Is self interest the best or only basis for morality?

[LucyJr]

Empathy, I believe, is a little like Adam Smith's discussion of sympathy in his book system of moral sentiments, which he thought was the more important of his books on moral philosophy (yup, that's right, the guy who is remembered by many as the founding father of economics was a moral philosopher and had a very definite moral-cultural agenda and vision), describes its operation as a product of imagination and consequence of individuals being able to imagine themselves in similar circumstances to who they are thinking about.

So in the final instance self-interest is still operative, he would have said the same about altruism, mutual aid, gift relationships, or I suspect any of the other alternatives to self-interest pure and simple but then I'm not sure that Kropotkin (mutual aid), gift relationships (Marcel Maus) or altruism (Spencer) theorists would have had any problem with that.

Although self-interest as conceived by a sadist or psychopath, such as Stalin, would obviously be pretty different from that conceived of by anyone capable of empathy or sympathy.

Perhaps Ayn Rand would disagree with Adam Smith.

The problem I have with empathy is that it is based on feelings. The nature of empathy is "we", its collective, its community. But the issue is that if you think about it, it can lead to tirany and exclusivism.
That would explain the "evil heroes" like dictators. They were protecting 'their own'. They were empathising with "their own". It leads to exclusivism. It says "I'm good with the ones I know and I protect them. With the 'outsiders', I'm their worst enemyes.". Its a kind of "we vs them" mentality. The naure of empathy is "with", but never "for".

But morality, as is calssicaly understood, is universal, it transcend races, cultures, personal affections and so on. The essence of morality is Mercy or Charity, or Unconditional Love, along with Justice. Mercy is "for". It transcends empathy. For one might have no empathy with a drunkard, might even despise him, but mercy transcend these repulsive feelings.

There would be also another objection that empathy is irrational, its based on feelings. But morality is rational Morality is irrespective of feelings. It can manifest by feelings, but its not dependent on them.

 

[Wildfire]

I believe that moral relativism and the permissive society are byproducts of sort of culture that capitalism creates to sustain itself and its appeal.

I've always thought this was a very bad thing, at the very least it is reductive and homogenising, removes all diversity of opinion and lifestyle, instituting in its place a single disatisfactory and alienating culture which people live but are estrange from and feel no ownership of or responsibility for.

While true, isn’t it also true that consciousness around this can equip us for some ownership and responsibility?

 

[Lark]

Perhaps Ayn Rand would disagree with Adam Smith.

The problem I have with empathy is that it is based on feelings. The nature of empathy is "we", its collective, its community. But the issue is that if you think about it, it can lead to tirany and exclusivism.
That would explain the "evil heroes" like dictators. They were protecting 'their own'. They were empathising with "their own". It leads to exclusivism. It says "I'm good with the ones I know and I protect them. With the 'outsiders', I'm their worst enemyes.". Its a kind of "we vs them" mentality. The naure of empathy is "with", but never "for".

But morality, as is calssicaly understood, is universal, it transcend races, cultures, personal affections and so on. The essence of morality is Mercy or Charity, or Unconditional Love, along with Justice. Mercy is "for". It transcends empathy. For one might have no empathy with a drunkard, might even despise him, but mercy transcend these repulsive feelings.

There would be also another objection that empathy is irrational, its based on feelings. But morality is rational Morality is irrespective of feelings. It can manifest by feelings, but its not dependent on them.

I sort of despise Ayn Rand man, sorry if that's going to create an obsticle to the discussion, just clarifying that before we go much further.

I dont think the dichotomy between feeling and thinking or reasoning is a true dichotomy. To a certain extent I think that MBTI's suggestion that there are cognitive preferences with consequences as one is adopted and used and another neglected or even repressed but I see that as a little different. The goal is balance and ability to use both and be aware that in the most reasoned approach there will still be a major role for affect, emoting and feeling, and vice versa, you can not "feel your way" for instance or "think with the blood" or be impulsively or compulsively on auto-pilot by the reptilian brain, the cerebral side will act. So I think it is a matter of appreciating how each interacts in a dynamic sense and permeates one another.

I think it was Heinlein (another right wing author I'm ambivalent about) who stated that mankind is more rationalising than rational.

 

[Lark]

While true, isn’t it also true that consciousness around this can equip us for some ownership and responsibility?

I think so, identifying it and comprehending it is a little different from living in unconsciously. Would you say that the majority of people comprehend it or not?

 

[Wildfire]

I think so, identifying it and comprehending it is a little different from living in unconsciously. Would you say that the majority of people comprehend it or not?

To determine where the majority falls will depend on where the corresponding lines are drawn, and I’m not entirely sure that you and I are headed in the same direction. I even suspect that where you might be trying to narrow in on something, I might be backed out and looking at it more broadly.

Anyway, in my opinion we are under a great, great number of influences. In general I would say that the majority of us are experiencing greater awareness and recognition of external influences, greater awareness and a deeper understanding of our own internal responses, and in some sense, greater intimacy with the seat of our own power. We’re also having experiences of extreme powerlessness, which to some degree teach us “the rules of the game”.

The morality mentioned in recent posts, while being a byproduct as you’ve described, is simultaneously acting as an influence in a very typical and commonplace cause and effect kind of dance. But it is this very type of dynamic that we, in greater numbers, are becoming conscious of. What will this amount to? I don’t know, but consciousness has the tendency to create.

 

[Matt3737]

What I'm asking you is this:
You say killing, by your morality is wrong. But your morality is subjective, so therefore, killing is not really wrong, we just pretend is wrong. There isn't anything objective in the proposition "Killing is wrong". Its subjective. Therefore, on your view, it is perfectly acceptable to kill someone, whithout any moral repercusion.
Am I right or not?

Agreeing that something is subjective is not the same as condonement. It's simply an acknowledgement that others may not necessarily conform to said view.

 

[LucyJr]

Agreeing that something is subjective is not the same as condonement. It's simply an acknowledgement that others may not necessarily conform to said view.

I disagree.
From a subjective morality, one can easily condone its view. That's the contradiction leading from the absurdity of moral subjectivity. When you say moral subjectivity, you aren't really saying anything. Its just a tricky way to lie yourself that there is any kind of morality, when actually there is no morality.
We were talking about the nature of morality, wether is subjective or objective, not the subjectivity of subjective personal opinions over moral matters.
So its not about the subjective position. It is wether there really is any morality to it in a objective sense. If "Killing is wrong" is subjective, "Killing is wrong" is not really wrong at all. You can make a illusion out of it, and delude yourself that "killing is wrong". But what you do is pretending killing is wrong. "I'm just gone pretend killing is wrong so much until I start to really believe it". That's subjective morality. There isn't anything 'wrong' or 'good' to it in a realistic sense. Its just a illusion. Its a play for adults: "Let's pretend we have rules, let's call them moral rules, and let's follow them. Of course, we know there aren't really any rules. We can make at any time other rules".

So people who think morality is subjective either they don't understand their philosophy, or either they do understand it, and they play games. They like to delude themselfs.

And one other point that contradicts subjective morality is the hidden assumption of the "general good".
"Why we are making subjective rules and pretend that rules are objective, deluding ourself? For the good of the society. Rules are good, so the society can survive and develop".
But why are you making the assumption of 'the good of society'? Who said survival is good? Who said society must develp in 'good'?
So the relativist in the contradicting position of accepting at least one objective value. Otherwise, his all subjective morality would have no value, no reason, no foundation.

 

[CogentPursuit]

Even Gods morality is subjective. It is simply defined by Him.

There is no such thing as an objective morality.

Morality is good as defined by 'a' standard. The standard for you might be God but it is still based on subjective standards. With God as the standard he can technically kill and it would be considered good.

If the general population was the determining factor of good. Then good is what benefits the general population.

 

[LucyJr]

Even Gods morality is subjective. It is simply defined by Him.

There is no such thing as an objective morality.

Morality is good as defined by 'a' standard. The standard for you might be God but it is still based on subjective standards. With God as the standard he can technically kill and it would be considered good.

If the general population was the determining factor of good. Then good is what benefits the general population.

God is a metaphysical necessity being. His nature is absolute, the ground of existence, reason, morality, order, eternity.
So no, God's morality is not subjective. God doesn't say and speak moral rules arbitrarely. The very nature of God, how He acts, how He thinks, how He feels, how He speak, and most importantly, how He IS, is morality. There is Good because God Himself is good.

If the general population was the determining factor of good. Then good is what benefits the general population.

You assumed a objective value. The general population benefit. You define good (which is subjectively determined), as the general population's benefit - but benefit is good, is a objective good, on which you found your subjective moral theory.
Its a contradiction.

 

[CogentPursuit]

God is a metaphysical necessity being. His nature is absolute, the ground of existence, reason, morality, order, eternity.
So no, God's morality is not subjective. God doesn't say and speak moral rules arbitrarely. The very nature of God, how He acts, how He thinks, how He feels, how He speak, and most importantly, how He IS, is morality. There is Good because God Himself is good.

Who said any morality is arbitrarily determined? They are still determined by his reasons. Objective means they are not part of anyones bias but it is God's word therefore subject(ive) to his will.

You assumed a objective value. The general population benefit. You define good (which is subjectively determined), as the general population's benefit - but benefit is good, is a objective good, on which you found your subjective moral theory.
Its a contradiction.

It is still each individuals belief, therefore subjective. General benefit is simply a term that describes where 'most' individuals happened to agree. Recycling is a good example. It is certainly not Gods law. It is however becoming a standard and therefore to not do so is beginning to be frowned upon. Soon it could very well be considered bad even immoral.

 

[LucyJr]

Who said any morality is arbitrarily determined? They are still determined by his reasons. Objective means they are not part of anyones bias but it is God's word therefore subject(ive) to his will.

This is not true.
God is the activity of reason itself. God doesn't reason logically to reach to certain truths, or to reach to certain conclusions. Truths reside in the nature of God. Reason starts from Him.

God is not 'biased'. God is Perfection in all His attributes. "Biased" is not even closely to perfection.

God's word therefore subject(ive) to his will.

Well His very will is the nature of good. God wills good because He is good, His will is good.

It is still each individuals belief, therefore subjective. General benefit is simply a term that describes where 'most' individuals happened to agree. Recycling is a good example. It is certainly not Gods law. It is however becoming a standard and therefore to not do so is beginning to be frowned upon. Soon it could very well be considered bad even immoral.

No, I don't think so. "Where 'most' individuals happened to agree."is...where 'most' individuals happened to agree.

And general benefit its a benefit. Benefit its something good, not bad, otherwise, it wouldn't be benefit. And that's the contradiction. You can't build a subjective system of values unless you have at least one objective value, at least one tiny good that makes worth for all the (supposedly) subjective good.

Perhaps subjective exist only in dependence with objectivity? Perhaps disorder exist only if there is order?
If it wouldn't be something objective, than it wouldn't be anything which is subjective. From where there is this idea of "good"?
It couldn't start from something subjective. Its like it wouldn't have engines. It would be absurd.

One can propose as many theories as he wants, but at some point, each theory, would have to accept and be dependent on some objective moral good. Therefore, the concept of subjective morality can only be self-contradictory, and also false.

 

[CogentPursuit]

This is not true.
God is the activity of reason itself. God doesn't reason logically to reach to certain truths, or to reach to certain conclusions. Truths reside in the nature of God. Reason starts from Him.

Interesting perspective, but hardly provable one way or the other.


By definition God is biased. An objective truth must remain absolutely biased and cannot except other truths. Bias is bad in a debate so it feels wrong to be biased but for God, who does not need to debate because he is the basis of morality, it is simply definitive to what it is.


Subjective morality is not self contradictory. It is simply based on one owns standards. Does that seem kind of pointless and of little value? I suppose it can. It is still a thing in existence based on the definition of morality.

I am not sure why you think benefit must be decided by god also?

Man's view of good is not Gods view of good else we would not all be sinners. We cannot know all good, contradictory to Genesis, that is why we cannot even agree on what God wants. We are subject ot our own views of good and right and when those views collide we agree it is good. We view this and being good for all of us. Is it really good to an objective morality?... No. It is only considered good based on personal 'standard' shared among man. As defined in the dictionary, Morality is simply "good" based on "a" standard.

 

[LucyJr]

Interesting perspective, but hardly provable one way or the other.


By definition God is biased. An objective truth must remain absolutely biased and cannot except other truths. Bias is bad in a debate so it feels wrong to be biased but for God, who does not need to debate because he is the basis of morality, it is simply definitive to what it is.

bi·ased
adjective \ˈbī-əst\

: having or showing a bias : having or showing an unfair tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others


Biased is a term that applies to people. God can not be "biased". God is Perfection. God is not unfair in any way or another. God judges perfectly, imapartial, and just. And also God is Truth. So, agaisnt what He would be biased, against lie, absurdity?

Subjective morality is not self contradictory. It is simply based on one owns standards. Does that seem kind of pointless and of little value? I suppose it can. It is still a thing in existence based on the definition of morality.

So you're saying is not self-contradictory, huh?
What do you say, torturing a child is wrong or not?

I am not sure why you think benefit must be decided by god also?

You mean benefit decided by good?
Its really simple. Because for subjective morality to happen, it would have to be for a reason, a hidden reason. Things don't happen whithout a reason. What the reason behind subjective morality? That it is good. As simple as that. And that good, on which subjective morality is based, can not be another subjective good, otherwise this would go ad infinitum. At one point or another, there is the hidden assumption for a objective good.
"What is good? It is defined by general population. What is general population's good? Its Benefit. What is benefit? The general opulation's good. What is the general population's good? Its benefit. Why is benefit? Because it's general population's good. And why is general population's good? Because its the general population's benefit. But why its a benefit? Because its general population's good. Which is based on? Its benefit. And benefit is based on what? On general population's good."

See, its a reasoning in a circle. It doesn't make any sense. Its not saying anything.
Unless, of course, there is the hidden assumption that the benefit for the population is really good, or objectively good.

Man's view of good is not Gods view of good else we would not all be sinners.

That's correct. Bt still true morality is only one, that which comes from God. So man doesn't have a different morality, man has a corrupt morality, corrupted bu sin.

We cannot know all good, contradictory to Genesis, that is why we cannot even agree on what God wants. We are subject ot our own views of good and right and when those views collide we agree it is good

Yes, but this doesn't say anything that morality is subjective. It does say only that we think morality is subjective, we delude ourself.

We view this and being good for all of us. Is it really good to an objective morality?... No. It is only considered good based on personal 'standard' shared among man. As defined in the dictionary, Morality is simply "good" based on "a" standard.

Yes. So the standard is objective, or is subjective?

 

[say what]

God is a metaphysical necessity being. His nature is absolute, the ground of existence, reason, morality, order, eternity.
So no, God's morality is not subjective. God doesn't say and speak moral rules arbitrarely. The very nature of God, how He acts, how He thinks, how He feels, how He speak, and most importantly, how He IS, is morality. There is Good because God Himself is good.

You assumed a objective value. The general population benefit. You define good (which is subjectively determined), as the general population's benefit - but benefit is good, is a objective good, on which you found your subjective moral theory.
Its a contradiction.

Is it immoral to refute or not believe in God's existence?

 

[Matt3737]

bi·ased
adjective \ˈbī-əst\

: having or showing a bias : having or showing an unfair tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others


Biased is a term that applies to people. God can not be "biased". God is Perfection. God is not unfair in any way or another. God judges perfectly, imapartial, and just. And also God is Truth. So, agaisnt what He would be biased, against lie, absurdity?

I didn't realize we were talking to God.

Or his perfect mouthpiece.

 

[Eventhorizon]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] This is a serious question NOT an attack etc. I try to get an understanding of things I dont understand as much as possible. When you say "God" is truth, whose truth are you referring to? This God of which you speak is anything but truth to me.

 

[LucyJr]

I didn't realize we were talking to God.

Or his perfect mouthpiece.

I don't understand what you're saying.

 

[LucyJr]

Is it immoral to refute or not believe in God's existence?

No, of course, from this very dirrect perspective of which you are now.
But in the grand scheme of things, we can't believe in God, becasue we are in sin. Sin is a wall between us and God. So yes, is a sort of way, it is immoral that we don't believe in God.

 

[Matt3737]

I don't understand what you're saying.

You're attempting to claim a non-biased, objective morality through proxy. You are not God and you do not speak for God. You are a person, and by definition are subject to bias.

I do not harbor ill-will towards your views, but this discussion has become entirely about you proving yourself right and has little to nothing to do with other's point of views or even God's will.

God needn't be proven right, by definition, hence you are trying to prove your bias to be 'in the right' by showing that it is aligned with God's.

Suffice it to say, I think you are entirely mistaken.

 

[CogentPursuit]

Yes. So the standard is objective, or is subjective?

Killing a child. Morally correct??? Depends. Not likely beneficial to prolonging the human race. What corner are you trying to lead me into here?

If there were only one standard as defined by the word, the dictionary would have said "... based on 'the' standard."
If you want to argue that God has the only objective true moral standard, then fine. I could not disagree as it is impossible for me to disprove such a thing.

If you want to argue that mans standard is not a moral standard, then you are wrong. It is a standard and it has a purpose. Invalid, likely. Untrue to Gods standard? It would seem based on your beliefs. A bad doctor is still a doctor. A broken shovel is still a shovel. etc... A moral standard of man is still a moral standard, just broken and imperfect. I am sure we can agree on that last statement. For you it is true because it does not fit with 'what you view' of Gods standard. For me it is true because it does not fit with mine.


Also Biased as various definitions defined by 1) 2) and 3) etc... . I used the one that fits.