[ExI] Morality function, self-correcting moral systems?

[Stefano Vaj]

On 15 December 2011 23:37, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Well, according to Sam Harris, 'well-being' is the obvious thing that
> should be optimised.  This sounds perfectly reasonable, to me.  Defining
> what exactly 'well-being' means, on the other hand, is the difficult thing.
>  Obviously one person's well-being is not necessarily the same as
> another's.  So personal preference must be a part of it, as well as
> 'universal' factors.
>
> It seems clear that as long as some groups of people can claim with a
> straight face that morality consists of following the rules laid down in an
> ancient book, claimed to be the inerrant word of a supernatural being, that
> there cannot really be any agreement on what morality is (even if only
> because there are many such books, each with different rules).  It may be
> easy to rationally demolish such rule-based moral systems, but that cuts no
> ice in the real world.  Try convincing a catholic that Original Sin is
> actually an evil concept.
>
> Probably the only practical approach is to decide for yourself what you
> think a good moral system is, and do your best to stick to it.  Imposing
> your morals on someone else is probably immoral.  Unless you are the
> follower of an ancient book...
>

I think that a general process is in place in our society where the ex
auctoritate argument progressively cuts less and less cloth. This is by the
way not typical of modernity, but simply the reflection of an age of change
where things held as "evident" in the past are not any more, and new ones
are not yet (when somebody started claiming that a few scriptures were
"holier" than others, they did have to face the same incredulity we exhibit
today).

Where does it leave us, however? I suspect that when a really general
consensus can be reached on the universal validity of an ethical predicate,
the same is invariably of a purely formal nature ("Do the Right Thing",
"Evil is To Be Fought", etc. something which tells us strictly nothing as
to the what the right and the evil would be).

Perhaps the only thing which might put all those concerned with morality in
the same camp is the idea that it would be nice if people were more
consistent with their principles, whatever they might be (I for one put a
big weight on consistency as to my respect of people I do not agree with,
or lack thereof).

But even there, some might prefer that principles dictating behaviours
deemed "immoral" by themselves be infringed rather than observed by their
adopters...

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20111216/fc7e2bfa/attachment.html>