Does morality even exist? Could genocidal dictators and serial killers be in the right?

[Heartattackpending]

I'm not a religious person but I do think the Golden Rule applies. The reason? Self-interest. I've been thinking more and more about this and I fluctuate between thinking the simulators are just fucking with us for entertainment or that this is actually a kind of test. I think we are designed to be intimately connected in some way though we do not immediately recognize that. I think we may part of a larger whole and we are very small separate but integral parts of it. Meaning, when you deliberately harm someone else, you are also literally harming yourself. In short, karma. I have toyed with the idea that somewhere down the line, I will come back as someone I've shit on, so I will feel how he/she feels. Conversely, someone who has shit one me, will come back as me and see how I felt. It may not be this direct but I think what goes around will probably come around. What I dread if I allow myself to think about it, is somehow coming back as one of the World Trade Center jumpers. I'm terrified of heights and could easily picture myself as one of the jumpers who was on fire when they jumped because they couldn't get themselves to jump before the pain made them desperate enough. Sorry for the sidetrack. To repeat, you should try your best not to shit on someone else because in some real sense you are shitting on yourself. Simple self-interest.

 

[tardis]

I think humans are different because they have free will and the ability to reason, and morality will be grounded in those things.

So virtually all of us experience these bad feelings at the thought of hurting people, but does that alone justify the belief that we "ought" not hurt people?

So for example, this isn't true. Murder would be wrong even if we didn't have those bad feelings about it.

 

[rationaldeath]

I think humans are different because they have free will and the ability to reason, and morality will be grounded in those things.

I don't actually believe free will exists so I couldn't use that to ground my morality in.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

I don't actually believe free will exists so I couldn't use that to ground my morality in.

Morality is a part of the pre-determined biological calculation. It's a matter of perspective from this point.

 

[demuic]

I've become wary of anyone advocating for a subjective morality because half of the time they use it to advocate for their own sadism or something despicable like pedophilia, rape, etc.

Even if you acknowledge there's no "objective" morality literally written into the physical laws of the universe somewhere waiting to be uncovered, it's still important for people to have moral values.

I think some people get stuck on the subjective vs objective thing. Like "morality is just subjective so it doesn't matter and/or it's fake." Not really. The problems just come in from determining what values we should have. And we can use somewhat "objective" measures of determining that, like the amount of pain or suffering an action causes (probably the most "objective" measure there is), whether it was compassionate, whether it was motivated by greed, hatred, love, jealousy, fear, despair, etc. Even with the same outcome, an action having different causes can influence whether you can consider it to be morally "good" or not and vice versa. And of course what measures are to be used are subjective itself.

My feeling toward the statement of "morality is subjective" is basically "so?" Because there's usually a second part to the statement, which is something like, we shouldn't interfere if some culture says it's okay for x despicable action to occur, since morality is subjective. It's possible to acknowledge that morality is "subjective" while not also allowing for an "anything goes" view. I think working towards creating and upholding better values is more ideal. Like in the sense of many criminal justice systems - being punitive is what is valued more so than rehabilitative and there is growing awareness about whether that view is actually beneficial in the sum of things.

I'm an existential nihilist but I'm not a moral nihilist

This is how I am.

 

[9BBN]

I'm a moral relativist who believes in maximizing autonomy. I agree with demuic that moral relativism does not necessarily imply "anything goes." In my experience, moral objectivists miss this nuance because they think equality implies anarchy.

I think I get the gist of kantianism although I don't fully understand the source of the objectivity. Maybe it's a semantics issue and our definitions of "objective" differ to some extent.

Morality can theoretically be objective without coming from an objective source. Under Kantianism, the principle of universality is used. If an action cannot be universalized, then it is bad. Stealing is bad because if everyone stole there would be no property. Lying is bad because if everyone lied there would be no trust. You could theoretically take issue with things like "trust" being objectively good I guess, these are the problems with Kantianism, but most don't. It's objective in the sense that anyone can come up with the same principles by universalizing, essentially making sure they don't make exceptions for themselves.

I guess I think morality consists of two parts, one objective and one subjective. The objective parts are all the various experiences that people have. Even if they're subjectively felt, the badness or goodness of the experiences is objective and inherent. If you're feeling bad then that's objectively a bad subjective state. Something like that.

The subjective part of morality (and which really makes the whole thing subjective I guess) is how to trade off these different experiences. I don't think you can objectively say that one person's misery is outweighed by another person's happiness and thus a given action is moral. Or vice versa. Even though I'd like to say that misery should always be given more moral weight than happiness or pleasure or whatever. I don't think I can prove it though.

We've discussed this in PMs :P but I'll publicly share my opinion. We agree it's subjective to weigh one person's happiness against another's suffering. That's why I don't don't believe in maximizing happiness (utilitarianism) or minimizing suffering (reverse utilitarianism), they are equal and opposite. They also get problematic in cases like BDSM where people want suffering. Instead I value everyone's autonomy equally, no trade-offs necessary. Happiness and suffering are both only good if they choose it. Autonomy also extends to non-human animals.

 

[rationaldeath]

I've become wary of anyone advocating for a subjective morality because half of the time they use it to advocate for their own sadism or something despicable like pedophilia, rape, etc.

Aren't those things just despicable in your opinion though, right? I mean myself and almost everyone else would agree with you, but that doesn't mean the statement "hurting people is bad" is objectively true. The most "we" as the majority in society can say is "we don't like people getting hurt" and then we can go about acting on that. If everyone just suddenly lost all empathy and started killing each other there wouldn't be anything "wrong" with it because there wouldn't be anyone around that felt it was wrong.

They also get problematic in cases like BDSM where people want suffering. Instead I value everyone's autonomy equally, no trade-offs necessary. Happiness and suffering are both only good if they choose it. Autonomy also extends to non-human animals.

I think the human brain is inherently wired to only want a net increase in happiness and decrease in suffering on some level. In the case of BDSM people are actually gaining an overall increase in happiness due to physical pain, and I don't see pain as equivalent to suffering. But things do get pretty complicated in practice and I'd have to agree with you on prioritizing autonomy over anything else.

 

[9BBN]

In the case of BDSM people are actually gaining an overall increase in happiness due to physical pain, and I don't see pain as equivalent to suffering. But things do get pretty complicated in practice and I'd have to agree with you on prioritizing autonomy over anything else.

Interesting to me that you don't see pain as equivalent to suffering. When you put it that way, you're actually defining suffering as undesired pain, and so to argue that pain is sometimes good and suffering always bad is actually in favor of autonomy (what is good is what is desired).

 

[rationaldeath]

Interesting to me that you don't see pain as equivalent to suffering. When you put it that way, you're actually defining suffering as undesired pain, and so to argue that pain is sometimes good and suffering always bad is actually in favor of autonomy (what is good is what is desired).

Exactly, I think we pretty much agree it's just a semantics issue like what so many other philosophical disputes boil down to lol.

 

[idiotstillwantstodie]

Of course they are on the right following their natural instincts and drive just like the rest of us. Just as most of us other people are on the right hating and despising those sadistic morons.

I say morons because they really very much are morons from one point of view, emotionally retarded mental midgets.

 

[demuic]

Morality can theoretically be objective without coming from an objective source. Under Kantianism, the principle of universality is used. If an action cannot be universalized, then it is bad. Stealing is bad because if everyone stole there would be no property. Lying is bad because if everyone lied there would be no trust. You could theoretically take issue with things like "trust" being objectively good I guess, these are the problems with Kantianism, but most don't. It's objective in the sense that anyone can come up with the same principles by universalizing, essentially making sure they don't make exceptions for themselves.

This is an outlook I've always liked. It doesn't work in every circumstance but it is a good basis to work off.

Aren't those things just despicable in your opinion though, right? I mean myself and almost everyone else would agree with you, but that doesn't mean the statement "hurting people is bad" is objectively true. The most "we" as the majority in society can say is "we don't like people getting hurt" and then we can go about acting on that.

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying, that it's not possible to find actual objectively true morals, but we can work off broad principles. We can say that things like that are bad because of the psychological and similar suffering it causes in their victims, and, regarding the principle of universiality specifically, if society was such that everyone was simply allowed to molest children, and rape people as they pleased, that would cause an immense amount of suffering. And we can get to the idea of "hurting people is bad" because it can almost be universally agreed that being hurt (through undesired suffering) is undesirable, what it means to be hurt depends on the situation and the individual.

Autonomy is also something to take into consideration.

If everyone just suddenly lost all empathy and started killing each other there wouldn't be anything "wrong" with it because there wouldn't be anyone around that felt it was wrong.

Well, I think you can look at how the one being killed felt, or would've felt about that. If everyone started killing each other, but everyone was also okay with being suddenly murdered then hypothetically, I suppose there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. But if people are being killed without their consent, and still maintained the feeling toward being killed that exist in the humans in this reality (fear toward death, avoidance of physical pain, etc) even if they wouldn't have empathy for it being done to someone else, then surely they wouldn't want to experience whatever gruesome death awaits them for themselves. In that way we could say that something is wrong as the suffering is still increasing.

In the BDSM example, I don't see any contradiction as the fact that physical pain is being had is what directly leads to the increase in happiness. They don't want suffering, they want happiness, and it just so happens to route to that is something that most people would not find enjoyable, ie physical pain. For example, tattoos tend to lead to physical pain, yet it causes an increase in happiness for the person getting the tattoo, so it wouldn't make sense to deem the tattooer as commiting an immoral act.

I think suffering being defined as undesired pain is what makes most sense, but of course there are always things that muddy the water.

 

[deflationary]

Autonomy also extends to non-human animals.

Kids too then presumably? Yet kids are forced to do things they don't like all the time. It's their whole life basically. And is an adult that has to go to work in order to make money to survive doing so autonomously? Where's the line between coercion and autonomy? Autonomy has arbitrarily drawn boundaries as well, so I don't see how it helps to escape subjectivity.

 

[9BBN]

Kids too then presumably? Yet kids are forced to do things they don't like all the time. It's their whole life basically. And is an adult that has to go to work in order to make money to survive doing so autonomously? Where's the line between coercion and autonomy? Autonomy has arbitrarily drawn boundaries as well, so I don't see how it helps to escape subjectivity.

I see where you're going with this. Autonomy exists in different capacities. Are animals and kids doing what they truly want, or just want they can think of or physically do? The key here is that autonomy is the capacity for informed choice. I don't think fetuses have autonomy, for example, but adults do. Working to survive is not completely autonomous, but it is reality. Part of choosing life is accepting limitations, same with choosing to live in societies. The former is accepting a biological contract, and the latter a social contract. These contracts are only coercive if they are not chosen autonomously.

 

[deflationary]

Autonomy exists in different capacities.

But there's no objective criteria for what level of autonomy someone has or should be granted. It's all made up by other people.

Working to survive is not completely autonomous, but it is reality.

Is it immoral then to make people work? I certainly think so, but I don't think you do. What level of "not completely autonomous" is fine? Who decides that?

The key here is that autonomy is the capacity for informed choice.

This isn't a binary question though. Should some adults have more autonomy than others?

These contracts are only coercive if they are not chosen autonomously.

Isn't that always? We're molded into our roles since birth. Does such grooming undermine autonomy?

Sorry, lotsa annoying questions but the point I'm getting at with all of them is basically the same.

 

[9BBN]

Just to be clear the first sentence I wrote on this thread was that I'm a moral relativist. That's a point of difference since our last conversation. That might be the source of your confusion, but I'll answer away anyway.

But there's no objective criteria for what level of autonomy someone has or should be granted. It's all made up by other people.

Capacity for autonomy is a spectrum, as I was trying to explain. And it doesn't matter where on anyone lies, what matters is whether your actions affect the autonomy of others. They shouldn't.

Is it immoral then to make people work? I certainly think so, but I don't think you do. What level of "not completely autonomous" is fine? Who decides that?

What I was trying to say is that it is immoral to make people work, except when they sign a contract to work. Same with life, it's coercive to force people to live who don't want to. The "not completely autonomous" life we live should be a contract that we can opt in or out of. Anyone decides that.

This isn't a binary question though. Should some adults have more autonomy than others?

Yeah, what I was getting at is that it's not a binary, it's a spectrum. Degrees of freedom are quantifiable, but not always known, but it's usually irrelevant whether they're all known because we get the gist. I don't need to know how exactly autonomous you and I are to determine it is wrong to punch you (if you don't want that).

Isn't that always? We're molded into our roles since birth. Does such grooming undermine autonomy?

Grooming goes against autonomy. Interesting that you define ourselves as molds of our upbringing though, because by that definition we have no autonomy. We see life differently here. We might be malleable molds but I believe we can also mold ourselves how we like once we have autonomy.

Sorry, lotsa annoying questions but the point I'm getting at with all of them is basically the same.

No problem!

 

[GentleJerk]

Yeah look OP, personally I think this matter is very straightforward. Whenever I see effort being made by someone to pick apart these things, something usually smells a bit off. But for the sake of a lil' extra thread content, I'll bite.

You might be using an excessive amount of brain power and mental gymnastics to try and find a way around accepting what is. How can you wonder whether or not it would be 'wrong' if people started killing each other, based on 'no one being around to think that it is wrong?'

You're applying relativity and the old "if a tree falls" rhetoric to actions such as murder and torture. Don't you have some idea of what you think might be the answer, or is an answer only valid if there are others there to agree?

How do you define good/bad? If there's a drought, more rain is good. If we are flooded up to our necks, more rain is bad. But is the rain inherently good or bad? Who is calling the rain good or bad? If one person says it's bad and another says it's good, who is right and who is wrong? Who decides which answer is correct?

...Maybe if you were being tortured right now you could give us an answer, then we could ask other people whether they think it's the right answer or not. If you believe in democracy, we could count the votes and pick a winner!

 

[deflationary]

Just to be clear the first sentence I wrote on this thread was that I'm a moral relativist.

Yeah, I did catch that. Further on you also wrote that you value everyone's autonomy equally though, and that that makes it a preferable system to, for example, utilitarianism. It just seems to me that you think leaning on autonomy allows for a much more simple and clear-cut picture of how morality should work than it actually does. I think it all ends up as a mess when thinking of it in terms of autonomy as well, just as it does with utilitarianism and every other theory of morality.

 

[9BBN]

Yeah, I did catch that. Further on you also wrote that you value everyone's autonomy equally though, and that that makes it a preferable system to, for example, utilitarianism. It just seems to me that you think leaning on autonomy allows for a much more simple and clear-cut picture of how morality should work than it actually does. I think it all ends up as a mess when thinking of it in terms of autonomy as well, just as it does with utilitarianism and every other theory of morality.

Well I'm not claiming to have the True morality. Everything gets messy. I do think leaning on autonomy is more reliable than happiness and pain. Some people want and don't want those to different extents. That doesn't mean the trade-offs are "simple and clear-cut" though.

I don't buy utilitarianism because it has an equal opposite.

 

[deflationary]

Well I'm not claiming to have the True morality. Everything gets messy. I do think leaning on autonomy is more reliable than happiness and pain. Some people want and don't want those to different extents. That doesn't mean the trade-offs are "simple and clear-cut" though.

I don't buy utilitarianism because it has an equal opposite.

I think the problem with autonomy is that it's much more of a social construct than pleasure and suffering are. The concept has too much built-in baggage, and it doesn't get at the deepest levels of value imo. It's more of a pragmatic approach to morality than a metaethical position.

For example, the justification for why autonomy is allowed to be violated during childhood seems purely utilitarian. "Because it's in the best interests of the kid." If some alien much smarter than us came along, would it be justified in deciding for us in a similar way? Or have we reached the level of autonomy where it should be never violated like that? Who decides that and based on what? There's precedent for this kind of autonomy violation being acceptable, but no justification for why it's acceptable in terms of autonomy itself.

 

[rationaldeath]

You might be using an excessive amount of brain power and mental gymnastics to try and find a way around accepting what is. How can you wonder whether or not it would be 'wrong' if people started killing each other, based on 'no one being around to think that it is wrong?'

You're applying relativity and the old "if a tree falls" rhetoric to actions such as murder and torture. Don't you have some idea of what you think might be the answer, or is an answer only valid if there are others there to agree?

How do you define good/bad? If there's a drought, more rain is good. If we are flooded up to our necks, more rain is bad. But is the rain inherently good or bad? Who is calling the rain good or bad? If one person says it's bad and another says it's good, who is right and who is wrong? Who decides which answer is correct?

The issue is things like killing and torture are not universally seen as wrong. I definitely feel that those things are bad and obviously the person suffering is going think it is bad, but maybe the person doing the killing doesn't. What if the murderer experiences suffering if they don't kill people? What if 1,000 people experienced mental anguish on par with torture if they didn't torture one specific person? Beyond that, are things like killing ever justified in your mind? There have been plenty of societies throughout history that have killed people in horrific ways for reasons we would find insane because it felt intuitively right to them. How do we know we aren't doing something just as "bad" now? I don't think we have justification to view our intuitions as the arbiter of some objective moral truth.

 

[9BBN]

I think the problem with autonomy is that it's much more of a social construct than pleasure and suffering are. The concept has too much built-in baggage, and it doesn't get at the deepest levels of value imo. It's more of a pragmatic approach to morality than a metaethical position.

I don't see it as so far removed. "Autonomy" is really just a fancy way of saying "choice." Rather than viewing morality simply as a function of pleasure and pain, autonomy adds consent. Some pain is good if it is consented. Some pleasure is bad if it is not. The only reason I say "autonomy" and not "choice" is because sometimes consent is not possible. Autonomy is the generalized form of choice in this respect. In cases where informed consent is impossible, I don't tend to have sweeping generalizations as answers. The flaw in this framework, as you point out, is it's difficult to judge how informed we and others are to make decisions. Different societies seem to make arbitrary cutoffs based on proxies like age, this is the relativism. But I don't see that as a reason to discard the whole thing. I actually find it to be more meta-ethical because the pleasure-pain model seems too simplistic, but we can agree to disagree. Clearly "autonomy" is not perfect.

For example, the justification for why autonomy is allowed to be violated during childhood seems purely utilitarian. "Because it's in the best interests of the kid."

You're quoting someone who isn't me. You bring up a legitimate problem that kids are not able to consent to their childhoods. In my view, consent is only required if consent is possible. So when consent is impossible, decisions are allowed to be made for them based on the pleasure-pain model and the possible consent of other affected parties. Example: a mother receive an abortion (fetus can't consent) if she chooses to and believes it will minimize suffering and maximize happiness in a net positive. Example: a couple may procreate (fetus can't consent) for the same reasons. Example: Mother shouldn't make child go to church if child doesn't want to. Exceptions because we "know better" are dangerous and should only be employed conservatively. This is the gray area.

Quick aside: in my opinion, procreating is only ethical if we have a right to die. Also, I know you're anti-natalist and I know you had a shit childhood. I'm sorry and I don't mean to offend you in my writing if I do.

The issue is things like killing and torture are not universally seen as wrong. I definitely feel that those things are bad and obviously the person suffering is going think it is bad, but maybe the person doing the killing doesn't. What if the murderer experiences suffering if they don't kill people? What if 1,000 people experienced mental anguish on par with torture if they didn't torture one specific person? Beyond that, are things like killing ever justified in your mind? There have been plenty of societies throughout history that have killed people in horrific ways for reasons we would find insane because it felt intuitively right to them. How do we know we aren't doing something just as "bad" now? I don't think we have justification to view our intuitions as the arbiter of some objective moral truth.

I think what gentlesoul is getting at is that these questions are more nuanced than we realize. If you ask "is killing wrong", the answer can be genuinely "sometimes." Necessary self-defense? War? These exceptions are not necessarily proof of relativism, but proof of nuance. Gentlesoul gives the example of rain being good in droughts and bad in floods.

 

[motel rooms]

Now I'm not certain of these beliefs and I'm always looking for other perspectives, so I would love to hear your ideas and any opposing viewpoints you all might have.

 

[deflationary]

But I don't see that as a reason to discard the whole thing.

I definitely agree with you there. It was never my point that we should discard the concept of autonomy. Obviously it's a valuable one. It's just more arbitrary at the edges than pleasure and suffering are, imo. But like I said in my first post in this thread, I don't think they're enough to build up an objective morality either.

I don't have any new objections, so I'm gonna leave it at that.

You definitely didn't offend me, don't worry about that. If I came across as too combative, I apologize for that instead. :)