Moral Primitives

[Tambourine]

True, but without those qualifiers I think of socialism as the "real existing socialism" the people enjoyed for 40 years in part of Germany.

Despite what its own propaganda would like to tell you, the GDR was not an egalitarian society.

 

[Heyo]

How so?

They don't like capitalism as it produces a money elite but they stress "solidarity" in the class struggle - which is an euphemism for not wanting deviant opinions. But I don't want to make this political, this is a philosophical discussion of morals.

 

[Rival]

But if you're born into a world where such things are the norm, would most people even recognize them as unfair? Especially if your religion teaches that Almighty God ordered things this way?
Tom

Exactly. It's my view that most if not all of what we consider innate ethics are not so and are given us by our culture. I don't believe we have an innate morality.

 

[Heyo]

Despite what its own propaganda would like to tell you, the GDR was not an egalitarian society.

As I said to Secret Chief, I don't want to go into politics here.

 

[Nakosis]

This is about moral primitives not about primitive morals.
A primitive is a basic element, like elementary particles are primitives in physics or a phoneme in linguistics.

While many view well being as the single primitive to that all morality can be traced back, I assert that at least three primitives have to exist for a full explanation of morality.
Well being is, of course, one of them but without
equality (fairness) the set is not complete. (In my personal view equality is even more important than well being but for the sake of argument I will assume that all primitives are of equal importance.)
But sometimes even well being and equality can not solve all moral questions. We also have to have
self-determination as a moral goal.
So, basically, Liberté, Egalité. Fraternité.

Do you agree?
Do you have a primitive to add?
Do you think the set can be reduced?

I don't see equality as fairness. People get what they deserve, this is not necessarily equality. I want to receive what I deserve. This doesn't mean I want to be equal to Bill Gates. Well being and self determination is all I really need. I don't expect a fair world nor expect to be treated fairly. I don't feel I need to treat people equally, I choose however to treat them fairly, if you can understand the difference.

 

[Tambourine]

As I said to Secret Chief, I don't want to go into politics here.

If you didn't want to go into politics, then why did you bring up "socialists" in the first place?

 

[columbus]

Exactly. It's my view that most if not all of what we consider innate ethics are not so and are given us by our culture. I don't believe we have an innate morality.

I don't think we have innate morality either. Some vague instincts towards social behavior in tribe. But the vast majority is learned behavior.

Unfortunately, humans aren't really all that smart and we don't always learn solid morals.
Tom

 

[Heyo]

Exactly. It's my view that most if not all of what we consider innate ethics are not so and are given us by our culture. I don't believe we have an innate morality.

We have innate behaviour patterns that are the basic of our morality.
Ethics, while influenced by morality, are completely a social construct.

 

[Heyo]

If you didn't want to go into politics, then why did you bring up "socialists" in the first place?

I didn't.

 

[Rival]

We have innate behaviour patterns that are the basic of our morality.

I think we call these things 'morals' but are really just behaviours that strengthen the group; and emphasis on group, given how we treat those outside the group.

 

[columbus]

We have innate behaviour patterns that are the basic of our morality.

We also have a batch of innate behavior patterns that are very immoral. Theft, impulsive sex, murderous tribalism, such behavior helps spread our genes in the amoral natural world.

By and large, I think people behave in an immoral fashion when our instincts override our learned behaviours. All too often, humans just aren't smart enough to avoid that. We know better, or at least should know better, but we go ahead and act like we don't.
Tom

 

[Heyo]

I think we call these things 'morals' but are really just behaviours that strengthen the group; and emphasis on group, given how we treat those outside the group.

Yes, much of our behaviour is tribal. Much of our ethics mirror that tribalism but sometimes the ethics are not in sync with the change of the size of our tribes. The size of our (perceived) tribe is an evolutionary pressure on our morals.

 

[Nakosis]

We have innate behaviour patterns that are the basic of our morality.
Ethics, while influenced by morality, are completely a social construct.

There is group morality, maybe what you call ethics, and self morality. They tend to influence each other. I see my morals, what I see as right and wrong, a mixture of genetics, culture and experience. Sometimes I understand a logical reason behind my ideas of right and wrong, sometimes I don't. I like what I like, don't like what I don't, can't always explain why. Though when I think I can perhaps I'm just trying to rationalize how I feel.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But if you're born into a world where such things are the norm, would most people even recognize them as unfair? Especially if your religion teaches that Almighty God ordered things this way?
Tom

I recall vaguely an interview in the late 1970's between a journalist and a young adult Indian woman regarding the inequality of lower classes in her country and she could not understand. She had been raised with so much and no idea about how wanting her economically depressed fellow citizens were. She took her lifestyle for granted and never bothered to think about or was never exposed to the harsher realities of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is about moral primitives not about primitive morals.
A primitive is a basic element, like elementary particles are primitives in physics or a phoneme in linguistics.

While many view well being as the single primitive to that all morality can be traced back, I assert that at least three primitives have to exist for a full explanation of morality.
Well being is, of course, one of them but without
equality (fairness) the set is not complete. (In my personal view equality is even more important than well being but for the sake of argument I will assume that all primitives are of equal importance.)
But sometimes even well being and equality can not solve all moral questions. We also have to have
self-determination as a moral goal.
So, basically, Liberté, Egalité. Fraternité.

Do you agree?
Do you have a primitive to add?
Do you think the set can be reduced?

Seems to me that doing unto others as you would have done to you is a basic moral precept.

 

[Heyo]

Seems to me that doing unto others as you would have done to you is a basic moral precept.

It's a moral imperative combining multiple primitives. See my answer to sun rise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's a moral imperative combining multiple primitives. See my answer to sun rise.

I suppose that is true. It would include more basic morals if I understand your use of primitive as equivalent to basal.

I always classed it as a form of enlightened self interest in a sense. You are doing something (or not doing something) and expecting the same in return. While altruism would be doing it without expectation of any return. What do you think?

 

[epronovost]

'I want what he has' is very common, yes. Children will also tantrum because 'it's not fair when she gets a cookie, just because she did her homework and I didn't!' This is not a good measure of anything, especially in light of the fact that our brains are not developed until 25, according to modern scientific theory.

If equality meant so much to us, it would have appeared so much earlier in human history, but it simply didn't. We prioritise our own well-being and if our own well-being profits from slavery, we will do that. Human societies exist in tiered groups when they exist on a large scale; we have seen time and again that trying to make everyone equal does not and apparently cannot work.

And this is where, once again, you skip over an important detail: othering. Equality and fairness is of paramount importance to human as demonstrated by this experiment. People want to be treated like others. You can repeat it with teens and adults and you will get the same result too. The only escape hatch is othering. People who supported slavery or any sort of inequalities justified the inequalities by appealing to a precise conception of fairness and equality. The "other" doesn't deserve the cookie because they aren't like "us" thus I deserve it more. It would be unfair for "others" to be the same as "us". The idea is to try to maintain a perception of equality and fairness even if it flies in the face of reality. Nobody likes inequalities, but a LOT of people love tribalism. That's why you can have generous loving people condoning horrible things simultaneously.

 

[Heyo]

I suppose that is true. It would include more basic morals if I understand your use of primitive as equivalent to basal.

I always classed it as a form of enlightened self interest in a sense. You are doing something (or not doing something) and expecting the same in return. While altruism would be doing it without expectation of any return. What do you think?

Yes, I think that is a good description. The self interest lies primary not on personal gain but more on the interest to live in an enjoyable society.
One of the best tools to reflect on morals is the Veil of Ignorance. It is simply the question "How would you design a society to live in when you don't know who you will be."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I think that is a good description. The self interest lies primary not on personal gain but more on the interest to live in an enjoyable society.
One of the best tools to reflect on morals is the Veil of Ignorance. It is simply the question "How would you design a society to live in when you don't know who you will be."

What a fascinating idea. You certainly would not want to make rules that would go against yourself if you ended up in the group that was the butt of those rules.