Why Be Moral?

[Max Hartford]

I've been thinking about this question for a while, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts. The question is: Why Be Moral? Why be ethical? Why adhere to UPB? Why be a 'good' person?

 

The only reason that really makes sense to me is: because doing so, in this specific case, would make me happier than an alternate course of action. But if this is the answer, than the concepts of ethics, morals, UPB, etc... seem to lose their utility, being replaced by a series of personal, egoistic, utilitarian calculations.

 

What are your reasons? Is there something I'm missing?

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Why anything? Why answer your question? Why ask it? You don't have be moral anymore than you have to be rational or scientific. But if you don't you'll be wrong. Being "moral" won't necessarily make you happier at all. 

If that's not enough and you continue asking the question then you're stuck in an infinite regression and what you're really asking is "Why be moral without God / parents?". You may need to go to a theology forum. 

[Will Torbald]

This is something I also struggle with, and I've come up with my own interpretation of morality that adheres to UPB guidelines without it itself being UPB ethics. That is, UPB has a method and a conclusion. I keep the method, and then diverge in relatively significant ways in theory without altering the practice that much, although I do see where it would diverge on that as well. I've compiled the basic premises here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46314-universally-permissible-interactions-or-how-i-think-about-ethics/#entry424066

 

But I'll summarize how I answer the question of "Why?" here anyway. Since morality is relevant only under interactions between people, the question can have two different versions of itself depending on which interacting agent you are. The giver or the receiver of the action. What people debate or question is whether actions are immoral, but this is a mistake. The action is only the element used to exchange energy between agents. A punch is an action, but the interaction could be moral depending on the state of the agents. It's either assault or boxing (or an accident) depending on the agreements between the agents. If you translate the why question to punching you get error from it. Why shouldn't I punch people? It makes no sense because punching people can be very useful or lucrative. You can only ask it from a perspective of a giver or a receiver. Like so "Why shouldn't I attack people without their permission?" Which actually, if you abstract it, means "Why can't I give myself permission to interact with the property of other people?" And at this point the question is revealed to be totally ridiculous because it is obvious that property is personal because only you have the capacity to give or refrain permissions over it. There are other versions of the question from the receiver side, but I prefer if you would just read the theory on the other thread for that. People get hung up with why be moral from the givers side, not with the receiver.

[bschu]

I think one would have to go back in their personal history to think of the first time they decided to act morally and recall what the reason for that was. As the common topic of FDR here reminds us (child abuse), maybe some people didn't really have the opportunity to experience these first moral moments clearly, OR, that opportunity was ruined for them because of abuse, or harsh environments in youth.

 

I remember wanting to please my mom. I think this is normal, and probably where a lot of morals get developed, or can I at least say this is where the reward pathway will be developed, meaning, where we learn the behavior of "Try to do good in order to receive the reward of happiness - and/or avoid pain". Desire for approval might be found to be normal with children, Fear of the rod is likely universal. I personally find the desire for approval to be true, and at least I can say that I find people in general seem to like approval, I hope I don't need to cite a book for any of this.

 

(Random thought. Maybe a major personality trait difference I find in people is based on whether they prefer seeking approval over fearing the rod.)

 

So anyway, if that is a starting point...

 

Another thing comes to mind which I recall about fundamental learning with children. When a child starts moving around and taking their first steps, they will at some point in time approach a wall. They don't know it's a wall yet, they are taking first steps, they see something, and they don't necessarily know what will happen as their body approaches the wall, but then it "stops" them.

 

Lesson 1. Can't walk through things.

 

Keep thinking along these lines and you can see how there is a lot of physical "trial and error" before that child becomes a professional athlete.

 

Now. With that in mind. Why be Moral? I am just thinking. Is it possible that people experience better trial and error outcomes when basing decisions on morals? I think the answer is yes.

 

We often forget the surroundings we are raised in and the amount of handed-down knowledge. It seems like instinct, but really people spent thousands of years developing literature and educational systems, and we grow up with all of that available to us at an early age.

 

Still, people argue about a lot of these things everyday. Is it moral to kill? But we kill animals. What about death penalty and abortion? So the finer points are controversial and take longer to articulate. With my above reasoning, if I am right, we can suddenly see why a lot of people are more soft on issues regarding killing, because "what if it is YOU". So as a moral code that will perpetuate my survival, and/or survival chances of my children better, I will always vote against murder.

 

Again, more evidence that we are using trial and error, or reasoning, or guess work - all with the desired outcome of "a better way of life, for me" And walking into the wall hurts!

 

Good topic.

[dsayers]

than the concepts of ethics, morals, UPB, etc... seem to lose their utility

Having no use for a hammer does nothing to diminish the utility of a hammer. Morality's only utility is to determine the internal consistency of behaviors that are binding upon others. This utility is preserved even when you use it only to enhance the happiness in your own life.

[Carl Green]

I don't have a good answer to this but I think the same reasoning for asking the question would apply to being immoral.

 

Why be immoral? Is one of the two the 'default position'?

 

What I initially thought of when reading the topic was that if you have "enough" empathy, this isn't even a question to ask. As if it were internally obvious or something.

[Max Hartford]

Having no use for a hammer does nothing to diminish the utility of a hammer. Morality's only utility is to determine the internal consistency of behaviors that are binding upon others. This utility is preserved even when you use it only to enhance the happiness in your own life.

 

I don't follow you: seems to me that if no one in the world had any use for a hammer, its utility would disappear altogether. 

 

Also, what do you mean 'behaviors that are binding upon others'? What binds them to it if they have no reason to be so bound?

 

 

I don't have a good answer to this but I think the same reasoning for asking the question would apply to being immoral.

 

Why be immoral? Is one of the two the 'default position'?

 

What I initially thought of when reading the topic was that if you have "enough" empathy, this isn't even a question to ask. As if it were internally obvious or something.

 

I think the default position is to not think about the 'morality' or 'immorality' of an action at all when deciding whether to perform it.

 

As for empathy, seems that if a moral system is formulated based on logical reasoning rather than on what the most empathetic person might want to do, than there's no necessary connection between the dictates of morality and empathy. For instance, super empathetic people might believe in taking from the rich to give to the poor (maybe they think it will hurt the rich less than it will benefit the poor), but someone who believed in libertarian morality would not approve of this course of action. Also, I don't think there's a non-arbitrary standard for determining what 'enough' empathy is. It's just a personality trait like any other.  

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I find that most people who ask this question tend to ignore the answer and continue asking. So I posted a new topic where I provide the actual answer. If anyone wants to discuss the answer you can go here https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46332-why-be-moral-answered/

[Torero]

I would say: reciprocity; if you and the people around you are moral, it makes life better. Better in the sense of less lies, less threats, less deceit, less unpleasant situations.

 

Then on to "what is unpleasant, lies, deceiving, threatening" and "why would that be good": "because of the efforts needed to protect yourself or others from those negative points can be saved and that time and money can be invested in other things".

 

In other words: "if you don't lie, you don't need time and effort to cover your lies" or "if you don't steal, you don't need to spend time and effort to protect yourself from people stealing back".

 

The classical "attack" by "anti-libertarians" (whatever they mean by that) is that this is all "selfish". It is not; as social animals it is not selfish to advocate moral behaviour as the interaction between us by definition makes it social/unselfish/not only pointed at ourselves.

 

And why reciprocity? I'd say morality is always with respect to others. Dropped on an island as the only person there:

- it doesn't make sense to lie, because there's nobody to lie to and nobody to check if you lied

- it doesn't make sense to steal, because there's nobody to steal from

- it doesn't make sense to rape, because there's no victim

etc.

 

If you are then on this island with 2 people where you have to survive:

- it is negative to lie/steal/rape/murder/deceive, because the time and effort spent to solve your lies and protect you from the reciprocal effects of your immorality are not spent on survival or improvement of life

[dsayers]

Also, what do you mean 'behaviors that are binding upon others'? What binds them to it if they have no reason to be so bound?

If I drive my car into yours, it doesn't matter if you have a reason for your car to be damaged or not. You cannot escape the fact that your car is damaged, therefore it would be accurate to describe my behavior as binding upon you. A rape victim has no reason to be raped, but this does nothing to change the fact that the rapist's actions are binding upon their victim.

[Max Hartford]

I would say: reciprocity; if you and the people around you are moral, it makes life better. Better in the sense of less lies, less threats, less deceit, less unpleasant situations.

 

Then on to "what is unpleasant, lies, deceiving, threatening" and "why would that be good": "because of the efforts needed to protect yourself or others from those negative points can be saved and that time and money can be invested in other things".

 

In other words: "if you don't lie, you don't need time and effort to cover your lies" or "if you don't steal, you don't need to spend time and effort to protect yourself from people stealing back".

 

The classical "attack" by "anti-libertarians" (whatever they mean by that) is that this is all "selfish". It is not; as social animals it is not selfish to advocate moral behaviour as the interaction between us by definition makes it social/unselfish/not only pointed at ourselves.

 

And why reciprocity? I'd say morality is always with respect to others. Dropped on an island as the only person there:

- it doesn't make sense to lie, because there's nobody to lie to and nobody to check if you lied

- it doesn't make sense to steal, because there's nobody to steal from

- it doesn't make sense to rape, because there's no victim

etc.

 

If you are then on this island with 2 people where you have to survive:

- it is negative to lie/steal/rape/murder/deceive, because the time and effort spent to solve your lies and protect you from the reciprocal effects of your immorality are not spent on survival or improvement of life

 

I think this is the best answer so far. Reciprocity, combined with empathy, can provide very substantial reasons for acting in ways that are deemed 'moral' by others.

 

A couple points to mention though:

 

First, it would seem that in this case, the kind of morality you are talking about would not be the logically-deduced UPB morality that Molyneux favours, but rather the kind of 'rule utilitarianism' morality advocated by the likes of Ludwig von Mises and Henry Hazlitt. Rule utilitarianism is based on finding general rules of behavior that are conducive to the smooth functioning of a peaceful and prosperous social order.

 

Second, there could well be opportunities for the individual to slip in some individually-beneficial 'immoral' actions, without upsetting the balance of society too much, or triggering any kind of negative retaliation. In these (perhaps limited) cases, individuals may still have no reason to act morally.

[Max Hartford]

If I drive my car into yours, it doesn't matter if you have a reason for your car to be damaged or not. You cannot escape the fact that your car is damaged, therefore it would be accurate to describe my behavior as binding upon you. A rape victim has no reason to be raped, but this does nothing to change the fact that the rapist's actions are binding upon their victim.

 

Ah okay, got it, thanks for clarifying.

 

I don't think that considering the 'internal inconsistency' of their coercive actions is really going to deter anyone from engaging in these actions though. Hence why the practical utility of this kind of morality is suspect.

[Torero]

I think this is the best answer so far. Reciprocity, combined with empathy, can provide very substantial reasons for acting in ways that are deemed 'moral' by others.

 

Thank you, Max Stirner (your avatar).

 

 

A couple points to mention though:

 

First, it would seem that in this case, the kind of morality you are talking about would not be the logically-deduced UPB morality that Molyneux favours, but rather the kind of 'rule utilitarianism' morality advocated by the likes of Ludwig von Mises and Henry Hazlitt. Rule utilitarianism is based on finding general rules of behavior that are conducive to the smooth functioning of a peaceful and prosperous social order.

 

True and good point. While Stefan may not be a utilitarian philsosopher, I must say I have taken some of my reasoning from that (John Stuart Mill and especially Epicurus I like quite a lot). Still it's not a case of utilitarianism = not true philosophical reasoning. We are pragmatic in our nature, opportunistic even. A cold non-emotional philosophy does not make sense (although it may be rationally right); we are emotional beings and will always be (I hope, if not we turn into robots and robots do not need philosophy).

 

Second, there could well be opportunities for the individual to slip in some individually-beneficial 'immoral' actions, without upsetting the balance of society too much, or triggering any kind of negative retaliation. In these (perhaps limited) cases, individuals may still have no reason to act morally.

 

Yes, on a large-scale where lies are covered by enough deceit (like is the case today) that's true. And hence my call for small-scale thinking and avoiding the utopian trap. Statists tend to think "for all mankind", which is ridiculous; there's not enough common philosophical ground for all humanity to apply thinking on that scale. And every utopian "we can change 'the world' thinking" has failed (see communism). Or in very simple un-nuanced words: "we will never agree, all of us". Still that doesn't mean there are no universal values. I think the core values of morality (some call it 'the ten commandments') are quite universal. If not, they wouldn't have been embraced by so many cultures independently from each other.

[dsayers]

I don't think that considering the 'internal inconsistency' of their coercive actions is really going to deter anyone from engaging in these actions though. Hence why the practical utility of this kind of morality is suspect.

Hardly. If everybody around an aggressor understands their behaviors to be aggressive, the aggressor cannot flourish. This is why we need to dress such people in uniforms and pin a badge on them to tell others that their aggression is okay. It is the people who do not see the internal inconsistency of immoral behaviors that see uniformed aggression and let it happen. So while the individual may find no utility in consistent behaviors, society benefits.

 

You're literally pushing for glasses for everybody that would make grizzly bears look like teddy bears. I find that to be monstrous.

[Frosty]

Trying to think around utilitarianism with regards to this question is proving tricky. I guess the question of "why" comes down to appealing to those things that individuals value. So there's lots of utilitarian reasons such as moral behaviour decreases social friction and increases social trust which both lower the cost of living and increase quality of life. There's also the argument that if you're naturally/bioloigically empathetic then immoral behaviour would be in essence hurting yourself, since you mirror the pain of others. However not everyone has empathy.

 

I think the best answer I have that's not concerning utility is that behaving morally is to behave in a rational, consistent and coherent way, we know from UPB that immoral rules are those which aren't logically coherent, we can't have a rule that says it's good to hurt someone because the term hurt has negative connotations and the rule doesn't make sense. But this would only be a reason why to be moral if people valued logic and reason in the first place, some people do not. Further more if people don't value logic and reason to begin with, then what logical argument are you going to use to convince them?

 

I don't think there's any concrete answer to that question, it seems to depend what people value.

[Des]

Let's split this question into two:

 

Why support the institution of a code of morals?

 

and

 

Why adhere to the code of morals?

 

The second, you do in order to support the institution.

The first, you do so that you have a reasonable way to resolve conflicts.

You want a reasonable way to resolve conflicts so that you don't die in a conflict which is resolved by force.

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/47550-is-the-argument-from-morality-just-an-instance-of-the-argument-from-effect/?p=434823

[dsayers]

Let's split this question into two:

 

Why support the institution of a code of morals?

 

and

 

Why adhere to the code of morals?

 

The second, you do in order to support the institution.

I think the answer is simpler, more primal, and harder to deny. Namely that not initiating the use of force directly contributes to one's self-preservation. Anybody can be the victim of an attack or an accident. However, when you initiate the use of force, you give others reason to target and pursue you. Providing value to others in order to be able to earn a car for example might seem harder than just taking one in the moment. However, in the long term, establishing trade partners at multiple levels makes life a LOT easier than instead creating as many enemies. You can sleep easy at night or sleep with one eye open, always looking over your shoulder, wondering if each knock at the door of phone call is consequences catching up to you. Does that make sense?

 

I also like this explanation because it helps deal with the fear mongering of people who wonder how we'll interact without a nanny State threatening us to fly right. Even though their lives are full of examples of as much, for this very reason.

 

Another way to think of it: Imagine you're driving down the road and somebody turns right in front of you. You COULD plow into them, since it would be their fault. But then you'd sustain injury, wreck your car, which will both add multiple layers of complication to your life, if you ever survive. It's better to brake/swerve to avoid the collision. Sure, the person responsible won't get their consequences, but you choose this path for the way it simplifies YOUR life.

 

Self-interest is both demonized and highly under-rated. Opponents do not realize the way that self-interest directly translates into peaceful interactions with others.

[rosencrantz]

Namely that not initiating the use of force directly contributes to one's self-preservation. Anybody can be the victim of an attack or an accident. However, when you initiate the use of force, you give others reason to target and pursue you. Providing value to others in order to be able to earn a car for example might seem harder than just taking one in the moment.

 

How is that moral philosophy? That is classical game theory that intelligent Nihilists are likely to adopt. 

[dsayers]

How is that moral philosophy?

I'm not sure why you'd ask this question. Was my claim factually inaccurate? Have you found some other flaw with it?

[rosencrantz]

It's factually correct but the mode of reasoning is not moral. If you do something for personal benefit only you have left the realm of ethics.

[dsayers]

If you do something for personal benefit only you have left the realm of ethics.

You're asking how it's moral philosophy and pointing out it's not ethics, but no such claim was made. Look above and you'll see that Des posed the question why adhere to morality? My point was that you don't have to sell this because it's what people already do out of self-interest. It's not something to fear in the absence of the State because it's actually a manifestation of our biological imperative.

[rosencrantz]

If your personal ethics is based on interests and not on principles you run into problems once the interests are at odds with the principles. You can make a distinction between: 
 

Actions that are immoral according to your principles.
Actions that align to your principles and that you do out of reflection.
Actions that benefit you and that are rooted in your system.

Imagine a baker that wants to keep his customers. He doesn't cheat them and offers them the best service possible for the price they pay. But since he doesn't do that because it's the right thing to do it's no different from having no principles at all. A baker adhering to the NAP and praxeology because it benefits him is no different from a baker doing the same actions without any principles because it's the smart thing to do.

[dsayers]

If your personal ethics

I think maybe you're reading what you want to read. This is now the third post where you respond to me without responding to what I've ACTUALLY said. Which is really bizarre to me because I have an extensive post history demonstrating that I understand that the moral argument is paramount, that methodology is more important than the conclusion, and that I can spot somebody personalizing something to avoid it. My last post explained that I wasn't trying to make a moral argument and yet you continue to speak to me as if I was. *scratches head*

[rosencrantz]

My point was that you don't have to sell this because it's what people already do out of self-interest.

 

I think this is where we disagree on a fundamental level. It is possible that a morality coincides with self-interest. But since those two are not the same, the only way to determine if you act morally or out of self interest is when there is a clash between those two and when you demonstrably act according to ethical principles.

 

Des asked 'Why be moral?' and you replied 'Because it's in our self interest'. 

[Des]

If your personal ethics is based on interests and not on principles you run into problems once the interests are at odds with the principles. You can make a distinction between: 

 

Actions that are immoral according to your principles.

Actions that align to your principles and that you do out of reflection.

Actions that benefit you and that are rooted in your system.

 

Imagine a baker that wants to keep his customers. He doesn't cheat them and offers them the best service possible for the price they pay. But since he doesn't do that because it's the right thing to do it's no different from having no principles at all. A baker adhering to the NAP and praxeology because it benefits him is no different from a baker doing the same actions without any principles because it's the smart thing to do.

As an intro to answering the above, let me state:

People have instituted morality (or discovered it, by reason). Morality is a conflict-resolving institution. Without this conflict-resolving institution, conflicts escalate, people die, I may die. Dying is the one thing that is certainly not to my benefit (does not advance my interests).

 

Morality, instituted (or discovered), by people who can reason, is a set of principles. With these principles, I can choose to guide my action by the principles, not by calculation of the odds of benefit to me, of each decision I make, in an unprincipled manner.

 

We compute morality from predicted consequences, then we get to principles, then I don't compute the consequences of each decision in cases where the principles restrict my actions (unless the the obvious consequence of restricted action is my immediate death, in which case I do the immoral to survive). Principled decision making, based on principles which are derived with reference to the one consequence which is of key importance to me.

 

That consequences are relevant to the discovery of moral principles, does not mean that subsequent adherence to the principles is consequentialism.

[EclecticIdealist]

Why be moral?

This is a question that I believe requires a bit of clarification. First, I regard the term moral and ethical differently. I consider moral to be the collective sense of right and wrong held by a society; whereas I regard the term ethical to be the individual sense of right and wrong. As to the reason why one might be moral, I believe depends greatly upon the individual's ethical maturity. Behaving morally is generally a matter of pragmatism, as one's moral behavior, lack of moral behavior, or immoral behavior is what primarily determines whether one is deemed by society to be a good person, a bad person, or neither good nor bad, and consequently how society engages with and treats one.

 

One might adhere to the morals of society to avoid punishment and to perhaps obtain a reward. This is not actually behaving morally, rather, it is adherence to moral behavior. Behaving morally entails acting because society deems it to be good, not because of what one hopes to obtain or avoid from such adherence.  If one is behaving morally, one is necessarily conforming one's will to the moral judgements of society, not merely the consequent rules. One essentially considers it ethical to unquestioningly adhere to the external authority of the majority of society.

 

Behaving morally is not the same as behaving ethically. In some instances, an individual's sense of ethics may be at odds with society's sense of morals. In such an instance, one may be forced to choose between behavior one deems ethical but society deems immoral on the one hand, and behavior one deems unethical but society deems moral on the other hand. One may still adhere to morality on the premise that society's moral judgement may be deemed superior or more reliable than one's personal ethical sense. One is essentially adhering to the external, collective ethical judgment of society out of a sense of distrust of one's own instinctual or internal ethical judgment, or out of a greater sense of trust for the collective ethical judgements or others.

 

I recognize that such a notion runs contrary to the notion that many have that there exists an objective standard of morality or ethics. While I believe that there are objective, empirical phenomena or facts which inform our ethical and moral judgments and consequent behavior, I believe these to be inherently diverse and subjective in much the same way that personality types are diverse and subjective and individuals have various personal preferences in the realm of aesthetics. I believe that ethical priorities and judgements are likewise diverse.

Why be ethical?

I believe we choose to be ethical because of the psychic conflict or pain we feel when we do not, and the harmony, peace, or content we feel when we do.

Why adhere to UPB?

One would adhere to UPB for much the same reason that one would adhere to morals. Either one judges UPB to be superior in some manner to one's individual ethical sense (if they are in conflict), or one chooses to adhere to UPB because one is part of the majority who shares or otherwise agrees with the ethical evaluation of the UPB.

Why be a 'good' person?

I believe we do this to avoid the psychic pain of discomfort and disharmony one experiences naturally when one's actions are out of alignment with one's beliefs about what is right or wrong, good or bad.

 

But if this is the answer, than the concepts of ethics, morals, UPB, etc... seem to lose their utility, being replaced by a series of personal, egoistic, utilitarian calculations.

That is simply what we do, how we make decisions. We evaluate behavior according to our sense of ethics, morals, and their utility in helping us in our avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure. Many of our choices involve delaying gratification (acquisition of pleasure) by submitting to temporary pain and discomfort in anticipation of an eventual, greater amount or degree of pleasure, or the avoidance of significantly greater pain. And yet, all of these preferences are ultimately calculations informed by our previous successes and failures in avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure; in sating our desires.

[dsayers]

I think this is where we disagree on a fundamental level.

All we disagree on is what I've said. You continue to respond to something that isn't there, despite multiple attempts to point this out.

 

the only way to determine if you act morally...

Is to check whether your behavior is binding upon another and if it is, did they consent to it. I know this. This doesn't contradict anything that you've been trying to contradict.

 

Des asked 'Why be moral?'

link Des asked why ADHERE to morality. As in why not steal, assault, rape and murder. My input, if you would allow it stand without being claimed to say something else, is that this is not something you need to sell because almost everybody already does it. We need to help people understand that government is predicated on violence and that spanking is assault. We don't need to convince people to not do things they already understand to be theft, assault, rape, and murder. The underlined bit is ALL that I was saying. Will you let me say just that please?

[HasMat]

My conception of "The Good" is that it is what is inevitable.

 

In mathematics, the limit as x approaches infinity may look complicated, but it irons itself out over time and is going to have a specific quality.

 

Why be good? Because that is what "will be". Everything else is futile and a waste of time and effort.

 

If you don't improve and build, creative destruction will eat you, and something better will come along in your place.

 

The organizing principle of the universe is growth and increasing complexity. It's the corollary to entropy. Entropy and good are the same thing. Energy doesn't dissipate into random directions. It evolves into higher information by sacrificing its density.

 

How many meals does it take to support 1 child thru their educational years? All that food energy is being converted into information.

 

Doing x right or y wrong may seem like it doesn't matter in the long run, and won't effect the inevitable. But as time approaches infinity, it all does because of Murphy's Law. Anything that can go wrong, will. Someone who requires deception to hide his immorality has 1 more thing that "may" go wrong. Murphy is gonna bite his ass.

 

Lower levels of understanding the inevitable make it appear as Saturnalia. Hollywood's idea of a Anarchists Purge Day. It is from this primal origin that all morality exists. The harshness of this INEVITABLY leads to in-group preference, which inevitably leads to other higher forms of morals, such as individual rights, after in-group preference mobs drown witches (who can float on water?). The mob doesn't like knowing it is a murderer after the fact, so it inevitably comes up with rights. (assuming a particular western christian population)

 

The inevitable looks ugly at the start. When ppl have sex they are bumping uglies. But sex is good. That which is inevitable is The Good. If you don't want to be useless, be good. All evil is eventually creatively destroyed and was a waste of time.

 

Vengeance is mine, and I will repay. By the wicked are the wicked destroyed. Evil has a purpose, albeit like a photographer's negative print. You don't have to be good, the way is open for you to be whatever you want. But if you choose to be evil, your utility will be as an unwitting destroyer of evil, instead of a contributor to The Good. All things work for the good of those that believe in Christ. <insert your Higher Power or universal moral code/UPB if you like> All things work for the good of those that believe in UPB. Good works for good, evil destroys evil.

 

Good wins, because it is inevitable. That reality is baked into the fabric of the universe as deeply as entropy. You just need a wide enough frame to see its omnipotence. The consequences of a shitty life aren't very apparent in any given 30 second time-frame, of a single individual's experience. But when you take the virtue of an entire civilization over several generations, you can look at it and "by their fruits you shall know them".

 

Those who enable economic liberty enjoy prosperity. Virtue produces fruit. You could also argue to be good for the SWAG... Personally I find obeying my conscience to be the best reward of any type. I just like the way it feels, as qualia.

 

But without a witness behind the eyes, an observer who experiences the life, there is no rational reason to 'be good'. That is just a robot. A mechanism, not an agent. Good is impossible without agency, just like preferable (UPB) is impossible without opinion. You need a freewill for any of this stuff.

[dsayers]

Fascinating stuff, HasMat. Thanks for sharing. It reminded me of a topic I once created making the case that our interdependence was proof of peace as the default. It's why I value Alison Gopnik's A Philosophical Baby so highly. I think it's an important study because SO MANY PEOPLE reject the fact that government is predicated on coercion because they assume without that coercion, the world would be worse due to the CHANCE of RANDOM one-on-one violence that exists under the State anyways. Boggles my mind.

 

Doing x right or y wrong may seem like it doesn't matter in the long run, and won't effect the inevitable. But as time approaches infinity, it all does because of Murphy's Law. Anything that can go wrong, will. Someone who requires deception to hide his immorality has 1 more thing that "may" go wrong. Murphy is gonna bite his ass.

Fantastic point. Just wanted to add the weight this extra layer weighs on one's internal resources as well. Part of the reason we're so conflicted as narrative is inflicted is because we start taking on multiple layers of reality. A rationalist would accept that consciousness is an emergent property of matter. The child of Christians has to keep track of that reality as well as the psuedo-reality that God defies this. A complex proposition because humans are universality machines. Our very existence is predicated on the consistency of matter and energy and the reliability that provides.

[Des]

If you do something for personal benefit only you have left the realm of ethics.

No. I accept ethics because there is a personal benefit to accepting ethics. Having accepted ethics, I adhere to the principles of ethics (principled decision-making), because whatever I would gain from deviation, I would lose more** from the collapse of the ethical standards (or from people allowing themselves to treat me as an exception [in response to my acting as an exception]).

 

This is only leaving the realm of ethics in the sense that it is going to the realm around ethics. I bother with ethics at all, because it serves my interest to bother with it.

 

** more, because dying (early) is more loss than any other loss.

[labmath2]

HasMat your comment made me think there is a set of propositions that create the greatest conditions for humans to flourish and morality is our attemp at. As we approach those propositions we get better and better societies until we start deviating from them making us worse off.

[EclecticIdealist]

My conception of "The Good" is that it is what is inevitable.

 

Why be good? Because that is what "will be". Everything else is futile and a waste of time and effort.

 

Good wins, because it is inevitable. That reality is baked into the fabric of the universe as deeply as entropy. You just need a wide enough frame to see its omnipotence. The consequences of a shitty life aren't very apparent in any given 30 second time-frame, of a single individual's experience. But when you take the virtue of an entire civilization over several generations, you can look at it and "by their fruits you shall know them".

This just sounds way too consequentialist to me and not really a basis for a moral system.

[HasMat]

This just sounds way too consequentialist to me and not really a basis for a moral system.

 

I would suggest defining "The Good". We use words like better, improvement. What is a good terrorist? What is a good plumber? What is a good boy?

 

All of these things imply there is a valid guiding principle behind each role, and there is a spectrum of how to fill that role successfully.

 

To be 'good', a thing must accomplish towards the object of its creation. A good terrorist kills many ppl. A good cook makes tasty and healthy food.

 

But back to the terrorist, some would argue the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. They see his reason for existing to be heading towards death. His only valid goal is to become dead.

 

IMO once you get the definition that good is inevitable, then the simplicity and raw nature of consequentialism stops looking so formless, because you know there is more than needs to be build beyond and on top of it. It's not the final word in morality, but it is the first.

 

Moral development in stages

1. ends justify means (consequentialism-Saturnalia) - represented by r selected individuals and dictatorship forms of govt

2. means justify ends (collectivism-deontology) - K selected individuals and collectivist govt

3. synthesis of 1 and 2 (individualism-expedience) - synthetic aristotlean mean behavior and constitutional republic forms of govt

 

One of the major philosophic arcs of the Star Trek franchise is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is Kant's deontology, This is collectivism. This is the edifice that immediately follows on consequentialisms footsteps.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Plato's The Republic discusses some of these things, especially about rulers using Might (consequentialism) sometimes backfiring on them. Yes because consequentialism isn't a fully completed moral code. Sometimes consequentialism gets it wrong. Especially in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

The "Rights" being voiced in 1 are negative rights of the King to not be aggressed upon (masculine aspect of morals). The "Rights" being voiced in 2 are the positive entitlements of charity for the downtrodden (feminine aspect of morals).

 

Good isn't just not harming others, its also doing charity work. The problem with inferior codes is that these virtues are applied too broadly for some (king) but not others (peasants), or that they are backed by non-voluntary coercion, such as the case of positive entitlements.

 

Refining these moral ethics into a scalable economy that all can enjoy without "Rights" overlapping and fighting each other, is the purpose of individualistic governance.

 

Imagine a world where the king can swing his arm however he likes, but I have a right to not be punched. In that economy, the same terrain (me getting punched) has been delegated to 2 different groups prerogative. And so the king must accept limitations on his positive rights, and not infringe on others negative rights, if we are to have a consistent legal framework.

 

I understand your reluctance to accept consequentialism as a moral code. I would argue the reason this is hard for you is because it so utterly incomplete. It doesn't consider that the ends are justified by the means.

 

Group-think has the same issue, because its not synthesizing consequentialism and collectivism into individualism. They are just stunted codes traveling towards a higher good.

[HasMat]

This just sounds way too consequentialist to me and not really a basis for a moral system.

 

I would suggest defining "The Good". We use words like better, improvement. What is a good terrorist? What is a good plumber? What is a good boy?

 

All of these things imply there is a valid guiding principle behind each role, and there is a spectrum of how to fill that role successfully.

 

To be 'good', a thing must accomplish towards the object of its creation. A good terrorist kills many ppl. A good cook makes tasty and healthy food.

 

But back to the terrorist, some would argue the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist. They see his reason for existing to be heading towards death. His only valid goal is to become dead.

 

IMO once you get the definition that good is inevitable, then the simplicity and raw nature of consequentialism stops looking so formless, because you know there is more than needs to be build beyond and on top of it. It's not the final word in morality, but it is the first.

 

Moral development in stages

1. ends justify means (consequentialism-Saturnalia) - represented by r selected individuals and dictatorship forms of govt

2. means justify ends (collectivism-deontology) - K selected individuals and collectivist govt

3. synthesis of 1 and 2 (individualism-expedience) - synthetic aristotlean mean behavior and constitutional republic forms of govt

 

One of the major philosophic arcs of the Star Trek franchise is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is Kant's deontology, This is collectivism. This is the edifice that immediately follows on consequentialisms footsteps.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Plato's The Republic discusses some of these things, especially about rulers using Might (consequentialism) sometimes backfiring on them. Yes because consequentialism isn't a fully completed moral code. Sometimes consequentialism gets it wrong. Especially in the Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

The "Rights" being voiced in 1 are negative rights of the King to not be aggressed upon (masculine aspect of morals). The "Rights" being voiced in 2 are the positive entitlements of charity for the downtrodden (feminine aspect of morals).

 

Good isn't just not harming others, its also doing charity work. The problem with inferior codes is that these virtues are applied too broadly for some (king) but not others (peasants), or that they are backed by non-voluntary coercion, such as the case of positive entitlements.

 

Refining these moral ethics into a scalable economy that all can enjoy without "Rights" overlapping and fighting each other, is the purpose of individualistic governance.

 

Imagine a world where the king can swing his arm however he likes, but I have a right to not be punched. In that economy, the same terrain (me getting punched) has been delegated to 2 different groups prerogative. And so the king must accept limitations on his positive rights, and not infringe on others negative rights, if we are to have a consistent legal framework.

 

I understand your reluctance to accept consequentialism as a moral code. I would argue the reason this is hard for you is because it so utterly incomplete. It doesn't consider that the ends are justified by the means.

 

Group-think has the same issue, because its not synthesizing consequentialism and collectivism into individualism. They are just stunted codes traveling towards a higher good.