Ship reaches destination without compass paradox
I may be wrong about this but from what I can infer from my ovservations there is, generally speaking, peace in the world and even where there is violence there are some basic rules of conduct. As an example the biggest threat to peace in modern times is ''religious'' extremism and religion at its core is ethics.
Yet we all know, using philosophy as a benchmark for any sound moral theory, there is no universally applicable ethical theory. Yes, there's consequentialism, deontology, etc but these have been demonstrated to have serious flaws in them.
So here we have a case of a ship (the world) finding its way to the right destination (being moral, peace) without a compass (a perfect moral theory). Statistically speaking any individual seems satisfied with the moral principles of his fellow human. This is odd if not an ethical conundrum.
What could be the reason for this state of affairs?
Has someone done a study on which moral theory has popular appeal? If yes then how do we reconcile this with the fact that ALL moral theories are imperfect.
If the majority prefer consequentialism over deontology or vice versa then it would mean that exceptions in either, depending on which theory is preferred, are fewer than in the other.
Comments.
Yet we all know, using philosophy as a benchmark for any sound moral theory, there is no universally applicable ethical theory. Yes, there's consequentialism, deontology, etc but these have been demonstrated to have serious flaws in them.
So here we have a case of a ship (the world) finding its way to the right destination (being moral, peace) without a compass (a perfect moral theory). Statistically speaking any individual seems satisfied with the moral principles of his fellow human. This is odd if not an ethical conundrum.
What could be the reason for this state of affairs?
Has someone done a study on which moral theory has popular appeal? If yes then how do we reconcile this with the fact that ALL moral theories are imperfect.
If the majority prefer consequentialism over deontology or vice versa then it would mean that exceptions in either, depending on which theory is preferred, are fewer than in the other.
Comments.
Comments (29)
I think the biggest threat is still between neo-cons and regions that are not under that roof. There are certainly a lot more incidents and wars created by religious people - often with encouragement, by proxy type manipulation, and arms given by the major powers - but as far as threat I am vastly more concerned by the actions of the large nuclear capable nations.
Sorry, I now see this was a tangent. You can ignore it.
they are also types of ethical theory, they don't get into specifics. Deontologists have a long history of going to war with each other and alt.right and the radical left in the US will often both use consquentialist arguments to show the other side is evil/wrong/bad/stupid. Quoting TheMadFool
I don't understand this sentence.
I was trying to explain WHY there's peace, an indication of good moral principles, rather than chaos, an obvious consequence of a lack of morals. Isn't this odd given that we actually don't have a sound moral theory - something necessary to keep us on the right track so to speak?
Now that you mentioned it, it's probably the lack of a good and effective moral theory that we have pockets of disturbance in the world: regional wars, crime, etc.
People don't like violence, at least, in general. And I think there are common morals around that. Violence only if.... Of course that varies, but there is a signifcant block to war in most moralities. But note we generally use morality to work the public up for the war.
This is the flaw in our moral theories. Yet there's no global warfare. What keeps people from getting at each other's throats? Is it akin to nuclear deterrents which means the peace is empty, devoid of moral value or is it that people genuinely are of good moral character?
There's a lot of warfare, but the major powers are not directly warring. I think the consquences are so devastating that even fairly loony people are afraid of them.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think is mostly fear. One, fear of large scale war. Two, fear that the people will not be for these things. Even with smaller very one sided conflicts - like the war in Afghanistan - once those body bags start coming home and once the public see that this is not really helping anyone, they don't like it. And they are paying for it.
So peace as we know it is empty of any moral content. It's all got to do with fear. Perhaps true and so much sadder. Humans are animals after all. This probably has relevance to the nuclear weapons debate. Russia and America are at peace.
I think it’s a very interesting point. Maybe it does have no moral basis at all. But why assume it’s fear, which does feel sad. I don’t feel that I live in fear or others I know. I can’t help feeling that we’re looking at it the wrong way.
Edit: it’s like we understand there’s a point we should not cross.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that it's fear. Having a morality is a set of rules. It is not clear to me that that means people become good, but they many engage in good behavior. IOW even if we had a universal ethics, it doesn't mean we are doing things for 'the right reasons'. I mean, people are afraid of being bad. A society's rules are also habits.
That's a prescription and needs a theory to stand on.
If I were to hazard a guess then one moral theory among the many has the least number of exceptions implying it works, say, 99% of the time. Which theory is that I wonder?
Yes, you're right. Fear in itself isn't bad BUT what if you knew that a person was being good only because s/he didn't want to go to hell or prison? If most people are negatively motivated like that then how do we explain goodness that lacks such deterrence? For instance we could commit crimes when we're sure to go undetected and yet the crime rates don't reflect such behavior. I lack hard data on this though.
I think that is true in a lot of cases, maybe most. Politeness, wanting to seem nice, guilt stopping the expression of certain emotions, not wanting to be seen as strange, and yes, fears of hell, prison, social judgment, revenge.
I think this is pretty normal. I think it would be better if we allowed more honest emotional expression, but still encouraged people not to be violent.
I think then we would have a better chance of knowing our motives.
That we are moral creatures.
I don't if this makes sense. It was once ''normal'' to think the Earth was flat. It was also ''normal'' to believe in witches. These are, as everyone knows, false.
Do you think it's better to be abnormal given that you describe ''normal'' to be fear based?
Moral foundations?
(a) the two-sided coin of (i) tribalism (in a very broad sense, including all of the "identity politics" categories) and (ii) a lack of tolerance/acceptance of difference (religious extremist violence is a subset of this, by the way)
and
(b) the two-sided coin of greed/exploitation
Both are going to be very difficult to significantly overcome, because both seem to be fairly endemic to biological nature.
Those are beliefs and i was talking about emotions and emotional reactions. So these are completely different categories. If I tell you am afraid of nuclear war or violence, you can't say: your belief is incorrect. I am certainly not arguing that everything normal is good, but given the OP and the topic, I am trying to say that this is not some anomoly or culturally diseased symptom that emotions affect what we move toward and avoid. That's pretty much being a mammal.
I don't think are fear based. There are other emotions and there are also desires. I do think emotions underly the bulk of our choices. And no, I think emotions are part of us and evolved for good reasons. Of course we can be afraid of the wrong things. But I am not sure I am concerned about people being afraid of war and violence or that politicians might be afraid of the wrath of the public over an unnecessary or immoral war. That is the context of the discussion. I think that's a healthy fear.
What do you mean here? Are you referring to learned or inherent?
Whichever one you prefer. I just want to find out which moral theory is ''most'' consistent IF consistency can be described in terms of having the least number of exceptions.
Its not a moral system that is consistent, its the commonalities that run through most moral
systems that are common. The traits you are looking for are not specific to any one (or few) moral systems, they are the traits they all possess (or almost all) such as internal consistency, conviction to whatever principals the moral system has, application to society or even just interpersonal relationships etc etc.
To me, this is what real morality is, the moral behaviours or traits common to all (most).
Edited to add: in terms of your analogy, the ship may not have a compass but there still strong winds and stars in the sky.
That could be but what is this overlapping common ground between various moral theories? I thought the main philosophical moral theories are mutually exclusive.
I wonder about the golden rule. It seems to be a consequentialist principle - do unto others as you would like others to do unto you. Yet it also is consistent with deontology in that the rule is universalizable. Your thoughts.
The theory, if that’s what’s required, is an anthropological theory. I was involved, as I think nearly everyone was, in a conversation about morality that got quite heated because everyone began arguing over meaning, and everyone tried to prove their point, which I don’t feel like doing all over again if it’s going to be the same thing, not that I think you’re doing that. Suffice to say that, whatever we do, we know what is morally right. Which is why your ship finds it’s way to its destination.
I gave a few examples of what I meant, things like internal consistency, meaning it is based on non-contradiction. The very basic things common to all moral systems..well the valid ones anyway, if someone doesn't care if the system makes sense then the conversation is pretty over at that point.
A particular moral theory (to use your language) might be mutually exclusive to another, but the important bit is whats common to both. Seems to me the answer to your question lies there.
What are your views on the golden rule (GR)? It's supposedly universal in appeal, arising simultaneously or thereabouts in all cultures without any contact with each other (this implying some kind of common objective basis for morality)?
From a consequentialistic lens the GR is based on favoring happiness and avoiding pain. Deontologically, it fits well with the Kantian Categorical Imperative. Do you think the GR is one of possibly many ''common grounds'' of the various moral theories?
Thanks.
I don’t think the GR is as fundamental as what Im talking about. Someone might be able to have a sensible moral theory without the GR in it but it cannot be sensible if it, for example, contradicts itself.
i would argue out right conflict isn't the only thing we need to fear. When power and control centralized in one location and that control spans the whole world, that will lead to oppression. The question is what is worse, global oppression or one nation fighting another nation semi-continouusly.
I think a global government is unavoidable at some point but i believe there will be a lot of growing pains involved forming a global government that isn't oppressive and unethical.
Just as you said your post was based on observation, my post is also based on observation and certain authors which i will not name at this point.
How do you account for the fact that the GR was independently and simultaneously developed by many cultures worldwide? A common thread must be uniting global views on morality.
As for consistency or the requirement that there be no contradictions I think the two moral theories, consequentialism and deontology, have their flaws i.e. sometimes they lead to absurd conclusions. Isn't that the reason why neither has a 100% following?
However, it's my guesstimate that one of these theories has a greater scope than the other. I mean one may be applicable 99% of the time and the other a lesser 95% of the time. If that's the case then people, knowingly or not, will favor one over the other. I'm trying to figure that out.
Then I would chose Consequentialism. Choosing an act that has a good outcome is the basis behind the stability of our early tribes/societies and its continuing to flourish and support our development. The morals we still feel and chose to act on are those that contributed to our success. Ideas/morals that served no social benefit, that did not give tangible benefit to our growth, withered.
Edit: everything that survives has been tested.