Can you imagine being a non-moralist?

[Lukon]

Can you imagine being a non-moralist?

Yes. Can you imagine being a non-moralist?

What would it be like to stop talking about the rights that people have?

Suppose you never heard of Ayn Rand, or Immanuel Kant, or Jesus or Moses or Confucius for that matter.

Suppose you were raised in an isolated community that did not teach you words such as "good" or "evil" and so on. (They merely spoke of what they WANTED to do, how they WANTED to treat one another.)

If nobody taught you such concepts such as "good" or "evil," are you convinced you would discover them for yourself, and become the first moral person in your community?

Or would you say your community was all in denial from the start, and had been practicing a kind of Orwellian game of cultural control by purging moral words from their vocabulary? And in this case, would you invent replacement words for moral concepts in an act of rebellion against that purging?

And regardless of your own innate awareness of morality, would you think it conceivable that anyone could genuinely have no moral awareness at all? Do you think a sincere non-moralist is possible? And if you did think such a person were possible, do you think that person could survive or even prosper? Do you think such a person could prosper without hurting others?

[Chris Grieb]

Luke; There is a great episode of The Simpson's which is set before Moses has brought down the Ten Commandments. Homer goes around telling the other children of Israel that now they are in trouble being idolaters, adulterers, or false god worshipers.

I think the point is made humorously but true that morality existed very early in human history.

Various bad additions came along later.

[BaalChatzaf]

And regardless of your own innate awareness of morality, would you think it conceivable that anyone could genuinely have no moral awareness at all? Do you think a sincere non-moralist is possible? And if you did think such a person were possible, do you think that person could survive or even prosper? Do you think such a person could prosper without hurting others?

Yes and No. I have seen in my children and grandchildren an innate sense of fairness. I assume this is true for most other children. The human species comes genetically wired with a way of sensing fair vs unfair at a pre-verbal level. There is also an innate sense of fitness. That comes with a notion of fairness sometime in the third or fourth year. Little kids do not like being made "fall guys" or "suckers". Little kids also develop "mind reading", the ability to sense what others are feeling or thinking. That is part of being human. That is the Good News.

Here is the Bad News. At the same time little kids learn to -rationalize- so they generally come out being "right" even when they are wrong. This is where parents come in (or ought to come in). They must set their wee ones straight even when the urge to rationalize is strong.

The sociopaths among us have a very diminished sense of fitness and are unable to see the world from any point of view but their own. The only constraint on them is a fear of punishment or retribution.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Dexter's First Rule -- Don't get caught. Dexter's Second Rule -- Don't get caught.

[BaalChatzaf]

Luke; There is a great episode of The Simpson's which is set before Moses has brought down the Ten Commandments. Homer goes around telling the other children of Israel that now they are in trouble being idolaters, adulterers, or false god worshipers.

I think the point is made humorously but true that morality existed very early in human history.

Various bad additions came along later.

Not as later as you think. See my other post on this subject.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited October 7, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Baal; You too are a Dexter fan.

[Lukon]

So far, none of these answers are actually answers to my questions. They are speculations about whether humans have had moral sensibilities throughout history. The historical dominance of morality does not address whether a non-moralist perspective is possible or coherent. We are all well aware how morality dominates the human landscape. What I'm asking is whether YOU can even conceive an alternative to it. Can you?

-Luke-

Edited October 7, 2008 by Luke Turner

[Mindy Newton]

Baal; You too are a Dexter fan.

Luke,

Morality isn't chiefly about social interactions. Think of it as an issue of health, only between yourself and the external world. Much of those relations (yourself to the external world) are social, yes, but far from all are. Besides, the moral rules within a social context are not exclusively about how you must treat other people. They are also directly about how to deal with other people to ensure your own best interests, to be happy and successful. Don't sacrifice is a good example.

Because our actions have long-term consequences, and also a variety of consequences--financial and social and personal, etc. choosing a course of action now means we need to predict the long-term effects. To make such predictions, we need principles, generalities about what leads to what. For financial decisions, you subscribe to one or another theory of the economy. When it comes to happiness and well-being, those principles are called morality.

On a different point: pleasure and pain are thought to be the initial way in which animals first encounter the "moral option." Hunger vs. satiation, etc. are experienced alternative states of affairs. Good and bad first mean the fire started or it didn't, the berries were ripe or not, etc. So yes, morality is inescapable. Just as Rand noted, man's essential condition, his being a living thing, life or death dictates a moral awareness.

= Mindy

[kiaer.ts]

So far, none of these answers are actually answers to my questions. They are speculations about whether humans have had moral sensibilities throughout history. The historical dominance of morality does not address whether a non-moralist perspective is possible or coherent. We are all well aware how morality dominates the human landscape. What I'm asking is whether YOU can even conceive an alternative to it. Can you?

-Luke-

So, are you saying that these UNWANTED answers are BAD ones?

Just because you don't have the words good and bad doesn't mean you don't have the concept. The concepts are implicit in the notions true, untrue, wanted, unwanted, satisfying, unsatisfying, and so on. Even the words yes and no in response to commands have the concept of good and bad implicit in them. There is no way to escape these concepts. Indeed, one has to have the concept bad before one can formulate that it would be better if we didn't have the concept bad, and it would be good if we got rid of the concept good. Children form these concepts before they form a theory of mind. That is, ethics precedes psychology and precedes politics.

I suggest (i.e., think it would be good that]) you reread Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, looking to see if you can find what's wrong with your thesis here.

[Lukon]

Just because you don't have the words good and bad doesn't mean you don't have the concept. The concepts are implicit in the notions true, untrue, wanted, unwanted, satisfying, unsatisfying, and so on. Even the words yes and no in response to commands have the concept of good and bad implicit in them. There is no way to escape these concepts. Indeed, one has to have the concept bad before one can formulate that it would be better if we didn't have the concept bad, and it would be good if we got rid of the concept good. Children form these concepts before they form a theory of mind. That is, ethics precedes psychology and precedes politics.

Now THAT is a real answer. So this answer essentially says: "No. I can't imagine an alternative to morality, and you can't either. EVERYONE already is a moralist by absolute necessity." I take this to be your essential answer. Don't you?

-Luke-

[kiaer.ts]

Just because you don't have the words good and bad doesn't mean you don't have the concept. The concepts are implicit in the notions true, untrue, wanted, unwanted, satisfying, unsatisfying, and so on. Even the words yes and no in response to commands have the concept of good and bad implicit in them. There is no way to escape these concepts. Indeed, one has to have the concept bad before one can formulate that it would be better if we didn't have the concept bad, and it would be good if we got rid of the concept good. Children form these concepts before they form a theory of mind. That is, ethics precedes psychology and precedes politics.

Now THAT is a real answer. So this answer essentially says: "No. I can't imagine an alternative to morality, and you can't either. EVERYONE already is a moralist by absolute necessity." I take this to be your essential answer. Don't you?

-Luke-

Yes.

[Lukon]

Now THAT is a real answer. So this answer essentially says: "No. I can't imagine an alternative to morality, and you can't either. EVERYONE already is a moralist by absolute necessity." I take this to be your essential answer. Don't you?

-Luke-

Yes.

Does your "yes" answer depend on the axiomatic status of volition?

-Luke-

[kiaer.ts]

Now THAT is a real answer. So this answer essentially says: "No. I can't imagine an alternative to morality, and you can't either. EVERYONE already is a moralist by absolute necessity." I take this to be your essential answer. Don't you?

-Luke-

Yes.

Does your "yes" answer depend on the axiomatic status of volition?

-Luke-

What do you mean by depend? The idea that volition exists and is axiomatic (which I do believe) certainly wasn't explicit in my mind when I answered you.

[Lukon]

Now THAT is a real answer. So this answer essentially says: "No. I can't imagine an alternative to morality, and you can't either. EVERYONE already is a moralist by absolute necessity." I take this to be your essential answer. Don't you?

-Luke-

Yes.

Does your "yes" answer depend on the axiomatic status of volition?

-Luke-

What do you mean by depend? The idea that volition exists and is axiomatic (which I do believe) certainly wasn't explicit in my mind when I answered you.

Well, more precisely my question is whether you think the denial of morality leads to a demonstrable logical contradiction, the way denying the axioms does.

I just took a guess that an Objectivist who wanted to demonstrate such a logical contradiction would somehow use the axiomatic status of volition to support that demonstration. If my guess was wrong, please forgive me.

But regardless, I am still interested in my more precise question: Do you think the denial of morality leads to a demonstrable logical contradiction?

And if so, I don't expect you to demonstrate that contradiction. That may be more laborious that you want to undertake, and I could respect that. But if you happen to know of a demonstration that already exists somewhere, I'd appreciate a reference to it.

I'm looking for a demonstration that expresses the contradiction most clearly.

-Luke-

[Mindy Newton]

Now THAT is a real answer. So this answer essentially says: "No. I can't imagine an alternative to morality, and you can't either. EVERYONE already is a moralist by absolute necessity." I take this to be your essential answer. Don't you?

-Luke-

Yes.

Does your "yes" answer depend on the axiomatic status of volition?

-Luke-

What do you mean by depend? The idea that volition exists and is axiomatic (which I do believe) certainly wasn't explicit in my mind when I answered you.

Well, more precisely my question is whether you think the denial of morality leads to a demonstrable logical contradiction, the way denying the axioms does.

I just took a guess that an Objectivist who wanted to demonstrate such a logical contradiction would somehow use the axiomatic status of volition to support that demonstration. If my guess was wrong, please forgive me.

But regardless, I am still interested in my more precise question: Do you think the denial of morality leads to a demonstrable logical contradiction?

And if so, I don't expect you to demonstrate that contradiction. That may be more laborious that you want to undertake, and I could respect that. But if you happen to know of a demonstration that already exists somewhere, I'd appreciate a reference to it.

I'm looking for a demonstration that expresses the contradiction most clearly.

-Luke-

That question wasn't addressed to me, but I have a proposal of such a demonstration.

If one says there is no morality, they are saying there is no necessary or logical reason to act in one way rather than another. It is a fact that some behaviors are destructive to one's own existence. If those behaviors are as warranted as any others, self-destruction is acceptable. But self-destruction defeats the goal of deciding whether or not there is a morality. (Is that step sneaky?) So the very act of asserting that there is no morality shows an interest in truth, in philosophy, in understanding ourselves and the world. It is not indifferent.

Only complete and consistent indifference is not contradicted by the "fact" that there is no morality. As soon as someone says it or thinks it, he has entered the fray, and thus staked his claim to preferences, to values.

Does that work?

= Mindy

Edited October 9, 2008 by Mindy

[Lukon]

That question wasn't addressed to me, but I have a proposal of such a demonstration.

If one says there is no morality, they are saying there is no necessary or logical reason to act in one way rather than another. It is a fact that some behaviors are destructive to one's own existence. If those behaviors are as warranted as any others, self-destruction is acceptable. But self-destruction defeats the goal of deciding whether or not there is a morality. (Is that step sneaky?) So the very act of asserting that there is no morality shows an interest in truth, in philosophy, in understanding ourselves and the world. It is not indifferent.

Only complete and consistent indifference is not contradicted by the "fact" that there is no morality. As soon as someone says it or thinks it, he has entered the fray, and thus staked his claim to preferences, to values.

Does that work?

= Mindy

Thanks for joining THIS fray, Mindy.

Your demonstration of contradiction is a start. But it still confuses me a bit. So let's look at it again:

Only complete and consistent indifference is not contradicted by the "fact" that there is no morality. As soon as someone says it or thinks it, he has entered the fray, and thus staked his claim to preferences, to values.

To make sure I understand you correctly, consider my paraphrasing as follows:

Premise 1: Skepticism about the validity of morality requires an interest in distinguishing truth from falsehood.

Premise 2: An interest in distinguishing truth from falsehood is a type of interest.

Premise 3: All types of interest require morality.

Conclusion: Therefore, skepticism about the validity of morality requires morality. Doubt affirms that which has been doubted. Doubt implies certainty. "A" is "not-A."

This fits the model of the Stolen Concept fallacy, the fallacy of affirming (or even just considering) a concept while denying the epistemological roots of the concept. In this case, the stolen concept is "non-morality".

This argument fails to convince me because I don't buy premise 3. I don't think all types of interest require morality. I believe in a non-moral type of interest that I call "desire". Even stronger, I believe in a non-moral type of interest that we all call "whim" – a "whim" being a desire that one does not care the origins or causes.

I believe people can distinguish truth from falsehood because they have a whim desire to do so. They can seek the truth because they desire to. And they can desire to for reasons they don't know, nor care to know.

So, for me to fully grasp the contradiction of non-morality, I first need to be convinced that morality has a monopoly on any interest in truth.

-Luke-

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Luke,

Morality is not a person.

It's a code of measurable values used as a guide by an individual for choosing his or her future actions. Nothing more.

But we probably differ on the definition of morality.

Michael

[tjohnson]

I have children and pets. I feel a moral obligation to look after them. This morality is a feeling. If I put this feeling into words it might sound like this "If you have children you should look after them". There is a moral code. To me morality is about what I feel obligated to do, not what I have to do to live. I have feelings that I want to eat something but I don't consider this morality. Feelings that drive us to survive are not moral, IMO. If you act against moral feelings you will not necessarily die but you will if you act against survival feelings.

[sbeaulieu]

Luke,

Premise 1: Skepticism about the validity of morality requires an interest in distinguishing truth from falsehood.

I have a question on the wording in this premise. Shouldn't morality be about right and wrong? I understand that truth (right) and falsehood (wrong) could fit under morality, but it is not as all-encompassing as right and wrong. Or were you being specific in selecting truth and falsehood (based on Mindy's response)?

~ Shane

Edited October 9, 2008 by sbeaulieu

[Lukon]

It's a code of measurable values used as a guide by an individual for choosing his or her future actions. Nothing more.

But we probably differ on the definition of morality.

Michael

Thanks for your comment, Michael.

Yes, I suppose our definitions for morality disagree, or they might actually agree when analyzed further. I won't get into this now.

But your definition does remind me of Peikoff's definition, especially the "nothing more" part.

-Luke-

[Brant Gaede]

One aspect of morality is controlling other people. It helps vitiate anarchy, but is not the only way anarchy can be and is vitiated. It also involves self-control.

--Brant

[Lukon]

I have children and pets. I feel a moral obligation to look after them. This morality is a feeling. If I put this feeling into words it might sound like this "If you have children you should look after them". There is a moral code. To me morality is about what I feel obligated to do, not what I have to do to live. I have feelings that I want to eat something but I don't consider this morality. Feelings that drive us to survive are not moral, IMO. If you act against moral feelings you will not necessarily die but you will if you act against survival feelings.

Thanks for commenting, GS.

It sounds to me like you do recognize a distinction between moral obligation and feelings of want, of desire.

So my question for you is whether you can imagine someone living their life without feeling moral obligations. Is it possible?

Psychology has cataloged many cases of people who lack the capacity for certain experiences. Perhaps a person could lack moral obligation, no?

-Luke-

[Lukon]

Luke,

Premise 1: Skepticism about the validity of morality requires an interest in distinguishing truth from falsehood.

I have a question on the wording in this premise. Shouldn't morality be about right and wrong? I understand that truth (right) and falsehood (wrong) could fit under morality, but it is not as all-encompassing as right and wrong. Or were you being specific in selecting truth and falsehood (based on Mindy's response)?

~ Shane

Thanks for prompting clarification on this issue, Shane.

To answer your question, I intended to limit the context of "right/wrong" to matters of truth versus falsehood. The larger context of "right" versus "wrong" is too ambiguous, and can lead to confusion between COGNITIVE right/wrong versus MORAL right/wrong. Let me emphatically state that I mean ONLY matters of truth versus falsehood in premise 1. And I think Mindy means it this way too. That's the only way the proposed demonstration of a contradiction can work.

-Luke-

[Lukon]

It's a code of measurable values used as a guide by an individual for choosing his or her future actions. Nothing more.

But we probably differ on the definition of morality.

Michael

Oh, and well then, let me ask you this:

Can you imagine a person who had no such "code of values used as a guide"? Can a person exist who was "guided" by DESIRES instead of "values"?

-Luke-

[tjohnson]

So my question for you is whether you can imagine someone living their life without feeling moral obligations. Is it possible?

Psychology has cataloged many cases of people who lack the capacity for certain experiences. Perhaps a person could lack moral obligation, no?

-Luke-

Well, apparently there are some sociopaths that do not appear to have the same sense of morals as normal people do but I think it would be very difficult to experience no feeling of obligation whatsoever. I suppose even animals feel obligated, but they could not have a moral code like we can.

[Lukon]

I think it would be very difficult to experience no feeling of obligation whatsoever.

My next questions:

1. If it would be difficult, would it still be possible? Are you admitting that it would at least be possible?

2. Why would it be difficult? I believe I feel no sense of "obligation," yet I find this condition really easy. I don't have to work at achieving it. It is my default state, normal. In fact, I find it impossible for me to feel an "obligation." The only difficult thing about my lack of "obligation sense" is trying to convince others that I do indeed lack it.

-Luke-