Atheists: explain where your moral system comes from

[warpus]

That's called murder.

Who calls abortion murder?

 

[Akka]

The point was that the rule "do to others as you'd like done to yourself" is useless when more than one other person is involved.

No, it just means you've got to try to see the situation from the PoV of several persons rather than one.
Seriously, was this point for real ? It's just so obviously answered that I've a hard time believing it could be made in any kind of good faith...

Akka's sarcastic retort to Orange Seeds' comment misses this point and the others completely. Orange Seeds' list at the end shows why the Golden Rule and its variants are just inadequate as a guide to action, because they don't help to resolve the issues mentioned.

I'm pointing, again and again and again and again, that the GR just outline the concept behind, that is reciprocity.

It's like someone asking "what is gravitation ?" and someone answering "the force that pulls things down". I'm pretty sure anybody can act dumb and find situations where things can be pulled down without gravitation being involved, but I'm still pretty sure that anyone not actively playing dumb understand the general idea.

Now, if someone says : "we need to calculate how gravitation works and use it to build something", then yes you're going to need all the parameter and deviations and rules and the like.
But getting the origin of the general cause and what it is, doesn't require all these details. Seriously, it seems really OBVIOUS...

To do so you have to supplement the principle with further principles.

No, what you have to think about is the very complex implications relative to different points of views that it can bring (and that is friggin' complex and can lead, depending on the PoV and situation, to very different results).

It's all very well to say "We all understand the point of the principle, and by finding fault with it you're just pedantically nitpicking," but the whole point of an ethical system is that it be a guide to action. It becomes especially important when you're considering serious moral dilemmas such as abortion, animal rights, and things of that kind where there is serious disagreement over what actually is right and what's wrong. If an ethical theory doesn't help you in these cases, then it is at best an incomplete theory and at worst a totally useless one.

Yet again : the Golden Rule was the answer about the OP's initial question and intent, that is : "WHERE do your moral system comes from ?".
My moral system comes from the overarching concept of Reciprocity. The GR is a nice summing up of the concept, that gets the job done. There is plenty of ways to word it, but EACH ONE can be abused/twisted/whatever, so I don't see the point in trying to make some elaborate formulation attempting to close the loopholes - anyone who WANTS to find one, CAN find one ; anyone who is actually trying to understand - hence, communicate - can actually understand.

This is not nitpicking, it's testing. If I test a new car and find that it falls apart if you drive it more than ten miles, it's not enough to say "Yes, that's just nitpicking; at least it goes. We all know that it's meant to get you somewhere." It has to actually get me somewhere if it's going to be any good, and the purpose of testing it is to see if it does that.

A car is not a concept, a car is not a meaning, a car doesn't have a "spirit" behind its expression. You test a practical set of laws or rules, a concept is more of an idea/intent, as such it's not something you just use a battery of test on. A guideline is, by definition, something that give you an overall idea, and you work your way from here to end up with the result. It's not a mathematical formula.

When I'm facing a moral dilemma, I'm actually using the GR (as in : I'm putting myself in the shoe of the other guy, try to get his point of view, and try to evaluate from here what may be seen as acceptable or not, nice or not, and so on). But I'm using it as I said : as an overall concept and idea. Certainly NOT as the stupid "to the letter" caricature that people pretend it is when they are doing nitpicking.

I've given plenty of examples why you HAVE to "play along" and get the meaning before being able to say "no it doesn't work". I can't really make anything more - and that's been my point from the start : you can't communicate with someone who simply doesn't want to listen.

 

[Orange Seeds]

This is tiresome and I want to sort it out.

No, it just means you've got to try to see the situation from the PoV of several persons rather than one.
Seriously, was this point for real ? It's just so obviously answered that I've a hard time believing it could be made in any kind of good faith...

Well that isn't an answer. If I kill one person to save one other person and they both want to live, whose PoV wins out? Your theory, as it is, can't account for that. That is a problem.

It's like someone asking "what is gravitation ?" and someone answering "the force that pulls things down". I'm pretty sure anybody can act dumb and find situations where things can be pulled down without gravitation being involved, but I'm still pretty sure that anyone not actively playing dumb understand the general idea.

Now, if someone says : "we need to calculate how gravitation works and use it to build something", then yes you're going to need all the parameter and deviations and rules and the like.
But getting the origin of the general cause and what it is, doesn't require all these details. Seriously, it seems really OBVIOUS...

gravitation /= the force that pulls things down. That's a problem. Such an answer has no explanatory force, which is what me Plotinus and others are critiqueing of your prescribed ethical principle.

Yet again : the Golden Rule was the answer about the OP's initial question and intent, that is : "WHERE do your moral system comes from ?".
My moral system comes from the overarching concept of Reciprocity. The GR is a nice summing up of the concept, that gets the job done. There is plenty of ways to word it, but EACH ONE can be abused/twisted/whatever, so I don't see the point in trying to make some elaborate formulation attempting to close the loopholes - anyone who WANTS to find one, CAN find one ; anyone who is actually trying to understand - hence, communicate - can actually understand.

1. GR doesn't get the job done. Like, that is what this entire discussion has been about. Your obstinate insistence that everything's fine, and that intelligent and well educated people are playing dumb in order to make some rhetorical point is not persuasive.

2. If there is no way that you can state a theory that doesn't fail to an objection, then your theory is inadequate. Imagine if you said the same thing about a mathematical proof: "there is no way to write out a proof that doesn't fail to some error.' You would be laughed out of the room. Articulation is important. Here's why: "rape is right. Anyone who truly tries to understand the world will see it to be true, Those people can actually understand" -or- "The GOP are better than the Dems. Anyone who actually understands governance rather than look at all the loop-holes will understand" -or- "Hell exists. Anyone who actually thinks about it and stops looking at all the little criticisms will see it to be true" and so and so on.

I've given plenty of examples why you HAVE to "play along" and get the meaning before being able to say "no it doesn't work". I can't really make anything more - and that's been my point from the start : you can't communicate with someone who simply doesn't want to listen.

I can't communicate with someone who refuses to speak a language. I'm not sure if you're telepathic, but I'm not. So I'm stuck using the meanings of words to understand what you're trying to communicate. I don't share a common understanding of what the spirit of GR is. I just don't. I have no idea what you mean by it, and I can't assume that I do because that leads to error.

Also, I'd like to point out that this all started with my original contention with GR, that it isn't a good ethical system. So all this arguing about whether or not it fulfulls the OPs question is not really worth talking to me about. I don't care about it fulfilling the OPs needs, I just thinks it's a terrible ethical system. So if that's not the discussion you want to have, then there's no point in replying to me.

 

[Akka]

This is tiresome and I want to sort it out.

You're going to sort it out only if you try. I can shower you with examples trying to get the point across (which is exactly what I've been doing), but I can't force you to actually bother to understand them (and from my point of view you certainly show an incredible amount of willingness about missing every single point made).

Well that isn't an answer. If I kill one person to save one other person and they both want to live, whose PoV wins out? Your theory, as it is, can't account for that. That is a problem.

Actually it does.
=> A guideline is, by definition, something that give you an overall idea, and you work your way from here to end up with the result. [...]

When I'm facing a moral dilemma, I'm actually using the GR (as in : I'm putting myself in the shoe of the other guy, try to get his point of view, and try to evaluate from here what may be seen as acceptable or not, nice or not, and so on).

1. GR doesn't get the job done. Like, that is what this entire discussion has been about. Your obstinate insistence that everything's fine, and that intelligent and well educated people are playing dumb in order to make some rhetorical point is not persuasive.

The obstinate insistence of said people to completely miss the point about the rule being a vague guideline, and consistently going back about how it doesn't provide an extremely precise set of rules for every single case, tends to make me wonder about such intelligence and education.

I've already pointed several time that the GR is not a precise set of laws (very obviously), but the rough basis upon which you build the moral system, and yet you constantly go back with the "hey, if you take such or such case it doesn't work".
I don't know how completely missing a point very explicitely made ("it's not a set or precise rules, it's a rough guideline on which you think and get the set of rules") is not a good example of playing dumb, but maybe we're not speaking in fact the same language, because if someone tells me "this thing is not supposed to be specific", I usually get it the first time. Maybe I'm not intelligent nor educated enough to misunderstand such a simple sentence.

Imagine if you said the same thing about a mathematical proof

Let me reiterate myself :
You test a practical set of laws or rules, a concept is more of an idea/intent, as such it's not something you just use a battery of test on. A guideline is, by definition, something that give you an overall idea, and you work your way from here to end up with the result. It's not a mathematical formula.

If you're saying you're intelligent, educated and mocking me about "not speaking a language", you should avoid equating a metaphysical concept with a mathematical theory. It doesn't really help your case.

Let me say it for the, n-th time :
"the GR is the conceptual basis on which the rest is built. It's not a precise set of rules."
What isn't easily understandable in this sentence ?

I can't communicate with someone who refuses to speak a language. I'm not sure if you're telepathic, but I'm not. So I'm stuck using the meanings of words to understand what you're trying to communicate.

Cue to my example about the guy lost and the answer he gets when he says "where I am ?".
Will you tell me that the words used by the driver make it impossible to grasp the spirit of his question, and that the answer he gets is actually relevant to it ? Do you consider he doesn't use a langage, or do you consider that it's the guy with the hat that doesn't make any effort to understand the intent of the question ?

This joke plays on how someone can "miss the point". I'm desperately trying to explain the VERY SIMPLE concept that the GR isn't to be taken completely litterally, but is just a simple wording to help getting the meaning behind (just like saying "where I am ?" is a simple wording about the approximate localisation on a geographical basis, and not about if I am in a car or not, despite the wording also possibly meaning the latter).

And despite repeating "the GR is not about the letter, it's about the spirit", we've got supposedly very intelligent and educated posters that constantly go back to the letter (in the joke terms, I'm saying "well, I'm not asking about if I'm or not in the car, I'm asking where more generally I am", and the guy answer "well, but you ARE in a car !").

I don't share a common understanding of what the spirit of GR is. I just don't. I have no idea what you mean by it, and I can't assume that I do because that leads to error.

Don't tell me you can't make the difference between a wording and a meaning, between the intention and the expression. Most humour is based on such a difference, so unless you've never been able to get a joke, you're simply lying if you say you can't make this difference - and humour is far from being the only case.

Now, I'll still answer your question anyway, because when trying to decipher your intent in a non-telepathic kind of way, I suppose you just want to ask "what is the process that allows you to go from a very general and vague wording, to a more practical decision-making ?".

The basic idea is reciprocity. That's the base. Once you've it, you can obviously not stop at the raw, simplistic "do exactly the same action", because that's just as stupid as answering "you're in the car", or looking at the fingher when someone point at the moon. You've to get the "spirit" of it. You've to get the intention. You've to get the ESSENCE.

What don't you like being done to you ?
What part of it is your own preferences, that you should then adapt when trying to put yourself in the shoes of another (I don't like spiders, I would hate if someone would throw one on me ; this guy doesn't mind spiders, but he hates snakes ; so an actually not stupid way to apply this is "if I don't like spiders and wouldn't like one to be thrown on me, I should not throw serpents on someone who doesn't like them") ?
What is the degree (I dislike having someone stepping on my foot ; I REALLY dislike someone cutting my hand ; I REALLY REALLY dislike being killed, etc.) ?
What is the cultural background, the ability to judge, the intent of the person ? Mine ? And many others.
All these parameters influence the whole. All these are to be taken into consideration and mixed and evaluated. THAT is where the complexity come. Putting yourself in the shoes of others, what they could like or not. How much they do. How much of their personnal preferences weigh in, how much mine weigh in. HERE is the relative part of morality - the principle behind it is absolute, and so yes I believe in absolute morality ; the elements on which you act are relative, hence I understand that, despite morality being absolute in the "back row", the actions may be very relative to a certain degree.

It's not as simplistic as a one liner by now, right ?

Also, I'd like to point out that this all started with my original contention with GR, that it isn't a good ethical system. So all this arguing about whether or not it fulfulls the OPs question is not really worth talking to me about. I don't care about it fulfilling the OPs needs, I just thinks it's a terrible ethical system. So if that's not the discussion you want to have, then there's no point in replying to me.

The problem is that your contention is based on a totally litteral take at something that isn't supposed to be litteral - again, cue to the joke about "where I am ?".

Not that it hasn't been pointed countless times (that the point of the GR is to get the intent rather than the letter). I was not aware that "the point of the GR is to get the intent rather than the letter" was such a difficult and complex sentence that it required to be repeated so many times to be understood by educated and intelligent people speaking english - it IS written in english, right ?

 

[Traitorfish]

Utilitarianism per se doesn't specify what the good actually is. Classical utilitarianism holds the good to be pleasure, but other forms of utilitarianism are not committed to that view. There is no commitment to the notion that the good is whatever you, personally, want. The key element is trying to maximise the amount of whatever the good is.

The principle of reciprocity which you're appealing to specifies that the good is whatever you, personally, want. So there's a big difference right from the start. There is also no explicit aim of maximising the good; rather, only of doing it to others. Now suppose there were a situation where, by doing to somebody something which you wouldn't want done to yourself, you could bring about a greater amount of good than by not doing so. Utilitarianism would urge you to do that thing, whereas the principle of reciprocity would urge you not to. That is because they have different goals. The principle of reciprocity, in itself, is a guide to choosing between actions based on the character of the action itself, i.e. whether it's an action you'd like to have done to yourself or not. Utilitarianism, by contrast, is a form of consequentialism, which means it evaluates actions not on the basis of the action itself but on the basis of what its consequences are (or, perhaps, what its consequences are expected to be). That is a big difference. With reciprocity, your decisions are based on what the action is (or, perhaps, with the motive for the action, which is different again), but with utilitarianism, they are based on what final outcome you expect. This is why historians of ethical philosophy generally see utilitarianism as originating in the work of Bentham or perhaps Hume, and not Jesus.

Well, as I said, I was really imposing my own interpretation onto the basic system, which is a serious mis-step. I, personally, am motivated to support utilitarianism because I see it as the reciprocal ethic applied on a grand scale, but that's a personal motivation, not a general characteristic.

However, the bolded part is really rather over-simplistic. That may be the literal interpretation of the Golden Rule, yes, but such an interpretation misses the point- as I have been saying, the Golden Rule is not a free-standing commandment, but an expression of a basic principle, that of reciprocity, which allows for far more nuance. It certainly does not imply that one must literally impose ones personal desires onto the universe at large; given that reciprocity is itself motivated by empathy, that would be a very bizarre misstep. The Golden Rule is simply an attempt to condense the complexities of reciprocity into an easy, pocket-size general guideline to individual-to-individual relationships, nothing more.
Empathetical reciprocity, rather than the Golden Rule, being the running theme of the quotes I gave, so I won't address the individual comments in regard to each.

Also, for the record, the negative version of the Golden Rule, as found in the Brhaspati quote, is known as the "Silver Rule", and is usually held to be implicit in its more widely known sibling.

 

[Mise]

This reciprocity thing is still inadequate, though, because it still doesn't help answer a great number of moral questions. To be clear, are you saying that reciprocity is the basis for utilitarianism? Is it the metric to judge "goodness", as used in utilitarianism? What are you using reciprocity for, here? Is it important to (your brand of) utilitarianism, or is it merely an idle curiosity that actually gets ditched when you get down to the nitty-gritty of your beliefs?

Incidentally, I don't find utilitarianism compelling for various reasons, but that's another thread.

 

[Cutlass]

Who calls abortion murder?

People who refuse to discuss the issue with ethics or honor.

 

[Traitorfish]

This reciprocity thing is still inadequate, though, because it still doesn't help answer a great number of moral questions. To be clear, are you saying that reciprocity is the basis for utilitarianism? Is it the metric to judge "goodness", as used in utilitarianism? What are you using reciprocity for, here? Is it important to (your brand of) utilitarianism, or is it merely an idle curiosity that actually gets ditched when you get down to the nitty-gritty of your beliefs?

Reciprocity isn't intended to "answer questions", and, indeed, constantly poses them; it is a principle, not a commandment, and, in relationship to (my brand of, as well as others) Utilitarianism, a motivation. The constant acknowledgement of the subjectivity of human experience is necessary to any effective system of ethics, and this is no difference. Even the Golden Rule can just as easily be read as an acknowledgement that our own perception of the experiences of others is ultimately distorted by and weighed against our own, rather than as a literal assertion of personal objectivity.

 

[Orange Seeds]

Okay look. In order to to argue about ethics you have to follow certain ground rules. If you don't then we're speaking jibberish.

The first and most important is that a system of ethics has to explain something. It has to explain how to act.This is obvious. saying something like: "you should act goodly" doesn't explain anything. I still need to know what "goodly" is. You can call this not following the 'spirit' of the word all you want. You can call this nitpicky all you want. However the basic fact is that saying "you should act goodly" is not good enough for an ethical system. Agree?

Now, if you're going to say something like "we should respect other people's views" or "we should be reciprocal" or something like that, then you're not explaining anything. It seems like all you're saying is that we should consider everything before we act. In philosophy we call this a trivial truth. No one disputes that; it's obvious. What we care about is how to determine what to do once we've considered everything. You can bemoan all you want that its "just a general principle" and what-not, but the point still stands. YOU ARE NOT EXPLAINING ANYTHING. I can't reinforce this enough.

This is also why Traitorfish's explanation above this is not good enough. I'm contesting that GR/rec is good enough for ethics. He's actually agreeing by saying that GRREC doesn't answer questions but poses them. What this is is a fundamental understanding of what we need from Ethics. I need a way to explain why an action is the right one. I need a process from which I can determine a right action in every circumstance. And when I say process, I mean one that can be defended at every step. At no step can I fall back on "consider it carefully' or 'reason through' or any other Deus Ex Machina of mental activity.

So what you want to say is that GRREC is your first principle. It is your first phrasing. In order for it to be a starting point. It has to be the origin of any ethical answer. So if my first principle was "pleasure is good" then anything that can't ultimately be explained from how that choice brought about pleasure is relying on a separate ethical rubric. In other words, your first principle is not your first principle. There is something else that you're appealing to. So if you're saying that GR is the basis of your ethics, you are wrong from what you've said so far.

The Second basic requirement for ethical discussion is language. I'll say it again. In order to have any discussion with anyone, you have to agree on the meaning of the words you are using. In order to do this you have to clarify ambiguous words. You have to Explicate. So relying on some background understanding of what a very complex ethical sentence is supposed to mean is, quite simply, anti-intellectual, unfair, lazy and unproductive. I understand that words have contexts. I understand that very well. The issue is that the context of a complex ethical proposition is unclear. It has to be explicated. This is quite frankly absurd to have to defend. It is a basic, basic prerequisite for any intelligent discussion. You can't write a passing paper without realizing this. You can't argue when one side doesn't know what is being argued about. I don't know what you mean by the GR because you've failed to explain it. All you've said is that the GR is your ethical principle. That it is a rough-guideline. And that I should just know what you mean by it.

The metaphor to the driver asking directions is not comparable. Unlike the man with the hat, I have no common-sense reason to understand the scope and motivation for your proposition. Your view on the GR is very esoteric. It is peculiar to you and some few others perchance. I wouldn't say something like: "Quine reduced our ontological commitment to unactualized possibles by translating names into Russelian definite descriptions using complex quantifiers" without explaining to you what that sentence actually means. It is a complex and esoteric sentence that few people could understand no matter how carefully they read and thought about it. They certainly would not understand its significance.

However, you say, "do unto others as you would do unto yourself" is not complicated. Most everyone knows exactly what it means. Yes, you're right, Except the most common-sensical way to understand that sentence is the way I originally did. Hence why the masochist is a counter-example to test the proposition. But no, you said, that's not what the sentence actually means. It means something much more complex in spirit. Okay. So what in bloody hell do you mean?

I don't know what Reciprocity means until it is actually explicated. How does it work, what does it mean, what examples would it apply to, how would I use it are all unanswered questions.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So the GR is bunk as a source for morality because you can think of exceptions.

What follows is the Christian faith must be bunk since the 10 commandments tell me I shall not steal, so when I am being kidnapped and locked in a shed in the middle of nowhere, and I manage to escape the shed I can't steal the car that belongs to the kidnappers that is parked outside to drive myself to safety. Instead the moral thing to do is to wander around and die.

Good counter example to test the proposition?

Well, Orange, I have to agree here. I too believe there isn't a moral system that covers all bases. It does not exist. Not religious, not a-religious, nowhere. This is why I believe an atheist/areligionist moral standard is on par with a theist/religionist.

edit: Courtesy of the other thread, a better example: http://atheism.about.com/b/2010/09/25/christine-odonnell-moral-absolutist.htm

 

[HannibalBarka]

Akka, using the "spirit" of the GR and not blantly its wording, what would be your position on say abortion for example?
I'm really not nitpicking, I actually also cherish the GR. But fact is in many cases the GR was just useless

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This is a flaw all moral systems have. They all have grey areas and holes in them.

 

[HannibalBarka]

This is a flaw all moral systems have. They all have grey areas and holes in them.

OK. But in that case, what is your "backup" system?

 

[Lone Wolf]

When in moral doubt, act in a way that'll be more beneficial to you. A good way of escaping from any moral quandary.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I feel less bad turning off that kids life support machine because I had to recharge my mobile phone now! I like your moral system LW!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

OK. But in that case, what is your "backup" system?

Who says I have one? A system I mean. I'm not a computer. No one is.

The short, simple and probably unsatisfying answer would be: it depends. It depends on a great number of things which moral choices I'll make at any time. The amount of uncertainties, dependencies and variables in real life situations is of such magnitude, I don't believe they can be captured into 'systems'.

edit: Foolproof systems I mean. I think we already established there can be guidelines which can be used as a base.

 

[Mise]

Pretty much all ethical systems can handle abortion.

The Golden Rule isn't an ethical system.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Pretty much all ethical systems can handle abortion.

edit: Sorry about this, first need to get some things clear.

Is the ability to be able to handle abortion the litmus test for ethical systems?

 

[Plotinus]

The short, simple and probably unsatisfying answer would be: it depends. It depends on a great number of things which moral choices I'll make at any time. The amount of uncertainties, dependencies and variables in real life situations is of such magnitude, I don't believe they can be captured into 'systems'.

As it happens I wrote a paper a little while ago pretty much arguing that (a) this is how most normal people do actually lead their lives, and (b) it can be philosophically defended as a form of probabilism. Where the classical probabilists argued that any action that is recommended by an ecclesiastical authority is permissible (though it may in fact be wrong), I suggested that a modern version of that theory could hold that any action that is recommended by a reasonable ethical theory is permissible, thus providing a guide for action without commitment to the truth of any particular ethical theory.

What I suggested is that instead of thinking in terms of what's right and wrong, we could think in terms of what's (morally) permissible or impermissible, and make that the basic concept that drives the system. So you could define a wrong action as one that's not permissible. A problem there is that it leaves it open what a right action is: you may have several permissible choices, but which is the right one?

That's where the "it depends" element comes in. Instead of using a particular ethical system, you might appeal to a number of them. When we hesitate over which action is the right thing to do, it's not normally because our ethical system gives us no direction - it's because we're not fully committed to any particular ethical system. So we may think, perhaps, that both utilitarianism and Kantianism have got something going for them; we may think that utilitarianism recommends action A and Kantianism recommends action B; and we are unsure which to go for since each one has what seems like a reasonable rationale. If we make permissibility the fundamental criterion, then we could say that both action A and action B are permissible because they can be reasonably defended on some reasonable ethical theory (of course we'd need a theory of what counts as reasonable defence and reasonable ethical theories). The key thing is that this can make sense even if you're not committed to any of these theories; what matters is that the actions can be reasonably justified as right, without having to think that they actually are right. The potential justifiability of an action renders it morally permissible whether or not it actually is right, or indeed whether or not there is such a thing as rightness at all. I think that this captures the way that people do actually deliberate about problematic moral decisions and about how they evaluate the rightness or wrongness of decisions that they or others have actually made.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I haven't got a clue about utilitarianism and Kantianism, but I'm glad I stumbled upon something which makes sense to someone at least

Really, the funny part in all this, which I thought was going to be jumped on (or I missed it) is the hilarious fact that the atheists use the Golden Rule of Christianity in a thread that started that atheists don't have morals. We not only have morals, we have your morals, mwhuhahahaha! And we're not afraid to use them!

Also, there's a difference between the accusation: "you don't have morals", and "you don't have a moral system". My response to the first would be: "yes I have" to the second "no I haven't got one universal one indeed, but I suspect you don't either"