Does anyone own "The Moral Landscape"?

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

Sure, we need to know what's important to us. Individually, as a group, as a society.  Just knowing whats important to us won't help us to reach an objective moral conclusion, though.  Hell, it might be objectively immoral.  Even if some moral thing -weren't- important to us, that wouldn't make it less moral. Or..so...a moral realist contends.

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.

Sure, if you're asking a person what's important to them, the answers will be different...but we're discussing morality, not whatever may or may not be important to an individual or society.  It may be that what's important to a given individual or society is immoral.  The Master Race comes to mind. 

---

 

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.

We're discussing an objective morality, not an absolutist -or- arbitrarity morality, and yes there will be compromises.  That's the main utility of an objective morality, it provides a basis for assessing competing moral claims and compulsions. 

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.

Putting our values and goals into practice is what a utilitatrian system would do..but not all values are objective, and not all goals are worthy, and we certainly don't -need- an objective system to do so.   

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.

Sure, I could call an elephant a poodle..too.........

To add to this...

I feel like when any kind of "objective morality" is being proposed, step 1 here just gets missed out. The word "morality" is used as if it represents an automatic monolith; and that anyone who disagrees with what it is "obviously about" is just disregarded. Sometimes these goals or values are announced; sometimes they aren’t even mentioned, as if the word "morality" has some cosmic meaning. This is what happens with religion most of the time, and it seems to me that this is maybe what is happening with moral realism. I’m not sure. I thought I had reached some understanding of it, but now I don’t know what’s going on again.

That would be worrying about some consequence of it's existence (regardless of whether those actually were consequences of an objective moral system), not arguing against the existence or possibility of such a system.  Ideally, an objective moral system would be able to address and minimize those behaviors that people engage in based upon a subjective but certain approach to the same issues.  The religious, for example..disregard those people who do not agree with their religious strictures - but a moral realist would remind them that their religious strictures do not qualify for inclusion within the set.  Those are the subjective opinions and demands of their god, as reported by their subjective beliefs about gods.  

So I’m trying to find out if moral realism is proposing this "true morality" kind of thinking. I feel I’m getting mixed responses depending on where I look. If it is the case, then it’s simply talking about some subset of morality in general, as I would call it. A focus on what I can only assume to be the "wellbeing" approach. It would still suffer greatly from any attempt to codify wellbeing, and to decide whose wellbeing exactly is being considered, and in what proportions. The extremely human-centric nature of it worries me a lot.

More like -a- truth -to- morality.  Moral realism makes no claim to there being only one "true system" - be it a system of evaluation or the base values themselves.  

So, consider this.  There's nothing in an objective moral system that doesn't allow for competing moral conclusions, or even for a dilemma between what is objectively good, and what is subjectively valued.   This is a fun one that I think you'll like.  We have this notion that people "deserve y".  It can be positive or negative.  Is it always the case, however...that for a given x, a person deserves y?  Even deeper down the rabbit hole, and this is the part where things go sideways...is it always the case that for a given x, a person deserves y, and a second person (or we..societaly) z must ensure that they get what they deserve?  What are -our- responsibilities with regards to the desert of some other agent?  An exploration here provides all sorts of fun examples depending on how we answer.  Perhaps you could suggest a set of answers to that question?  I'll lead off with one down below.

 A focus on what I can only assume to be the "wellbeing" approach. It would still suffer greatly from any attempt to codify wellbeing, and to decide whose wellbeing exactly is being considered, and in what proportions. The extremely human-centric nature of it worries me a lot.

Wellbeing is one approach.  Survival another.  Duty fullfillment another.  General disposition or satisfaction another.  Some would be more human-centric than others..but wellbeing doesn't seem like the best example.  Wellbeing applies to any creature or entity capable of being well.  It would be arbitrary to limit it to ourselves.  Similarly, limiting it to ourselves in furtherance of some goal would be meaningfully subjective.  It may be that wellbeing puts us into conflict with some other creature capable of wellbeing.  This could be, objectively...true or false for any species.  
[/quote]

---

But, perhaps..you'd like to start all the way at the bottom.  So I did a big hide tag up there. 

I have opinions, you have opinions, we all have opinions. (The standard preamble, lol)

Is it just our opinion that when we discuss morality..we're talking about something?  If we changed our opinion, would it change the nature of the discussion?  Is wellbeing, at least....among the things being discussed?  For any act that we contend negatively impacts wellbeing, is that impact a matter of our opinion?  If we changed our opinion...would that change necessitate some change in the nature of the act itself?  

If I decided that hitting you in the face wasn't immoral - would it hurt any less?  

So, yes we all have opinions - but what is our opinion capable of changing about moral discussion, wellbeing, or what impacts wellbeing - and whether that impact is positive or negative?  I can change my opinion of the moral status of hitting you in the face, but no matter what set of opinions I choose....the actual event of your being hit in the face will play out the same way.  

With me so far?