What is Morality?

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Ah, ok I see your point.

The problem with slavery (aside from slavery itself) is that slaves had a different moral viewpoint than whites.

When two moral compasses clash, the only way you can resolve this is by compromise. No compromise leads to war. Unfortunately, slaves were not considered to be fully human, so their view of morality was not included as a part of American culture. This American culture with no input from slaves viewed slavery as a moral right. Because of the exclusion of slaves from society, morality was skewed only toward slave owners.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Ohhhhh, ok Bertissimo.

You are asking if slavery is objectively moral or not, which it isn’t.

I thought the question was if slavery was moral to slave owners at the time, which it was, because their view of morality went unquestioned and unchallenged by those who it oppressed.

[Flash2024]

There is no objectively moral or amoral. Those are not "objective" concepts. One person's morality may deviate wildly from another, even within the bounds of the Christian/Judeo principles. Let alone outside them. Is slavery amoral? Not to many societies historically. Do I find it so? Definitely. See?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Ah, ok I see your point.

The problem with slavery (aside from slavery itself) is that slaves had a different moral viewpoint than whites.

When two moral compasses clash, the only way you can resolve this is by compromise. No compromise leads to war. Unfortunately, slaves were not considered to be fully human, so their view of morality was not included as a part of American culture. This American culture with no input from slaves viewed slavery as a moral right. Because of the exclusion of slaves from society, morality was skewed only toward slave owners.

So war is definitely not the only way to resolve conflicting moral issues. This thread is full of moral arguments that many people find convincing (from the Bible, from frameworks like the Golden Rule, from an earnest assessment of the consequences of a particular action, etc.). Even if I were to benefit from an institution like slavery, I can still be convinced of its wrongness.

There was a civil war over slavery in the States, but only after many formerly slavery-supporting or slavery-indifferent white people were peacefully convinced of its wrongness by moral argument. The British Empire banished slavery without any war at all because of the force of moral argument.

We've lived through a huge number of non-violent moral revolutions that really did improve humanity's morality (e.g., civil rights).

I disagree with a practice like female genital mutilation. I don't think we have to go to war with those communities that practice it to change their minds - or at least, this wouldn't be the first thing I'd try.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Yes this (above) is compromise

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

There is no objectively moral or amoral. Those are not "objective" concepts. One person's morality may deviate wildly from another, even within the bounds of the Christian/Judeo principles. Let alone outside them. Is slavery amoral? Not to many societies historically. Do I find it so? Definitely. See?

I fundamentally disagree. Everyone can have a moral opinion, but those opinions can be found to be wrong through greater inquiry.

I'm confused by what means you think that popular opinion is actually the way of determining what is right and wrong. How could a society that previously thought slavery was good come to see that it's bad if there was no genuine badness there to discover? Is slave-holding or slave-releasing just a fad or fashion trend with no genuine moral implications?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Yes this (above) is compromise

It was not a compromise. There is no more slavery in the West and it is nearly universally reviled because of its inherent wrongness. The former widespread belief that slavery was okay relied on a type of ignorance that can no longer be sustained.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

There is no objectively moral or amoral. Those are not "objective" concepts. One person's morality may deviate wildly from another, even within the bounds of the Christian/Judeo principles. Let alone outside them. Is slavery amoral? Not to many societies historically. Do I find it so? Definitely. See?

I do agree. If, for instance, the final truth of the universe means that all life is infinitely important (assuming we know everything else already), then let’s walk through a scenario.

If someone murders one billion people, should we:

Not give them the death sentence because life is infinitely important and one more death is not worth it

Or

Give them the death penalty because they killed a billion people, breaking the greatest truth, and thus should pay the greatest price?

Morality is inherently, in objective.

“Objective” morality is only based on what our morality is now.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Yes this (above) is compromise

It was not a compromise. There is no more slavery in the West and it is nearly universally reviled because of its inherent wrongness. The former widespread belief that slavery was okay relied on a type of ignorance that can no longer be sustained.

Whites and blacks were still segregated after the civil war. Only after compromise did black Americans become equal to white Americans.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Yes this (above) is compromise

It was not a compromise. There is no more slavery in the West and it is nearly universally reviled because of its inherent wrongness. The former widespread belief that slavery was okay relied on a type of ignorance that can no longer be sustained.

Whites and blacks were still segregated after the civil war. Only after compromise did black Americans become equal to white Americans.

I'm confused what your point is here.

Slavery was always wrong. It was so wrong that many people who benefited from it were ultimately convinced of its wrongness. Eventually political steps were taken to outlaw the practice.

But of course ending slavery didn't immediately change every white person's views about the worth and role of Africans. It took decades more cultural exchange, which could only happen after the end of slavery, for most people to recognize that anti-black prejudice was wrong - not because it became unpopular, but because it was a mistaken belief based on ignorance (not knowing any black people, imbibing factually incorrect race science, etc.). This wasn't a fad either - it was wrong to discriminate against black people because of their blackness and this fact was discovered over time.

[Jamiet99uk]

I'm with Esq. Bert on this one.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Maybe I can be clearer and say that I agree with Will's contention that complete, objective morality is probably unknowable. I also agree that many hide behind the aegis of objective moral truth to valorize their own moral intuitions. But I don't agree that means we can know nothing about morality.

Some customs are better than others at producing a particular vision of human flourishing someone might reasonably call "good". Someone can be right or wrong about whether a certain action, policy, etc., is actually useful for maximizing this "good". Of course, the core issue is that we struggle to agree about what's "good" in the first place. And yet I think that visions of the "good" that are parochial (say, aimed at the flourishing of the white race in particular) can be found to be at least logically inconsistent and will, over time, fail to convince rational people operating with good information.

[JustAGuyNamedWill]

Maybe I can be clearer and say that I agree with Will's contention that complete, objective morality is probably unknowable. I also agree that many hide behind the aegis of objective moral truth to valorize their own moral intuitions. But I don't agree that means we can know nothing about morality.

Some customs are better than others at producing a particular vision of human flourishing someone might reasonably call "good". Someone can be right or wrong about whether a certain action, policy, etc., is actually useful for maximizing this "good". Of course, the core issue is that we struggle to agree about what's "good" in the first place. And yet I think that visions of the "good" that are parochial (say, aimed at the flourishing of the white race in particular) can be found to be at least logically inconsistent and will, over time, fail to convince rational people operating with good information.

I agree with this 100%. If the sun really would stop rising if no sacrifice was made by the Aztecs, then human sacrifice is now inherently moral because of the threat to all humanity.

Because of humanity’s flawed, self centered (toward their own race) point of view, objective morality cannot be attained, as objective morality is by definition, perfect. We are not perfect, and thus cannot attain objective morality.

[Crazy Anglican]

Maybe I can be clearer and say that I agree with Will's contention that complete, objective morality is probably unknowable. I also agree that many hide behind the aegis of objective moral truth to valorize their own moral intuitions. But I don't agree that means we can know nothing about morality.

That sounds familiar. Can you elaborate? I’m probably missing something.

[mOctave]

I think Frtiz' point about the Bible, and mine about the Golden Rule, is that human reasoning about an objective moral code that we believe to be true is better than the alternative - totally unconstrained "whatever I feel like today" style morality, which I would hesitate to even call morality.

I'd like to start by saying that I agree here. Even if there is no objective standard of morality, it's still a useful fiction to maintain, because otherwise we would all go insane and humanity as a society would be finished.

The Golden Rule can be made to produce bad answers, but not the way you've tried here. A suicidal person does not get to judge suicide as right for another person, because they're supposed to be answering the question "what would I do if I were the other person in that situation", so their suicidality should drop out and they should be thinking about what the other person/agent would want.

I'm confused here. Isn't the golden rule "Treat others as you wish to be treated"? What you're describing sounds like "Treat others as they wish to be treated, which seems to me to be a completely different concept.

The Golden Rule works cross culturally. If I'm a Christian going to a Bar Mitzvah, I can use the Golden Rule to decide that it would be a bad idea to bring a pork roast to share. The wrongness here isn't determined by Jews' cultural prohibition on eating pork, but rather the Golden Rule insight that causing offense for no good reason isn't justifiable.

True. You wouldn't like to be offended, so don't offend others. That sounds fair enough. But how can you tell what offends someone?

That the Golden Rule makes it hard to, say, justifying kill some to save others is a feature, not a bug. It helps someone non-religious avoid the repugnant conclusion of consequentialist-style morality. It's also not totally inflexible in this regard - it'd be consistent with the Golden Rule to suppose that a murder's own interest being maximized by preventing him from murdering. I'd also add that even though I think the Golden Rule provides valuable insight of some ultimately unknowable objective morality, I don't think it's a complete or exclusive moral truth - there are certainly other ways of moral reasoning that helpfully complicate the picture.

I think these are good points too. As a tool, I can concede that the Golden Rule is quite useful. I still don't think it's an objective source of morality, though.

Because of humanity’s flawed, self centered (toward their own race) point of view, objective morality cannot be attained, as objective morality is by definition, perfect. We are not perfect, and thus cannot attain objective morality.

I think this aligns in some way with what I'm getting to, although I would take it a step farther.

From my day to day experience, I can conclude that the computer I am currently typing at is a physical, tangible thing that is solid and made of metal. However, if I know about atomic theory, and stop presuming that everything I see with my eyes is real, I can find out that my computer is actually mostly empty space, and isn't solid at all. However, most scientists currently accept that matter itself is really just energy. That means that my computer isn't solid, and isn't even a physical thing, since there are no physical things! Of course, this idea seems absolutely absurd to me, but that is only because I can see, feel, and hear my computer.

Similarly, research suggests that gravity doesn't really exist either. We take it for granted so often, but in reality, it only exists in our minds. It is not much more right than the ancient idea of "Rock likes earth. I drop rock. Rock follows earth." However, it's such a useful fiction that we continue to teach it to our children and use it practically in every aspect of our lives.

I think in a way morality is like this. There is no objective morality: either it is decided by the most powerful group of people and imposed on those around them, or it's handed down by an even more powerful God. Even God's actions may be morally wrong by our standards, though. Therefore, God isn't necessarily divine, just much more powerful than us. But, since the only sources of morality I have seen raised so far are might-makes-right*, it is natural that we submit to the moral authority of God.

I don't think there's any objective morality in the universe. I also don't think, though, that morality doesn't exist, just like I think my computer exists. In my version of reality, neither are fundamental constants. I would argue that slavery was morally right... but only from the perspectives of certain slave-owners who were able to ignore the damage their actions caused. I'm reminded of Huckleberry Finn, and how he starts off believing that Jim is less human than himself. Under such a definition of morality, it is perfectly reasonable to treat slaves like dogs. It is only when you redefine humanity that that becomes as clearly, horrendously immoral as we recognize it to be today.

This definition of humanity seems so unambiguously clear to us today, and by our current perspective on reality it is easy to see the criminality of slavery. Yet, it really isn't that clear. Where do you draw the line between a human and an ape? What is a species, anyways? One of the largest ethical issues currently being debated is that of abortion. Is an unborn child a sentient human being with a soul? Or is it merely a parasite that grows into a human being? There is no clear answer here. Certainly, whichever side eventually wins this debate will look back on the other side and see their actions as evil. For us, though, living in this time, the issue is far hazier. Many of us feel strongly either way, but this is all based around the definition we each make of a human being.

To take it to extremes, what right does life have to continue? The will of life to continue and change is fundamentally selfish... and selfishness is immoral, right? If I advocated the complete destruction of Earth to cleanse it of all the over-capable viruses that had popped up, though, I would either be locked up. If I was vocal enough about it, I would probably be killed by a lynch mob.

Therefore, our morality is dependent on our own societal will to live. It is immoral to kill people because people say so, and people define people as themselves. It is not immoral to cut down a tree if it means your own survival, even if the tree will accomplish far more of benefit to the environment than you ever will.

I live somewhere where, for the longest time, there were horrible crimes committed by the government against the indigenous population. Now, these actions were obviously immoral, but when they were first conceived? They were an idea designed to keep people alive in a rapidly changing world, accepting that the the white men—the close relatives of those making the decisions—were guaranteed to make a conquest of the "new" land. I ask you, then: if you could either keep your closest friend alive or a starving child in Africa, which would it be? Whichever decision you made, you would be condemned for it, either as disloyal or xenophobic. Despite this, though, I believe most people would save their friend, even if said friend is older than the child, less intelligent, and has genetic defects. Why? Because it is better to keep someone alive whom you know than it is to prevent the death of someone you will never meet.

Over time, we have changed our definition of morality. But, morality as it is commonly accepted is a human construct: we believe that it would exist even without a God telling us what to do. We have moved from a "rock likes earth" definition of morality to a gravitational one, but neither of them exist outside our own heads and collective consciousness. One day we will move to a morality of particulate energies, and one day to yet another morality stranger still to us as we currently exist. But none of those will be more right, just a better explanation of the world with the evidence we have at the time.

This is why I say that slavery was not objectively morally wrong hundreds or thousands of years ago. Of course, it was morally wrong from the perspective of the vast majority of the slaves, but not in some form of absolute truth. At least the way I see it, truth itself is relative. Moral truth is no different.

* Not counting the Golden Rule as a source of morality here, since it seems more like a way of acting based on pre-existing ethics than a source of morality.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Will: I would suggest that just because we cannot fully grasp an objective morality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We will never have every digit of pi, but we'll keep discovering new ones and, with what we already know, we can already handily solve all sorts of geometry problems (at least close-enough). Of course morality is much fuzzier than concepts in math, and yet I feel as though human societies have basically discovered some aspects of morality that probably are literally true and will not be revealed to be mistaken at some later date (e.g., the immorality of genocide, wanton murder, chattel slavery, etc.)

Crazy Anglican: Apologies, but I'm not 100% sure what your point was here. Maybe I'll just try to explain my position better: I suspect there are things akin to moral facts that humans can discover (if only partially) through reason and experience. These are truths might be like mathematical truths - they are real but not empirical, since they exist as pure logic. There are a lot of ways to reason about morality, including religion.

mOctave: "Treat others how you want to be treated" is a poor formulation of the Golden Rule, which works okay as a shorthand when you're thinking through a problem where the other person is reasonably similar to you. I think the better formulation is "treat others in a manner serving their best interest", which I could use on my neighbour, a small child, or even a horse. We can use empathy and reason in a good faith attempt to think through what is best for others, but obviously it's difficult, imperfect, and subject to our own biases.

The reason I think that Golden Rule morality is *a* source of objective morality, rather than just a useful heuristic, is its logical underpinning. It's rooted in the principle of rational self-interest: we inherently act in ways that serve our best interests. But rationality demands consistency; we cannot rationally apply principles to ourselves while excluding others from the same principles in similar situations. This leads to the logical necessity of the Golden Rule: to treat others in a manner that serves their best interest. This is, at best, an extremely partial truth about morality, but it strikes me as one true thing among many that we can learn about morality.

This is why I don't think that morality can just a product of elite opinion, or public opinion, etc., unless those opinions actually conform to some truth about morality. Even if we can't find a definitive answer to the abortion question or other thorny issues, I still suspect that there are more right and more wrong answers here that are worth debating.

I also live in a post-colonial society. The Europeans were wrong to subjugate the indigenous population as they did. This was a discoverable moral wrong at the time it happened. It was known to be wrong not only by the Indigenous people, but also by many Europeans themselves caught up in the perverse logic of colonial conquest. This wrongness was eventually discovered and cannot be sustained now that many people know and value indigenous people. I don't think good intentions = moral actions.

But none of those will be more right, just a better explanation of the world with the evidence we have at the time.

^ I'm a little confused by this part. What you are describing is moral progress. All of our science is just like this - building a better and better model of the universe that will never be 100% accurate. That this model exists only in the minds of human seems beside the point - it is an imperfect model of an objective reality.

This is a side note, but doesn't gravity exist? Like it's wrong to think of gravity as "all things fall down", but it's still right to think "mass attracts mass" isn't it?

[Crazy Anglican]

I’m curious, you’re not asking yourselves any hard questions, are you? I mean this conversation appears (and I’m only giving it cursory glance recently) to have devolved into how can we decide that slavery is immoral? For all of the argument here and there, you would think that it wasn’t an issue (as it had appeared a week ago that we had some cursory agreement on) largely solved by Christians in the 19th Century. Yes, biblical sources were used on both sides because there was a common moral denominator in the Bible. Both sides could, and did, make their point based on the Bible as a source. Still, the slavers went from the wealthy, upstanding members of their society to moral repugnance based on the long struggle of abolitionists. I haven’t looked up any statistics, but I of the opinion that the rich guys usually win. Christians of the time chose God not Mammon to their credit. For all I’ve seen recently this is bordering on being claimed as a secular win, which it most certainly wasn’t.

I think the issue now is much the same as it was back then. It’s money vs. morality. Take a look at a more recent issue addiction, for instance? Are the cartels the slavers of today? Are big pharmaceutical companies the plantations (in that they are the prosperous and legal face of the industry)? Does this industry provide a good for society (today’s medicines vs. yesterday’s agricultural products)? Is there a human cost (a dip in life expectancy attributable to fentanyl addiction and others vs. the innate cruelty of a slave system)?

How are we doing with the evils of today?

[Hanging Rook]

I'd suggest we're talking about different things.

The word "morality" literally means "the extent to which an action is right or wrong."

Just because there are customs that get justified by most people at a particular time in history is beside the point.

So was slavery moral? No, because it was clearly wrong. It was wrong back when they did it too. A big part of the reason we don't have slavery today is because people rightly recognized its wrongness, which was there to discover all along.

That’s circular reasoning or at best a tautology.

[Crazy Anglican]

Crazy Anglican: Apologies, but I'm not 100% sure what your point was here. Maybe I'll just try to explain my position better: I suspect there are things akin to moral facts that humans can discover (if only partially) through reason and experience. These are truths might be like mathematical truths - they are real but not empirical, since they exist as pure logic. There are a lot of ways to reason about morality, including religion.

That’s kind of what I meant. You end up with exactly the same problem that four pages back you were pointing at as a failure of the Christian system, an unknowable moral perfection (which the Bible provides good clues to) and a basis for making moral decisions (if I am understanding your statement of [moral absolutes]existing in pure logic) that can be used to argue both sides of any issue. I’d point out that if we are basing moral judgements on pure logic that we immediately run into problems. Logic isn’t the only source of finding moral absolutes. Do we protect children because it’s a good idea to do so? No it’s emotional reasoning, not logical. We don’t have to stand around and decide if it’s a good idea to keep kids from playing in traffic.

[Hanging Rook]

I agree to mOctave and go a step further still.

Just as gravity is an useful concept for today‘s space-engineer as they can reach their tasks applying it. And mOctave regarding his computer a physical think works well enough on a day basis. Both ideas may be less useful for other purposes like metaphysics or theoretical astrophysics. Where for the later explaining observable phenomena by rules seems to be the prove of the pudding, there seems to be no common target or criteria for truth for people engaging in metaphysics at all.

For morality I think the criteria would be what works best for a society and I am afraid that leads to a form of social Darwinism (not a racial but rather based on social concepts or ideas). In terms of slavery I would argue it was outlawed and proven wrong as societies rejecting it became dominant, perhaps due to more innovation and use of capital as labor was more expensive than in a slaver society. Most ancient Egypts were in a position resembling slavery and the society was relatively stable for a long time and more prosperous then the free pagans. Slavery worked well for them (the slaves) and so they submitted to it.