In the last 18 months of blogging I’ve been meaning to do a few posts about morality and my theory of ethics. I’m not sure I have a theory yet but some loosely connected thoughts. At least I’ve stopped procrastinating about this so below and in the next few posts, a discussion on morality.
Consider the following conversation between you and someone else. You are in an empty room with a window and a door. You turn towards the door and when you turn back, you find that this Someone Else is in the room.
You: You got in through the window!
Someone Else: No I didn’t.
You: But you could only have gotten in through the window and the door, right?
Someone Else: Right.
You: And I was watching the door so it couldn’t have been the door.
Someone Else: I agree.
You [incredulously]: So then…it must have been the window!
Someone Else: No it wasn’t.
You [pythonesquely]: Now look here my good lad! If either A or B is true and we know B is not true this means that A is true.
Someone Else: Nah.
You: But — what do you mean? It’s just a basic law of logic!
Someone Else: Right, but you haven’t proved that this law holds.
You: No, but I don’t need to prove that–
Someone Else: –what’s more, all logical inferences are derived from more logic. It’s circular reasoning! You’re using logic to prove logic. Now, if you started with non-logic and then were able to get to logic I’d listen to you.
Now, would anyone think that Someone Else has just posed a serious challenge to logic? Definitely not, logic is what it is and to demand that it be justified by something else is only going to lead to an infinite regress. And yet, with morality the same situation is taken seriously. Consider the following conversation between you and someone else, who is about to brutally torture a puppy.
Someone Else: I’m going to brutally torture a puppy.
You: Really?
Someone Else: Yep, I’ll break all its bones, slice off the skin, put it in a vice, starve it and slowly roast it over a few days. All this while torturing its mother in front of its eyes. I’m an expert in dog physiology so I know how to inflict the most unbearable suffering — both physical and emotional — whilst keeping said puppy alive and conscious.
You: But…that’s so wrong!
Someone Else: No it isn’t.
You: What do you mean? It’s just basic morality.
Someone Else: Right, but you haven’t proved morality to me. Show me that it is wrong for me to torture this puppy and I’ll stop.
You: But I don’t need to prove that–Someone Else: –what’s more, all moral statements are derived from more moral statements. It’s circular reasoning! You’re using morality to prove morality. Now, if you started with non-morality and then were able to get to morality, I’d listen to you. But as Hume pointed out in the is-ought problem, this is impossible. So the puppy gets it.
The second Someone Else is a morality sociopath, indifferent to the suffering of others. Now, a lot of work within ethics (specifically meta-ethics) has been about trying to justify a particular ethical system (eg. utilitarianism). Often the aim has really been to derive some sort of morality from non-morality. Maybe someone someday will do this but I’ve never seen a convincing argument for this and there’s no reason to think this could be done. I think Hume was right in that morality stems from motivations (which stem from emotions) as opposed to cold facts. The mere fact that Someone Else knows that a puppy will suffer terribly does not compel them to stop. Facts by themselves cannot compel but motivations can. And yet, attempting to derive morality from “first principles” seems to be trying to make the facts somehow compel action.
The first Someone Else can be thought of as a logic-sociopath, indifferent to the basics of logic (or at least claiming to be). Even if we think they really ARE indifferent to ALL logic, we would not feel compelled to derive logic for him using non-logic and our inability to do this does not bother us. I think the general sociopath should get the same treatment.
What I conclude from this:
- [As far as I know] it’s not possible to “prove” that something is immoral to someone who doesn’t have the motivations for basic moral acts (ie. a sociopath).
- This means we should not expect basic moral statements to break down into further things that aren’t moral statements.
Next time I’ll see what I think this means about objective morality and our “evolved” sense of morality.
18 comments ↓
I don’t think you can conflate morality and logic. Logic is internally consistent and based on defined rules and concepts. Morality is not any of these things (especially consistent, as your post on the Trolley Problem showed).
Two people cannot have equally valid, but different, logical views. If the results differ, based on the same rules and facts, then one is wrong and can be proven as such (usually at least…).
Two people CAN have equally valid, but different, moral views.
I would suggest that it is the axiomatization(?) that is the difference. People can quite readily agree the basic axioms that go into formal logic but not morality.
If you were right then it would follow that morality, like logic, is objective. In that case we could do valid comparisons of people’s morality, prove them wrong and change their minds in a much better way than we can now.
e.g. I can’t prove that being homophobic is wrong in any objective sense so the argument has to be about harm and autonomy and privacy and various other concepts that are just as subjective (how can privacy be a valued concept to someone who believes a supernatural entity is watching them 24/7?).
Imagine you could simply ‘prove’ someone wrong about their position on homosexuality instead, that would be great – unless it was proving that it was right to be homophobic (consider that for a second…)
If morality is subjective (and I believe it is) then it is not possible to ‘prove’ that something is immoral to someone who disagrees – there is no need for them to be a sociopath.
Someone else: Actually I entered through the door quickly and quietly (when you *weren’t* looking in that direction) and then carefully snuck past your back as you were turning.
Sorry, but without varifacation of initial assumptions, logic is also infinite regression. That is why it doesn’t work, and why double blind testing is so important with science. In your examples ‘You’ has a limited view of the room, and therefore cannot make absolute statements. That doesn’t make him automatically wrong, but ‘Someone Else’ is perfectly within his rights to question ‘You’s absolutist use of logic about what he cannot see and cannot know.
1) We can prove that basic morality has genetic roots; and genes aren’t exactly moral.
http://doxxa.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/moral-dilemma/
2) Thus we can break morality down into self-interest statements; which is arguably not morality, since it concerns the self, not other people.
Have you checked out Alonzo Fyfe’s blog: http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/ ? I think he’s taken a step in the right direction with his theory.
As for your 2 conclusions:
1) Proof isn’t dependent on the person you’re presenting it to, so this statement doesn’t make any sense. If you can prove that something is immoral then that something is, well… immoral. What you can’t do is reason someone into having the motivation to actually do the moral thing. Maybe that is what you meant?
2) I think moral statements CAN be built from non-moral statements. Check out Alonzo’s website.
Thanks for your comments everyone, there’s plenty for me to respond to although some questions will be covered in the 2-3 planned followup posts. I’ve got a crazy few days so will probably think about these things on Monday.
Keddaw — I was not trying to conflate logic and morality but merely to show that they share the common property of starting assumptions that are not proven and that there is nothing to be embarrassed about this. I will post a bit more on the specifics of moral disagreement later but I think the situations really are parallel. Two people can have valid divergent moral views if they start from different atomic assumptions. But the same is true for any logical system, eg. depending on whether you assume the axiom of choice or not, depending on whether you operate on Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry etc. And the inability to prove something in morality to someone who disagrees (having different starting assumptions) was part of the post’s point — I agree the sociopath example was a special case but the point is that it can be true for any different set of starting assumptions.
Marc — I’m a bit familiar with desire utilitarianism from CommonSenseAtheism. From what I’ve read though I haven’t been able to make much sense of it or see a way of proving that something is moral or immoral. Is there maybe a post on Fyfe’s blog that you think nails it? As for the difference between proving that something is immoral and giving motivation, I think this distinction makes “moral” into an arbitrary term. If this were true then you could convince the sociopath that torturing the puppy is immoral (as long as they accept logic) whilst being unable to convince them not to do it! But I think the post’s example is equally applicable to the case of someone who simply denies the immorality of torturing the puppy. Of course this all depends on the failure to construct an ethics from non-ethics, so I’ll see about Fyfe.
ANTI — obviously that wasn’t the point of my post since Someone Else was not saying it’s a false dilemma but accepting the dilemma and rejecting a conclusion. You can substitute for another scenario if you like that you think is a true either-or dilemma. As for breaking down morality into self-interest statements, this is what I’ll be posting on shortly.
[...] ← Logic Sociopaths and Morality Sociopaths [...]
morality and logic may not have starting points that are not proven, but that is irrelevant. Logic A takes certain starting points and builds on them and people KNOW that you cannot compare the conclusions of Logic A with those of Logic B that have different starting points. People do NOT do this with morality.
Another key difference is that the rules of logic are known. If you take the same starting point and apply Logic A and come to a conclusion that someone disagrees with, using the rules of logic you can see who is right. If you have the same starting point and apply your (subjective) morality you can come to equally valid but entirely different conclusions.
The point being Logic generally has only one set of rules which can be applied to different starting conditions (gross generalisation and over-simplification) but morality has multitudes of different starting points and rules that are applied by people, sometimes the same people!
Michael – I understand what you intended by the conversation, however I have also see this exact format used as a plot device to indicate how foolish the ‘you’ character is for only seeing two possibilities; which are usually explained after the ’someone else’ character has finished playing along. And if there is more than one way of interpretating a set of statements, then ‘obvious’ no longer applies.
The problem is that I would happily contest that the pythonesque statement is actually false. Maybe not for the same reasons as SE, but I’d still take his side, because any foolishness on his part does not automatically make ‘You’ right.
I would suggest:
If we believe A or B must be true, and we know A is not true, then B is almost certainly true – unless our basic assumptions can be shown to be flawed.
You can argue that your version is a form of pure logic. and maybe you’re right, but I’d still point out that this form of logic never carries the day. If it did then relativity would be logically impossible because of newtonian physics.
@Michael
For more info on Desire Utilitarianism you should start with http://www.alonzofyfe.com/desire_utilitarianism.shtml . After that, dig into his blog.
You said: “As for the difference between proving that something is immoral and giving motivation, I think this distinction makes “moral” into an arbitrary term.”
You can refute all of someone’s arguments for the existence of a god and he may still go on believing. It takes more than logic and reasoning to change people’s behaviour if they don’t want to change it.
The torturer may wholeheartedly agree with you that torturing the puppy is immoral and still have no inclination to act morally.
As for “moral” being an arbitrary term: maybe you should clearly define what you mean by “moral” when you use that term in discussions here.
The idea that torturing a puppy is wrong relies on:
Assuming that a puppy is a thinking, feeling living being;
Assuming a puppy understands (feels) pain in a similar way to you;
Assuming a puppy does not like or want pain;
Assuming a puppy has rights to avoid pain that outweigh your rights to do what you want;
Assuming that ‘ownership’ of the puppy does not confer unlimited ownership rights on you;
Assuming ‘wrong’ means to go counter to the general empathetic feelings humans have – and;
Assuming a puppy is deserving of human empathy.
It seems to me you make a lot of unwarranted, or at least unproven, assumptions when you say that torturing a puppy is wrong.
[...] not provable from non-moral statements [...]
The father of my child is a Sociopath, I know it, I think he knows it..although he has never admitted it to me. I could write about him, and it would write the profile of a true sociopath. He wants our son…I find what you are talking about true..yet with healthy mind..even though being screwed up with the seemingly endless word tennis is completely mind shattering. All logic, empathy, understanding, fact, law, basic human rights are completely undermined..with their logic, their perspective of what their rights are. I seemed to argue really well my points of why i did not think it right for my child to be away from me to the point I see him on a Monday and a Friday afternoon. However, with all my arguements falling on deaf ears, I simply said, but I am his mother, I love him, he is my son and we need each other. He is a baby..only just 12mths. He quite matter of factly said, “what is the difference, I am his father..”and proceeded to use my own words of love and pain of losing my child against me, leaving me completely utterly at a loss to explain what it means to be a mother, or to love. Logic, would say, I would hope, he is wrong, there is no same feeling towards a mother and child, the same I could never have the love as a father does for his child. Love is there, but it is different, it should not be compared, or used as a tool, but to have someone, to actually use an emotion of mine, for my first born baby, against me on pure, logic..it takes two attitude? Therefore rights are equal, is so bizarre that it is frightening.
Xausted – no offence, but that is the kind of emotional rant that shows that reason is the only way forward.
By your ‘logic’ then courts are sociopathic. They are intentionally set up to be logical and dispassionate, considering the facts before coming to a decision.
Ironically, from the sounds of your situation, the courts are your best hope. The use of reason and logic would dictate that the best environment for your baby would be with you (from the limited information you provide) and it would definitely not side with a sociopath over an empathic person.
“Therefore rights are equal, is so bizarre that it is frightening.”
So said the Protestant men when the Catholic men wanted to vote, so said the men when the women wanted to vote, so said the whites when the blacks wanted to vote…
So would you join those conservatives (judicial and otherwise) who jumped on Obama when he dared to say that the Supreme Court appointee should have compassion?
A low level judge should have compassion and understanding, but when you get to the level of the Supreme Court you’ll find that all they’re actually allowed to rule upon is points of law. Therefore compassion is beyond irrelevant to the point of being unconstitutional.
But I’m not American so this may be a mis-reading of the situation on my part.
From what I understand of non-conservative judicial interpretation (this comes largely from Ed Brayton of the Dispatches From The Culture Wars blog and Declaring Independence Podcast), the idea is that you can’t have a system of rules that tells you everything in terms of what to do and the legal system is a very special case. Very often the law does not make it clear which way one should go, and in those cases you have to rely on your own judgement (and those of conservative legal theory also rely on their judgement even if they pretend not to), in which case compassion would be a decent thing to go by.
This is the view as I read it and I largely agree based on the uni work I did on the inadequacy of rules to describe “scientific method” as well as some other similar thoughts. Until we solve the AI problem and do a much better reverse-engineering of the human brain, any system of rules we create that doesn’t take this into account will contain heaps of hidden biases, assumptions and fuzzy concepts from the messy structure of our brain hence no formal system with rigorous definitions has been enough to explain what to do in an interesting area of life (eg. law, science, morality). I’ve certainly never seen one — but this goes back to our general disagreement on metaethics.
For my tuppenceworth, I think that the vast, vast majority of compassion in judicial cases lie in the hands of the jury (they don’t always realise that, but that’s another issue). Judges can take circumstances into account on sentencing, prosecutors can take circumstances into account on deciding which crime to try.
However, there is a distinction to be made between circumstances and compassion.
There is a whole post to be had on this topic, which you may have already had, but I think trying to fully explain my views on why retribution is wrong and only deterrence and prevention are the valid reasons to punish someone are outwith the scope of a comment and also off topic…
One point I would make is that way back they realised that the statue representing justice should be blindfolded and hold a sword in one hand and scales in the other. They were wrong on many things but I feel they make a decent start here.
To Keddaw:
You say that morality and logic can’t be compared because the rules of logic are known and specific in regard to a given axiom.
I think you are wrong making this distinction. First of all, whether the rules are known or not is irrelevant. The important question is whether there is in principle a definte logical pathway leading from the axiom to a conclusion. I think there is.
One moral axiom could be that morality is the pursuit of well-being (in contrast to morality is the pursuit to fulfill the will of god or something similar) and hence values that result in misery are immoral.
Of course the causal relations are at the present largely unknown. Indeed, even the concept of well-being is a diffuse one. Still, in principle there is most certainly a definite logical pathway. For example, a father thinks beating his children will in the end result in greater well-being for the children. But, if it is revealed that the net effect of corporal punishment regarding well-being is negative the father has no other choice than to regard beating his children as immoral. That is a definite logical pathway.
Leave a Comment