Morality based on Similarity
I'd like to present a rough sketch of my views on morality. I haven't thought too deep on the matter but I'd like your views.
As of now I'm still not aware of the assumptions I'm making and whether they're reasonable or not.
I know of two moral theories viz. Deontology and Consequentialism.
The former is ''do only those things that can be universalized''.
The latter is ''try to make everybody happy''.
I've underlined the words relevant to my idea of what morality should be.
When we say ''universalized'' and ''everybody'' a (the!?) foundation of equality is being laid down. What I mean is to make something universal, e.g. the law, what we are doing is making everyone equal. When we say everyone's happiness is important, we're, again, calling for equality. This, equality, is a key requirement for both theories; perhaps a requirement for ALL moral theoies.
What does equality depend on? Equality, to me, depends on similarity. When two things are similar, they're equal. [I]Differences[/i],therefore, translate to inequality.
Therefore, can morality be based on similarity, as opposed to difference?
All the evil and suffering in the world are based on difference. Slavery, genocide, racism, war, murder, rape, animal cruelty, etc. are, all, based on differences.
All the good in the world is based on similarity. Slaves are people like us. Muslims are people like us. Our enemies have families that love them like us and so on.
So, in a very simple sense, moral theory can be based on similarity. Science supports such a theory because the Tree of Life shows we all have a common ancestor(s). Perhaps such a view only matters in deciding who/what has moral value but there is a visible trend: slaves emancipated->women's right->animal rights->environment conservation. Similarity is the basis of ALL moral theories.
So, can't we, in a very simple sense, say ''good if and only if similar''?
There can be NO hierarchy in morality because the former depends on difference and the latter is all about similarity.
As of now I'm still not aware of the assumptions I'm making and whether they're reasonable or not.
I know of two moral theories viz. Deontology and Consequentialism.
The former is ''do only those things that can be universalized''.
The latter is ''try to make everybody happy''.
I've underlined the words relevant to my idea of what morality should be.
When we say ''universalized'' and ''everybody'' a (the!?) foundation of equality is being laid down. What I mean is to make something universal, e.g. the law, what we are doing is making everyone equal. When we say everyone's happiness is important, we're, again, calling for equality. This, equality, is a key requirement for both theories; perhaps a requirement for ALL moral theoies.
What does equality depend on? Equality, to me, depends on similarity. When two things are similar, they're equal. [I]Differences[/i],therefore, translate to inequality.
Therefore, can morality be based on similarity, as opposed to difference?
All the evil and suffering in the world are based on difference. Slavery, genocide, racism, war, murder, rape, animal cruelty, etc. are, all, based on differences.
All the good in the world is based on similarity. Slaves are people like us. Muslims are people like us. Our enemies have families that love them like us and so on.
So, in a very simple sense, moral theory can be based on similarity. Science supports such a theory because the Tree of Life shows we all have a common ancestor(s). Perhaps such a view only matters in deciding who/what has moral value but there is a visible trend: slaves emancipated->women's right->animal rights->environment conservation. Similarity is the basis of ALL moral theories.
So, can't we, in a very simple sense, say ''good if and only if similar''?
There can be NO hierarchy in morality because the former depends on difference and the latter is all about similarity.
Comments (2)
This is not true. You have confused deontology and consequentialism with specific versions of deontology and consequentialism - re: Kantianism and classical utilitarianism.
Quoting TheMadFool
haha, well, I have a somewhat idiosyncratic view on morality, but I think ethics is grounded, primordially and first-and-foremost, in the "encounter" with the Other, which is that which cannot be assimilated into the Same. It is different, alien, transcendent, unknowable, resigned, hidden, mysterious.
Quoting TheMadFool
On the contrary, I think the introduction of equality based on same-ness is a violence towards the Other. Effectively, you are requiring that something be sufficiently similar to yourself in order to qualify for ethical status. Rather than grounding equality in similarity, a philosophy of difference is going to argue that the Other cannot be fully possessed, and should be left alone, and as a byproduct treated equally. I acknowledge that similarity is going to help things like governments decide how to treat their citizens, but this already is a bastardization of the ethical.
Well, these are the most appealing versions of the two theories, right?
Quoting darthbarracuda
To me, sameness is a universal language which all life, from the microscopic to macroscopic, ''understands'' barring, of course, cannibalism. Reproduction, the wellspring of life itself, requires sameness. Also, isn't that why we have safety in numbers? Lions don't eat lions, deer don't eat deer, Americans don't kill Americans, etc. I'm making a generalization here and exceptions, and they do occur, can be explained in terms of perceived differences e.g. lions kill lions when they establish a pecking order (difference), deer are violent when they fight for mating rights (hierarchy = difference), and so on.
I don't think I'm totally off the mark in thinking sameness/similarity is more conducive to moral behavior than difference.
Also, empathy, a prerequisite of morality seems to be grounded in the notion of sameness - x feels as much as y.
Generally accepted immoral behavior such as slavery and genocide, for example, seem to be based on perceived differences.
Quoting darthbarracuda
What I'd like to do is reel in scientific knowledge into moral theory. Biology has shown that we're all related - sameness. This has, it appears, extended our family, making us behave in better ways towards other races, animals, and now plants.