Okay, for the sake of my own fun exploration, I'm going to delve into the mechanics of moral thought. No, I'm not going to talk about what is moral or immoral, simply by virtue of the fact that doing this lacks perspective of depth. Yes, talking about moral particulars is in fact focusing on the trees in spite of the forest. No. It's more like focusing on the Chlorophyll in the leaves of that tree, in spite of everything above the Chlorophyll. In fact, if you're wanting to advocate for anti-abortion legislation, talk about promiscuity, or how the gays are bad, you're already missing the point. In order to get this, you need to check your shit at the door. Check it, put it in a bag, leave it with security, get patted down and then enter. Because your shit should be left at the door. Point made.
We are going to describe a model that will more or less describe what morality is, and what we mean by "objective" or "subjective". Big things. Very Big things.
Let's get started:
1.) Thinking minds exist.
That's right baby, we are getting down to the basics. Thinking minds exist. Hands, legs, penises, hunger and sex as well as thousands of other things are extensions of this mind and how it interacts with the world. This also means that we are for the benefit of discussion going to assume that Hard Solipsism isn't true. Yes, reader. My mind exists and so do others. We are not a fancy construction of your own mind. I can't prove it because its necessarily impossible to prove. However, I think this is fairly uncontroversial. If you're not a sociopath.
2.) These minds have needs and desires. By virtue of those two things, value emerges.
This is plain and simple and goes back to the beginning of time. People need and want things. Things are scarce. As a result these things are sought after and ultimately held in high regard for their utility. We could be taking anything from food and water to your daughter's virginity and/or lack of pregnancy. Don't get any ideas, kids. Value is the subjective property that emerges from (1) needs and wants, and (2) scarcity of those needs and wants. You might even say that economics as a whole was pretty much inevitable; Without those things you don't have supply or demand. How dismal.
3.) Thinking minds with value placements interact with other thinking minds with value placements. The interactions between two or more thinking minds with value placements are called Moral Actions. The thinking minds with value placements - for the sake of brevity - I will define as stakeholders.
This one isn't too complicated. Since people share space on the planet, country, tribe, toilet, etc., people must interact. People - by virtue of being thinking minds with value placements - often have something to lose or gain in the outcome of those interactions. Value placements play a big role in how these interactions are carried out. It would seem that by and large (exceptions notwithstanding) the behavior of people tends to be driven by their thoughts, and by natural extension of our aforementioned assumptions, value placements. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all potential human interactions that take place with some value placement in mind is a moral action. This isn't to say that all interactions are moral actions. Some things take place between two people that isn't based on value placements. For example, two people accidentally bump into each other on a busy crosswalk isn't necessarily informed by value placements. However, saying "pardon me sir" in response to it is in fact a moral action, because two stakeholders interact with each other with value placements (specifically politeness and/or respect).
4.) The moral actions between two or more stakeholders is either positive or negative. If the value placements of two stakeholders match in the moral action, it is positive. If not, it is negative.
Essentially, All I'm saying here is people will either agree or disagree on the outcome of a particular moral action. I am hesitant on defining "positive" and "negative" as "moral" and "immoral" respectively, mostly because the latter two terms are wholly conditional on the value placements of each stakeholder. However, this is something that will help to define those two terms in just a bit.
5.) Moral action by definition cannot take place without the existence of stakeholders.
I see this as more of a point to orient those who have probably not met me halfway yet. Morality is not a thing independent of people. It isn't a list of pronouncements scribbled into the margins of the cosmos to be later discovered. It is very much only contingent upon the interactions of stakeholders.
6.) When a moral action is positive, then the associated stakeholders agree on its morality.
Simply put, when the values match with the interaction, the two stakeholders can agree on whether the interaction is moral or immoral.
Now that we have that out of the way, we can start talking about objective and subjective.
7.) When a set of X stakeholders compare their value placements and observe that the resultant moral actions are positive, then it can be said that these values are common among all in the set and are in fact objective with respect to the set of stakeholders.
Despite what people think, Objectivity doesn't mean absolute or based on physical reality. Objectivity is based on scope. For example, Consider the rules of say, Candyland. There are established rules by the creators of the game, and within the context of the game, it is objectively true that if you draw a card with two red spaces on it, you can move two red spaces. Within the same context, it is also objectively false that you may move your piece directly to the end of the board. Constructions where people agree upon the rules are objective constructions. In a similar way, the stakeholders of potential moral actions - wherein all stakeholders agree on the associated value placements - is objective.
So, let's ask the banal, beaten to death and overly annoying question: is morality objective? Well...
8.) The term Objective Morality will be defined the specific set of positive moral actions in an objective set of stakeholders.
And Finally:
9.) If two sets A and B of objective moral stakeholders have negative moral actions between them, then the set of stakeholders A (AND) B is subjective. This is a Subjective Morality.
Thinking gets so muddled sometimes when instead of thinking about how morality works and what it is, we instead ask ourselves what is immoral and moral. Don't get me wrong, those are important questions. However, in order to understand where all this comes from, we really need to understand whats going on in terms of actions and people. It very clearly goes into other things, such as the power or influence one set of stakeholders has over another. For example, if there is a God and the God sets down morality, We run into some problems. First, is God a stakeholder? If so, why does his value placements hold higher than mine or anyone else's? If God created everything and is maximally powerful, how could it be that such a being could value anything? What kind of being who knows everything, - such as the origin of desires and needs in lesser, limited thinking minds - could do anything, be anywhere, and have anything would be able to be a moral stakeholder? Holding stake implies some sort of inability or lack of power simply because to hold stake means to risk losing something. To be able to lose something means to not be maximally powerful.
Such a thing leaves us with some conclusions: (1) The morality between God and all stakeholders is subjective. (2) God doesn't exist and couldn't as a result of particular accepted premises aforementioned. (3) Morality of God doesn't matter, he is not a stakeholder and has nothing to lose.
But I digress.
You might be wondering what this selection has to do with either magic or lasers. Nothing really. Well, maybe you could consider it an exercise in thinking about stuff so you can create your own morals in your own mind-forged world.
Thanks for reading. If you like what you read you can follow me on Twitter and soon enough, I'll be posting videos related to the content you see here on YouTube.
No comments:
Post a Comment