Classical Wisdom asks: Where Does Morality Come From?
Posted by bsmith51 7 years, 7 months ago to Philosophy
The referenced article contains an interesting look at morality from a classical perspective. The author then asks for readers to chime in. Some here might be interested. aleonard@classicalwisdom.net
Adam Smith, best known as the father of capitalism, based on his Wealth of Nations tome, also took a stab at a natural derivation for morality in his less well known book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Like Hubbard, Smith sought to present a credible argument that moral behavior was a result of constructive social interaction that promoted the well being of the "good" individual. That's especially interesting when we recall Smith was the son of a minister, and very pious himself.
Philosophy is all about goals and ideals: what should be (a goal) and what presently exists. Time is merely a measurement for discerning different states of the same being or object - one being a present incarnation and another being a future possibility. But without a future possibility, there is no progress - no movement away from present towards future. Stasis. Standards are all about goals and the process of goal attainment.
Now one of the principles used by those in this forum is the principle of logical derivation and we hold that this is an integral part of a true philosophy. To that end, we evaluate various competing philosophies and principles according to whether or not they are logically valid and logically sound, but we must recognize that we are making these evaluations through the lens of logic as a cardinal principle.
"Being moral is a choice made by individual humans, not groups, tribes, or cults."
"Being moral" is not the issue at all and I am not implying that choices are made collectively. I am pointing out that anyone can claim that their philosophy is "moral". It is a meaningless statement until one has first correctly identified the goal. Only after one has this can one begin to establish principles in furtherance of that goal.
Without the concept of choice, morality has no rational meaning. It becomes, as Rand (Branden?) cited, a "stolen concept."
Biological entities that lack the power of choice act on instinct. When said instinct is inadequate to deal with the reality confronting the entity, it dies - but it NEVER fails to act on its instinct(s). It lacks the capacity to derive ethics (morality).
I am not "quibbling" with you khalling, just being more precise. MORALITY IS THE KEY PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUE THAT IS PRECIPITATING THE LOSS OF OUR POLITICAL HERITAGE OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
The key philosophical issue is whether rational beings are to be considered as individuals who act due to there individual minds or whether they are to be defined as members of some collective with their individualism directed by the collective. The answer to which is the objective case in reality will direct how the science of ethics defines morality. The former points to the choice of morality and the latter to the destruction of individual choice, of morality.
I am in the throes of writing a book on philosophy, with a riveted focus on morality and its inescapable consequence, politics. I am therefore "sensitive" to using precise concepts.
For your perspective I am attaching the book's introduction as it now exists.
Dave
THE FUTURE THAT AWAITS
I begin this intellectual journey with two powerful and relevant quotations. The first comes from a giant, perhaps THE giant of our founding.
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck." --Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Smith.
The second comes from a contemporary source. One, it might be claimed, thought to be an especially arrogant one.
At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, this arrogant contemporary imagines himself present as one of the representatives from the colonies. He is addressing the collection of delegates which represent the greatest gathering of enlightened political thinkers of the time – perhaps at any time in history.
“Gentlemen: The political institutions you envision and have fashioned do not have the moral foundation to secure the sanctity of the ideals stated in Mr. Jefferson’s marvelous Declaration. Specifically, one cannot argue on behalf of a human beings right to their own life, creating political institutions to then secure same, while at the same time accepting a morality that a human being has a universal higher moral obligation to live their life in service to some other purpose, either to other human beings, or an imagined higher entity or abstraction. This tirelessly repeated moral prescription has destroyed whatever individual rights may have been temporarily recognized in past societies without exception. In the absence of a proper moral defense of these rights, this body’s unprecedented attempt at their political consecration shall become doomed as well.” – David Walden, August 12, 2012.
This book is my attempt to demonstrate the moral foundation necessary to reverse America’s destruction. Destruction made inescapable by the inevitable political erosion of that which, lacking a proper moral foundation, was but temporarily bequeathed to the world by America’s founders.
Dave walden
Animals act through instinct, not making moral choices, but automatically reacting to their natural needs. Humans are the only living creature that can chose to act against his nature, resulting in an immoral act. Morality is the process of choosing to be moral or not.
There also seems to be an element of fear in our assessments of animal intelligence. For some, it's an irrational fear that somehow recognizing more commonality with other animals makes us less human. For others, it's the unwillingness to accept the possibility that we eat creatures able to perceive their fate.
Science, which is supposedly in the wheelhouse of Objectivists, continues to disclose information about animal ability to discover, reason, and consciously act. Some of those discoveries can be unsettling, as in recognizing that animals lower on what we think of as the intelligence scale can have surprisingly sophisticated behaviors. Prairie dogs have a complex language developed as a survival defense. An octopus can solve problems with locking mechanisms faster than some humans. A variety of animals demonstrate the ability to develop problem solving skills independently and teach the next generation how to apply those skills. Simply waving off those accomplishments as instinctive, and declaring the same behavior in humans as different without sound scientific evidence doesn't seem very objective to me.
OTOH, I think people spend a ridiculous amount of time ascribing human traits to animals and elevating animals above humans to the point of crazy mystics like over-population and animals over Man. A gorilla is not worth a human, for example-but you would not know that on social media.
Observing that other species demonstrate an ability to think about the world and make choices is not an attempt to ascribe human behavior to them, but to better understand them. As the superior species, the moral choice is to care for the less capable species within sensible limits.
We are trying to define universal ethics, and its origins. I do agree that ethics should be the same for all humans, but defining them is difficult. There is a part of me that thinks that I should not ever be surprised to be punched in the face if I am selfishly taking longer than necessary at a soda fountain while others wait. Obviously, as a rational individual, I would not want that to happen to me, nor would I do that to someone else, but where is this ethics/morality line, and how do we reconcile natural instinct and universal ethics?
Please keep in mind, I am new to this forum, probably much less educated than most on here, and have only read a small number of Rand's writings. I am a huge fan of what I have read and learned and only trying to build an arsenal of rebuttals to questions I think I might come across in dealing with non rational people.