4 ms·

You give a good example: which policies towards the market create more wealth (on average, various things being equal) is a matter of fact. But I think this sor

by curi 19y ago

You give a good example: which policies towards the market create more wealth (on average, various things being equal) is a matter of fact. But I think this sort of non-arbitrary approach to thinking has much wider applicability, and indeed that all interesting subjects can be approached in a careful, meaningful way not based on personal taste. Which policies are ethical, with "ethics" rightly construed, is also a matter of fact. Morality is about how to live, and it's not a religious concept. The notion that morality is (and must be) religious is unfortunately a bad, religious idea, that (oddly) most atheists still believe. Just to get started, we can consider which lifestyles do and do not accomplish their own internal goals. Lifestyles that do not are bad ways to live -- they are "immoral". We don't have to use moral terminology; that isn't important. But whatever you call it, there are objective facts about how we should or shouldn't live. And there's better than that. You can take a very wide variety of goals, and examine how to achieve them. And you can find common points -- certain ways of life are good for achieving many goals, while others are not. These common points, which make people powerful and able to accomplish things in general, are an important, useful, and objective find the field of morality.

lg 19y ago
It's funny that you think a lifestyle is immoral if it doesn't accomplish its own "internal goals." I think that's wrong, and not just in pathological cases. I might be an ultracompetitive misanthrope who lives to be on top (gordon-gecko-ish capitalist). But the way I get there (startup? investing?) might end up helping lots of people; maybe helping them surpass me. Was I immoral, because I didn't accomplish my goal to be number one? I'd rather have more of those people than more couch potatoes complaining about the immorality of powerful people.
- curi 19y ago
  That was a brief summary and one can say it more carefully. Most importantly, immorality is not a boolean thing. If you aren't accomplishing a goal, it'd be an improvement (more moral, a better way of life) to either change your approach, or change your goal. It is less moral (a worse way of life, immoral) to continue with a lifestyle that is failing by its own criteria of success and failure. That needs the caveat that we only mean goals you actually intend to accomplish. We don't mean vague goals, and we definitely don't mean the sort of goal you would be happy to partially achieve -- in that case, the real goal is just making progress towards ... your "goal". (It's the same word, but it's a different concept than the one I mean). Back to your points, you say that even if you fail by your own standards, you might help others, and the net effect of your life may be positive. That's absolutely true. However, it'd be even better (more moral) if you did the same actions, but had wiser goals, which those actions were achieving. Then you'd help others, but also consider your own life successful.
  - lg 19y ago
    I was saying that failing to achieve your goals can be moral. I'll add that it can be morally better than succeeding at them. Now you say, well yes but it'd be better if you had better goals in the first place. So I think the lesson is: it's not consistency between goals and outcomes that matters for morality; what matters is the morality of those goals and outcomes.
    - curi 19y ago
      I think we are talking past each other. You are talking about morality, in the common sense semi-religious meaning. I am talking about "morality" referring only to the propositions I'd just put forward about how to live. When you say "failing to achieve your goals can be moral" you are not using the word in the way I did. As far as consistency, can you give one good reason it would be a good way to live to make choices in a way that won't achieve the results you are hoping for? If not, then that is my point: that is a bad way of life. It might, by good luck, turn out well, but it doesn't work reliably, and better ways of life are available.
  - yters 19y ago
    Mustn't goals themselves be good or bad, regardless of whether they're achievable? Or would you say that goals, such as Hitler's, were bad only b/c eugenics ultimately would be bad from an evolutionary point of view? Then, there is a the problem of heroism, which is defined by a person's courage to pursue a noble goal even if its achievement is very unlikely. Finally, by your definition, I could be one of the most moral people by making my goal "do whatever I want." Everyone is always doing whatever they want, at least at some level. This would pretty much render all talk of morality pointless. But, I suppose I'm being too literal with your definition.
    - curi 19y ago
      These are just starting points. I do think goals are themselves good or bad, but it's much harder to explain how you can objectively make assertions like that, so I wanted to make the lesser claim, for now: there are ways to explore morality objectively. I'm definitely not claiming consistency of this sort is the only criterion of morality. Only that it's an important and objective one. I don't mean to be a tease, but if I say too many things at once, I won't be understood as well. On the other hand, threads here go stale fast (usually in under a day), so I'm not sure how to ever get very far in explaining, here. By contrast, on another forum, I am in a thread that has been going for 4 years. And it's only 180 comments long -- so around 1 comment per 8 days. I'll keep posting here if anyone replies. Or contact me, curi42 on AIM or curi@curi.us So for depth, my best idea so far is to link longer, external writing. Here are two things I wrote about morality which explain my views a bit more: Essay: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii Dialog: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality

by curi 19y ago

lg 19y ago

It's funny that you think a lifestyle is immoral if it doesn't accomplish its own "internal goals." I think that's wrong, and not just in pathological cases. I might be an ultracompetitive misanthrope who lives to be on top (gordon-gecko-ish capitalist). But the way I get there (startup? investing?) might end up helping lots of people; maybe helping them surpass me. Was I immoral, because I didn't accomplish my goal to be number one? I'd rather have more of those people than more couch potatoes complaining about the immorality of powerful people.

curi 19y ago
That was a brief summary and one can say it more carefully. Most importantly, immorality is not a boolean thing. If you aren't accomplishing a goal, it'd be an improvement (more moral, a better way of life) to either change your approach, or change your goal. It is less moral (a worse way of life, immoral) to continue with a lifestyle that is failing by its own criteria of success and failure. That needs the caveat that we only mean goals you actually intend to accomplish. We don't mean vague goals, and we definitely don't mean the sort of goal you would be happy to partially achieve -- in that case, the real goal is just making progress towards ... your "goal". (It's the same word, but it's a different concept than the one I mean). Back to your points, you say that even if you fail by your own standards, you might help others, and the net effect of your life may be positive. That's absolutely true. However, it'd be even better (more moral) if you did the same actions, but had wiser goals, which those actions were achieving. Then you'd help others, but also consider your own life successful.
- lg 19y ago
  I was saying that failing to achieve your goals can be moral. I'll add that it can be morally better than succeeding at them. Now you say, well yes but it'd be better if you had better goals in the first place. So I think the lesson is: it's not consistency between goals and outcomes that matters for morality; what matters is the morality of those goals and outcomes.
  - curi 19y ago
    I think we are talking past each other. You are talking about morality, in the common sense semi-religious meaning. I am talking about "morality" referring only to the propositions I'd just put forward about how to live. When you say "failing to achieve your goals can be moral" you are not using the word in the way I did. As far as consistency, can you give one good reason it would be a good way to live to make choices in a way that won't achieve the results you are hoping for? If not, then that is my point: that is a bad way of life. It might, by good luck, turn out well, but it doesn't work reliably, and better ways of life are available.
- yters 19y ago
  Mustn't goals themselves be good or bad, regardless of whether they're achievable? Or would you say that goals, such as Hitler's, were bad only b/c eugenics ultimately would be bad from an evolutionary point of view? Then, there is a the problem of heroism, which is defined by a person's courage to pursue a noble goal even if its achievement is very unlikely. Finally, by your definition, I could be one of the most moral people by making my goal "do whatever I want." Everyone is always doing whatever they want, at least at some level. This would pretty much render all talk of morality pointless. But, I suppose I'm being too literal with your definition.
  - curi 19y ago
    These are just starting points. I do think goals are themselves good or bad, but it's much harder to explain how you can objectively make assertions like that, so I wanted to make the lesser claim, for now: there are ways to explore morality objectively. I'm definitely not claiming consistency of this sort is the only criterion of morality. Only that it's an important and objective one. I don't mean to be a tease, but if I say too many things at once, I won't be understood as well. On the other hand, threads here go stale fast (usually in under a day), so I'm not sure how to ever get very far in explaining, here. By contrast, on another forum, I am in a thread that has been going for 4 years. And it's only 180 comments long -- so around 1 comment per 8 days. I'll keep posting here if anyone replies. Or contact me, curi42 on AIM or curi@curi.us So for depth, my best idea so far is to link longer, external writing. Here are two things I wrote about morality which explain my views a bit more: Essay: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1252-xii Dialog: http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality http://www.curi.us/blog/post/1169-morality