Presenting, Developing and Defending my Views on Morality
I will start by attempting to answer a question that I consider to be the basis for morality: What is the purpose of a human being, or a sentient being? I consider that question to be important because morality is about what we must do, and what we must do is our purpose, so we must ask what is that purpose.
I argue that human beings, and sentient beings in general have control over thir purpose. As Kant said, they are autonomous, which means they are self-law giving. This means that the purpose of a sentient being is subjective.
Now, this raises a question: How can we establish an objective morality if our purpose is subjective? To that I answer that we must respect Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative: we must streat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves. That means that we must respect the goals others have set for themselves while striving to achieve our own goals, because it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals.
Additionally, I argue that we must have a way to measure how close a person is to flourishing, which is happiness, more specifically how happy a person feels about their actions and identity.
Now one might argue that I only considered the subjective condition for morality, but not the objective one, which is Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative, which says to act only on that maxim that you can will to be universal. To that I answer that not everyone has the same goals, and situations often differ in relevant ways. Cutting off your hand would not be a problem if you plan to simply doing activities that do not require it, while it would be catastrophic if you want to be a basketball player. Punching an innocent is most definitely not respecting their autonomy, while punching a criminal who plans to kill someone in order to stop them is protecting the autonomy of the person being targeted by the murderer more than it infringes on the autonomy of the murderer.
In order to flourish while respecting or promoting the flourishing of others, some qualities are useful. Those qualities are commonly called virtues.
I argue that human beings, and sentient beings in general have control over thir purpose. As Kant said, they are autonomous, which means they are self-law giving. This means that the purpose of a sentient being is subjective.
Now, this raises a question: How can we establish an objective morality if our purpose is subjective? To that I answer that we must respect Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative: we must streat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves. That means that we must respect the goals others have set for themselves while striving to achieve our own goals, because it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals.
Additionally, I argue that we must have a way to measure how close a person is to flourishing, which is happiness, more specifically how happy a person feels about their actions and identity.
Now one might argue that I only considered the subjective condition for morality, but not the objective one, which is Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative, which says to act only on that maxim that you can will to be universal. To that I answer that not everyone has the same goals, and situations often differ in relevant ways. Cutting off your hand would not be a problem if you plan to simply doing activities that do not require it, while it would be catastrophic if you want to be a basketball player. Punching an innocent is most definitely not respecting their autonomy, while punching a criminal who plans to kill someone in order to stop them is protecting the autonomy of the person being targeted by the murderer more than it infringes on the autonomy of the murderer.
In order to flourish while respecting or promoting the flourishing of others, some qualities are useful. Those qualities are commonly called virtues.
Comments (74)
I don't believe we have a purpose and I don't see how having a purpose would necessarily be relevant to how we treat others.
Quoting Hello Human
This basically a restatement of the Golden Rule, which is a good thing.
Quoting Hello Human
Why does "we must treat others not as mere means but as ends-in-themselves" mean that we must respect the goals of others. How does that lead to "it would be preferable to maximize the amount of persons accomplishing their goals."?
Quoting Hello Human
Respecting the flourishing of others, which may be part of the categorical imperative (I'm not sure), is not the same as promoting the flourishing of others, which it seems to me is not.
Quoting Hello Human
"The purpose" for whom?
(Otherwise, Sisyphus' amor fati.)
True. There is a double meaning. "What [the hell] is the point of my existence?" vs "What are my aims, purposes, projects, goals?"
It seems that we do have a purpose, though it is choosen by the person themselves. You choose your own purpose. We choose our actions.
Having a purpose seems relevant to how we treat others because it says what we should do. The purpose of a knife is to cut, therefore it should cut. If the purpose of life is happiness for example, then we must do as much as we can to be happy, and it's hard to be happy if you disrespect others because they will resent you eventually.
My interpretation of it is that we are autonomous beings with our own goals, so we must consider the goals of other people when interacting with them.
Quoting T Clark
Promoting flourishing indeed not a part of the categorical imperative. I only added it because it is possible that teh purpose you have chosen for yourself is to help others accomplish their goals.
My interpretation of the categorical imperative can be reformulated as a respect for the goals of others, and the accomplishment of those goals is flourishing.
Quoting Cuthbert
I think that the point of a person's existence is what they choose to do. If they want to use their existence to become a musician, then that is the point of their existence.
I don't feel as if I have a purpose. I don't see that as a bad thing. I am responsible for my own actions and I guess I could choose a purpose, but it would seem degrading. Wouldn't having a purpose be the same as being a means to an end rather than and end in myself?
I don't get the connection. I can treat someone as an end in themselves without considering their idea of their own purpose.
Quoting Hello Human
What if the other person's goal is one that I don't respect. I don't have to support it, but I still need to respect the person.
Quoting T Clark
It seems we have a different meaning of the term end-in-themselves. What do you mean by it ?
Quoting T Clark
You don't support it, but you still have to respect it if it doesn't do more harm than good.
Quoting T Clark
:up: Like eusociality, health, fitness, integrity, peace of mind ... which are ends-in-themselves, intrinsic to well being (i.e. flourishing), and not just extrinsic, means-to-ends "purposes" (i.e. "nostalgias" ~Camus). The OP seems to derive a "Kantian CI" from an anachronistic Aristotlean/Thomistic (or at least question-begging occult) "teleology".
To me, the important thing is the idea of using people as a means to an end. That means making decisions about their lives for our own benefit without regard to their preferences or the effects of our decisions on them.
Quoting Hello Human
I guess I'd respect their goals or not based on my own values, not necessarily on their potential effects. Again, I don't see that as particularly relevant to the question. People should be treated with respect. I think that's another way to formulate the categorical imperative.
I don't think you're saying that these factors are goals. Are you? If not, I think you and I are in agreement.
Quoting T Clark
"Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
~Hillel the Elder
[quote=an Epicurean corollary to Hillel's maxim] Whatever is harmful to our species, do not cause to happen to anyone by action or inaction; and help reduce harm whenever doing so foreseeably harms another less than it helps another.[/quote]
I think that all you have mentioned here are essential to well-being, so acting towards others in a way that promotes or ar least respects them is an essential part of ethical behavior. Also, those things are all either something we try to attain because of some perceived intrinsic value, or something we want for something else. We want to be healthy because we want to live long, or not to suffer for example. We want peace of mind because we see it as inherently good.
Quoting T Clark
And our preferences are based on what we want to do, someone who likes thinking would prefer spending time alone over going outside for example, so it seems respecting those preferences is the same as respecting their goals.
First of all, no. Preferences are not the same as goals.
And then - I believe that all people are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Approving their choice for what's required for the pursuit of happiness is not necessary. That's sort of the point.
It's not respect for the other person's preferences that's important, it's respect for them.
Quoting TheMadFool
What do you think is going on? :chin:
What do you mean by respect for a person ?
I wonder if this makes sense to you or anyone else but I have a feeling that this :naughty: is us and this :halo: is what we wanna be. Dysfunctional? Normal?
Not to say you're wrong but from what I gather, the word out there, is that it's rarest of the rare to find a good person. We either need to redefine dysfunctional and normal or accept that goodness is some kind of debilitating mental disorder. Something's wrong!
[quote=Christopher Hitchens (RIP)]God created us sick and commands us to be well.[/quote]
:chin:
A favorite "Hitchslap" of mine too – coming & going. :smirk:
Maybe this :point: :naughty: is normal and this :point: :halo: is abnormal. Either that or psychology has the wrong end of the stick. Who the hell is in charge here anyway? Who decides what's normal and what's abnormal?
Amen!
Jefferson et. al. put it better than I could - I recognize that all people are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Two things. 1) The Mad Fool has a "paradox" obsession; and 2) Having a function is not the same as having a purpose.
Expand and elaborate please.
So you mean to respect the rights of others. But the pursuit of happiness being one of those rights you have listed, then I don't think we really disagree with each other don't you think ?
Morality must be based on the well-being of a class of organisms, morality must be based on our common biology. Society, civilization, is founded on a compassion for like organisms, like biologies. This must be a common purpose, for if one is to abide by a common biology-based morality one cannot at the same time, claim to be autonomous. Organisms form into these groupings in reaction to what is felt perhaps subjectively as an indifferent nature, an environment sometimes experienced as hostile to the continuation of life. Whereas a community is felt to be supportive of the life of the individual.
To have compassion for ones fellows one must identity with, for it is upon this that compassion arises. It is if you like, an expansion of the concept of self, perceived differences tend to make this identification more difficult, more abstract you might say. It is upon this reality, that one culture builds its ethical foundation as the glue holding the unit of society together. When one rules out morality and ethics founded on the supernatural, morality and ethics based upon our common biology is the only rational choice, which should have been realized in the first place.
One's goals, as well as most things about humanity are largely conditioned, context defines you might say. The goals of a free agent in nature to would be defined by context, thus giving over time the agents nature. So, society defines us, but we in identifying with others in this synthetic environment have violate the very nature or foundation of all things, the natural world. Civilization in context. Your thoughts?
Quoting TheMadFool
I agree with almost everything you said, but I don't think that there is a distinction between what you call the synthetic and natural environment as you call them. What you call the synthetic environment comes from the natural environment, and is a part of it because it cannot exist without it.
Good point, your thinking personal achievement, as apposed to being functional in a given context?
What I meant to say was we call our community home, its comfortable, and we often forget the natural world that supports it. Unawareness is similar in its effects as indifference, and here, it has been deprimental to the natural world.
I still think we disagree. Pursuing happiness just means living life as you think is best. I've committed to respecting other's right to do that. I don't see that has anything to do with goals or purpose.
Your title and hence your topic "An Attempt at Establishing and Developing an Ethical Theory" contains the following flaws:
1) There are enough philosophical theories/systems, some of them well established. Why should one attempt to develop a new one?
2) First you develop something and then you establish it. (Re: Establishing and Developing)
3) You cannot develop an ethical system just like that (in a discussion). You can only provide your views on the subject of ethics.
4) Establish an ethical system in what way? Make it permanently accepted? What, via a discussion forum?
Living life as you think is best implies living as you want to as long as it does not harm others. You have some ideal and you try to achieve it. That seems very much like a goal.
I should change the title to "Presenting, Developing, and defending my views on morality" perhaps
Yes. This is much better! :up:
(I'll come back to this with ... my views on the subject ! :smile:)
I just checked ... Go to the first page of your topic (discussion), click on the 3 dots at the end of the description and then on "Edit" (pencil). The title will appear within an input box at the top.
Since I have never edited a title of mine, and so I don't know if this actual works, if it doesn't, just add a note with the new title below it. (Most probably this won't be needed.)
Seems like every time I disagree with your point, you just go around trying to streeeetch the meaning of "goal" and "purpose" to fit. I may have goals in my life, but that doesn't mean my life has a goal. Actually, the older I get, I find I don't really have any goals in my life either, but my point stands.
I have no objections to you having a goal for your life, but what's true for you isn't necessarily true for others. People are different.
Your purpose is to be, and being includes doing. The doing comes from the being, and fulfills your beings purpose. When I move, look, and know, I'm fulfilling my supreme purpose. Fight yourself and you fight god. Know yourself and you know god.
Sorry, just like I responded to @Hello Human above, you're just trying to jam additional meanings into the definitions of words.
My explanations transcend words and intellect. You will only understand them when you are ready. Forest for the trees.
[joke]If I may translate "Because I said so."[/joke] Not a very convincing response.
Welcome to the forum.
"Play stupid games and win stupid prizes"
The response was adequate to match your own
Let's say John has some life goal, becoming a famous singer. Now he uses his time in this world (his life), to achieve that goal, which means his life is an efficient cause towards a final end.
Quoting T Clark
Which is why my views on morality are based on respect for others' happiness.
As I noted, I never said no one has life goals or that people shouldn't have them, only that I don't.
Quoting Hello Human
I see two parts to morality as we are discussing it 1) Respect for, not other people's happiness, but their right to pursue happiness in their own manner and 2) Compassion.
Then I guess that flourishing is more about being in a fulfilling states of mind, and that it can be accomplished through life goals but not is not necessarily caused by it.
Quoting T Clark
Unless their manner of pursuing happiness causes more suffering than happiness.
No. Unless their pursuit of happiness conflicts with someone else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If it does, something will have to be worked out. The Declaration goes on to say "... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.." According to our values, the government should be set up to deal with the conflicts that will always arise.
Let's imagine a serial killer who pursues happiness through murder is chasing a victim. The victim uses a bat to hit the murderer. The victim effectively is conflicting with the murderer's pursuit of happiness. But in the same time, the murderer does that too. Now, who is most in the wrong here ? And how do we know who is most in the wrong ?
Quoting T Clark
And how should the government, and law in general choose the way the conflict will be resolved ? What are the indicators and information they should use ?
This is a silly example. I don't know why you're trying so hard. You don't have to agree with me.
Quoting Hello Human
For us here in the US, it's called representative democracy corrupted by corporate influence. Not ideal, but that's what we've got.
Nice topic!
Quoting Hello Human
(Note: I will use the term "morality" as it is used in the description of the topic, although I personally prefer and normally use the term "ethics".)
Our personal purposes, that is, the purposes we have set and/or accepted in life for ourselves are indeed subjective and may be connected to our morality, but they cannot define or establish a general, objective morality, that is, one that can be applied to all human beings. We can establish an objective morality only by reason. So, we must first set the common denominator, the common and basic purpose for all kinds of life: survival. Life wants to survive. We can assume and accept this as a fact. So, we can use it as our basis for morality. And since this is based on common reasoning, we can safely say that it is generally objective. Therefore, we can easily set as "good" and "right" that which is pro-survival --that helps and promotes survival-- and "bad" or "wrong" that which is against survival --that hinders or reduces survival.
From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being.
Now, since we are talking about morality, which has mainly a social connotation, we should also expand "survival" in a "spherical" way, to include persons around us -- from family, to friends to larger groups, to society, to humanity-- and say that an action is as moral as it is good for the greatest part of the people in the mentioned areas or "spheres" of reference.
Quoting Hello Human
Well, "measuring" becomes a little too specific and quite subjective. It is not easy even for the person to measure these things for himself. But of course, one can have a rough idea, say, "On a scale of 1 to 10 ..." (as we do for pain! :smile:)
Quoting Hello Human
Well, OK, but I don't think we need Kant's advice on that subject, although it's good to know his views ...
Quoting Hello Human
Right. I already talked about "others" earlier.
I would argue that because we are constrained by physical stimulation, such as pain or pleasure, we would not have full control over our purpose. Positive and negative stimulus gives us incentive to adjust our morality to align with more positive reinforcement, which is a form of control. However, this is not all bad; because there then would be objective reasoning as to why we perform moral tasks, it protects us from other subjective philosophical traditions such as nihilism(due to the intrinsic objective meaning that objectivity grants).
It's not a silly example. I'm simply asking you who is in the wrong in that situation. And i think everyone here would agree that it is the murderer because his actions cause more harm than the victim's self-defense.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
I agree, I think that the closest we can get to objective morality is intersubjectivity. But I think we have to go beyond just survival. Of course, survival is important, you can't do anything if you're dead after all. Human beings also care about having good relationships with other beings for example. So doing whatever ensures that would be good. And we also like developing our talents, helping our neighbors, and a lot of other things.
I think that physical stimulation informs our decisions, but does not necessarily restrict them. Sometimes we do painful things for long-term happiness, and we also do things for reasons that are not associated with physical pleasure for example.
This is all well and good, I guess, but what you call survival has a way of seeping out and attaching itself to people other than ourselves by evolution or culture I guess. First our children and families. Then our community members. Then eventually humanity at large. Compassion. I see that as the basis for morality. We are built to like each other.
I don't see that reason has anything to do with it to begin with. We can paint it up and make it pretty with reason when we have the time.
Quoting Hello Human
It's not because his actions cause more harm. There's no comparison between the two people. The bad guy is trying to kill the other person with no justification.
And what do you consider as justification?
Exactly. That's why I said: "From here, we can expand the term "survival" in a qualitative manner, from a bare living state to a flourishing state: well-beingness, happiness and all that which are desirable for almost every human being." This encompasses almost everything that is "good" for everyone. And vice versa: everything that is "good" helps people's survival. E.g. "Good relationships" that you mention, help people in difficult situations in their life and in general enhance their life (survival).
One can see survival as a sphere, which is expanding and contracting on a constant basis. When it is expanding, it grows towards a maximum potential. When it is contacting it is reduced to a minimum potential. When it is totally contracted, it becomes just a "point" (the center), with no dimensions, that is, nothing, no life. You can feel this expansion and contraction: When you are healthy and happy, this sphere is much expanded and you feel that you are winning, that you can conquer the world, that the whole world is yours. When you are sick or sad, you feel that you have lost a part of that world and that the world around and inside you has shrunk. Too much sorrow leads to death. All this is survival.
I believe that it is a very good example. (@Hello Human :up:) The main difference between the two is their intention. The criminal intends to harm the victim. So his action is against surviva. And this makes it immoral. On the other hand, the victim, in trying to defend himself, intends to protect survival. And this cannot make his action immoral. Huge difference!
I'm not sure what do mean exactly, but if you mean that I have only talked about our own survival, it isn't so. I have included "others" in a very clear manner, as follows (quoting): "Now, since we are talking about morality, which has mainly a social connotation, we should also expand "survival" in a "spherical" way, to include persons around us -- from family, to friends to larger groups, to society, to humanity -- and say that an action is as moral as it is good for the greatest part of the people in the mentioned areas or "spheres" of reference."
You're right. I didn't read far enough.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
So, what if the bad guy wasn't trying to kill the other guy? What if he were just robbing him. Or beating him up. Or insulting him. What if he just broke a promise. What if he slept with his wife. I'm guess that could be stretched to constitute survival, but it would be just that, a stretch.
Back to the most important part - morality might make sense to reason, but that's not where it comes from. It comes from our regard for each other and our society's need to provide security for all of us.
I agree. But I think that there is some point where actions trying to protect survival go too far. Being paranoid or overprotective for example.
Addiction is a good example on how the informing principle of our physical stimulation takes control over our purpose. As well, physical stimulation is not only reserved to pain or pleasure. Starvation is simply the bodies way of telling you its hungry, and yet, it would transform, or take control of our purpose to that of searching for a way to find food. That would incite that it has a control over an aspect of our purpose, which would mean that therefore we do not have full control over our purpose.
Hunger incites you to eat, but you don't necessarily eat afterwards. That's why intermittent fasting exists. It does help us make our decisions, but we don't have to follow it.
Why would you not follow it?
Edit:
If an incitement is so strong that it becomes your present purpose, if even for only a second, could it be considered an incitement still?
As well for the ambiguous question that I asked above, I am mostly trying to describe that even if you were to create a separate scenario, It would be guided by a form of emotion, which is a form of physical stimulation e.g I am not eating because I am fasting, and to complete the fast is a task I must do to satisfy myself.
Of course. But these are extreme cases. There are always extreme cases in everything. Moreover, in this case, we cannot speak about morality when the person is mentally ill or cannot distinguish right from wrong.
But the example talks about a serial killer ... Anyway, I get what you mean (outside the example given): 'A' wants to harm 'B' but not severely, and 'B' tries to prevent the harm or responds to the harm done more severely, even killing 'A'. Well, I think this case belongs to the subject of "justifiable" actions that are judged in courts and elsewhere. But I think this gets outside the scope of this discussion, doesn't it?
No it cannot be considered incitement. I agree with the claim that incitement can become our purpose, but not with the claim that it always is our purpose.
As I noted previously, when I bring up an argument against you positions, you and @Hello Human just redefine the issue. I don't see that we're getting anywhere. Enough for me.
I agree. I only wished to demonstrate that it would seem that we do not have control over our purpose because we only control it partially; the remaining bits are left to whatever remains.
Wait did I just do a No Scotsman?