Freedomain Radio

 

 

This is a question that I have found interesting to bring up during the philosophical meetups I have taken a part in. I find it of interest to post it here as well, since UPB frequently is discussed here, and that it is a framework for evaluating moral theories. Hence, many people here might have a good understanding of this. 

 

I really want to be as concise as possible, and since I don't find much add to the title of the topic, I will just give my two cents and then eagerly wait for some other thoughts.

As I see it, it can't be about "should", since shoulds can be used anytime you set up a goal. (E.g., if you want to go to the opera, you should turn left here.) 

Also, to say that it is about interactions between humans, seems to be all to general. On the other hand, to say that it appertains only to interactions  where violence is involved, appears a bit too restrictive as well as arbitrary. 

So in the end, I can't really find any good definition of what a moral proposition really is, other than the one uttering the proposition says that it is about morality. 

 

Anyways, I would be delighted to hear your thoughts about it!

Well, there are two major definitions of morality.

One is the definition in UPB that essentially says, if I remember it correctly, that a moral proposition is a proposition about the valid use of force. For instance, if someone is attempting to murder you, it is valid to use force. If someone is eating fish on Friday, it is not valid to use force.

The other is that a moral proposition tells whether you're a good person or a bad person or whether an action is a good action or a bad action or something like that.

Thanks for the response! 

Do you find these definitions to be valid? If so, would you care to explain why these are the categories that are related to morality? 

Regarding the first definition, I don't really understand why morality would presuppose force. I mean, many philosophers (and people in general) have talked about morality in other terms. 

Also, I can't help thinking that the second definition is circular... What would "good" or "bad" really imply? 

 

ErikV:

Regarding the first definition, I don't really understand why morality would presuppose force. I mean, many philosophers (and people in general) have talked about morality in other terms.

That's quite true that they've talked about it in other ways on the surface. However, morality is usually actually used as a justification for force. 'We' go to war because the Iraqis are supposedly killing babies in orphanages. Parents beat their children when they are 'bad'. People had duels and still fight over perceived slights. And so on.

This is the most powerful and important effect of moral thoughts, so dealing with it so directly in order to determine validity is a great thing, I think.

ErikV:

Also, I can't help thinking that the second definition is circular... What would "good" or "bad" really imply?

From what I've seen, they imply that someone is fit or not for affection and good treatment.

Thanks for your response. However, I must admit that I am still feeling quite unsure about what really counts as morality... 

For example, using your second definition, someone could say: "You shouldn't reject the words of the scripture", this being a moral proposition. 

If so, couldn't this be put to the test of UPB? Two men in a room could follow this prescription simultaneously - all people really could - including a guy in a coma.

I feel that I must be missing something... Either in the definition of a moral proposition, or with respect to UPB.

I would really like to find out what I might be missing, so again, thank you for thoughts.  

I'm unclear about what you're asking. If you're asking about UPB, a moral proposition is one that is about the validity of using force.

Something can be preferable universally amongst its alternatives even if it's not a moral proposition. For instance, if you're trying to figure out how reality works, the scientific method is preferable to other methods. That's not a moral proposition, of course, just a valid statement about what's preferable to alternatives.

Hm, if UPB is restricted to violence, how do we test all of the other moral theories out there? 

 

Morailty is often discussed using the terms of someone's character. "John is good." "John is bad." Evil can be used to really express a wrong doing.

Also in describing the assessment of an action. "Murder is wrong." "Being honest is the right thing to do"

ErikV:

Hm, if UPB is restricted to violence, how do we test all of the other moral theories out there? 

Hi Erik, I believe Mr C is saying not that acts of violence are available for moral evaluation, but rather that if something can be evaluated to be immoral (rape, murder, theft etc) then some degree of violence is justified. I may use force and be consistent with a rational standard of ethics in these cases (protecting myself or my property). That's UPB specifically. And then things that can still be evaluated within the UPB framework but do not justify violence in order to prevent are the APA's (showing up on time for example). If you haven't read UPB then that might be pretty confusing. 

Personally I would say that ethics describes in general behavior that you can logically expect others to abide by should they accept logical consistency and universality as a value (and UPB the book poses some argument as to why one should value these things). Or if you want to justify your behavior, X is the standard by which you can be logically consistent about it. If that makes any sense.

ErikV:

Hm, if UPB is restricted to violence, how do we test all of the other moral theories out there?

The idea is that since the subject of morality is about the validity of using violence, they wouldn't really be moral theories. You could still test whether those rules were preferable rules for attaining some goal or another.

For instance, with "You shouldn't reject the words of the scripture", you'd ask what 'scripture' is. How is it determined what counts as scripture and what doesn't? Why is that distinction very important and not just arbitrary? What is the goal we reach or get closer to reaching when we don't reject scripture? How do you know it gets us closer to that goal? How do you know there aren't ways that are preferable to that?

For the other definition of morality, that is, a sort of approval in your own head and socially, you can evaluate the effects of the action in question. What direct effects does the action have? Why does it have those effects? What indirect effects does the action have? Why does it have those effects? How desirable or undesirable are the effects? How are other acts with similar effects, especially when the actor and recipient of the effects are turned around, treated (consistency check)? Does the rule apply more strongly to one person than another, and, if so, why? I'm sure you can think of other questions.

Mr. C:

ErikV:

Hm, if UPB is restricted to violence, how do we test all of the other moral theories out there?

The idea is that since the subject of morality is about the validity of using violence, they wouldn't really be moral theories. You could still test whether those rules were preferable rules for attaining some goal or another.

For instance, with "You shouldn't reject the words of the scripture", you'd ask what 'scripture' is. How is it determined what counts as scripture and what doesn't? Why is that distinction very important and not just arbitrary? What is the goal we reach or get closer to reaching when we don't reject scripture? How do you know it gets us closer to that goal? How do you know there aren't ways that are preferable to that?

For the other definition of morality, that is, a sort of approval in your own head and socially, you can evaluate the effects of the action in question. What direct effects does the action have? Why does it have those effects? What indirect effects does the action have? Why does it have those effects? How desirable or undesirable are the effects? How are other acts with similar effects, especially when the actor and recipient of the effects are turned around, treated (consistency check)? Does the rule apply more strongly to one person than another, and, if so, why? I'm sure you can think of other questions.

I'm a bit confused by the narrowness of a definition covering only questions of the use of violence. I would think morality would cover all propositions having to do with interactions between people, whether violent or not. Obviously questions of violence are of the utmost importance, but shouldn't morality also answer questions about voluntary relationships as well, even if to say "this isn't a moral proposition, so you'll have to answer it some other way."

One example of behavior that I would expect to be covered by an ethical system is deceit; not just deceit in transactions (fraud) but deceit in communication (lying). Even in UPB, there's discussion about APAs such as being on time or being polite. They are discussed in evaluating questions of morality, and found to be aesthetically preferable, but not universalizable. Still, whether universally preferrable or not, they are *evaluated* using the framework.

Nathan T. Freeman:

I would think morality would cover all propositions having to do with interactions between people, whether violent or not.

Well, I don't think "What color dress should I wear to the party?" is a moral thing.

Nathan T. Freeman:

shouldn't morality also answer questions about voluntary relationships as well, even if to say "this isn't a moral proposition, so you'll have to answer it some other way."

But that's what I did in my post: I provided some questions you could ask about one particular proposition that wasn't a moral one.

Nathan T. Freeman:

Even in UPB, there's discussion about APAs such as being on time or being polite. They are discussed in evaluating questions of morality, and found to be aesthetically preferable, but not universalizable. Still, whether universally preferrable or not, they are *evaluated* using the framework.

That pretty much corresponds to what I said in my post. The question of whether we shouldn't reject scripture isn't a moral proposition, but we can still ask useful questions about its validity.

OP: I asked myself the same question, had no idea how to answer so I went searching the net to find a satisfying answer and I didn't really find one

To me it seems morality is the determination of whether a human behavior or action is good or bad/wrong or right. The trouble is how do you figure out what is good or bad/wrong or right. Are there clear objective answers? So far I'm not convinced there are. The best job at convicing me that there is an objective answer was done by Sam Harris with his moral landscape argument and his Tiger Woods of morality theory. Unfortunately I think I proved UPB to be invalid so that isn't any help. I even thought I myself could come up with a theory but then I went searching the net again and found my idea being pretty old and also subjective.

I'm starting to think the question of morality is the wrong question and that the better question would about our self-ownership of our body and therefor our ownership of our life. I'm starting to think that people first need to start valuing their self-ownership of their body and their life more than merely being alive and morality will arise from there spontaneously.

I really wonder how the world would look like if every human being was born with a gun attached at their hip?

Mr. C:

Nathan T. Freeman:

Even in UPB, there's discussion about APAs such as being on time or being polite. They are discussed in evaluating questions of morality, and found to be aesthetically preferable, but not universalizable. Still, whether universally preferrable or not, they are *evaluated* using the framework.

That pretty much corresponds to what I said in my post. The question of whether we shouldn't reject scripture isn't a moral proposition, but we can still ask useful questions about its validity.

I feel like I'm being pedantic here, so maybe it's not worth worrying about. But it feels like the line of reasoning is: UPB is a framework for evaluating moral propositions. UPB filters propositions down to only those involving force as being universally preferable. So therefore only propositions involving force are moral propositions.

This seems like begging the question. Or at least semantically confusing. Is a "moral proposition" a "proposition about morality" or a "proposition that IS moral?"

I guess it's true in the sense that *according to UPB* the only propositions with the possibility of being universally preferable are those involving the use of force. Other propositions are downgraded to, at best, aesthetically preferable actions. But the filtering process is performed by UPB itself, and therefore if we applied a proposition to UPB in the first place, then strikes me as a "proposition about morality." 

But again, perhaps I'm being pedantic.

Nathan T. Freeman:

UPB is a framework for evaluating moral propositions. UPB filters propositions down to only those involving force as being universally preferable. So therefore only propositions involving force are moral propositions.

No, the line of reasoning is that morality is defined a certain way, and so when we talk about it, we use that definition.

Techniques can be universally preferable outside of moral questions. The scientific method is universally preferable for figuring out the facts of reality. It is not a moral proposition, since it's invalid to use force to get people to use the scientific method.