

Lack of concern for how your actions might affect others could be considered immoral.

See #2 and the word "endanger." If you knew, or should have known, that your act could harm innocent people, it's immoral.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We would have no knowledge of morality whatsoever if not for the intuitive judgments of conscience because "all knowledge begins with an observation of the senses." Since our ancestors couldn't see, hear, taste, or smell right from wrong, they must have felt it.

Our ancestors used slaves, sacrificed people and animals, waged constant wars on each other, treated other races and women as inherently inferior, raped practically without a second thought, had no concept of property or justice, wiped out entire species of animals, and executed or mistreated the sick, infirm or disabled. It wasn't until human beings started congregating into social structures and communities that morality really comes into the picture.

Your model mostly depends on people being able to naturally and uniformly "intuit" what is immoral or unfair, but this simply isn't an accurate reflection of reality. Not everyone has the same moral intuitions, and most people have to learn about fairness and equality over the course of their lives - it isn't something they just naturally "feel" to be. This is why the vast majority of toddlers are incredibly selfish jerks - they have no real concept of other people's needs or desires and only really care about their own.

What's more, your system makes assertions that necessarily REQUIRE rational judgements. For example, how can you determine which of a number of options is least harmful without an objective and unbiased analysis of the options and their consequences? How can you determine what causes the least harm necessary without an objective evaluation of what constitutes harm and at what point that harm becomes unnecessary? A moral system which makes no room for rationality cannot possibly be moral.

I think the most fundamental flaw, however, is actually evidenced in the very title of this thread:

"Morality Made Simple"

Morality isn't simple. Nor should it be. It's a messy, uncertain and complicated subject that is deserving of serious critical thought, and any attempt to simplify morality strikes me as an attempt to shirk the responsibility of due consideration and thought that is required for any moral system to actually work. By and large, any system which attempts to "simplify" morality is not a moral system.

 

[Augustus]

See #2 and the word "endanger." If you knew, or should have known, that your act could harm innocent people, it's immoral.

Is the word 'intentionally' not to be applied to endanger? It is currently ambiguous.

 

[LuisDantas]

We would have no knowledge of morality whatsoever if not for the intuitive judgments of conscience because "all knowledge begins with an observation of the senses." Since our ancestors couldn't see, hear, taste, or smell right from wrong, they must have felt it.

I don't know what you are calling morality, but it seems to be at odds with my understanding of the word.

Morality is not at all "intuitive". Quite on the contrary. It is the application of rationality over perceptions of action and likely consequence. It is the direct offspring of the ability of abstract thought, and one of its main directives is to expand itself.

 

[joe1776]

Our ancestors used slaves, sacrificed people and animals, waged constant wars on each other, treated other races and women as inherently inferior, raped practically without a second thought, had no concept of property or justice, wiped out entire species of animals, and executed or mistreated the sick, infirm or disabled. It wasn't until human beings started congregating into social structures and communities that morality really comes into the picture.

Conscience is a moral guide. Our ancestors were bad because they ignored their conscience just as people ignore it to this day. We're getting better, though.

Your model mostly depends on people being able to naturally and uniformly "intuit" what is immoral or unfair, but this simply isn't an accurate reflection of reality. Not everyone has the same moral intuitions, and most people have to learn about fairness and equality over the course of their lives - it isn't something they just naturally "feel" to be. This is why the vast majority of toddlers are incredibly selfish jerks - they have no real concept of other people's needs or desires and only really care about their own.

The idea that morality is taught and learned is a popular myth that fails logically and is now being disproved by science. I don't have time right now to support this statement, but I'll try to get to it later.

What's more, your system makes assertions that necessarily REQUIRE rational judgements. For example, how can you determine which of a number of options is least harmful without an objective and unbiased analysis of the options and their consequences? How can you determine what causes the least harm necessary without an objective evaluation of what constitutes harm and at what point that harm becomes unnecessary? A moral system which makes no room for rationality cannot possibly be moral.

You're right. In a moral dilemma, conscience might make both of two options feel wrong. And the choice of the lesser harm is probably a judgment of reason. I'll add that to my explanation. It's the only exception. Otherwise, the final judgment is intuitive.( fMri shows two portions of the brain lighting up when people consider moral dillemas)

"Morality Made Simple"

Morality isn't simple. Nor should it be. It's a messy, uncertain and complicated subject that is deserving of serious critical thought, and any attempt to simplify morality strikes me as an attempt to shirk the responsibility of due consideration and thought that is required for any moral system to actually work. By and large, any system which attempts to "simplify" morality is not a moral system.

Nonsense.

 

[joe1776]

I don't know what you are calling morality, but it seems to be at odds with my understanding of the word.

Morality is not at all "intuitive". Quite on the contrary. It is the application of rationality over perceptions of action and likely consequence. It is the direct offspring of the ability of abstract thought, and one of its main directives is to expand itself.

If what you say is true, then you should be able to find logical points to prove my simple approach doesn't work.

 

[Stevicus]

I think a way to make morality simple is to perceive it merely as being true to one's own stated beliefs. Whether it's "harmful" or not is another matter, but the real question is whether it's honest. If a thief thinks that it's okay to steal, then he can't cry foul if someone steals from him.

 

[joe1776]

Is the word 'intentionally' not to be applied to endanger? It is currently ambiguous.

I might have to separate endangerment and put it on its own if it's ambiguous. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[joe1776]

I think a way to make morality simple is to perceive it merely as being true to one's own stated beliefs. Whether it's "harmful" or not is another matter, but the real question is whether it's honest. If a thief thinks that it's okay to steal, then he can't cry foul if someone steals from him.

I don't think that honesty is paramount. If a dishonest act could save thousands of lives, would honesty be more important than morality?

 

[joe1776]

Your model mostly depends on people being able to naturally and uniformly "intuit" what is immoral or unfair, but this simply isn't an accurate reflection of reality. Not everyone has the same moral intuitions, and most people have to learn about fairness and equality over the course of their lives - it isn't something they just naturally "feel" to be. This is why the vast majority of toddlers are incredibly selfish jerks - they have no real concept of other people's needs or desires and only really care about their own.

According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger.

 

[Polymath257]

I have a bit simpler system that has worked for me:

1. Care
2. Think

In other words, care about what happens to others. Think about the effect your actions have on others.

This means we have the *duty* to care about other people, to value their lives, to reduce their suffering, and to help them.

We also have the duty to *think* about how our actions affect others. We are required to learn more about how the universe works and use that knowledge to help others and relieve suffering.

The main difficulty I have with the system in the OP is that it allows for 'negligence', where a person doesn't acquire the knowledge of the dangers of a particular activity. So, they may not know that their actions will put others in harms way. If, however they should be *expected* to acquire that knowledge, such negligence would then also be immoral.

 

[joe1776]

I have a bit simpler system that has worked for me:

1. Care
2. Think

In other words, care about what happens to others. Think about the effect your actions have on others.

This means we have the *duty* to care about other people, to value their lives, to reduce their suffering, and to help them.

We also have the duty to *think* about how our actions affect others. We are required to learn more about how the universe works and use that knowledge to help others and relieve suffering.

Your approach has merit as a general guide, but how does it guide when we need to make a choice in a specific issue? In my examples, my model takes on abortion, euthanasia and prostitution. How would we apply your model to decide those issues as a criminal justice policy problem?

The main difficulty I have with the system in the OP is that it allows for 'negligence', where a person doesn't acquire the knowledge of the dangers of a particular activity. So, they may not know that their actions will put others in harms way. If, however they should be *expected* to acquire that knowledge, such negligence would then also be immoral.

Conscience doesn't condemn the act as morally wrong unless the actor knew, or should have known, that it would cause harm. I think harm is done when Christians manipulate the minds of young children because they attempt to rob the person of a freewill choice. Yet, there's no doubt that they mean well. So, in my mind that's a negligent act not an immoral one.

I think it would be arrogant of me to claim that they ought to know better.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"Abortion is murder!" This self-made moral rule (See #1) forms a bias which sends judgment off course. The judgment of murder is unconfirmed when there is no desire to see the woman who terminates her pregnancy severely punished (See #5).

But I guarantee there are people who want to see the woman who terminates her pregnancy be severely punished. There will be people whose conscience informs them that such acts should be punished, and with severity - they aren't being "guided by moral rules or laws", at that point, their conscience will inform them that they are "right."

The countries which legalize prostitution are morally right since there is no harm done to an innocent person (See #2).

Prostitution can be harmful (emotionally) on its own, regardless whether the person being prostituted made the choice for themselves. How do your 7 points address something like this? Do you have to delve down to individual acts of prostitution and find out whether a "John" treated the prostitute poorly, or apathetically, and therefore damaged the prostitute's sense of self, or outlook on her fellow in humankind? Something like that is simply not possible, and I would argue that harm is being done, and routinely.

The Christian law prohibiting fornication should be ignored (See #1). Consensual sex between two adults who aren't cheating on anyone is not immoral because there's no intent to harm an innocent person (See #2).

Agreed on the first part, but your rules don't actually cover the "aren't cheating on anyone" point, except under the "it will immediately feel wrong" or "unfair" in your points 5 & 6. It can almost be guaranteed that the intent of the person doing the cheating isn't to harm. The most often case is that they are trying to hide it, and doing so to prevent the emotional harm that comes with knowledge that the partner cheated. And it could be argued that the act only "feels wrong" to the cheater because, for one, they have been primed to feel it wrong by society, and 2, they know they would be taken to task by their formal partner - and they have already (in their mind at least) mitigated the issue of their partner's emotional hurt by keeping the situation hidden. And in some way, what they are doing when they cheat feels "right" enough that they are willing to risk the behavior.

I invite criticism, but please bear in mind that if you add facts or alter the facts in any of my examples, you haven't challenged my judgment, you have presented a different moral case.

Note, I don't believe I added or altered any "facts" in your examples, all I did was point out, within the confines of the scenarios you presented) where there is (and I believe, will remain) moral gray area.

 

[joe1776]

But I guarantee there are people who want to see the woman who terminates her pregnancy be severely punished. There will be people whose conscience informs them that such acts should be punished, and with severity - they aren't being "guided by moral rules or laws", at that point, their conscience will inform them that they are "right.".

It's not their conscience but their bias that creates exceptions. When Donald Trump proposed that the woman should be punished, two major pro-life groups opposed him making clear that they sought to penalize anyone helping her, but not the woman. If abortion is murder, that makes as much sense as punishing the accessory but not the killer.

Prostitution can be harmful (emotionally) on its own, regardless whether the person being prostituted made the choice for themselves. How do your 7 points address something like this? Do you have to delve down to individual acts of prostitution and find out whether a "John" treated the prostitute poorly, or apathetically, and therefore damaged the prostitute's sense of self, or outlook on her fellow in humankind? Something like that is simply not possible, and I would argue that harm is being done, and routinely.

As a public policy, prostitution is not immoral, therefore it should not be illegal. However, immoral acts can spring from legal activities. Lots of immoral acts have sprung from religion, for example. And, yes, conscience judges each act as an individual case and those cases are as unique as snowflakes.

Agreed on the first part, but your rules don't actually cover the "aren't cheating on anyone" point, except under the "it will immediately feel wrong" or "unfair" in your points 5 & 6. It can almost be guaranteed that the intent of the person doing the cheating isn't to harm. The most often case is that they are trying to hide it, and doing so to prevent the emotional harm that comes with knowledge that the partner cheated. And it could be argued that the act only "feels wrong" to the cheater because, for one, they have been primed to feel it wrong by society, and 2, they know they would be taken to task by their formal partner - and they have already (in their mind at least) mitigated the issue of their partner's emotional hurt by keeping the situation hidden. And in some way, what they are doing when they cheat feels "right" enough that they are willing to risk the behavior.

When someone cheats, they know that their partner could find out and be hurt. They know they are endangering an innocent person (See #7 )I moved "endanger" in the OP when a poster pointed out ambiguity.

Note, I don't believe I added or altered any "facts" in your examples, all I did was point out, within the confines of the scenarios you presented) where there is (and I believe, will remain) moral gray area.

I have no problem at all with your challenges. In fact I appreciate them.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't need morality. I am simply mindful of my actions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Conscience is a moral guide. Our ancestors were bad because they ignored their conscience just as people ignore it to this day. We're getting better, though.

Your argument is that humans "just know" what is moral at an intuitive level. This is obviously false when you look at human history. Rise in moral thought (that is, the consideration given to morality, not necessarily the "correct" moral code) did not come about until humans started to think rationally.

The idea that morality is taught and learned is a popular myth that fails logically and is now being disproved by science. I don't have time right now to support this statement, but I'll try to get to it later.

Please do.

You're right. In a moral dilemma, conscience might make both of two options feel wrong. And the choice of the lesser harm is probably a judgment of reason. I'll add that to my explanation. It's the only exception. Otherwise, the final judgment is intuitive.( fMri shows two portions of the brain lighting up when people consider moral dillemas)

If the final judgement is intuitive, then all the other considerations are meaningless.

Nonsense.

Don't blame me jut because you want the world to be simple. The sooner you realize it isn't, the sooner you might actually be able to talk meaningfully about morality.