About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, December 24, 2013 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'd agree that "moral perfection" in achieving rule based ethics is easy... so long as the rules don't contradict themselves nor rule out performing essential life needs. Such "moral perfection" is a trivial problem to solve.

Aristotelian virtue ethics which have no upper bounds on attainment (such as "control of useful resources") the concept of "perfect" attainment is nonsense: no matter how much you control, you could conceivably control more. Only the ideas like "more optimal" are valid.

Its impossible for an entity within a reality to determine whether a particular choice is optimal for their own individual goals: due to information and computational limitations of being a subset of the reality. Hence its impossible to continually determining and performing "perfectly optimal" actions which maximize goal attainment. We can only approach optimal and use our own best judgement on whether our actions were better than other possibles in our past context. Determining what is more optimal is an exceedingly difficult problem to solve due to the infinite number of plans one could perform and the difficulty in predicting the effects of our actions in an extremely complex reality.

Post 1

Wednesday, December 25, 2013 - 9:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A better goal would be to maximize your values. Moral worth, if it is to be measured at all, should be in terms of what values you achieve and how well you improve your life. It should be judged by how well you avoid certain choices, since that shifts focus from your life to a set of rules





Joe, given the fact that man makes so many mistakes about what is of value to him, shouldn't we have at least a basic and simple universal morality to be applied to all human beings?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Thursday, December 26, 2013 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute (Atlas Shrugged, 974)
This looks fine intention-wise but vague in practice. Suppose you think you could have acted better upon reflection, but you did not so act because you were diligently thinking about something else that you deemed more important.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 12/26, 11:52am)


Post 3

Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 8:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,
Suppose you think you could have acted better upon reflection, but you did not so act because you were diligently thinking about something else that you deemed more important
From Rand's description it would seem that if they were diligently thinking about something else, and in no way purposely avoiding thinking about the other thing, it would be a matter of their knowledge at the time, or of the intelligence available to them - both of which she exempted - therefore not a lack of moral perfection no matter what hindsight reveals. The measure of one's moral perfection, from her description of it, would be the degree to which one did not engage in denial, rationalization, avoidance, emotionalism, etc.

Post 4

Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 9:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

Excellent article.

Ciro, you asked Joe "...given the fact that man makes so many mistakes about what is of value to him, shouldn't we have at least a basic and simple universal morality to be applied to all human beings? Joe can answer for himself, of course, but I'd say that we can NOT not have a universal morality. A universal moral code is nothing more than the set of values that, given human nature, are common to all humans. They are what they are whether they are known by someone or not, accepted by someone or not, and await our discovery.

Life would be a common value to all - and that wouldn't change because of unusual circumstances - like having a very painful, fatal disease that might make death for that individual, in that circumstance, a greater value. Even in that exception, it is the purpose of happiness and the standard of the individual's self-interest, that drive the application of the universal values.

I agree with your approach, in that the application of individual rights (which are universal moral principles that apply to social situations) makes it possible for each individual to have a shot at a much better life.

Rand said, "Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life." Note that the standard she mentions is "that which is proper to man" - a set of universal values drawn from human nature. And that the application, and purpose, are located in the furthering of the individual's life.

It is a complex abstraction where we start with our individual purpose of being happy and flourishing, which at any time is set in a context of the choices we are being presented with, and we go from there to what is of value to man qua man (without this reference values lose objectivity and become subjective), and then we come back to our individual life in the moment to decide among the choices.

That would be far too tedious to perform for each and every choice we are presented with which is why a body of knowledge (morality) that is examined, reviewed, studied and then accepted is the most sensible way to structure this.

Post 5

Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 9:25amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe,

You wrote:
Morality is a means of making choices to further your life. If moral perfection becomes the goal, the focus shifts from living your life well to achieving some kind of moral status. It perverts the point of morality
True. But it isn't always an either-or. Moral perfection can rationally be a goal, but only as long as it is always subservient to the goal of living a happy life.

A parallel would be the use of measurement. Engineers make a goal of measuring the dimensions and angles in construction of a product, but it is a goal that is fully subservient to the higher goal of the optimal construction of the item, and not as a purpose in itself. If, as Rand described it, moral perfection is an unbreached rationality, then I can step back now and then, and take a measurement. One thing I can look at is whether I'm employing my rationality in ways that best suits my happiness. I should only be focused on moral perfection to the degree and in those ways that ensure optimal success in flourishing, and not as an end in itself. Someone who gets lost in moral perfection, no matter how it is defined, is avoiding actual life.

Post 6

Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 10:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ciro,

The problem with a "simple and universal morality" is that it defines morality as something outside of your life and self-interest.

Morality is required by every person because we have to weigh choices. You are constantly confronted with choices in life. You have tons of options. Should you post on RoR? Go experiment with a new dish? Count how much money you have? Go have a romantic evening with a loved one? Or even things like burn down your house or hit your head against a wall. We have to make choices, and that means we need a method of evaluating those options.

Evaluation is the fundamental concern of morality. And each person must perform those evaluations every minute of every day. You can't just copy my choices. The options that you face are unique to you. Your skill sets and mine are different. Our friends are different. Are bank accounts are different. Our goals in life are different.

Morality provides you the means of making those evaluations. Life as the standard, in whatever way you understand it, provides a method of deciding that one options is better or worse than another option. And you constantly have to use that basic method, of weighing your options, to make decisions in your life.

What most people think of as morality is different. It is a set of rules that restrict your choices. Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't lie. This kind of "morality" does not deal with evaluations. It does not say an option is better or worse than another. It is a substitute for evaluation. It tells you to not bother comparing the options, and instead either reject or choose one based on compliance with a rule.

This latter approach has significant problems. I don't think there's any rule that is universally beneficial for all people in all contexts. But even if there were, such a rule would provide little actual guidance for living your life. You'd still have a massive range of options, including many that are destructive. Take the Non-Initiation of Force Principle, but that still allows deceit, betrayal, insults, emotion turmoil, wastefulness, ignorance, annoyance, addiction, etc. Even without initiating force, you can thoroughly wreck your life and may those of others around you.

So to avoid those other things, you need more and more rules. But finding any rule that works for everyone in every context is hard enough. Finding hundreds or thousands of such rules?

How about taking a simple one? Don't lie. If your morality doesn't tell you not to lie, you can hurt yourself and anyone who believes you. So maybe you want a rule that says no lying. But really? Never lying? The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Telling people they look ugly? Telling secrets to anyone who asks? No privacy? No sensitivity?

The more rules there are, the more likely that the rules will be telling you to do something that isn't in your interests. You can construct a moral belief system that has lots of rules, but only by sacrificing the idea of a morality aimed at improving your life.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 10:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin, I also have issues with that quote.

Moral perfection should mean the perfect application of morality. But if the purpose of morality is to allow us to live our lives well, why would the definition not be concerned with whether we have lived them well? Doesn't that suggest that goal of morality is something else? To be rational, I guess?

I also don't like this view, which I've seen several Objectivists promote, that action and productivity are somehow included in the concept of rationality. "If you are really rational, you'd act on your best judgment."

In the quote you gave, either action is irrelevant to moral perfection, or it is seen as part of rationality. But then "unbreached rationality" has some much more wide-reaching meaning. You might think it means that you don't evade, that you don't accept things on faith, that you don't lie to yourself, etc. That's fairly clear and relatively easy to talk about "perfection". But if every thought and action is part of the definition or rationality, moral perfect becomes extremely vague and likely impossible to pursue.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 10:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

I agree completely that if moral perfection is limited to following a few simple, non-contradictory rules, it's relatively easy. But as you said, if you take a view of morality where there is "no upper bounds on attainment", moral perfection becomes nonsense. Well said.

I'll just add that while you can make moral perfection possible by limiting it to adherence to a few rules, what's the point? Moral perfection is now divorced from living a good life and is more focused on achieving an arbitrary status. It's like reaching a high score on a video game. Good for status, and that's about it.



Post 9

Sunday, December 29, 2013 - 11:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve, I think this is part of a longstanding disagreement between us on the role of moral status.

"A parallel would be the use of measurement. Engineers make a goal of measuring the dimensions and angles in construction of a product, but it is a goal that is fully subservient to the higher goal of the optimal construction of the item, and not as a purpose in itself."

This is a good example. The measuring of dimensions and angles in this case is entirely subsumed by the goal of the optimal construction. You need those measurements to ensure success. They are necessary steps. They are points along the same line.

Moral status is different. It isn't a necessary goal in the pursuit of living your life. It doesn't move along the same line. I think it creates an alternative, competing goal. You act in order to feel good about yourself (and that feeling is based on the achievement of the moral status). The actions taken aren't to improve your life.

Some actions are specifically aimed at improving your life. For instance, you might decide to install a new bookshelf, or to meet someone new, or to ask someone on a date, or to finish that project you've been working on. You might learn a new skill, improve your vocabulary, or get rid of problems in your life. These are all actions taken to improve your life.

But moral status is a conflicting goal. When someone tells a loved one that they look fat because they think being honest is more morally pure, he isn't trying to improve his life (it's possible to tell someone that in the hopes that the other person will lose weight or something, but that's not the example here). When an altruist gives more money because he feels he should, it is a case of pursuing moral status. When an Objectivist breaks up with a girl because she isn't Dagny Taggart, this is a (misguided) aim at moral status.

When you're seeking moral status, it is not like measuring the angles in the construction. It is more like engineers adding unnecessary complexity and risk into the design in order to make themselves look more creative.

And of course when moral status is the goal, morality tends to be reshaped to make that goal possible. If you seek moral perfection, you'll take a limited view of morality where following a few rules is enough. Instead of keeping a focus on your life and ways to make it better and more enjoyable, you'll keep your eyes focused on some arbitrary criteria for the moral status and whether you've achieved it.


Post 10

Wednesday, January 1, 2014 - 2:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe, you wrote:
Steve, I think this is part of a longstanding disagreement between us on the role of moral status.

[You quoted me saying:] "A parallel would be the use of measurement. Engineers make a goal of measuring the dimensions and angles in construction of a product, but it is a goal that is fully subservient to the higher goal of the optimal construction of the item, and not as a purpose in itself."

[And gave your reply:] This is a good example. The measuring of dimensions and angles in this case is entirely subsumed by the goal of the optimal construction. You need those measurements to ensure success. They are necessary steps. They are points along the same line.

Moral status is different. It isn't a necessary goal in the pursuit of living your life. It doesn't move along the same line. I think it creates an alternative, competing goal. You act in order to feel good about yourself (and that feeling is based on the achievement of the moral status). The actions taken aren't to improve your life.
That is a very accurate summary of our differences. I would say that I'm not focused on moral STATUS as such, but on what morality is and how it helps us in pursuing our self-interest. The status becomes secondary - it becomes a measurement of less importance than many others. I would agree that people who adopt a morality in order to serve it - i.e, who are acting towards "an alternative, competing goal" - are missing the point - they are misusing morality. Moral status should be defined as simple means of checking to see if we are serving our self-interest through properly using morality, or if there is a malfunction we need to address (bad principle, logic error, evasion, etc.)
---------------

Here are a few of the ways in which we are in agreement:
  • Morality and self-interest should not conflict. If they do, there is an error to be found.
  • There are many people who adopt the goal of achieving a moral status in a way that makes it the end goal. That is a mistake on their part. Moral status should never be primary goal.
  • Those people who adopt moral status as a primary goal in their life will most likely, as you point out, become rule oriented in a way that divorces them from their self-interest, and tend to adopt changes to morality that make this goal more attainable. They are seeing the pursuit of life through a warping prism.
  • "Morality is required by every person because we have to weigh choices. You are constantly confronted with choices in life. You have tons of options."
  • "Evaluation is the fundamental concern of morality."
----------------------
...[W]e aren't stuck with just two choices. We have many possible options. We have to choose among all of them. And so we can't be asking simple Boolean questions like is this okay or not okay. We need to weigh the choices. We need to measure all of our options on a single scale and determine which is the best. What is that scale? For Objectivists, that scale uses you life as the standard. You weigh the options based on their expected impact on your life. In other words, you weight he costs and benefits.
I agree with all of that. But I see different implications.
  • Methodology: I don't see that we have to pile every single option on the scale each time - at the same time. We have some things we have already weighed and examined and accepted. If there is no current evidence that they need to be re-weighed, re-examined, then we already know what they weigh (in similar contexts).
  • Our Capacities: The process of weighing is such that we can't hold everything on the scale at once (i.e., in consciousness at once). We summarize, encapsulate, and weigh anew only what the current context calls for examining. For example, I don't have to reexamine the rationality for using life as a standard with each and every choice. But if I were in excruciating pain that could not be eliminated due to a disease that could not be cured, then I would have to ask how having a standard of life applies to my self-interest in that context because the option of suicide needs to be weighed. It is the very existence of the many possible options - millions of them - that means we need means of summarizing them, categorizing them, and then - with good methodology - it becomes possible to make choices. I'd say that not using a moral code where we have created 'rules' it would not be possible to avoid letting emotions decide which option to choose.
  • The Process: We need to use a rational methodology (a set of principles rationally derived for this area of knowledge) to establish those things that could be seen as "benefits" and to understand what the "costs" are in a context. I maintain that we have to establish and maintain our code of values as the tools that we manipulate in the process of establishing a cost-benefit analysis for a given set of options.
  • Universality: Some values can be derived from human nature, and therefore apply to all humans and that is of value in formulating things like individual rights which in turn are (make that should be) used to derive objective laws that will help make an optimal environment for all people to pursue their self-interests.
Theoretically, there are three approaches, within the context of our disagreement, to making moral choices.
- 1. A massive (and impractical) number of hard rules that must be obeyed, and we are guided by 'moral status' - we both agree that this one is wrong. It is very concrete bound. Examples of this are the Bible study groups that spend enormous amounts of time trying to decipher all the possible moral rules and understandings from interpretations of scripture.
- 2. Your approach of making morality not so much a field of knowledge and principles as it is the understanding of the fact that self-interest, guided by the standard of one's life, is the way that each of many options available are examined. And that there are no universal rules that should be followed because that will never make for an improvement over the cost/benefit analysis of self-interest and often makes things far worse. (Let me know if I am mis-stating your position).
- 3. Morality as a body of knowledge that derives the standard for values, the methods and principles to apply and those values that are universal due to having been derived from human nature. That we must have a way to summarize, as much as possible, all possible occurrences (by context) into usable rules (and categories) so that we can manage the otherwise unmanageable task of intelligently handling the huge number of options that are present for each person, each day. Moral status is simply a minor guide to tell us if we are within the bounds of the rules we have accepted AND still pursuing our self-interest. A negative reading on our behavior might be a sign of failed integrity (a conflict needs to be resolved), or that we have adopted a bad rule (our self-interest isn't being served), or that we are making an error in the application of a rule (context understanding failure?), etc.

We pursue the application of science in the same way - we grasp the nature of the subject matter, formulate principles - discover laws - and then we attempt to make use of this to get a result that we want. Without all the condensation of all of the layers of knowledge into workable rules we couldn't engineer productive activities based up that knowledge. A savage can't convert his grasp of reality in workable actions that further his self-interest for more than the tiniest bit - he can't create a constitution, structure rules of evidence for a court, evaluate long-term options requiring complicated risk analysis. We need a science of morality to enable us each to be better at operating it - it is the car, self-interest a generalized statement of where we want to drive it, and we have to study and understand what is required to be able to drive a car from here to there.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.