• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Moral Primitives

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
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'm afraid I don't see those things as primitives.

For me, the only real "moral primitive" is our human nature. And because our human nature is complex, so is the resulting moral world in which we find ourselves.

We are social animals that do something most social animals do not do: we can also think for ourselves. So yes, well-being plays a part, because the self (unlike bees or ants, other social animals) is not so ready to sacrifice itself for the good of the social unit.

Yet, as social animals, we require the support of our fellow social animals, and in return we give that support back -- but we are capable, when it suits our own purposes, of defaulting on that reciprocity.

But we are also intelligent animals -- we can reason from what is to what may result. And I think that's why Hillel's dictum works so well for me. Notice, for example, that it is subtly different from the usual Golden Rule of "Do unto others what would you have them do unto you." Rather, it reads (I paraphrase), "That which you wouldn't like done to you, don't do to anybody else."
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Notice, for example, that it is subtly different from the usual Golden Rule of "Do unto others what would you have them do unto you." Rather, it reads (I paraphrase), "That which you wouldn't like done to you, don't do to anybody else."
Also known as the Silver Rule.
My favourite rendering of the principle of reciprocity is Kant's categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
It takes into account that it is not only a tit-for-tat but that your behaviour forms the society you are living in.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I would argue that one necessary precondition of all morals is the Other. Morals only make sense when there exists a relationship between two or more individuals.

One could even argue that equality, freedom, and self-determination are all derived from this fundamental constellation.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I would argue that one necessary precondition of all morals is the Other. Morals only make sense when there exists a relationship between two or more individuals.

One could even argue that equality, freedom, and self-determination are all derived from this fundamental constellation.
I agree somewhat. It is a prerequisite to have morals, but it isn't a moral primitive.

There is one other thing I'm not sure if it should be included into the primitives, that is self preservation. It is often a stumbling block in arguments about killing. To kill someone is against well being, against self determinism and it is against equality (if I kill one, why should not an other kill me?).
But we allow killing in self defence. So self preservation beats freedom, equality and well being. But we usually don't include it as a moral goal.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I think all virtues are moral primitives and the capacity to be virtuous is the basis of how we can establish basic equality.

Equality is important because it establishes that we judge people on character and not by achievement. Equality ensures us against oppressive dictatorships.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
There are so many virtues and not all agree upon them. Can you list yours?
I have about 40 to 100. Things like honesty, compassion, deserve, patience, discretion, wisdom, humility, love, charity, care, reason, justification, benevolence, etc.

I think virtues work together as a whole.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I have about 40 to 100. Things like honesty, compassion, deserve, patience, discretion, wisdom, humility, love, charity, care, reason, justification, benevolence, etc.

I think virtues work together as a whole.
I think there is a greater danger that they work against another. Many of them can be reduced to a primitive or a combination of primitives, some can't or lead to contradictions on the way.
By dissecting the virtues and see how they build on primitives, we gain better understanding. It is the way we got rid of things that were once thought as moral or at least put them in their place. Without that we'd still have slavery, women without voting rights and capital punishment for minor offences.
 
I think the ideal of equality was always there but not always had the weight we put to it today. I attribute the current focus on an evolution of morals.
Equality and fairness is in our nature, we are extremely gifted to detect inequality and unfair deal.

Equity would seem to be far more important than equality. You both mentioned fairness, which I think is correct, but fairness is not necessarily about equality.

We can accept many inequalities as long as we judge them to be fair or reasonable.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I think there is a greater danger that they work against another. Many of them can be reduced to a primitive or a combination of primitives, some can't or lead to contradictions on the way.
By dissecting the virtues and see how they build on primitives, we gain better understanding. It is the way we got rid of things that were once thought as moral or at least put them in their place. Without that we'd still have slavery, women without voting rights and capital punishment for minor offences.

There is the danger of inadequately defining a virtue or misapplying the virtue. I still think they are to be taken collectively with other virtues if it's done right. I think all virtues hinge on our judgment of deserve using wise discretion. It's up to humans to make wise judgment decisions but I think we can find objective truth to base our decisions off of.

To me there are four components of how humans make judgments: 1) the heart of our judgments, 2) the will of our judgments, 3) the mind aspect, 4) and how these translate to actions. If our hearts and wills are in the right places our decisions will be way more beneficial to humanity and then it's a matter of understanding how to take action.

If a person misses the heart of the virtues then they miss the whole point of being virtuous.

I don't think virtues contradict each other. They could if we erroneously believe that honesty is telling the whole truth without regards to deserve. It's all in how you define them.

The thing about virtues is that one can only apply them to one's self. No one can force others to be virtuous.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think of moral primitives as those retaining or exhibiting archaic traits, such as the narrowly focused morality of tribalism.

But you're using 'primitive' as a noun, an essential element, like Haidt's moral foundations.
Moral foundations theory - Wikipedia

Well being. A moral element when extended to a larger group. A turtle or bear seeks well being, but it's focused too narrowly to be considered a moral element.
Self Determination. A step in moral development, perhaps, but individual. I think of morality more as applying in groups.
Could you expand on this one?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Self Determination. A step in moral development, perhaps, but individual. I think of morality more as applying in groups.
Could you expand on this one?
I focus less on moral development and more on the dissection of our moral thinking. And while self determination is more on the mind of the adolescent, we don't like to be told what to do throughout our life. We see even violent rebellion as morally justified when it goes against an oppressor. That holds for individuals as well as for groups.
We just value our illusion of free will, sometimes higher than well being or equality. Therefore I put it as a primitive.
 
Top