Thread: vaulting the is/ought barrier

i have a theory that it is possible to root our moral value statements in the soil of reason by identifying one goal that is not just common to all human beings, like hunger (we’re all aiming to fill different bellies), but is actually shared by all human beings (or at least by the vast majority of us, with dissent being statistically negligible).

our best options for moving toward this (practically) universal aim could be determined by considering relevant information provided through scientific inquiry, empirical observation, critical thinking, etc. (what i refer to as 'rationally obtained pertinent information' or ropi for short)

the universal aim, combined with ropi, together create a context, within which the truth or falsity (or truth-value) of all moral value statements can be determined. i refer to this unique yet ubiquitous context as the universal moral-value legitimizing context.

what i propose is that the biologically inherent impulse of all forms of life to not just survive but thrive wherever possible constitutes just such a universal aim. (it has recently been brought to my attention that this concept of 'the universal aim' is basically identical, to albert schweitzer's concept of 'the will to live' which he employs toward similar--yet sufficiently dissimilar--ends.)

my argument is a direct response to hume's is/ought barrier (as implied by the title) and depends on the philosophically uncontroversial idea that value statements concerning goal oriented behavior can be unproblematically assigned truth value.

i'd really love to get any kind of feedback on this.

note: i wrote an article about this with a very wide audience in mind (not that i have an audience). so if you'd like more explanation of any of this, you can currently find the article at the top of the front page of my blog, which i've tentatively named 'anomic'.

Originally Posted by kfrancist

i have a theory that it is possible to root our moral value statements in the soil of reason by identifying one goal that is not just common to all human beings, like hunger (we’re all aiming to fill different bellies), but is actually shared by at least the vast majority of our entire species (with dissent being statistically negligible). .

I can't get past your opening sentence. You set up to scenarios:
1. one goal that is common to all human beings
2. one goal that is shared by at least the vast majority of our entire species

The only difference between these is that 2. allows for some people not to have this as a goal. Otherwise, the two are identical, yet you set them in contrast with each other, with the second implicitly elevated to a 'higher', more desirable level. I just don't get it. Please clarify.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

I can't get past your opening sentence. You set up to scenarios:
1. one goal that is common to all human beings
2. one goal that is shared by at least the vast majority of our entire species

The only difference between these is that 2. allows for some people not to have this as a goal. Otherwise, the two are identical, yet you set them in contrast with each other, with the second implicitly elevated to a 'higher', more desirable level. I just don't get it. Please clarify.

i see how that might cause some confusion. perhaps stating it this way will make it clearer:

...by identifying one goal that is not just common to all of us, like hunger (we’re all aiming to fill different bellies), but is actually shared by all of us...

the problem i had with putting it that way in the first place was that it seems unlikely that there's any goal that absolutely every human being will agree on.

but hopefully it's clear now, that what i'm elevating to the more desirable level is the concept of a shared goal (like a single construction crew all working on the same building) as opposed a goal that we merely have in common (like a bunch of separate construction crews all working on different buildings--they all have in common the goal of constructing a building).

thanks for the feedback on that. i'll be sure to edit the post soon.

edit: i changed that sentence. hopefully it's clearer now. let me know.

Yes, that is clearer. That is quite subtle distnction. Common goals and shared goals would normally be taken as the same thing. Your distinction is - I think - that a common goal is a goal for the individual, to the benefit of the individual. A shared goal is a communal goal, that may or may not benefit the individual, but will benefit 'society'. Is that your intent?

If so, I immediately question, do we have enough evidence to support the idea that there are any shared goals? I am not saying there are not, but it is certainly a point of considerable debate and I do not believe you can simply take it as a given.

hi ophiolite,

sorry it's taken me so long to respond. but in answer to your questions:

...a common goal is a goal for the individual, to the benefit of the individual. A shared goal is a communal goal, that may or may not benefit the individual, but will benefit 'society'. Is that your intent?

pretty much, yeah. but i hesitate to put this distinction in terms of who benefits. especially since (and this is something i haven't made clear enough yet--in this thread, or in my article) what i consider to be the universal aim is actually the aim of the individual toward personal well-being. my theory implies a prediction about what we will learn from the scientific study of human well-being; namely, that the optimal well-being of the individual requires the holding of socially positive attitudes like empathy, a base-line level of unconditional respect, and compassion. and thus the universal aim toward well-being would imply an aim toward universal well-being. this prediction can (theoretically) be proven false. therefore my theory is a scientific theory of morality upon which a science of morality can be based.

...do we have enough evidence to support the idea that there are any shared goals?

i think the biological drive of all life to survive and flourish is an aim that we undoubtedly all have in common. for most living things on the planet, flourishing entails reproductive success and not much more. but things are a lot more complicated for us. to a certain degree, we've broken free of our genetic moorings. we've also built around ourselves an incredibly complex social environment. so what constitutes flourishing for us has become a sizable collection of criteria largely concerning our ability to operate in this environment. and both the criteria and the environment are constantly changing. what's included among these criteria at any given period in history is already the subject of a great deal of scientific inquiry, and has been for quite some time. i find that the phrase 'well-being' is a convenient way to some up these complex requirements for human flourishing.

Originally Posted by kfrancist

what i consider to be the universal aim is actually the aim of the individual toward personal well-being.

This reminds me of Buddhist morality which is built upon the assumption that all sentient beings seek happiness.The likeness is further found in the statement:

Originally Posted by kfrancist

the optimal well-being of the individual requires the holding of socially positive attitudes like empathy, a base-line level of unconditional respect, and compassion.

Have you looked into Buddhism?

yes! i have looked into buddhism. theravadin buddhism is what seems most compatible with my theory (that i know of--but i'd like to learn more about zen). in fact i might even call myself a buddhist if not for the doctrine of rebirth. and also the tendency to discourage bringing skepticism into meditation (which might explain why rebirth ever got included as dhamma the first place).

what's interesting is that my theory is rooted in a purely scientific naturalist perspective, and i've been working on it since i was at least 16 years old. but i didn't begin studying dhamma until just 2 or 3 years ago (i'm 34 now). and there's definitely a lot that overlaps!

on my blog (there's a link to it on my original post) you can find an article i wrote about shambhala buddhism (a western offshoot of tibetan buddhism)--which is not my favorite flavor. the article is actually kind of critical. but not, i think, undeservedly so.

but anyway, thanks for your post! it's nice to know that someone else sees the connection there!

Originally Posted by kfrancist

i've been working on it since i was at least 16 years old.

If you have been working on your theory since you were 16, but still cannot identify one shared goal, perhaps it is time to give it up.

gee, thanks for the constructive criticism, harold! who made you a moderator?

admittedly, the way i've introduced the topic kind of confuses the issue. this is one of the drawbacks of never having shared my theory with others or even written everything all in one place before. what i've ended up with is a well developed theory that i have no idea how to present to people.

and i'm finding that there are certain revisions that i've made to the theory over time that i haven't actually applied to all of the various ways of putting things that i've been carrying around in my head for years. not sure if that makes any sense to you. but that's the way it is. and that's why i'm bringing it to forums like this one; so i can get as much feedback as possible to help me figure out what parts are most confusing, where clarification is needed.

and up until your comment, i've found all of the feedback i've received (on this forum and others) to be very helpful--especially the criticisms. comments like yours, however, only serve to lower a forum's overall quality of discourse, which i'm surprised is something you need be told, seeing as how you're a moderator.

that said, i can see how what i've written so far may have caused your confusion. here's what i've done wrong:

in the first sentence of this thread, i imply that the universal aim has to be 'shared' as i put it--not just common to all of us like hunger. we all have to be working toward the exact same goal--not a whole lot of separate but similar goals. then in the fifth post on this thread, i said that the universal aim is toward personal well-being.

this is an obvious contradiction, which escaped my attention up until shortly after my last reply to ophiolite. and i must give ophiolite props for being the only one so far on any of the forums i've been visiting to point out to me what a confusing mess that sentence is. and i suppose that's why this contradiction hasn't been spotted in any of the other forums either.

so the correct explanation of the universal aim, is that it's the aim of each of us toward personal well-being. and if you have any criticisms of that concept of a universal aim (and i believe it's sufficiently stated in that post) i'd be very interested in hearing them.

p.s. in any case, it would be too late for me to give up now since i have already accomplished what i had set out to do as an adolescent (either that or i've already failed--but i feel i have reason to be optimistic).

I do not have moderator powers on this sub-forum, so I can act like a jerk until corrected by one of the other moderators.

Your problem is not that you are having trouble explaining your point. It's that you don't have a point. Even if one accepts the premise that there is a universal aim of personal well-being, it does not suggest any sort of morality, other than perhaps some sort of hedonism. It doesn't even do that, since personal well-being might imply different things to different people.

This is from your web site.

when the moral aim of pleasing a judeo-christian god, is replaced by the natural evolutionary inclination to flourish as a species, the moral value system shifts from metaphysical concepts of good and evil to ultimately biological concepts of healthy and unhealthy. it then becomes obvious that the proper response to immoral behavior is treatment/rehabilitation/education rather than punishment.

This is a non-sequitur. It is not obvious. In fact, I don't think it is even true. How do you know that the proper response is not to just kill the SOB?

harold,

i like criticism when it's actually challenging.

i don't like people like you.

i'll be ignoring you from here on out.

I would suggest that to be quite a mistake, for Harold is indeed one of the astoundlingly few contributors to this forum who actually considers with intelligence, that about which he posts.

Will Durant wrote; “Friends are helpful not only because they will listen to us, but because they will laugh at us. Through them we learn a little objectivity, a little modesty, a little courtesy; we learn the rules of life and become better players of the game.”

there are plenty of other intelligent people, both on this forum and on many others. harold's input is simply not valuable enough to me to warrant putting up with his abrasiveness.

Originally Posted by kfrancist

harold,

i like criticism when it's actually challenging.

i don't like people like you.

i'll be ignoring you from here on out.

Harold is an irascible old fart, whose political views I often find distasteful.

However, everything he posted in regard to your 'theory' was spot on. If you can't take such mild, accurate criticism then you may need to rethink your objectives.

Now you can decide to ignore me as well, or you can take a serious look at each point he made. You will notice that it makes no difference to myself or Harold which choice you make. It will, however, make a big difference to you.

ophiolite,

that's perfectly reasonable advice. thank you.

however, just because i didn't give harold a response doesn't mean i didn't have one. answering him might have led him to believe that i wanted to continue interacting with him, and i didn't want to confuse him.

but i feel you've effectively rekindled the conversation.

as far as i can tell, he had only two points.

...a universal aim of personal well-being...does not suggest any sort of morality, other than perhaps some sort of hedonism. It doesn't even do that, since personal well-being might imply different things to different people.

and in reference to what i said at the end of my blog article

This is a non-sequitur. It is not obvious. In fact, I don't think it is even true. How do you know that the proper response is not to just kill the SOB?

in regard to the first point:
i already addressed this to some degree in the 5th post (my third) on this thread when i said

my theory implies a prediction about what we will learn from the scientific study of human well-being; namely, that the optimal well-being of the individual requires the holding of socially positive attitudes like empathy, a base-line level of unconditional respect, and compassion.

what i'm suggesting is that, being social animals, and having as we do, the ability to communicate our needs to each other with a great deal of precision, puts these (and other) constraints on what "personal well-being" can mean for a human. the modern deluge of technology that tends to make intercultural communications simultaneously easier and more necessary (or at least more desirable) continues to reinforce these constraints.

and "personal well-being" undoubtedly does mean different things to different people. but some people just have it wrong. they think they know, but they don't--that's a pretty common human condition. but this is an issue that sam harris addresses more eloquently than i ever have, both in his book 'the moral landscape' and (more immediately accessible), in his ted talk.

in regard to harold's second point:
if we reframe immoral behavior as being unhealthy rather than bad or evil, historical precedent provides good reason to believe that our reactions to immoral behavior will change. this is precisely what happened to schizophrenia when it became understood as a biologically based mental disorder rather than something caused by evil spirits.

I give you credit for at least recognizing the problem. An atheist will generally have moral values that are similar to what they had before becoming atheists, or similar to others in the same community who attribute their beliefs to their religion or some deity. Some atheists are not willing to admit they even have beliefs, let alone beliefs that do not have a rational basis. Thus, the need to look for a rational basis for your moral beliefs.

However, even though you have recognized the problem, you have not made much progress in finding a solution. Your discussion of common goals, shared goals, and personal well-being skirts around the conflict between personal well-being and that of a larger community, or between different groups and communities. That is the crux of any moral dilemmas, and is what moral values are all about.

An atheist will generally have moral values that are similar to what they had before becoming atheists, or similar to others in the same community who attribute their beliefs to their religion or some deity. Some atheists are not willing to admit they even have beliefs, let alone beliefs that do not have a rational basis.

i've never known any of this to be true of any of the atheists i've ever known or encountered--or whose written works i've ever read. it's been my experience that atheists generally find the moral values of the religious to be inadequate at best, and repulsive at worst. granted, that's only my experience, but i'm willing to bet that your above statements apply only to a small minority of atheists.

the way i see it, there's either a rational basis for morality or no basis. thus the need to look for a rational basis for moral beliefs in general, not just mine.

and as for your claim that everything i've written on this thread so far

skirts around the conflict between personal well-being and that of a larger community, or between different groups and communities

-- i don't know how to respond to this other than by posting this:

my theory implies a prediction about what we will learn from the scientific study of human well-being; namely, that the optimal well-being of the individual requires the holding of socially positive attitudes like empathy, a base-line level of unconditional respect, and compassion.

for the 3rd time. and this:

what i'm suggesting is that, being social animals, and having as we do, the ability to communicate our needs to each other with a great deal of precision, puts these (and other) constraints on what "personal well-being" can mean for a human. the modern deluge of technology that tends to make intercultural communications simultaneously easier and more necessary (or at least more desirable) continues to reinforce these constraints.

for the 2nd time.

to make sure this is clear: the constraints mentioned in that second part refer to the "holding of socially positive attitudes like empathy, a base-line level of unconditional respect, and compassion" mentioned in that first part.

if this isn't addressing the issues you claim i'm skirting, then please explain why not.

Originally Posted by kfrancist

my theory implies a prediction about what we will learn from the scientific study of human well-being; namely, that the optimal well-being of the individual requires the holding of socially positive attitudes like empathy, a base-line level of unconditional respect, and compassion.

Kim Jong-il's well-being, materially at least, is light years above mine, not to mention that of his starving subjects.

Let's imagine that I have the brain power and political skills required to achieve and secure a similar position in my country (or in some other country for that matter). Give me a rational reason I should not do so.

Originally Posted by kfrancist

i've never known any of this to be true of any of the atheists i've ever known or encountered--or whose written works i've ever read. it's been my experience that atheists generally find the moral values of the religious to be inadequate at best, and repulsive at worst. granted, that's only my experience, but i'm willing to bet that your above statements apply only to a small minority of atheists.

I think that by focusing on a few hot button political issues and the views of certain religious groups at the opposite end of the political spectrum, you are missing the broad areas of agreement about things like murder, theft of one's neighbor's property, and so on.

if this isn't addressing the issues you claim i'm skirting, then please explain why not.

Because it doesn't. You have not described any way to resolve a conflict between the interests of different people or groups of people. You are pretending that there is a single course of action that promotes the well-being of everybody.

Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski

Kim Jong-il's well-being, materially at least, is light years above mine, not to mention that of his starving subjects.

Let's imagine that I have the brain power and political skills required to achieve and secure a similar position in my country (or in some other country for that matter). Give me a rational reason I should not do so.

there is good reason to believe that kim jong-il has one of the more severe personality disorders called 'malignant narcissism'. this is a disorder that was described as "the quintessence of evil" by the social psychologist who named the condition (1964, erich fromm, 'the heart of man').

in general people with personality disorders are the people we're talking about when we talk about 'bad people'. and there's good reason for that. they're the type of people who cause a great deal of pain (emotional or otherwise) in the lives of those around them, and feel justified in (or at least not at all guilty about) doing so. they are also notoriously resistant to any form of treatment. personality disorders are associated with varying degrees of emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse during childhood (sorry i can't remember any sources off-hand--but look it up if you like. it's interesting stuff).

one of the major symptoms of malignant narcissism is a complete lack of empathy. so achieving a position similar to kim jong-il's would likely require taking steps that you, as a healthier human being (i assume and hope) would be unwilling to take. if you were willing to take the necessary steps, i believe this would indicate that you were psychologically injured in some way that is similar to the way in which kim jong-il is undoubtedly injured.

what i'm suggesting is that the very willingness to coercively subjugate an entire nation, is an indication of poor mental health, in other words a lack of personal well-being. on top of this, being the cause of so much strife would undoubtedly earn you some enemies--probably even some very powerful enemies. there's little doubt that the physical well-being of kim jong-il himself is constantly under threat, necessitating his undoubtedly sizable personal security detail.

as a side note: material well-being is only a small fraction of what constitutes overall personal well-being, and--by my definition--does not require wealth.

I think that by focusing on a few hot button political issues and the views of certain religious groups at the opposite end of the political spectrum, you are missing the broad areas of agreement about things like murder, theft of one's neighbor's property, and so on.

actually, my focus was on morality in general. doing good out of fear of hellfire makes for not quite as admirable a moral system as doing good for...almost any other reason, really.

but there is at least one specific issue that i did have in mind as well--though it's not quite the 'hot button' issue it used to be. i was thinking of slavery, which we all pretty much agree nowadays is a bad thing--morally abhorrent according to the majority of us. but this is not a moral value that comes from any judeo-christian religion. you will find no passages in any of the holy books of the west that condemn the practice.

i'm not denying that most if not all modern religious people are opposed to slavery--i'm just saying that this is a secular moral value. one that i'm glad that the religious people of the world choose to live by as well.

You have not described any way to resolve a conflict between the interests of different people or groups of people.

i don't believe providing methods of conflict resolution is essential to the task of providing a rational basis for a science of morality. such a science will assist us in confidently determining what is right and what is wrong, but that doesn't mean that irrational people won't disagree with those determinations. in such cases, our moral science can guide us in determining the best options to resolve the dispute--but i think this is best done on a case by case basis.

You are pretending that there is a single course of action that promotes the well-being of everybody.

uh...no. i'm not.

Originally Posted by kfrancist

doing good out of fear of hellfire makes for not quite as admirable a moral system as doing good for...almost any other reason, really.

Can you prove that? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. This is the kind of thing you claim can be demonstrated logically and rationally.

this is starting to get off topic--but what the hell...

doing good things because you fear burning in hell is similar to doing good things because you're being held at gunpoint. your good deeds are coerced. there's no sincerity there.

no need for logical proofs--this just makes intuitive sense.

i don't think religious people are always being insincere when they're doing nice things for people. but sometimes is bad enough.

and when they are acting out of sincerity--that's when they're acting more like any good atheist would--doing good things out of true compassion for others.

Originally Posted by kfrancist

this is starting to get off topic--but what the hell...

No. This is the topic.

doing good things because you fear burning in hell is similar to doing good things because you're being held at gunpoint. your good deeds are coerced. there's no sincerity there.

no need for logical proofs--this just makes intuitive sense.

Wrong. I need logical proof. It is your belief. A belief that is not founded on reason.

You are expressing and promoting a personal opinion about a moral issue, and you are doing it in a science forum. That's actually proselytizing, which would be frowned upon here if you were promoting a religious belief.

doing good things because you fear burning in hell is similar to doing good things because you're being held at gunpoint. your good deeds are coerced. there's no sincerity there.

you responded to everything but the above statement. if you have a problem with it, why don't you tell me what it is?

Originally Posted by kfrancist

doing good things because you fear burning in hell is similar to doing good things because you're being held at gunpoint. your good deeds are coerced. there's no sincerity there.

you responded to everything but the above statement. if you have a problem with it, why don't you tell me what it is?

The problem with it is that you have not proven it. You started the thread by asserting that statements concerning morality can be proven. Then later on, you said that rationality is the only acceptable basis for any beliefs. Yet it appears that you hold a belief that cannot be proven on any rational basis.

Come to think of it, you did refer to some future developments or discoveries by which the theory would be fully developed, starting with the needs that individuals have in order to thrive, and working out from there. This makes me wonder what your beliefs are based on right now, pending the full development of the theory. I mean, since there is no acceptable basis other than rationality.

Now for your current statement that fear of hell is a poor reason for doing good (which you have not actually defined). As far as the effect on the needs of individuals or groups to thrive, it shouldn't matter should it? As long as it has the desired effect of regulating anti-social behavior, why do you care if it is fear of hell, or something else that does the job?

first of all, i haven't said anything about proving anything. what i'm claiming is that moral value statements, like propositional statements, have truth-value. they're either true or false. we can determine their probable truth-value the same way we determine it for other statements. it's an important distinction.

and ok, here's a few reasons why a 'morality' based in the fear of eternal suffering is inferior to a rationally based morality;

people who fear going to hell are less likely to have arrived at their moral beliefs through a process of critical thinking. they are more likely to have accepted the moral tenets presented to them in whatever holy book they adhere to. the moral tenets provided by such holy books (eg the bible, the qur'an) are inadequate (as evidenced by, among other things, their complete failure to condemn slavery) and often misguided (as evidenced by the new testament's advice to beat your children with a rod).

in addition to this, a person who does 'good' things (however you want to define it--i don't even need to agree with the definition) because they feel threatened by the possibility of eternal suffering, cannot be relied upon to be consistent in their behavior. they will continue to judge certain behaviors as 'good' only so long as their interpretation of their holy books (or the interpretation supplied to them by their religious leader/s) remains consistent. but the interpretation of religious texts by the religious can change unpredictably given that such interpretations can be guided by completely non-rational means (ie revelation). therefore the 'moral' behavior of the religious is likewise subject to unpredictable irrational change.

and add to this what i mentioned in my last post--insincerity. this indicates a general lack of integrity. anyone who is accustomed to letting their actions be ruled by fear of any sort, is bound to have a much weaker moral character than any of the atheists that i know.

for these reasons (the inadequacy of religious moral tenets, unpredictability of the 'moral' behavior of the religious, and the fostering of a generally weak moral character) religious 'morality' is less likely to lead to the well-being of either its adherents or anybody else, than a rationally based scientific morality.

i'm sure you'll find more in this argument to demand 'proof' of (though evidence is the best you can hope for). but i've already done what i needed to do here.

at the risk of being rude, having re-read what i've written in this post, i can't help but feel that my presence on this forum has now become a waste of my time. my main purpose in beginning this thread was to get feedback in order to improve my work. but what i'm doing now, is for me a unneeded review of ideas i have no need of laying out more clearly--these are not even my ideas anymore, but just views that are generally held by atheists.

in short--there are tons of other people with whom you could debate along these lines. so unless there's some different direction you or anyone else would like to take with this--i'm good to go!

thank you all for your feedback and stimulating debate!

I'm still waiting for you to show me a rational based morality. What is it about your morality that is more rational than anyone else's morality? As for slavery, that was abolished by very religious Christian societies in Europe and America in the nineteenth century. Not very many atheists around at the time. At the forefront of that movement were the Quakers.

A rational case could be made, and in fact was made, for slavery. If your objective was to make a lot of money raising sugar cane on a plantation, it made plenty of sense. Very logical. Impeccably rational.

this'll be my last comment in this thread.

which is not to say that i'm entirely opposed to further discussion. you can always visit my blog and leave comments there if you'd like.

but just to give you an answer to your most recent question (even though i'm sure you won't be satisfied with it, harold). a science of morality would be more rational than other attempts at moral systems, in that the values it generated would be based on emperical scientific study of human well-being--what engenders it, what leads us away from it, how many different forms of it are there, etc.

it would be more rational than say...christian 'morality', in the same way that evolutionary biology is more rational than creation 'science'.

so if you have a response to this that you really want me to read, i'm not gonna see it if you leave it here. you can go to my blog--i included a link to it in my first post--and leave your comment on the page of my entry entitled 'an addendum'.

that said, i shall now bid this forum farewell...

farewell.

Well, again you are referring to your science of morality in the future tense, so that doesn't help you out now. And putting Christian morality in quotation marks is rather arrogant, I think.