Relative Morality

[batman1337]

I'm sorry if this has been posted before.

 

If I'm a woman in saudi arabia, and I grew up with propaganda that it is my duty to serve my husband and heir a son, would serving my husband and birthing a son not be what is moral?

 

What if I was born in 1850 on a farm?  Would it not be the moral duty of the wife to have 8 children to help with the farm work? 

 

What if you were in your 20's in 1776 in america.  If you want freedom the moral thing to do would be to join Washington's army.  If you want to live, the moral thing would be join the crown?

 

What about today?  I would say that its to leave your children with a better world than you received.  

 

So why isn't morality relative and subjective?  I suspect that I am conflating "morality" with annother word I am unaware of.  Anyone care to shed light?

[TheRobin]

 

  I suspect that I am conflating "morality" with annother word I am unaware of.  Anyone care to shed light?

 

Cultural Prejudice?

[cherapple]

Are you asking about unchosen obligation? Which by definition is not moral because it erases the chooser. Personality is grounded in choice. In the past, people had much less choice, and where there is no choice, actions are neither moral, nor immoral, but simply a matter of survival.

 

Your question makes morality relative to the circumstances of history, which it is, but only while you're in that history. We can only live in the moral circumstances relative to the present, and today we have infinitely more capacity for choice, and therefore infinitely more moral capacity. 

[Kevin Beal]

A moral rule, in order to be UPB, has to be universal. That is to say that it has to apply at any point in history and in any location. Like Cheryl mentioned, something is only (im)moral to the degree to which there is actual choice. It would make no sense to hold someone morally responsible for something they had no choice in (they were born into a situation or they were forced by the threat of violence etc.)

 

The reason that moral rules needs to satisfy the standard of universality is because that's the only logical way that they could be actually binding on people in any legitimate way. If I made a rule that applied only to you and not to me, then obviously, I'm just trying to exploit you in some way. If it applies to only some people some of the time, then it's not really a moral rule, but some kind of aesthetic preference (that's how you'd make that distinction).

 

Have you read UPB, batman1337?

[Pepin]

I would recommend watching Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy series in its entirety. Certainly an answer can be given to this question, and I know you are entirely capable of accessing the argument through the use of reason and evidence and will accept the argument and its implications as true if it is passes the tests... Yet, without a firm foundation in philosophy, what can the answer be compared to?

 

To be more blatant, I sense that you lack philosophical grounding. I can expand on the reasons why I think this, but I'd prefer not to. I floundered for almost all of my life knowing so much, while feeling like I knew nothing. I'd often spend long nights researching topics, and I'd come to understand them to a semi-satisfactory state... Yet a trace of doubt taunted me, consumed me, and made me unable to utter the words "I believe". It was only until the Intro to Philosophy series that made sense of what was missing.

 

[cynicist]

So why isn't morality relative and subjective?  I suspect that I am conflating "morality" with annother word I am unaware of.  Anyone care to shed light?

 

You are confusing morality with propaganda. Just because someone says something is morally good doesn't make it so. The link above that Pepin mentioned is good but be sure you continue to check out the rest of the Introduction to Philosophy series because he includes a few videos on ethics and politics that are quite good on his youtube channel.

[dsayers]

So why isn't morality relative and subjective?

 

Because self-ownership is universal. Religions and governments have made claims to which they have artificially attached a moral component in order to make the claims appear unassailable. As such, you have competing claims over what morality even is. Unbiased morality comes from the axioms of self-ownership and people not being fundamentally different from each other. This allows us to universalize self-ownership, which in turn defines immorality as that which violates self-ownership: theft, assault, rape, and murder.

[batman1337]

Are you asking about unchosen obligation? Which by definition is not moral because it erases the chooser. Personality is grounded in choice. In the past, people had much less choice, and where there is no choice, actions are neither moral, nor immoral, but simply a matter of survival.

 

Your question makes morality relative to the circumstances of history, which it is, but only while you're in that history. We can only live in the moral circumstances relative to the present, and today we have infinitely more capacity for choice, and therefore infinitely more moral capacity. 

I would take this as an argument for "morality is relative" instead of an absolute, which is against what stef seems to argue.

 

Have you read UPB, batman1337?

I have listened to it in my car while driving, however I need to reread it.  I find stef's books rather difficult at times because he takes considerable time to prove his concepts rather then apply them.  Especially the god of atheists.  I was listening to a podcast and he or a listener quoted something that peaked my interest so I decided to relisten to it.  I had trouble relistening to it because at least 1 hour is spent discussing how god cant exist in a parellel universe.  I find stef most useful in "bytes" like when he says you self attack because you were spanked as a child and self attack is your body's physiological defense mechanisms agiasnts being spanked.  

Because self-ownership is universal. Religions and governments have made claims to which they have artificially attached a moral component in order to make the claims appear unassailable. As such, you have competing claims over what morality even is. Unbiased morality comes from the axioms of self-ownership and people not being fundamentally different from each other. This allows us to universalize self-ownership, which in turn defines immorality as that which violates self-ownership: theft, assault, rape, and murder.

 

 

I would recommend watching Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy series in its entirety. 

perhaps I should rewatch this.  when I found stef this is one of the first seris I listend to almost a year ago.

[cherapple]

I would take this as an argument for "morality is relative" instead of an absolute, which is against what stef seems to argue.

 

How so? 

[batman1337]

How so? 

"Your question makes morality relative to the circumstances of history, which it is,"

[june]

 

"Your question makes morality relative to the circumstances of history, which it is,"

i would also add to this the quote: "In the past, people had much less choice, and where there is no choice, actions are neither moral, nor immoral, but simply a matter of survival."

 

Which again implies relativity to the scenario. For example, theft of someones property is something that is considered universally immoral (feel free to disagree on that though), yet if a person is dying of thirst he can steal someone elses water and have that action deemed not immoral, because it was "simply a matter of survival".

[cherapple]

I would take this as an argument for "morality is relative" instead of an absolute, which is against what stef seems to argue.

 

There is no moral absolute; there is only increased possibility for morality. The less we have to worry about survival, the more we are able to make moral choices, and since survival is less an issue today than at any time in history, we are more morally culpable for our choices than at any time in history. It's not that individual choices are absolutely "right" or "wrong." It's that holding people responsible for their choices, where choice is possible, is the definition and principle of morality.

[june]

There is no moral absolute; there is only increased possibility for morality. The less we have to worry about survival, the more we are able to make moral choices, and since survival is less an issue today than at any time in history, we are more morally culpable for our choices than at any time in history. It's not that individual choices are absolutely "right" or "wrong." It's that holding people responsible for their choices, where choice is possible, is the definition and principle of morality.

Interesting. I was under the impression that most members on here believed in absolute/universal/empirical morals, largely because i have heard molyneux declare moral principles as such. Would you agree with the sentiment that your opinion is not the standard for freedomdomainradio members? This is a just a personal question i am interested in because i may have misjudged the standard moral belief system due to largely paying attention to molyneux as the go-to ancap (so to speak), and its something that i could use correcting on."There is no moral absolute; there is only increased possibility for morality. "Stating it like that sounds like there is some moral ceiling/absolute that one can reach. But that could just be a problem of semantics. Could you define what you mean by 'morality'?

[dsayers]

if a person is dying of thirst he can steal someone elses water and have that action deemed not immoral, because it was "simply a matter of survival".

 

Are you saying that everybody needs nourishment to survive, so eating food isn't a choice, and therefor stealing food isn't immoral?

 

What does "dying of thirst" mean? Even a three year old understands that you want water, you go and turn the handle. A boy scout knows how to boil water from a natural source. A teen understands that to pay for water to be piped right to your house, you need to pay for it, which would require contributing to society for currency.

 

I can envision only two scenarios in which somebody stealing water isn't morally responsible. 1) Person A abducts person B, parches them for exactly the right amount of time that they'd need to either steal water or die, and then releases them. 2) Person A holds a gun to person B's head and says, "Steal some water or I will kill you." Person B has no choice in these scenarios. Does this ever happen? Is that not still theft, just the immorality accrues to person A rather than the person stealing the water?

[june]

Are you saying that everybody needs nourishment to survive, so eating food isn't a choice, and therefor stealing food isn't immoral?What does "dying of thirst" mean? Even a three year old understands that you want water, you go and turn the handle. A boy scout knows how to boil water from a natural source. A teen understands that to pay for water to be piped right to your house, you need to pay for it, which would require contributing to society for currency.I can envision only two scenarios in which somebody stealing water isn't morally responsible. 1) Person A abducts person B, parches them for exactly the right amount of time that they'd need to either steal water or die, and then releases them. 2) Person A holds a gun to person B's head and says, "Steal some water or I will kill you." Person B has no choice in these scenarios. Does this ever happen? Is that not still theft, just the immorality accrues to person A rather than the person stealing the water?

"Are you saying that everybody needs nourishment to survive, so eating food isn't a choice, and therefor stealing food isn't immoral?"No. The final part of your sentence i am not saying, because that jmplies that a person could steal whenever they want. Rather i am asking when is the limit of "no choice" (and thus exception to morals) reached, how is it decided? For example, you mention a person just needs a job to pay for water, but what if no jobs are available? then is it valid for this person to steal water, be ause they have "no choice" and be ause it is "simply a matter of survival" (according to cherapple)? Also, i am not saying anything , but merely offering scenarios to test cherapples logic ( "In the past, people had much less choice, and where there is no choice, actions are neither moral, nor immoral, but simply a matter of survival."). I am curious how far cherapple takes this logic, and what acts from the past s/he is willing to overlook due to it simply being "a matter of survival". Is nazi who tortured jews not deemed immoral because if they refused their survival would have been risk? Is a starving man who steals food not immoral because they simply needed to survive? I am not proposing anything myself, but merely trying to gauge to what degree cherapple is willing to apply her/his logic of morals.

[Livemike]

"So why isn't morality relative and subjective?  I suspect that I am conflating "morality" with annother word I am unaware of.  Anyone care to shed light?"

If morality was relative and subjective then that would mean that moral rules applied only in certain circumstances.  But the rules on what those circumstances were would have to be objective, otherwise the rules wouldn't apply at all.  You couldn't for instance have the rule for when you follow certain rules be "If you're kinda female", it has to be "If you're female".  If you have objective rules that determine when the other rules apply then there must be a reason for them, an objective rule behind that objective rule.  The ultimate "rule behind the rules" must be an objective principle.

 

Any rule that does lead back to an objective, universal principle is simply what other people want you to do.  It has no more validity than me saying "Tits or GTFO" (note I'm not saying that).

[Kevin Beal]

If morality was relative and subjective then that would mean that moral rules applied only in certain circumstances.

Sorry to be annoying, but actually it means that morality wouldn't be binding on anyone else. The objective part is that it's true (or not) regardless of what people say about it and that's how it's binding on you. Binding because it's objectively true and not because somebody said it or wants it to be true.

 

It's actually conceivable that you could have an objective morality that applies not universally, but as is demonstrated in UPB, that leads to some logical issues to say the least.

 

The place where people no longer have choice is not that hard. Can they do this immoral deed without feeling like they will be killed?

 

Having a gun to your back is having no choice. Feeling a strong pressure to go to college because we think we won't be able to find a job otherwise is having a choice, but feeling pressured.

 

There is strong evidence that suggests that a great many children literally suspect their parents will murder them (see "origins of war in child abuse"). And that's one reason I don't hold children to be nearly as responsible. In addition, children may not understand the moral reasoning that shows how something is immoral (but they pick that up quick).

 

In addition, anyone who makes moral argument is logically bound by them since morality applies to anyone with the capacity for moral reasoning and they demonstrate that they understand it well enough to pose an argument. Also, obviously because it would be hypocritical if they weren't held to that same standard they put out. Hypocrisy is anti-UPB.

[TDB]

 

[...]

If I'm a woman in saudi arabia, and I grew up with propaganda that it is my duty to serve my husband and heir a son, would serving my husband and birthing a son not be what is moral?

[...]

What if you were in your 20's in 1776 in america.  If you want freedom the moral thing to do would be to join Washington's army.  If you want to live, the moral thing would be join the crown?

 

According to UPB, there are no positive obligations. Also, serving and birthing are not inflicted, so they would at most be aesthetically preferrable actions, not morality. (That is, not inflicted on the person being served. Hmmm, not entirely true of the child being born. The woman serving is not inflicting anything on anyone, perhaps her husband is inflicting something on her.)

 

But Stef uses the word "morality" in an unusually specific and narrow sense, only inflicted unavoidable actions are in the domain of morality.

 

"If you want freedom the moral thing to do would be to join Washington's army." No positive obligation. And again, by Stef's definition, I don't think the word "moral" should be in that sentence. What moral proposition is involved? "You must want freedom?" "You must reject British tyranny?" "War is coming, you must choose a side?" What is being unavoidably inflicted? Certainly, "join Washinton's army" has nothing universal about it, so it would need to be derived from some universal proposition. I am not coming up with a good candidate. "If you are in a location where a civil war is happening, you must support the least tyrannical side by joining the army if eligible or in some other way if not, rather than running away, supporting peace, ignoring the whole thing, etc.?" Yankee doodle vs. tory vs. apathy sounds like a personal preference, by Stef's criteria.

 

 

 

[...]where there is no choice, actions are neither moral, nor immoral, but simply a matter of survival.[...]

This seems like a big loophole to me. How risky does something have to be before you can use survival as an excuse for doing something you'd otherwise rate as immoral? Doesn't this break universality? Can a rule apply to you but not to me, just because our circumstances are a bit different? Is it just survival that gets me off the hook?

 

A moral rule, in order to be UPB, has to be universal. That is to say that it has to apply at any point in history and in any location. Like Cheryl mentioned, something is only (im)moral to the degree to which there is actual choice. It would make no sense to hold someone morally responsible for something they had no choice in (they were born into a situation or they were forced by the threat of violence etc.)

 

The reason that moral rules needs to satisfy the standard of universality is because that's the only logical way that they could be actually binding on people in any legitimate way. If I made a rule that applied only to you and not to me, then obviously, I'm just trying to exploit you in some way. If it applies to only some people some of the time, then it's not really a moral rule, but some kind of aesthetic preference (that's how you'd make that distinction).[...]

I like this answer, but... I have a choice, even when the gun is at my head. That is, I can obey or call their bluff and see if they actually kill me. Not a good choice. Am I just nitpicking here?

Do we understand "binding" the same way here? I see it to mean that a rule applies, but not that any consequences are necessarily implied. Yet it seems to have a stronger meaning, when I don't stop to think about it, as if there was some magical cop who would come to enforce it. "Binding" sounds stronger than "applies to." Is there an actual difference?

 

I would recommend watching Stefan's Introduction to Philosophy series in its entirety. [...]

 

I think I listened to the intro way back when, didn't really give me much help. I should go review it.

 

Because self-ownership is universal. Religions and governments have made claims to which they have artificially attached a moral component in order to make the claims appear unassailable. As such, you have competing claims over what morality even is. Unbiased morality comes from the axioms of self-ownership and people not being fundamentally different from each other. This allows us to universalize self-ownership, which in turn defines immorality as that which violates self-ownership: theft, assault, rape, and murder.

So, do you derive UPB from self-ownership, or self-ownership from UPB, or are you just ignoring UPB?

 

 

There is no moral absolute;

Ah, a UPB skeptic! When people talk about morality, the language tends toward absolutes, even among those who deny it. Is this a flaw of language, or a weakness of our brains/philosophy, or a hint that something else is going on?

[...]Would you agree with the sentiment that your opinion is not the standard for freedomdomainradio members?[...]"There is no moral absolute; there is only increased possibility for morality. "Stating it like that sounds like there is some moral ceiling/absolute that one can reach. But that could just be a problem of semantics. Could you define what you mean by 'morality'?

I'm not sure there is a standard. Only a few forum members seem interested in discussing UPB. Of those, most have a positive take on it, but some of those don't seem to understand it very well. I include myself in that group, the only thing that is unusual about me is that I know I don't really get it yet. I suspect a lot of FDR members just take UPB to mean "Assholes who exempt themselves from moral propositions but try to give you a guilt trip are hypocrites and wrong," and leave it at that. That's a pretty good place to start.

 

I second the request, define morality. As I said above, I think Stef uses the word in an unusual way, apparently on purpose. I haven't quite decided yet whether I think he's done something like Rand did with "altruism," taking a word in common use and redefining it in a way that makes a large fraction of common useage nonsense. On one, hand, such a distinct meaning calls for a distinct word. On the other, maybe Stef really does think most talk about morality is nonsense already.

 

[...] You couldn't for instance have the rule for when you follow certain rules be "If you're kinda female", it has to be "If you're female". ...]

How about the line between adult and child? Consensual sex between adults, no problem. Adult and non-adult... err... How to draw the line objectively? Can it just be arbitrary?

 

[...] The objective part is that it's true (or not) regardless of what people say about it and that's how it's binding on you. [...]

UPB declares moral propositions to be false when they contain a logical contradiction. But what does it mean for a moral proposition to be true, beyond "contains no logical contradiction?" Is that all?

There's also the question of evidence, but that confuses me even more. Does Stef really use evidence in testing moral propositions? How do we separate good evidence from cultural mistakes?

[Kevin Beal]

UPB declares moral propositions to be false when they contain a logical contradiction. But what does it mean for a moral proposition to be true, beyond "contains no logical contradiction?" Is that all?

There's also the question of evidence, but that confuses me even more. Does Stef really use evidence in testing moral propositions? How do we separate good evidence from cultural mistakes?

That's not all, actually. There are also other standards that must be satisfied such as universality and the capacity for choice and for moral reasoning. If a proposition meets all of these standards then the behavior that the proposition prescribes is not immoral. And I say "not immoral" as opposed to "moral" because the only propositions that can be satisfied by these standards are "thou shalt not"'s (as described in the book).

 

Evidence should support the theory if it's correct, but the theory itself is a priori like economics is. The basis of the theory is reasoned without reference to evidence and then evidence is found later that backs it up (assuming it's true). This is not how biology (for example) works, being that biology looks at the evidence first and then deduces it's theories that way. I think so anyway. I'm not an expert on any of those sciences.

 

An example of evidence being applied to UPB is in the section "Five Proofs". It goes like this:

Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.

Man is the most successful organism.

Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.

Man's mind is his most distinctive organ.

Therefore man's mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behaviour.

Therefore universally preferable behaviour must be valid.

[dsayers]

 

I like this answer, but... I have a choice, even when the gun is at my head. That is, I can obey or call their bluff and see if they actually kill me. Not a good choice. Am I just nitpicking here?

 

In a word, yes. If you own yourself, you have the ability to choose to end your life. The end of your life that you face when a gun is pointed at you is not by your choice.

 

How about the line between adult and child? Consensual sex between adults, no problem. Adult and non-adult... err... How to draw the line objectively? Can it just be arbitrary?

 

Objectively, no. There's been a couple good discussions about this in the past week IIRC.

 

So, do you derive UPB from self-ownership, or self-ownership from UPB, or are you just ignoring UPB?

 

I've heard Stef gloss over UPB and I grasp the basics of what he's saying. However, I'm only about a year into studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge. As such, I'm saving UPB for when I have a better grasp of the basics and/or a better potential for grasping it. I'll let you share with me if you feel that UPB might actually make the process more effective.

[Kevin Beal]

I'll let you share with me if you feel that UPB might actually make the process more effective.

I would say it does. This whole business of seeing bullshit as quickly as possible so that we don't waste our time with the overwhelming sophistry that's out there, has been heavily aided by UPB, imho. UPB goes way passed ethics and into pretty much all debates. In fact, it baffles me how people could be really into the show, but don't subscribe to UPB. To me, they seem so intertwined.

 

This podcast goes some way into summing up why UPB is so important:

 

1204 – My Major Contribution to Philosophy

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1204_My_Contribution.MP3

 

When you start seeing UPB in the arguments that people make, it makes things much more efficient. Before I understood UPB, there were some approaches and conclusions that Stef made that confused me. As soon as I made connection with the methodology, there was a lot that clicked for me.

 

I'm sure that to some degree you already get it, but it's good to make it explicit.

[dsayers]

In fact, it baffles me how people could be really into the show, but don't subscribe to UPB.

 

For me, I touched base on one aspect: that I thought it would be more complex. Advanced thought when I'm still in thought 101 as it were. The other thing is that his Intro to Philosophy series has done so much for me that I don't really feel a lacking. I do see things as universal or not, false or not, objective or not, and so forth. Hearing the way some smarter people than me can struggle with UPB, and hearing Stef's acknowledgement that it's complex and in need of revision/clarification, I figured I would continue working on my 36 year deficiency of thinking only in terms of propaganda and conclusions inflicted upon me. It's benefited me immensely and I don't know if most of the people I debate would be capable of a concept as esoteric as UPB.

 

I mean, I still wrestle with where does self-ownership come from? I accept it, almost every argument I make stems from it, but the minutia loses me easily. Part of me feels as if I'm speaking out of turn BECAUSE I argue from it so readily yet don't fully understand it myself.

 

I have a hard time telling the difference between engaging in slower absorption for the sake of integration and procrastination. If you think tackling UPB would add clarity or be of benefit despite all this, I will certain give it a go. I recently did a Windows reinstall, so my process of chopping up An Intro to Philosophy for re-consumption in the car was put on hold. And I'm pacing myself through the Philosopher's Toolkit, But I will put UPB on my list after those if you think it would be a valuable next step.

[TDB]

That's not all, actually. There are also other standards that must be satisfied such as universality and the capacity for choice and for moral reasoning. If a proposition meets all of these standards then the behavior that the proposition prescribes is not immoral. And I say "not immoral" as opposed to "moral" because the only propositions that can be satisfied by these standards are "thou shalt not"'s (as described in the book).Evidence should support the theory if it's correct, but the theory itself is a priori like economics is. The basis of the theory is reasoned without reference to evidence and then evidence is found later that backs it up (assuming it's true). This is not how biology (for example) works, being that biology looks at the evidence first and then deduces it's theories that way. I think so anyway. I'm not an expert on any of those sciences.An example of evidence being applied to UPB is in the section "Five Proofs". It goes like this:

WRT capacity for moral reasoning, are you just saying moral propositions cannot apply to animals and rocks?WRT evidence: "an ethical theory that contradicts empirical evidence and near-universal preferences also cannot be valid." (UPB page 32, see also page 28) (Snarky aside, how can preferences be near-universal? Stef needed a good copyeditor.)Unfortunately, the forum software ate your quote of Stef's syllogism, and my iPad won't let me copy-paste it. I think it is very confusing and full of irrelevant details (e.g. mankind is most successful by what criteria? Does the conclusion in any way depend on mankind being most successful? Etc.) But if I give it my most charitable interpretation, I still end up with a proof about one sort of universally preferable behavior (what all organisms use, roughly = cause and effect, breathing, eating, metabolizing, behaving on instinct) that says nothing about the kind of UPB we really are interested in, ethics. Ethics is the subset of UPB that deals with inflicted behavior among moral agents, which may or may not have anything to do with the success of humans, especially since Stef sees conventional historical morality as corrupted by religion and the state. That is, unless UPB morality is an unimportant tweak to conventional morality, it has nothing to with the success of mankind so far in history. Stef has defined UPB so broadly that in some sense it includes logic, mathematics, science, fair argument, and survival mechanisms of organisms. But these are different enough that proving something about one of them has no obvious implications for the others. What is the common element among them?

In a word, yes. If you own yourself, you have the ability to choose to end your life. The end of your life that you face when a gun is pointed at you is not by your choice.Objectively, no. There's been a couple good discussions about this in the past week IIRC. [...], I'm saving UPB for when I have a better grasp of the basics and/or a better potential for grasping it. I'll let you share with me if you feel that UPB might actually make the process more effective.

Point is, I have a choice that Kevin denied. Maybe it's another nitpick, but I am trying to figure out when I can/can't use that excuse. Drop me naked out of an airplane, okay, I have no choices. Threaten me, I still have a choice among bad options. How bad do the options have to be before morality is no longer binding on me?Care to give a hint where the discussions vis-a-vis adult/child were? I searched for "objective" and "child", got lots of hits. As for saving UPB for later, that might be a good thing, because I find the book very confusing. Here's my version of UPB in a nutshell: If some asshole is guilt tripping you with some rule but makes exceptions for himself or the government or some other group of humans with supposedly magic essences, tell him he's a hypocrite. Use that and ignore the gory details.

[TDB]

The reason that moral rules needs to satisfy the standard of universality is because that's the only logical way that they could be actually binding on people in any legitimate way.

You ignored this question: ' Do we understand "binding" the same way here? I see it to mean that a rule applies, but not that any consequences are necessarily implied. Yet it seems to have a stronger meaning, when I don't stop to think about it, as if there was some magical cop who would come to enforce it. "Binding" sounds stronger than "applies to." Is there an actual difference?'

[dsayers]

Care to give a hint where the discussions vis-a-vis adult/child were? I searched for "objective" and "child", got lots of hits.

 

Here is one and here is one that picked back up since I posted that.

 

I am trying to figure out when I can/can't use that excuse.

 

To be clear, it's not an excuse any more than 4 is an excuse for 2+2.

 

If somebody told you to kill me or else they're going to hack into your PayPal account and steal $1, then of course it would be immoral for you to kill me. You would much rather be out the $1 than have to live with the horror of killing another person. Just as if somebody pointed a candy bar at you and told you that if you don't kill me, they're going to shoot, it would be immoral for you to kill me. You have no reason to believe the threat is valid.

 

Suppose the threat was real though. Maybe the threat was "only" that they'd cut your legs off if you didn't kill somebody. Can you imagine the emotional state you'd be in? Suppose it wasn't your legs, but just one leg. Or just a foot. Just a toe. If you honestly believe that the person would cut your toe off just because you didn't kill somebody, there's no way you could rationally expect them to not kill the person themselves, to stop at just your toe, etc. The bottom line is, the moral component has been taken from you. Whichever way you choose, you are not responsible for that decision because it was coerced. Just as somebody somewhere was murdered with a bullet that I was forced to pay for by the government that claims ownership over me. I am not responsible for this since that money was taken by way of coercion.

[TDB]

Here is one and here is one that picked back up since I posted that.  To be clear, it's not an excuse any more than 4 is an excuse for 2+2. If somebody told you to kill me or else they're going to hack into your PayPal account and steal $1, then of course it would be immoral for you to kill me. You would much rather be out the $1 than have to live with the horror of killing another person. Just as if somebody pointed a candy bar at you and told you that if you don't kill me, they're going to shoot, it would be immoral for you to kill me. You have no reason to believe the threat is valid. Suppose the threat was real though. Maybe the threat was "only" that they'd cut your legs off if you didn't kill somebody. Can you imagine the emotional state you'd be in? Suppose it wasn't your legs, but just one leg. Or just a foot. Just a toe. If you honestly believe that the person would cut your toe off just because you didn't kill somebody, there's no way you could rationally expect them to not kill the person themselves, to stop at just your toe, etc. The bottom line is, the moral component has been taken from you. Whichever way you choose, you are not responsible for that decision because it was coerced. Just as somebody somewhere was murdered with a bullet that I was forced to pay for by the government that claims ownership over me. I am not responsible for this since that money was taken by way of coercion.

Sometimes it may be a valid excuse, other times invalid, but always an excuse.You've provided a couple of examples on each side of the line, but no explanation of how to know where the line is drawn, how to know which side something is on if it's close to the line. Let me try. The threat must be serious and credible. But that seems like a judgement call, not objective.

[Kevin Beal]

WRT capacity for moral reasoning, are you just saying moral propositions cannot apply to animals and rocks?

Exactly. You understood it correctly.

 

 

 

WRT evidence: "an ethical theory that contradicts empirical evidence and near-universal preferences also cannot be valid." (UPB page 32, see also page 28) (Snarky aside, how can preferences be near-universal? Stef needed a good copyeditor.)

I don't understand the hangup. Near universal means exactly what it sounds like. It means just short of universal. The requirement that something always be universal without any single exception is covered in the first chapters of the book. A glass of water can never be 100% pure, but that doesn't mean that sea water and bottled water are both undrinkable.

 

 

 

Ethics is the subset of UPB that deals with inflicted behavior among moral agents, which may or may not have anything to do with the success of humans, especially since Stef sees conventional historical morality as corrupted by religion and the state. That is, unless UPB morality is an unimportant tweak to conventional morality, it has nothing to with the success of mankind so far in history. Stef has defined UPB so broadly that in some sense it includes logic, mathematics, science, fair argument, and survival mechanisms of organisms. But these are different enough that proving something about one of them has no obvious implications for the others. What is the common element among them?

What you are saying doesn't follow logically. UPB can have worked toward the success of our species without being an unimportant tweak or accepted across the board, but to that point, a very strong argument could be made that we all accept UPB, since exposing hypocrisies and debate both imply UPB.

 

UPB doesn't include mathematics or logic, and I'm not sure about the science part, I guess that depends on what you mean. The common element is universals regarding behavior and prefered states. UPB is the methodology we apply universals to and the requirement that a scientific theory (for example) be supported by evidence, reproducible, falsifiable etc are prefered states. When we argue for them, UPB has something to say about it: that it should apply to everyone's theories, be universal etc.

 

 

 

You ignored this question: ' Do we understand "binding" the same way here? I see it to mean that a rule applies, but not that any consequences are necessarily implied. Yet it seems to have a stronger meaning, when I don't stop to think about it, as if there was some magical cop who would come to enforce it. "Binding" sounds stronger than "applies to." Is there an actual difference?'

More like didn't notice, but yea. That's how I'm using it.

[TDB]

[...]I don't understand the hangup. Near universal means exactly what it sounds like. It means just short of universal. The requirement that something always be universal without any single exception is covered in the first chapters of the book. A glass of water can never be 100% pure, but that doesn't mean that sea water and bottled water are both undrinkable. What you are saying doesn't follow logically. UPB can have worked toward the success of our species without being an unimportant tweak or accepted across the board, but to that point, a very strong argument could be made that we all accept UPB, since exposing hypocrisies and debate both imply UPB. UPB doesn't include mathematics or logic, and I'm not sure about the science part, I guess that depends on what you mean. The common element is universals regarding behavior and prefered states. UPB is the methodology we apply universals to and the requirement that a scientific theory (for example) be supported by evidence, reproducible, falsifiable etc are prefered states. When we argue for them, UPB has something to say about it: that it should apply to everyone's theories, be universal etc. [...]that's how I'm using it[binding]

UPB isn't about water. Near-universal sounds to me like making exceptions to universality. It means that someone, sometime, someplace is entitled to violate a rule that applies to everyone else. Properly understood, I don't think Stef needs to make any such exceptions, but maybe I am misinterpreting him. On page 56-57 Stef discusses universality and exceptions. Or that is the section title, but the actual topic is more like, does the fact that I'm more willing to steal an apple than I am to starve to death mean stealing should be UPB and property rights should not? But I don't see is as an exception to universality. It's just an admission that given a choice between dying or violating UPB in a trivial way, no one is likely to choose death. Certainly he would be willing to apologize and make restitution, which to me means the rule applies but he violated it, not that he can make a valid exception.(Does this relate back to discussion of coerced choice?) On page 92 he says, "UPB allows for exceptions based on objective and universal material or biological differences," but I don't think that's what he meant by near universal. In that section, he discusses exceptions made for infants and persons with brain injuries, etc., who are incapable of the sort of thinking required for understanding and following UPB. The only other place in the book where he mentions near-universal anything is in a discussion of social prohibitions against murder and theft.Here's my interpretation. UPB applies to anyone who makes moral claims, whatever their age, species or condition. They opt in by developing and using their capacity to make moral claims, and they opt out if/when they lose it. By elegant accident combined with foresight, those who lack this capacity usually also lack the capacity to violate UPB. No exceptions required.WRT Stef's syllogism, I must not have made my point clear. I distinguish between broad UPB, which includes things like "you must breathe if you want to live" and so applies to many (all?) organisms, and moral UPB, which is the stuff Stef came up with including the coma test etc. Clearly "organisms" in general do not make moral claims, so line 1 is irrelevant. Either Stef is using propositions about broad UPB (maybe science) to prove something about moral UPB, which deosnt work, or he's trying to claim that moral UPB is responsible for the progress of humanity. How can this work?If Stef is using the history of humanity as evidence of the efficacy of moral UPB, that means we've had some informal, primitive, but pretty effective version of moral UPB operating for centuries, and Stef's book is more like a naturalist coming along and giving a name to a species that existed previously. (That's what I meant by "unimportant tweak." ) This seems to contradict when Stef says that historical moral philosophy is mostly non-UPB and a negative influence on history, used by religion and the state to control people and dominate them. If I try to rewrite Stef's syllogism, I come up with:Good philosophy and science caused the advance of humanity, Good philosophy and science can be categorized as UPB broadly speaking,UPB broadly speaking is analogous to moral UPB, or moral UPB formalizes and improves on it,so moral UPB will also cause humanity to advance and is correct and "valid." This is still too vague. I would need to show that I have not left anything important out of moral UPB that may have been the actual cause of humanity's success, and not added any mistakes, and that's still inductive, as what caused success in the past is not guaranteed to do so in the future. Also, correlation vs. cause, confounding factors, etc. The conclusion is an empirical claim."we all accept UPB, since exposing hypocrisies and debate both imply UPB." Exposing hypocrisies and debate both imply broad UPB, but do they imply all the specifics of moral UPB, the coma test, 2 guys in a room, choice, moral reasoning, particular interpretations of universality, inflicting, avoidability, etc.?WRT math, logic, and science. I think Stef said, "if you want to know the truth about the world, you must use the scientific method" or something like that as an example of UPB, and "if you disprove UPB, you disprove science." I am paraphrasing. Logic is part of the norms and methods of fair argument, basis of UPB self-detonating arguments, etc. I don't think I've heard Stef claim math is part of UPB, but he has used it as an analogy, there is only one math and only one UPB, both are universal and objective. I promote it to UPB because if you want to know the truth about numbers, you must use math. If science is UPB, why not math?WRT binding, the question was, do you see a difference between "binding" and "applies to" or would you use them interchangeably? I think you're saying interchangeably.

[Kevin Beal]

You brought up a lot of stuff. Is there any one thing in particular that would really clarify things for you above everything else?

[TDB]

You brought up a lot of stuff. Is there any one thing in particular that would really clarify things for you above everything else?

I have trouble with inflictability being the criterion for separating ethics and aesthetics. Maybe you could say something about that? For example, professional ethics should require an adjudicator to recuse himself if she has a bias that touches on the case. Yet taking the case and violating ethics would not inflict annoying, would it? Inflict unfairness?Here's another place where my interpretation seems a bit tortured, maybe you can help. In the discussion of rape on page 66, I get confused so badly I have been struggling to describe my interpretation and just failing. Why go through all the strange twists? Let me try to use Stef to improve Stef. Inflicting your preferences on someone can't be universalized, as the two guys in the room can't both be inflicting their preferences on each other at the same time. So not inflicting is good, inflicting is bad. Rape is an instance of inflicting preferences, so it's evil. This is a bit redundant, because Stef uses inflicted or not inflicted as the criterion separating ethics from esthetics. I can see the argument for making inflicted behavior as a subset of ethics, not sure there's nothing more. And of course the equivocating Statists will want to make exceptions for state agents inflicting. They don't like universality without special pleading.I hope I'm getting close to understanding. Maybe I should start trying to write a summary.Oh, I found a quote for you, on page 48: 'Although we first focused on UPB in the realm of ethics, UPB can now be seen as an “umbrella term,” which includes such disciplines as:• The scientific method• Logic• Empiricism• Debating• Language• Ethics'Language surprised me, since it seems completely the reverse of universal.

[Kevin Beal]

I have trouble with inflictability being the criterion for separating ethics and aesthetics. Maybe you could say something about that? For example, professional ethics should require an adjudicator to recuse himself if she has a bias that touches on the case. Yet taking the case and violating ethics would not inflict annoying, would it? Inflict unfairness?

The distinction is not inflicting. Being late is inflicting wasted time on me. The thing that separates immorality from aesthetics is whether or not the use of force is justified in preventing the act. We can use force to prevent rape, theft, murder etc. The person doing the murder has violated the NAP. In other words they are saying "I'm acting violently toward this person, so I now I'm accepting that violence can be used against me". There's universality even in the negation. That should also cover the second question.

 

It's been a while since I read UPB, but that's how I remember it applying in that situation.

[Waster]

Interesting. I was under the impression that most members on here believed in absolute/universal/empirical morals, largely because i have heard molyneux declare moral principles as such. Would you agree with the sentiment that your opinion is not the standard for freedomdomainradio members? This is a just a personal question i am interested in because i may have misjudged the standard moral belief system due to largely paying attention to molyneux as the go-to ancap (so to speak), and its something that i could use correcting on."There is no moral absolute; there is only increased possibility for morality. "Stating it like that sounds like there is some moral ceiling/absolute that one can reach. But that could just be a problem of semantics. Could you define what you mean by 'morality'?

 

I am a moral relativist. So I agree with the OP. Morality is just a bunch of rules to shape the behaviour within a society. There is not really one society 'better' then the other. Better is subjective.

 

Morality is a system. If we have two moral systems, moral system A and moral system B. Then both moral systems can say the other system is bad, wrong and evil. But objectively there is no one better then the other. You can only prefer one subjectively. You can try to create a new system to evaluate moral systems, however that system is a moral system itself and becomes moral system C that has exactly the same problem.

[dsayers]

You asserted moral relativity as if it is a given then made a few statements based on that assertion. However, there is no such thing as "society" and morality would be meaningless if it were subjective.

[Kevin Beal]

I am a moral relativist. So I agree with the OP. Morality is just a bunch of rules to shape the behaviour within a society. There is not really one society 'better' then the other. Better is subjective. Morality is a system. If we have two moral systems, moral system A and moral system B. Then both moral systems can say the other system is bad, wrong and evil. But objectively there is no one better then the other. You can only prefer one subjectively. You can try to create a new system to evaluate moral systems, however that system is a moral system itself and becomes moral system C that has exactly the same problem.

So it means nothing to say that something is better, but it's better to believe that there is no objective morality? Is it your subjective preference that no objective morality is possible? If one ought not believe that objective morality is true and real because of some objective basis, meeting some sort of standard of reason and evidence, but the idea that one ought not murder, that's another matter entirely!

 

Morality is not a system. It's not a collection of rules. Even people who believe in theories of ethics which are barbaric and evil will tell you that they believe it because it meets some objective standard for how people ought behave, i.e. a standard beyond some system or collection of rules.

[TDB]

The distinction is not inflicting. Being late is inflicting wasted time on me. The thing that separates immorality from aesthetics is whether or not the use of force is justified in preventing the act. We can use force to prevent rape, theft, murder etc. The person doing the murder has violated the NAP. In other words they are saying "I'm acting violently toward this person, so I now I'm accepting that violence can be used against me". There's universality even in the negation. That should also cover the second question. It's been a while since I read UPB, but that's how I remember it applying in that situation.

I should have looked it up first, I was being too literal: "Ethics is the subset of UPB which deals with inflicted behaviour, or the use of violence. Any theory that justifies or denies the use of violence is a moral theory, and is subject to the requirements of logical consistency and empirical evidence." page 48. So he seems to be equating violence and infliction here. I am tempted to just read it as violence, because of your example. But he says also "The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”" on page 125. So I see that as saying a question gets categorized as ethics if either the behavior being described involves violence, or if the proposed enforcement mechanism is violent. So violence => ethics. Can't be aesthetic or neutral.Anyhow, that doesn't dismiss my original question about professional ethics, which rarely has to do with physical violence. ( Am I being redundant, or should we talk about non-physical violence? ) Here's another example. Psychiatrists and Psychologists have ethical standards regarding sexual involvement with their patients, which entirely disregard the wishes of the patients. A therapist who marries a patient has violated professional ethics, even if everyone is happy with the result. Would Stef say they're incorrect to do this, or that they should do it but use a different word to describe it? My example isn't entirely fair, as I have assumed the best intentions and outcomes, and the ethical rules are intended to prevent therapists from taking advantage of the vulnerability of their patients. Should we consider it to be a form of violence for a therapist to seduce a vulnerable patient?Related question on UPB, maybe you can help. Stef said, "Murder is unwanted, therefore it cannot be universalized to all people." Can you unpack this for me? He never mentions unwantedness in the book, I am not getting the connection. The 2 guys in a room test has always made my head hurt, I have an interpretation at I think works okay, but it is a bit tortured.