What is the foundation of moral reasoning?

[badahiploopapa]

Why would they lie all the time?
That is as silly as a theist saying if the commandment "though shall not kill" was not written in the bible then they would not be able to figure out for themselves not to kill people.
I see no reason to put a value on truth in order to understand that lying all the time could be a bad thing to do. Peoples reaction to the constant lying would give enough of a clue.

Try to understand; we are honest because we value honest because it is useful to us. We lie when it is useful to us and not when it is not. If, for some reason, the peoples of a society always thought it was useful to lie, they would always value lies and they would always lie -except in the minority events where an individual thought it was useful to be honest- despite the clear reasons for it not being useful.
This is why we grew to teach our children to value honesty instead of deceit, because it is useful and even required for a society to function.
This is not the same as me saying everyone would lie if the arbitrary rule against it were removed, this actually explains why we wouldn't lie. Namely, because it's not an arbitrary rule.

On the other hand if people told only the truth there would be so many offended people that social interaction would soon break down.
Reality is not a situation of only one or the other. Communication is a careful blending of both, couples with the ability to distinguish between the two.
Honesty is a subjective value. What one person holds as a truth another sees as a lie.

I'm not at all suggesting people only tell the truth and never lie, there are times -I even provided one- when telling a lie would in fact be required of a person.
With your second statement I agree fully and have incorporated that into my moral philosophy.

But then again people have valued murder throughout history. In fact it is only relatively recent history where the ordinary people have been able to defend themselves from being murdered at the whim of their betters. A few examples like the samurai of ancient japan had the right to kill any lower class person at a whim.
http://www.japanese123.com/samurai1.htm

These people are the exception and not the rule, clearly the removal of that value is progress.

Medieval europe was also a place where murdering peasants for sport was common practice. I could go on and name several civilisations where murder was a valued tool of those who could use it.

If it was the rule and not the exception, there would be no peasants to murder.

The problem I have with both examples is that they are both good examples of a false dichotomy. It is not a case of either value life or honesty or go around lying and killing. There are various shades of grey in there.

I wasn't intending to go into detail, I believed the concept was simple enough, certain values progress society and certain values diminish society. This applies to the extremes and the grays. In a society that faced drastic overpopulation, murder might very well be valued and even conducive of fulfillment. Eskimos regularly practice infanticide because they know they will not have the resources to raise certain children and are, in theory, protecting their children from a life of pain and bringing pain to others -as the child would only take up more resources-.

As both telling a truth and killing have had a subjective value placed on them throughout the various civilisations of history then neither can be said to be a constant and therefore not a moral absolute.

They do have subjective value in the minds of those who value them, but they also have relative value as to the happiness they promote. In the same way that people have a subjective value placed on money, though it has a relative, but real, value in buying things. The things I'm speaking of are not meant to be absolute in that they are always right and always wrong, but universal as in where they are always the rule and never the exception, they diminish a society greatly.
I'm sorry, but you have only committed abductio ad absurdum, you have not, however, proven me wrong. Please take that into mind and rethink my argument, in order to form a better of your own.

That they have existed in all civilisations is irrelevant. Many things have a commonality in civilisations that have nothing to do with moral absolutes.

It is just as relevant as currency is.

At best all you can do is make truth and murder such a bland generalisation that they become meaningless terms. Neither are convincing as absolutes because of that.

I should hope they are not absolutes. Absolute rules suffer the weakness of potentially or actually contradicting themselves. One could easily create a hypothetical scenario where you must either lie or kill someone and have no other alternative.
What I am looking for is not absolute morals, but an absolute rule or method to come to certain morals. This rule would, in some cases, allow murder and in other cases disallow murder. It would sometimes allow deceit and sometimes disallow it. There could possibly exist something the rule would apply to that would never be allowed or never be disallowed, though I do not know what it is -if it exists- it would only be a case of circumstance that such a thing just so happened to always adhere to or violate such a rule.

Absolute morality is extremely arrogant in that it doesn't take into account the situation on is in and cannot hope to.

As I have stated, I currently think my hypothesis of equalizing relationships is such a rule. It takes into account each specific situation and it replicates many of the already moral ideas we are taught to agree with -which necessarily have to have value in making a society function in order for us to begin subjectively valuing them to begin with-

[badahiploopapa]

How many types of happy things have you just distinguished with modifying adjectives?

1. Sating happy.
2. Seemingly happy, but then not.
3. Actually happy but doesn't look like.
4. Actually happy and looks like it after it doesn't.

I should want only one kind of happy thing, but first, I want to say that the kind of thing in number 2 is not a desirable happy thing in of itself.
The reason is that is is not a lasting happiness when I have already said that I am looking for lasting happiness.
Sating happiness would only mean what I look for as long as it were possible and practical to maintain through most or all of one's life.

Things that are actually happy, but don't look to be, may still qualify as lastingly happy things. As well, lastingly happy things may look like lastingly unhappy things.

So the underlying thing we are looking for in each of the four kinds of things, the very same thing that is -I assume- not to be found in number two, is lasting happiness.

So that is the only happy thing we are looking for, though we may see it as a plethora, some bits false, some bits true, and many bits deceiving prima facie.

[barts]

What, I wonder, has happiness got to do with morality? If confronted with a choice between personal happiness and a life of pain and suffering that resulted in helping a million people to a better life, which is the more righteous choice?

[barts]

It seems that a way forward to discover a "logical" morality is to determine first the greatest evil a human being can commit and what is the greatest good one might do.

[grandpa]

It seems that a way forward to discover a "logical"
morality is to determine first the greatest evil a human
being can commit and what is the greatest good one
might do.

I doubt you meant the quotation marks around logical in a negative way, but many could see it that way.

Personally I think logic and morality can and should go together fairly easily. Rather than study so much the violent Bible of the Christians or the violent Koran of the Mohammedans, we should study the peaceful, concrete lessons of humanity, wherever they are to be found.

It's not enough to say "You can't do bad things." We're all bad, to some degree. I want it so there's less reason to do bad things. Looking at actual examples is the best way to go.

Grandpa h.

[badahiploopapa]

What, I wonder, has happiness got to do with morality? If confronted with a choice between personal happiness and a life of pain and suffering that resulted in helping a million people to a better life, which is the more righteous choice?

Well, I define morality in such a way that happiness is the goal of morality. If morality didn't make you a happy person, what use would it be? Who cares about good and evil if the two don't affect your happiness in the end, and if they did why would you chose the one that diminished your happiness?

It sounds selfish, but I believe a lot of the things that bring you lasting happiness create happiness for others, and so from selfishness arises selflessness. You could always interpret actions and motives in a way that make even if it where not
s them selfish, in the same way many psychiatric doctors and nurses always interpret a patient's behavior as disturbed -even if it were not- Of course, psychological egoism is another subject, one you might not even consider relevant to your post, so I'll leave it for now.

It seems that a way forward to discover a "logical" morality is to determine first the greatest evil a human being can commit and what is the greatest good one might do.

I think a prior step would be to define good and evil, where as I have define good as fulfillment or lasting happiness, I would define evil as simply a lack of good, as opposed to a thing in of itself.
If I where to assume that all true-fulfillment is equal, then the greatest good would be simply being fulfilled in your life, I assume in doing so you would help many people to live such a life as well.
What more could you want than that which is want's end?

[minorwork]

Some 'want' different than others. Some are stoic, would die free of others' intrusions though the intruders think if they were the stoic that they would be happy to have another come to their aid. Shall I force the requirements of my happiness on another without his asking for it? Sounds immoral to me.

[SoylentGreen]

Try to understand; we are honest because we value honest because it is useful to us. We lie when it is useful to us and not when it is not. If, for some reason, the peoples of a society always thought it was useful to lie, they would always value lies and they would always lie -except in the minority events where an individual thought it was useful to be honest- despite the clear reasons for it not being useful.
This is why we grew to teach our children to value honesty instead of deceit, because it is useful and even required for a society to function.
This is not the same as me saying everyone would lie if the arbitrary rule against it were removed, this actually explains why we wouldn't lie. Namely, because it's not an arbitrary rule.

It was not the value of truth that I questioned, but whether it was a moral absolute. Which it is not because it has no consistency, truth can change from civilisation to civilisation. The consistency here is communication. Which every civilisation uses. Truth is merely an aspect of communication and subjective at that.

.

These people are the exception and not the rule, clearly the removal of that value is progress.

No they are not. As I said until relatively recently they were the norm. And yet still civilisation managed to grow and progress.

If it was the rule and not the exception, there would be no peasants to murder.

interesting, first you explain that you know what a false dichotomy is and then you go and use it again. It is not a case of either do not kill or kill everyone. Just because the elite had the opportunity does not mean they had the desire.

I wasn't intending to go into detail, I believed the concept was simple enough, certain values progress society and certain values diminish society. This applies to the extremes and the grays. In a society that faced drastic overpopulation, murder might very well be valued and even conducive of fulfillment. Eskimos regularly practice infanticide because they know they will not have the resources to raise certain children and are, in theory, protecting their children from a life of pain and bringing pain to others -as the child would only take up more resources-.

Again, not the concept I question, but your statement about moral absolutes I do.

They do have subjective value in the minds of those who value them, but they also have relative value as to the happiness they promote. In the same way that people have a subjective value placed on money, though it has a relative, but real, value in buying things. The things I'm speaking of are not meant to be absolute in that they are always right and always wrong, but universal as in where they are always the rule and never the exception, they diminish a society greatly.
I'm sorry, but you have only committed abductio ad absurdum, you have not, however, proven me wrong. Please take that into mind and rethink my argument, in order to form a better of your own.

No I disagree, abductio ad absurdum requires me to create an example so extreme it becomes silly. However all I have done is point out a few factsa of history, neither extreme nor silly.

It is just as relevant as currency is.

My meaning is that in as far as proving that something is consistent through history does not mean it is a moral absolute just as currency is consistent but not a moral absolute.

I should hope they are not absolutes. Absolute rules suffer the weakness of potentially or actually contradicting themselves. One could easily create a hypothetical scenario where you must either lie or kill someone and have no other alternative.
What I am looking for is not absolute morals, but an absolute rule or method to come to certain morals. This rule would, in some cases, allow murder and in other cases disallow murder. It would sometimes allow deceit and sometimes disallow it. There could possibly exist something the rule would apply to that would never be allowed or never be disallowed, though I do not know what it is -if it exists- it would only be a case of circumstance that such a thing just so happened to always adhere to or violate such a rule.

Absolute morality is extremely arrogant in that it doesn't take into account the situation on is in and cannot hope to.

So you are completely contradicting your original statement

Quote by: badahiploopapa
There are some universal moral absolutes required for all societies to even function,.

As I have stated, I currently think my hypothesis of equalizing relationships is such a rule. It takes into account each specific situation and it replicates many of the already moral ideas we are taught to agree with -which necessarily have to have value in making a society function in order for us to begin subjectively valuing them to begin with-

Again not the answer to the question raised.

[badahiploopapa]

No they are not. As I said until relatively recently they were the norm. And yet still civilisation managed to grow and progress.

How would a society have functioned if murder was as common as successful communication is in our society? I don't think I have the knowledge you have on this subject, it's hard for me to accept that murder as common as I think you mean to say in a functioning society.

interesting, first you explain that you know what a false dichotomy is and then you go and use it again. It is not a case of either do not kill or kill everyone. Just because the elite had the opportunity does not mean they had the desire.

I'm not talking about "do not kill" or "kill everyone" I'm talking about either "Kill more than not kill" verses "Not kill more than kill".

So you are completely contradicting your original statement

I apologize, I didn't mean to use the word "absolute" I misspoke, remove that single word from my argument and we will have a better understanding.
There are universal morals, but they are certainly not absolute.

[badahiploopapa]

Some 'want' different than others. Some are stoic, would die free of others' intrusions though the intruders think if they were the stoic that they would be happy to have another come to their aid. Shall I force the requirements of my happiness on another without his asking for it? Sounds immoral to me.

Stoicism is only another means to achieving fulfillment, as opposed to a different grade of fulfillment. I'm having trouble seeing how balancing a relationship in the ways I have described would create trouble between a stoic man and a hedonistic man.
Of course, perhaps you mean that one man is "numb" while another is doubly sensitive. Still, I think one's ultimate want, relative to one's sensitivity is equal to that of another's want relative to his sensitivity. That means that a stoic man would have a shorter path to fulfillment, but would be as fulfilled as a sensitive man at the end of his path to fulfillment is.
A clearer way to think of it is this, you have a big cup and a small cup. Both filled with different amounts of water, but none the less full.

[Charlatan]

So rich people have more of a desire for a fulfilling life than poor people? The wealth gap is one of many ways we are unequal, but in many other ways we are equal.

Good point, still that would just be a factor making him a better boxer. One guy could be bigger, but the smaller have more training and thus equalize their skills. So, though I didn't take notice of that specific factor, it doesn't invalidate my example, we'd simply say that size contributes to the skill we are trying to measure.

I'm not understanding what the point of this quote is. There are some universal moral absolutes required for all societies to even function, I agree there, but I don't deny that there are some equal respects in people. I gave plenty of examples of ways we are equal and it should be obvious of ways we are unequal.

The gaps make us unequal. The environment we are born into makes us unequal. The friends we have make us unequal. THe upbringing we have makes us unequal. We are all unequal, all of us.

How can you prove we are equal, please tell me?

[SoylentGreen]

How would a society have functioned if murder was as common as successful communication is in our society? I don't think I have the knowledge you have on this subject, it's hard for me to accept that murder as common as I think you mean to say in a functioning society.

Murder is a concept. The death of people is not in every instance murder by definition as we define it today. But never the less murder or death took place. And it was not natural death but death at the hands of others or simply by fate. Whether a nobleman decided some peasant should die for an imagined insult or by a an infected cut going septic and killing the person.
I could give thousands of examples of what we might call murder yet was called simple expediency in the times when it happened. Here is one.
http://internetbiblecollege.net/Less...And%20Rome.htm

Socrates argues here that we should murder newborn babies with any physical defects so they can avoid other people finding fault with them.

I'm not talking about "do not kill" or "kill everyone" I'm talking about either "Kill more than not kill" verses "Not kill more than kill".

Then you are talking about placing a value on life, and using that measure to decide whether to kill or not.
And you are making the mistake if thinking that the value is a constant throughout history. Which of course it is not and has never been.

I apologize, I didn't mean to use the word "absolute" I misspoke, remove that single word from my argument and we will have a better understanding.
There are universal morals, but they are certainly not absolute.

So what you mean is there are constants throughout civilisations. Marriage would be one. In nearly every society, (perhaps there might be an exception), the concept of family and protecting family has existed and manifested itself in some degree in the form of a marriage. But each society has placed differing values and conditions upon it.

If so then what you are looking at is not morality but social conditioning that is a product of social animals.
And humans, being able to create complex thought, create morals to bound the conditioning instead of relying on mere instinct as most social animals do.