Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[robvalue]

I’ll probably write more horse shit in the future, but a quick summary:

We have reached the point (as a species) where we are aware of our motivations and can take a step back to examine the big picture. We can ask what we "should do" in a more general sense. That’s the starting point.

I think of this in two phases:

1) Decide what our values and goals are. If we refuse to think about this, we're essentially wasting our ability to think outside of our primitive tribalism. What is important to you, in general? Why is it important? How important are these things relative to each other? Do your values make sense, as a whole? Are you casting your net wide enough?

This section is what I would call subjective, and it’s the essence of morality. This is where the hard work is done, and everything stems from this. There are no right and wrong answers. It’s for each person to decide, and for societies to try and compromise on. Of course, being human, there will likely be some common themes between most people. We can investigate and finesse our values and goals, but we can’t arbitrarily alter them at will. They are going to be heavily influenced by our evolution as a cooperative species. But the more we think about all this, the more we may realise the importance of other things. Or not. As I said, this is an individual process. Discussion with others is how common ground can be reached, and minds can potentially be changed. The results are obviously going to vary between people according to how their values vary, and by how much.

I think the assumption that particular values must be in place, and that they implicitly govern any other values, is where a lot of misunderstandings occur; and where my disagreements with moral realism most likely crop up. The idea that there are correct values is entirely circular, in my opinion. This is why I reject the notion of "morality" as some absolute, because it’s essentially some arbitrary announcement or a popular best compromise. Goals must be agreed first, however that is achieved. Just because two people use the same word, it doesn’t mean they are talking about the same thing.

2) Put our values and goals into practice. This is where science comes in. Logical, evidence based approaches can often help us achieve the best results. This is where things get much more objective. However, it will often be the case that some goals and values come into conflict with others. Although some consideration will have been given to relative weights in part 1, it’s very hard to codify this, and it will likely be beneficial to go back and assess how it all adds up in this particular situation. Once we have determined the best compromise, we can again use the most objective processes available to achieve it.

This is a very general description. If someone wants to call "morality" a much narrower consideration, then they are welcome to. It’s just a word, after all.