To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[carpedm9587]

Saying that it is an intrinsic good that we survive IS a subjective consideration. You are bringing a moral judgment to the table, and moral judgements by nature are subjective. If an alien race came here and harvested us all for food, that would be bad for us but god for them. Who is right? In other words speculating about what is a priori or not has no currency in the real world when we kill and eat the cow.

Like I said before, Seer - I cannot explain an a priori truth. If you do not see "existence" as an intrinsic good, there is nothing I can do about it. Most philosophers throughout history accepted this as a priori true - as do I. For the rock, to exist is a good, to not exist is not. For the virus, to exist is a good, to not exist is not. For any human being, to exist is a good, to not exist is not. I find it odd to think that you would question that for you to exist is a good, but if that is what you are arguing - we are at an impasse. I cannot prove an a priori truth. You seem to be trying to jump to it being a good for Being A if Being B exists. That is not what I was arguing or discussing. I amm rooted in the a priori truth that for Being A, the existence of Being A is an intrinsic good, and the non existence of Being A is not.

From what I'm getting from you, you are channeling Kant. But you did not answer my question: If one could gain power and wealth at the expense of their fellow man why would it be illogical do do so? Why would this be an illogical proposition?

I am channeling Kant, to a degree, and I have answered this. In logic, when you want to prove or disprove a position, one approach is to accept the position and follow it to its logical conclusion. If you encounter a logical contradiction, the proposal is false. If you do not, the proposal is true. When you take a proposal, "It is moral for one to gain power and wealth at the expense of others" and attempt to universalize it (i.e., imagine the principal applies to all people), the result is all people being taken advantage for the benefit of others, creating misery, class warfare, and setting person against person. That does not serve to increase happiness, so it does not universalize without contradiction. I would reject it as a moral principle.

Except you simply can not universalize behaviors. In one context killing who I want may be a bad thing, in another context killing who I want may be a good thing.

Again, I may have been slopped with language. "Killing who I want" can cover both moral killings (i.e., self defense or in defense of others) and immoral killings (randomly shooting someone of the street). The term "who" should be "whomever." The principal, "one may morally kill whomever they want" does not universalize without contradiction, for the reasons I cited above.

On a separate note, I seem to remember being able to reverse the order of these displays, so newer posts showed up on Page 1 - is that no longer possible?

[seer]

Like I said before, Seer - I cannot explain an a priori truth. If you do not see "existence" as an intrinsic good, there is nothing I can do about it. Most philosophers throughout history accepted this as a priori true - as do I. For the rock, to exist is a good, to not exist is not. For the virus, to exist is a good, to not exist is not. For any human being, to exist is a good, to not exist is not. I find it odd to think that you would question that for you to exist is a good, but if that is what you are arguing - we are at an impasse. I cannot prove an a priori truth. You seem to be trying to jump to it being a good for Being A if Being B exists. That is not what I was arguing or discussing. I amm rooted in the a priori truth that for Being A, the existence of Being A is an intrinsic good, and the non existence of Being A is not.

And Carpedm, we are speaking of ethics here and ethics intersect with reality. It may be an a priori good for the cow to exist, but it is also a good for me to kill and eat the cow to survive. So we have competing needs. So how does your belief in a priori truths tell us anything? Solve anything? Judge between anything?

I am channeling Kant, to a degree, and I have answered this. In logic, when you want to prove or disprove a position, one approach is to accept the position and follow it to its logical conclusion. If you encounter a logical contradiction, the proposal is false. If you do not, the proposal is true. When you take a proposal, "It is moral for one to gain power and wealth at the expense of others" and attempt to universalize it (i.e., imagine the principal applies to all people), the result is all people being taken advantage for the benefit of others, creating misery, class warfare, and setting person against person. That does not serve to increase happiness, so it does not universalize without contradiction. I would reject it as a moral principle.

Yes, but what does it matter, in the real world, if it can't be universalized without contradiction? If in actuality the man or group can gain power and wealth power at the expense of others? In reality there is not necessarily a downside, even if it runs afoul of your logic. What if I was selfish and took advantage of my fellow may to save my family from starvation?

Again, I may have been slopped with language. "Killing who I want" can cover both moral killings (i.e., self defense or in defense of others) and immoral killings (randomly shooting someone of the street). The term "who" should be "whomever." The principal, "one may morally kill whomever they want" does not universalize without contradiction, for the reasons I cited above.

OK, so now you changed it to random killings. BTW - I don't see the logical contradiction here. It may create misery and death if we all randomly went around killing each other, but that is a consequence, not a violation of the rules of logic.

On a separate note, I seem to remember being able to reverse the order of these displays, so newer posts showed up on Page 1 - is that no longer possible?

I never did that, so I'm not sure how it would work. Sorry...

[carpedm9587]

And Carpedm, we are speaking of ethics here and ethics intersect with reality. It may be an a priori good for the cow to exist, but it is also a good for me to kill and eat the cow to survive. So we have competing needs. So how does your belief in a priori truths tell us anything? Solve anything? Judge between anything?

OK - you seem determined to shift the original question from "what is the rational basis" to "how does it apply in the real world." If that's what we are shifting to, I'm good with that. Once you begin to take the foundational principals of a morality (i.e., what constitutes a moral act versus what constitutes an immoral act), you enter into the world of subjective application. When I apply the "good of existence" and "universality" principles to humanity, for example, I end up with "killing whomever I wish is immoral" because it does not universalize without contradiction (i.e., everyone killing everyone). But I do not end up with a moral conundrum when I ask if it is immoral to kill a cow for food, because their is no threat to me or to humanity if we all kill cows for food. However, you will find those who equate all animals at the same level, and for them killing a cow for food would be immoral.

You will also find that my approach to determining a moral code is not the same as that of others. Some use religious codes. Some use legal codes. Some use tradition as handed down from family or community without much thought. So my basis for morality is not the same as everyone else's.

Yes, but what does it matter, in the real world, if it can't be universalized without contradiction? If in actuality the man or group can gain power and wealth power at the expense of others? In reality there is not necessarily a downside, even if it runs afoul of your logic. What if I was selfish and took advantage of my fellow may to save my family from starvation?

I've answered the first part of your question multiple times, so I'm not sure what value will be had by repeating it again. I refer you to my previous posts. You last sentence is more narrowly framed, so it is a different moral proposition. First of all, "selfish" and "save my family" don't go together for me. And the principal of "taking advantage of others to save my family" does not appear to me to universalize without contradiction. When I try to image the world where everyone was willing to do what it takes to "save their family," I do not see a species destroying itself. Not all families require "saving," for one thing. of course, "taking advantage" and "saving" are very broad. If "taking advantage" means theft, and "saving" means "saving the lives of," my moral code would permit it - again, there is no contradiction if universalized.

OK, so now you changed it to random killings. BTW - I don't see the logical contradiction here. It may create misery and death if we all randomly went around killing each other, but that is a consequence, not a violation of the rules of logic.

Again, sloppy language on my part. Yes, I believe my approach is a reasoned/rational approach, and it leverages the principals of logic. But it is not a "logical proof" in the formal sense. It is not a syllogism or other such construct. My morality is rooted in the twin principles that existence is a good, and happiness is a good. So what promotes my existence and happiness is a good. But I live in society, and I recognize that selfish pursuit of my own existence and happiness is self-defeating, because if all people do so, my existence and happiness is threatened. So it reasonably follows that my happiness is maximized and existence more assured if I extend that pursuit to those around me. THAT principal - if we all do this, existence and happiness will be maximized, is logically consistent, and universalizable. It is my reasoned/rational approach to a moral code.

You continually come back to the application of this moral code, and the enforcement of this moral code. I answered the question, "how do you arrive at a reasoned/rational moral code." Application and enforcement are separate issues.

So enforcement of moral codes is generally done by groups. Within a family, it is usually highly authoritarian (i.e., parents tend to impose a moral code on children, which then begin to adopt elements of it). In a society, it takes many forms, both informal and formal. Groups with similar moral codes tend to aggregate - forming religions, social circles, clubs, and so forth. There is often an unspoken - or sometimes spoken - moral code common to the group. Failure to adhere to that code results in several possible outcomes: shunning, disciplinary action, sometimes expulsion. Depending on the power of the group, it may even result in imprisonment or death.

Many moral codes are enshrined in laws imposed by the government. There enforcement takes the form of legal action. (Not all laws are about morality, however).

So, generally, enforcement takes many forms depending on the situation and the group in question. If someone is living on a desert island, enforcement is about self-will. However, most moral principals become moot in such a situation - many (most?) moral codes have to do with interaction between individuals.

[seer]

OK - you seem determined to shift the original question from "what is the rational basis" to "how does it apply in the real world." If that's what we are shifting to, I'm good with that. Once you begin to take the foundational principals of a morality (i.e., what constitutes a moral act versus what constitutes an immoral act), you enter into the world of subjective application. When I apply the "good of existence" and "universality" principles to humanity, for example, I end up with "killing whomever I wish is immoral" because it does not universalize without contradiction (i.e., everyone killing everyone). But I do not end up with a moral conundrum when I ask if it is immoral to kill a cow for food, because their is no threat to me or to humanity if we all kill cows for food. However, you will find those who equate all animals at the same level, and for them killing a cow for food would be immoral.

We were speaking of your a priori principle and if it was of any use in forming ethical principles. I guess you agree that it isn't.

You will also find that my approach to determining a moral code is not the same as that of others. Some use religious codes. Some use legal codes. Some use tradition as handed down from family or community without much thought. So my basis for morality is not the same as everyone else's.

Except it isn't. You do realize that Kant believed that morality would be irrational apart from a just God to dispense universal justice (this is about enforcement, just a side note).

I've answered the first part of your question multiple times, so I'm not sure what value will be had by repeating it again. I refer you to my previous posts. You last sentence is more narrowly framed, so it is a different moral proposition. First of all, "selfish" and "save my family" don't go together for me. And the principal of "taking advantage of others to save my family" does not appear to me to universalize without contradiction. When I try to image the world where everyone was willing to do what it takes to "save their family," I do not see a species destroying itself. Not all families require "saving," for one thing. of course, "taking advantage" and "saving" are very broad. If "taking advantage" means theft, and "saving" means "saving the lives of," my moral code would permit it - again, there is no contradiction if universalized.

OK, so taking advantage of, or stealing from, is acceptable if it is used for a greater good - saving my family?

Again, sloppy language on my part. Yes, I believe my approach is a reasoned/rational approach, and it leverages the principals of logic. But it is not a "logical proof" in the formal sense. It is not a syllogism or other such construct. My morality is rooted in the twin principles that existence is a good, and happiness is a good. So what promotes my existence and happiness is a good. But I live in society, and I recognize that selfish pursuit of my own existence and happiness is self-defeating, because if all people do so, my existence and happiness is threatened. So it reasonably follows that my happiness is maximized and existence more assured if I extend that pursuit to those around me. THAT principal - if we all do this, existence and happiness will be maximized, is logically consistent, and universalizable. It is my reasoned/rational approach to a moral code.

OK, so basically we are back to the golden rule - now what?

You continually come back to the application of this moral code, and the enforcement of this moral code. I answered the question, "how do you arrive at a reasoned/rational moral code." Application and enforcement are separate issues.

I said nothing about enforcement. I said even if we did all go around killing each other, that would not be a logical contradiction as you suggested. It would just be a miserable and dangerous world.

[carpedm9587]

We were speaking of your a priori principle and if it was of any use in forming ethical principles. I guess you agree that it isn't.

I'm not sure how you arrived at that - but no - I don't agree that "it isn't."

Except it isn't. You do realize that Kant believed that morality would be irrational apart from a just God to dispense universal justice (this is about enforcement, just a side note).

Yes, I am familiar with Kant. As with Aquinas - I do not agree with all of his conclusions.

OK, so taking advantage of, or stealing from, is acceptable if it is used for a greater good - saving my family?

My moral code would lead me to that conclusion.

OK, so basically we are back to the golden rule - now what?

Not sure what you're asking. I find the "golden rule" and in its various expressions to be rational and reasonable - and it aligns with the basis for my own moral code.

I said nothing about enforcement. I said even if we did all go around killing each other, that would not be a logical contradiction as you suggested. It would just be a miserable and dangerous world.

As I said, not "logical" in the sense of a systemic logical proof. It is logically inconsistent in that it is self-defeating, for the reasons I have posted several times and will do so once more: accepting the good of my existence and the good of happiness as a priori foundations - any action that cannot universalize without compromising those "goods" would fall outside my moral code - an action that can be universalized without compromising them would either be a moral good (especially if it promotes existence/happiness) or have no moral content at all. That is my reasoned/rational basis for my moral code - which was the original question.

We may be going in circles here, Seer. I'm still not sure that you've shown my approach to be irrational or unreasoned. Instead, you keep focusing on application and enforcement of moral codes. It almost seems as if your original question was intended to ask, "why is your moral code any better than mine?" or "how do you justify imposing your moral code on others?" If those are the questions you're actually asking, I'm willing to tackle them.

[seer]

I'm not sure how you arrived at that - but no - I don't agree that "it isn't."

Sheesh, how does the a priori principle that existence is good tell us that it is unethical to take a life. A cow's life, or a human life. Again, if Aliens came to earth and harvested us for food would that be unethical? Any more than us harvesting cows for food? Since you are basing your theory on the good of your existence I think this is a key question.

Yes, I am familiar with Kant. As with Aquinas - I do not agree with all of his conclusions.

It would be interesting to see how you could conclude that morality is rational without justice.

Not sure what you're asking. I find the "golden rule" and in its various expressions to be rational and reasonable - and it aligns with the basis for my own moral code.

Right Carpedm and that is the point. There is no trick in coming up with a reasonable moral code, we have been doing it for centuries - the problem has always been getting men to follow it consistently.

As I said, not "logical" in the sense of a systemic logical proof. It is logically inconsistent in that it is self-defeating, for the reasons I have posted several times and will do so once more: accepting the good of my existence and the good of happiness as a priori foundations - any action that cannot universalize without compromising those "goods" would fall outside my moral code - an action that can be universalized without compromising them would either be a moral good (especially if it promotes existence/happiness) or have no moral content at all. That is my reasoned/rational basis for my moral code - which was the original question.

Sorry, that is not a logical inconsistency. You can not in one breath say it is not a logical proof, then in the next try and claim a logical ground for your theory. Either we are following the rules of logic or we are not. And to say that the world would descend into chaos if we all decided to randomly kill each other is not a logical contradiction, but simply a consequence. One I'm sure neither of us would subjectively prefer.

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh, how does the a priori principle that existence is good tell us that it is unethical to take a life. A cow's life, or a human life. Again, if Aliens came to earth and harvested us for food would that be unethical? Any more than us harvesting cows for food? Since you are basing your theory on the good of your existence I think this is a key question.

I have tried every way I know to convey this, and I don't see another avenue. We are apparently talking past one another. So I'll leave the last word to you.

It would be interesting to see how you could conclude that morality is rational without justice.

Your original question was, "I'm curious how atheists and other non-religious folk find or create ethical rules." This was the question I answered, and I explained how I create mine. Since then you seem to want to discuss how we nonreligious folks enforce moral/ethical rules. Those are not the same question. Again, if you want to segue into that question, it's fine with me (and I already responded to it in previous posts), but it is not the same question. How I arrive at a set of moral/ethical rules is not the same question as how a person or society enforces those rules on themselves or others. What you are doing, seer, is a bit of a bait and switch. It's like saying, "I'd like to know how non-mechanical people go about creating vehicles to convey themselves around" and then when someone describes how they go about doing that, continually insisting that they have not shown how their vehicle will avoid hitting other vehicles on the road. You didn't ask about how the vehicle relates to other vehicles - you asked how I would build one, which I told you.

Right Carpedm and that is the point. There is no trick in coming up with a reasonable moral code, we have been doing it for centuries - the problem has always been getting men to follow it consistently.

And again, that is not what you asked. You asked how a non-religious person would create a moral code or set of rules. THAT is what I answered.

Sorry, that is not a logical inconsistency. You can not in one breath say it is not a logical proof, then in the next try and claim a logical ground for your theory. Either we are following the rules of logic or we are not. And to say that the world would descend into chaos if we all decided to randomly kill each other is not a logical contradiction, but simply a consequence. One I'm sure neither of us would subjectively prefer.

I have responded to this as well. I noted that we are not making formal logical arguments here, and I am not claiming to be. The contradiction lies in the inability to universalize the moral principle without compromising my own well being or happiness. It's not a logical contradiction (and I acknowledged the sloppy language on my part), it is a practical/functional one.

Look, Seer - I recognize that your religious framework is not going to allow you to accept the validity of my approach. I'm not expecting you to. I merely answered your question. If you want to point out how my approach is "unreasonable" or "irrational," I'm all ears. If all you want to do is disagree - than I acknowledge you disagree. So be it.

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh, how does the a priori principle that existence is good tell us that it is unethical to take a life. A cow's life, or a human life. Again, if Aliens came to earth and harvested us for food would that be unethical? Any more than us harvesting cows for food? Since you are basing your theory on the good of your existence I think this is a key question.

With a bit of rest, perhaps I can better respond to this. The problem with your question, Seer - is that you asked me how I would form a moral code or set of ethical rules, and now you are asking me to explain why my ethical rules/codes would make it unethical for an alien to harvest me for food. The simple answer is, it wouldn't. My moral code is just that, my moral code. I use it to assess my own actions, and the goodness of the actions of those around me, but someone else with a different moral code is not going to come to the same conclusions as I. We see this all the time. For example, I see the treatment of the LGBT community at the hands of the Christian right and find it highly immoral. It does not conform to my moral code. They (apparently) look at their behavior and see it as perfectly moral, because it conforms to their moral code. I find their moral code lacking. They find my moral code lacking. So it has pretty much always been. We even reach back in time and assess the choices of ages past against our current moral codes - so most of us decry slavery as immoral when, only a few generations back, it was widely defended as justified and right.

So, I suspect an alien would think no more of harvesting me for food than I would think of harvesting a cow for food.

As I write that, I find myself realizing that the more sentient an animal seems to be, or the more it is part of our lives as a pet, the less likely we are to want to harvest it for food. I have to give some though to how that intersects with a moral code.

[seer]

With a bit of rest, perhaps I can better respond to this. The problem with your question, Seer - is that you asked me how I would form a moral code or set of ethical rules, and now you are asking me to explain why my ethical rules/codes would make it unethical for an alien to harvest me for food. The simple answer is, it wouldn't. My moral code is just that, my moral code.

Right, so then your a priori principle that existence is good is only subjectively useful to you. And that you can not rationally move from that to the acts of the Aliens being unethical.

I use it to assess my own actions, and the goodness of the actions of those around me, but someone else with a different moral code is not going to come to the same conclusions as I. We see this all the time. For example, I see the treatment of the LGBT community at the hands of the Christian right and find it highly immoral. It does not conform to my moral code. They (apparently) look at their behavior and see it as perfectly moral, because it conforms to their moral code. I find their moral code lacking. They find my moral code lacking. So it has pretty much always been. We even reach back in time and assess the choices of ages past against our current moral codes - so most of us decry slavery as immoral when, only a few generations back, it was widely defended as justified and right.

Well this is certainly true. Of course if there are authoritative universal moral truths then we are on a different playing field - agreed?

As I write that, I find myself realizing that the more sentient an animal seems to be, or the more it is part of our lives as a pet, the less likely we are to want to harvest it for food. I have to give some though to how that intersects with a moral code.

And dog make a good meal in a pinch.

[carpedm9587]

Right, so then your a priori principle that existence is good is only subjectively useful to you. And that you can not rationally move from that to the acts of the Aliens being unethical.

I never said it did - you didn't ask that question. Moral codes are internal constructs, so they are subjective to the individual, or to the common community that holds them. Some moral codes are close to universal, so they are subjectively held by most of the species. I have no idea what an alien moral code would look like.

I believe that the common ground we as humans have in our moral codes is because we live in the same universe, and see the same a priori truths. Most people would see their own existence and happiness as an apriori good - and so have a moral code designed to achieve that. Most see the relational nature of humans and recognize the need to extend that code beyond the self, for the reasons I have cited. That basis is so widely held, these basic tenets have found their way into the basic moral codes of most religions, and have been woven into the legal structures of most countries.

Well this is certainly true. Of course if there are authoritative universal moral truths then we are on a different playing field - agreed?

I do not subscribe to an "authoritarian" model of morality. An "authority" cannot impose a moral code. I can defer my moral freedom to an external authority, but I am the one making that choice. And an "authoritatively rooted" moral code is not, to me a particularly strong one. The same is true when I subjugate my moral code to that of a group I wish to be part of. I am atheist and believe there is no god, so there is no difference (for me) between the former and the latter.

Ultimately, I believe a morally mature person finds people who share a common moral code, but always holds their own code in priority over that of the group. I will not subjugate my moral code to that of another, authority or otherwise. What I WILL do is try to remain open to someone showing me how my own reasoning is flawed, resulting in a poorly structured moral code. But if they cannot show that, I will not submit my personal moral authority to someone else.

And dog make a good meal in a pinch.

Pretty much anything with protein and fat will do that - including another human...

[JonathanL]

I do not subscribe to an "authoritarian" model of morality. An "authority" cannot impose a moral code. I can defer my moral freedom to an external authority, but I am the one making that choice. And an "authoritatively rooted" moral code is not, to me a particularly strong one. The same is true when I subjugate my moral code to that of a group I wish to be part of. I am atheist and believe there is no god, so there is no difference (for me) between the former and the latter.

There is no other models of morality other than authoritarian ones. If there is no external authority to impose it's morals upon you then the moral code itself is that external authority. A moral code without authority isn't a moral code at all, anymore than what your preferences about food, or what kind of movies you like are. Moral codes are about prescribing "right" and "wrong" behavior, but without authority the concepts of "right" and "wrong" doesn't mean anything, they're devoid of meaning.

[carpedm9587]

There is no other models of morality other than authoritarian ones. If there is no external authority to impose it's morals upon you then the moral code itself is that external authority. A moral code without authority isn't a moral code at all, anymore than what your preferences about food, or what kind of movies you like are. Moral codes are about prescribing "right" and "wrong" behavior, but without authority the concepts of "right" and "wrong" doesn't mean anything, they're devoid of meaning.

I think you're treading on the argument, "unless a moral code is objective, it is not real." So can you explain how an objective moral code is more "real" than a subjective one? After all, I have preferences about foods and movies, and those preference are certainly real. They simply aren't objective.

[JonathanL]

I think you're treading on the argument, "unless a moral code is objective, it is not real." So can you explain how an objective moral code is more "real" than a subjective one? After all, I have preferences about foods and movies, and those preference are certainly real. They simply aren't objective.

No, I haven't touched on objectivity, yet. What I'm saying is that morality and ethics by definition makes much stronger statements than statements about your preferences. The statement "I would prefer if you didn't murder anyone" is a statement professing a certain preference for avoiding killing. If you change the statement to say "You should not murder anyone" you've changed it into a moral one, and it changed in to a moral statement solely because of the fact that the term "should not" is inherently authoritarian.

[carpedm9587]

No, I haven't touched on objectivity, yet. What I'm saying is that morality and ethics by definition makes much stronger statements than statements about your preferences. The statement "I would prefer if you didn't murder anyone" is a statement professing a certain preference for avoiding killing. If you change the statement to say "You should not murder anyone" you've changed it into a moral one, and it changed in to a moral statement solely because of the fact that the term "should not" is inherently authoritarian.

[JonathanL]

Depends on who they're coming from. A statement can be authoritarian without being a moral statement though. A moral statement can never not be authoritarian though.

In that case it isn't a moral statement.

You're simply tacking on the word "morality" on a set of preferable behaviour that has nothing to do with morals in the first place.

I don't see the relevancy of this comment to our discussion.