Why is morality a problem?

[Howard Is]

Actually have no problem going with my gut, just not sure what my gut is going to say in all possible circumstances.

I've a fairly wide ranging imagination. I can think of scenarios in which rape or murder could prevent greater atrocities.

One of my teachers was Ribur Rinpoche.
He was imprisoned by the Chinese for 13 years.
During that time he experienced hell. He said that a good day was finding a particularly large cockroach or worm to supplement his diet.

But the worst treatment he was subjected to was much more personal.
His Chinese captors threatened to cut the throats of imprisoned nuns, unless he had sex with them in public, in the street. This was part of a systematic humiliation and devaluing of Buddhist teachers.

I think we would agree that having sex with those nuns was not immoral of him.

There is also a well known teaching story of a monk on a ferry, who discovers a man drilling a hole in the hull of the boat, below the water line. The monk kills him to save the 500 passengers. This story is often told to make the Buddhist notion of morality clear.

 

[Valjean]

We don't need objective morality, we just need self-interest. Nobody wants to be victims of these "things", so we have democracy to create laws to support the self-interest of the majority.

The problem is, one's self-interest is often served at the expense of others. You're advocating sociopathy.
History is replete with examples of the majority trampling on the minority.

 

[Valjean]

For the most part morality is pretty simple for anyone who possesses the ability to empathize. If there's something that you wouldn't want other people to do to you then it's probably wise not to do that something to anyone else.

Good point, but empathy is usually hierarchical. It's unnatural for people to empathize with "The Other," making is easy to "do that something" to someone elseistorically, legislators aren't likely to make laws to enforce this universalism when it doesn't directly benefit them.
The golden rule sounds nice from the pulpit, but few actually extend it very far.

 

[Valjean]

QuestioningMind said: ↑

For the most part morality is pretty simple for anyone who possesses the ability to empathize. If there's something that you wouldn't want other people to do to you then it's probably wise not to do that something to anyone else.

Yes, I think everyone could agree to something like this as the basis for society.

But what if some other society has something you want? How could your society take it from them if
this Golden Rule were enforced universally?

 

[Nakosis]

The problem is, one's self-interest is often served at the expense of others.

Just as often it is not.

You're advocating sociopathy.

I disagree. Self interest is the glue of social interaction.

History is replete with examples of the majority trampling on the minority.

As well as supporting and promoting equal rights, encouraging charity, empathy, humanity.

The problem is not self interest, the problem is the nature of man.

 

[tayla]

It's not 1% it's 51%. Basically democracy, not perfect but nothing better?

You have a better idea? Willing to listen... Just don't know currently of a better way.
Want me to decide? No problem. Rest of the world might take issue though.

The 51% need to include the rights and freedoms and needs of the 49% in their governing. This takes caring about the other members of society, including the disadvantaged and downtrodden. I judge a culture by how well it does this.

 

[tayla]

This story is often told to make the Buddhist notion of morality clear.

Your examples of something usually immoral, but in a specific case not immoral, are striking.

Seems like in assessing morality, we need to address the 99% of circumstances. But, as your examples illustrate, in accessing whether something is immoral, the specific circumstances must be considered.

I suppose laws enforcing morality should all have an escape clause, something like: "unless the specific circumstances warrant the action".

 

[tayla]

The problem is, one's self-interest is often served at the expense of others. You're advocating sociopathy.
History is replete with examples of the majority trampling on the minority.

Yes, democracy can devolve into mob rule.

 

[tayla]

legislators aren't likely to make laws to enforce this universalism when it doesn't directly benefit them.
The golden rule sounds nice from the pulpit, but few actually extend it very far.

Yes, and ditto for voters who won't vote for people who help others that the voters don't want helped.

The best strategy in life is to dodge those in the majority who seek to harm you (wittingly or unwittingly).

 

[tayla]

The problem is not self interest, the problem is the nature of man.

Yes. What is the best system of governance that minimizes the harm?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some seem to think there is no such thing as objective morality because no one can agree. Does this mean laws are immoral and that we should not have laws? (since they are arbitrary and promote the moral views of some but not others).

But can we agree on enough? Things such as: murder, stealing, rape, racism, phobias against various groups of people. Is there really any controversy about these?

I think morality can be a pseudo-objective thing. And the "pseudo" part is only there because we'ld have to establish a subjective baseline.

As Sam Harris always says, clearly morality is very much connected and related to the well-being and avoidable suffering of sentient creatures, humans in particular.

Once we agree and understand that, it seems that rational reasoning in combination with knowledge of the world (to help understand / predict the consequences of actions and decisions) should be enough to make moral evaluations.

In the end, if we agree on the baseline (good = increasing well-being, bad = increasing avoidable suffering), employ valid reasoning and if we have access to the same knowledge - we should all pretty much be able to come to the same conclusions concerning moral judgements.

We'ld be able to end up in a place where when 2 people disagree on wheter a certain thing is good or bad, that one of them will be incorrect.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes. What is the best system of governance that minimizes the harm?

I think democracy, unless you know of something better.

 

[Nakosis]

The 51% need to include the rights and freedoms and needs of the 49% in their governing. This takes caring about the other members of society, including the disadvantaged and downtrodden. I judge a culture by how well it does this.

Also it's in their self interest to consider the 49% Because they may at some point find themselves part of the 49%.

 

[Howard Is]

I think democracy, unless you know of something better.

Your examples of something usually immoral, but in a specific case not immoral, are striking.

Seems like in assessing morality, we need to address the 99% of circumstances. But, as your examples illustrate, in accessing whether something is immoral, the specific circumstances must be considered.

I suppose laws enforcing morality should all have an escape clause, something like: "unless the specific circumstances warrant the action".

This highlights the difference between living in a village where ‘law’ is determined by a sheikh or a shaman, and living in the modern world where law is institutionalised.

In a village, where each member knows maybe fifty people in their lifetime, the context of a ‘wrong’ is much clearer, and the person making judgement has a personal relationship with all parties.

How many discussions and debates on RF become acrimonious because of a failure on both sides to really understand the temperament, linguistic style and history of the other ?

We attempt to solve our disputes with one-size-fits-all logical or theological propositions, which are inadequate when dealing with the multilayered complexities they address.

 

[1213]

Some seem to think there is no such thing as objective morality because no one can agree. ...

I think there is and it goes like this:

1. all people are equal, there is no reason why I would not have right to do the same thing as you.

2. What ever right you take, all other people can take the same right.

3. If you choose to kill, you give the same right for others and they can kill you.

4. If you choose to steal, you give the same right for others and they can steal from you.

5. This means, if you don’t want to be killed, don’t kill, if you don’t want that people steal from you, don’t steal.

6. And this all leads to:

Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," [TR adds "You shall not give false testimony,"] and whatever other commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.
Romans 13:8-10

What do you think, is there some argument why that is not objective?

 

[tayla]

In the end, if we agree on the baseline (good = increasing well-being, bad = increasing avoidable suffering), employ valid reasoning and if we have access to the same knowledge - we should all pretty much be able to come to the same conclusions concerning moral judgements.

Yes, a good point, that suffering is the key metric.

In considering what evil is, it seems that suffering is the key ingredient; if no one suffers, there was no evil. (Even someone planning on doing "evil" suffers psychologically, even if he/she never gets to do the evil deed.)

 

[tayla]

Once we agree and understand that, it seems that rational reasoning in combination with knowledge of the world (to help understand / predict the consequences of actions and decisions) should be enough to make moral evaluations.

Yes. I wonder if people claiming that morality is too subjective unless you have a religiously dictated moral system; I wonder if they would be willing to accept a moral system based on this kind of rational reasoning?

 

[tayla]

I think democracy, unless you know of something better.

Yes, democracy. As long as the needs of the minority are considered as important by the majority. And as long as the voters are not duped into believing crazy ideas by unscrupulous charismatic leaders.

 

[tayla]

What do you think, is there some argument why that is not objective?

Yes, I think your assessment is a good one. I notice you first determined the argument using reason and critical thinking, and only after that, provided a Bible verse that matched. In other words, you could have left out the Bible verse and your argument would have remained unchanged. Your argument was not derived from the Bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, a good point, that suffering is the key metric.

In the sense of that suffering is to be avoided where possible, right.
There are those among the religious who seem to think that suffering is "holy" and a way to "get closer to god". "Mother" Theresa comes to mind.