The Science Of Morality

[jdx]

When an action is termed immoral a common reply is "According to who's morality?" IMO there is only one morality which anyone can determine scientifically, independent of anyone's opinion. Below is an article which explains the science of morality.

The Relative Goodness of God

Surely one of the strangest and most prevalent notions is that, without God, ethics are relativistic. The term ‘relativistic’ here means that good and evil are mere opinions, subject to no proof, universal imposition or general enforcement.

What could be stranger than to believe that the contradictory opinions of an elusive and invisible deity constitute absolute truth, whereas the biological fact that we are all human beings, and all subject to the same physical laws, is to be considered rank subjectivity.

To deal with the problem of subjectivity, a moral theory must be simple – and subject to the same tests as any logical or scientific theory. It has to have internal consistency, and cannot contradict known physical laws.

Principles

Any moral theory must satisfy the basics. It must be applicable to all people at all times, and also support the near-universal condemnation against certain crimes, such as premeditated murder, assault, rape and so on.

Any moral theory must also be able to both explain past and current phenomenon, as well as accurately predict future trends. For example, it must be able to explain why Nazism was evil, as well as Communism and fascism. It must be able to explain why Africa, for instance, remains mired in poverty and violence – as well as why the Muslim world remains so backward and violent. It must also explain the failure of imperialism. It would get bonus points for knowing in advance that the American invasion of Iraq was doomed to failure.

Also, for any moral theory to be taken seriously, it must also explain how certain advances in the human condition occurred. Why did capitalism raise the standard of living so highly? Why is democracy better than fascism? Why have wife-beating and ‘honor killings’ declined in the West, but not in the East? Why did socialism murder so many millions of people?

For anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method, none of this is startling. Scientists know that their theories have to be logical, and consistent with known reality and common perception.

Theft

Either we have property rights, or we do not. If no one has property rights, then no one has ownership over even his own body. Kidneys may be removed at will. No physical invasion is wrong. Rape is not a crime. Neither is stabbing someone. No sane person would defend such propositions. Thus we at least are said to have ownership over our own bodies. If we have ownership over our own bodies, then we must have ownership over the effects of our bodies. If I own my body, then I own my actions. If I own my actions, then I own the effects of my actions. If I do not, then I can never be condemned for stabbing or raping anyone. I obviously own my vocal chords. But what would it mean to own my vocal cords, but not the sound they produce? Owning the flesh is owning the effect. If people want to give me bread to hear me sing, then is not the bread they give me also an effect of my voice? Do I not own that bread as surely as I own my voice? All property comes from the first ownership – our own body and its thoughts. If we own our bodies, then we also own the property we produce.

Ah, but a man can come and steal my bread. How is that different from me giving him my bread? Stealing is as different from giving as rape is from lovemaking. The essential element is choice. If I own a piece of bread, it is a product of my choices and actions. If someone steals my bread, he is saying that it is a product of his mental and physical actions, which it is not. He acts to steal the bread, of course, but the bread has not come into existence because of his actions, but mine. He is contradicting reality on two levels. The first, mentioned above, is the claim that his thoughts and actions produced the bread, which it did not. The second is that he is stealing my property because he values property rights, which is a rank contradiction. I will steal your bread because I want to gain the value of owning bread – either eating it, giving it away or trading it. If everything I stole was immediately stolen from me, I would stop stealing. Thus I want the benefits of ownership, which I am denying to you. This is an utter contradiction. Illogical – and thus, when inflicted on others, immoral.

Rape

Rape is a particularly virulent subset of theft. All human beings own their own bodies, and so rape is subject to the same irrational premises mentioned above. Rape also suffers from the problem of contradiction. A man who rapes a woman is saying that his own pleasure is important. But he is simultaneously denying that the woman’s pleasure is important. But they are both human, and so he cannot make up laws which apply only to himself. Again, a rank contradiction, and so immoral.

Murder

The murdered man wants to live. His murderer wants to live. See above.

Objective Morality

Morality is one of the easiest puzzles to solve. It is also one of the most instinctive. Children take many years to understand calculus. Take a toddler’s toy away from him and see what happens. So why is it so muddled for so many people?

Well, of course morality is the most powerful force in human life. It is muddled because whoever controls morality controls the world. It is muddled because priests and politicians and all the court toadies of the modern state have muddled it, so they can act against all the simple dictates of physical reality, base decency and common humanity. Priests tell us that God rules morality so that we will defer to their opinions. Politicians tell us that we should serve our country so we will kill and die for their petty grandeur. The primary goal of false moralists – or illogicians – is to make up an imaginary entity which defines morality, and then claim to be the only ones who can speak for it. Thus, you see, we are not serving them – just this¦ thing. God, country, race, priest, whatever.

And this – this is considered the opposite of subjectivity. Even if we assume that God exists, has the edicts He has handed down been so clear that they can be considered as objective as even the most fluctuating law of physics? Of course not! The Christian God murders entire cities, the entire world. He condones slavery, the murder of atheists and homosexuals, rape and all manner of irrationality and wrongdoing. If God were a man, we would rightly judge Him both mad and evil. He claims we should forgive our enemies, but punishes even inadvertent sinners with hellfire. He demands that we help others, but does not save even children from cancer. He commands us to refrain from killing, then tells us to kill unbelievers.

And – amazingly – this is all considered the most objective source of morality. The simple moral reasoning outlined above is considered the basest subjectivity, but the whims of an over-translated, contradictory, malevolent and frankly unproven deity are considered absolute and certain truth. It is the purest nonsense.

Finally, the scientific method demands that all theories explain and predict behaviour. It is simple to put the religious model to the test. The Christian Church ruled the Western world for over a thousand years, from before the fall of Rome. How were we doing? Look it up. When Church power was overthrown in the eighteen century, property rights began to be observed for the first time in human history. What was the result? The end of slavery. Capitalism. Freedom. The factories that saved mankind. The rise of the rights of women and children.

The theory of property rights explains the Dark and Middle Ages, the value of capitalism, the continued slavery in Africa, the murderous failures of communism, fascism, socialism and the barbarian habits of the Muslim states. Just as bad science produces barren knowledge, so irrational moral theories produce misery and death. All such social failures can be traced to a lack of respect for property rights – either of the effects of the body, or the body itself. The objective reality of property rights is also easily employed to predict the current and escalating failures of all State policies and programs, since the State’s power of taxation is antithetical to property rights (see ‘theft’ above).

Thus I find it amazing that irrational and inconsistent rules, backed by imaginary entities like the State, the people, the race, the country or some contradictory sky-ghost – and interpreted by men with no regard for logic or empirical truth – are considered objective, true and absolute. Simple moral truths such as those outlined above, however, which are consistent and true to the facts of life, reality and history, are considered subjective and relativistic make-believe.

It is time for us to rise above this manipulative, destructive and blinding confusion, and clearly see the simple rules inherent within both our own natures and the world we inhabit. Morality, like physics, is not defined by irrational whims or subjective preferences, but the fixed characteristics of nature. We are all rational animals, therefore we are all as subject to the same morality as we are to the same gravity. This does not mean that we must be moral – it merely means that if we are immoral, the consequences will be destructive. We may choose to jump off a cliff, but we cannot choose not to fall.

Posted by Stefan Molyneux, MA at 12/30/2004 06:20:00 PM

[abbey]

:-2 Welcome to FG.

[yaaarrrgg]

That's an interesting analysis of morality (not sure I've heard it boiled down to property before).

It's a valid analysis, and one of many ways to that bring us closer to an understanding of ethics. Although I wonder does it present a complete picture? How does the ethical theory handle a case, say, that involves obligation to society?

Say a child is running towards a steep drop off ... don't we have an obligation to stop that child, even if it's not our own?

In terms of two people, if one is taking property from the other, isn't there a change of ownership (by force)? Who are we, as third party observers, to say who owns what?

Like most moral theories there's also a calculation problem if we do not recognize acquisition of property by force. That means Americans don't really own their land, or really any country for that matter, and anything that resulted from that violent acquisition. Who owns what? The creation of any one thing is entangled and dependent on things that are owned by others.

Perhaps the concept of private property is not as clear cut as assumed, and needs to be defined more clearly.

[jdx]

yaaarrrgg;831856 wrote: That's an interesting analysis of morality (not sure I've heard it boiled down to property before).

It's a valid analysis, and one of many ways to that bring us closer to an understanding of ethics. Although I wonder does it present a complete picture? How does the ethical theory handle a case, say, that involves obligation to society?


Society is an abstraction used by the state as an artificial entity to protect. That allows the state to avoid protecting the rights of individuals, which is the purpose for which the government was created. Instead the state claims to protect the abstraction (society, which doesn't really exist) by criminalizing such non-violent activities as drug use, gambling, prostitution, unlicensed gun ownership, and other acts of human behavior. The state is about controlling people through the use of initiatory force, not about protecting the rights of individuals. In fact, in the US, rights are not recognized, only civil liberties, which are privileges which can be extended or withdrawn at the whim of the state. When citizens accept any privilege from the state, they are presumed to have waived their natural rights.

yaaarrrgg;831856 wrote: Say a child is running towards a steep drop off ... don't we have an obligation to stop that child, even if it's not our own?


Do you know anyone who would not attempt to avoid harm to a child? I don't.

[yaaarrrgg]

jdx;833501 wrote:

Do you know anyone who would not attempt to avoid harm to a child? I don't.


I don't either, but my point is to test the moral theory. Does that conclusion follow from the theory? If this conclusion does not follow from the theory, it's a reason to either reject the theory, or suspect that it only presents a partial definition of morality.

[koan]

It's great that you wrote so much material there but difficult to discuss unless we break it up into pieces. I'd like to have seen an opening definition of what "morality" and "morals" means for the purpose of the discussion.

Any moral theory must also be able to both explain past and current phenomenon, as well as accurately predict future trends. For example, it must be able to explain why Nazism was evil, as well as Communism and fascism. It must be able to explain why Africa, for instance, remains mired in poverty and violence – as well as why the Muslim world remains so backward and violent. It must also explain the failure of imperialism. It would get bonus points for knowing in advance that the American invasion of Iraq was doomed to failure.
There are "fatal errors" in this paragraph. You use emotional terms such as "evil" and "backward" and there are obvious projections of your ethnocentric analysis of world events.

[moonpie]

I know that I don't make much sense half the time, but here goes. What is morally wrong or right is either one way or the other. What makes you feel good, did you help somebody today or hurt somebody? I don't feel like we need to dissect this. One way or the other - there is no half-way on either count.

[Accountable]

moonpie;833544 wrote: I know that I don't make much sense half the time, but here goes. What is morally wrong or right is either one way or the other. What makes you feel good, did you help somebody today or hurt somebody? I don't feel like we need to dissect this. One way or the other - there is no half-way on either count.
That's a dangerous definition to give someone who doesn't have empathy or maturity.



I know what you mean, but I've met many people who would use that to justify, say, burglary. "Hey, all this stuff makes me feel good. And besides, nobody got hurt." See what I mean?

[koan]

Philosophical discussion of appropriate normative definitions of "morality" can be found here

The term “morality can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,

a. some other group, such as a religion, or

b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

[jdx]

yaaarrrgg;833507 wrote: I don't either, but my point is to test the moral theory. Does that conclusion follow from the theory? If this conclusion does not follow from the theory, it's a reason to either reject the theory, or suspect that it only presents a partial definition of morality.


Testing the theory involves asking yourself: Does the act of saving a child from physical harm qualify as moral or immoral? Acts of rescue are obviously moral. Some things are self evident.

A simple test I use for morality is asking the question: Is this act good for mankind?

[jdx]

koan;833537 wrote:

There are "fatal errors" in this paragraph. You use emotional terms such as "evil" and "backward" and there are obvious projections of your ethnocentric analysis of world events.


"Evil" and "backward" are objective terms describing acts of states which denied people their most basics rights.

It is not racist or ethnocentric to objectively describe immoral acts.

[yaaarrrgg]

jdx;833917 wrote: Testing the theory involves asking yourself: Does the act of saving a child from physical harm qualify as moral or immoral? Acts of rescue are obviously moral. Some things are self evident.

A simple test I use for morality is asking the question: Is this act good for mankind?


Maybe I'm misunderstanding your theory of morality, but I thought you were advocating a principle such as:

"an action is wrong if and only if it destroys private property or hampers freedom"

Then the article goes on to derive intuitive results like killing is wrong (because it destroys one's body, which is private property). Similar derivations explain why rape, theft is wrong, under this theory. To this degree, the theory is working.

However the theory is mute with respect to cases of obligation to society (which you say does not exist). That means, I have no obligation, under this view of morality to save a child's life if it is not my own. This conflicts with intuitive moral judgments (along with the idea of treating children as property ... but that's off topic).

The whole point is the at moral theories can be tested just as scientific theories are tested ... through ... what's the formal term? ... hypothetico-deductive reasoning.

To fall back on "it's just intuitive and self evident" you slip back in the question that you were trying to answer. Who's intuition? How then is there only one correct set of moral intuitions? In the whole context of the essay, that answer is circular reasoning.

On a side note, ethical theory is not an easy topic ... the person you are quoting has not thought this through.

[jdx]

koan;833583 wrote: Philosophical discussion of appropriate normative definitions of "morality" can be found here

.


Plato was a believer in external authorities, like religion, and the state. Those people operating from within these external authorities arbitrarily make the rules or set the norm in order to control the masses to further their own agenda.

The article, The Science Of Morality attempts to break that pattern and give the individual the tools to determine morality for themselves. If someone denies another person a right they reserve for themselves, the act is immoral.

It isn't necessary to have a rule to fit every situation. For instance, no one needs to be told to save a child from harm.

[koan]

jdx;833956 wrote: "Evil" and "backward" are objective terms describing acts of states which denied people their most basics rights.

It is not racist or ethnocentric to objectively describe immoral acts.


ok. good luck with that.

[jdx]

yaaarrrgg;834020 wrote:

However the theory is mute with respect to cases of obligation to society (which you say does not exist). That means, I have no obligation, under this view of morality to save a child's life if it is not my own. This conflicts with intuitive moral judgments (along with the idea of treating children as property ... but that's off topic).


Society is an abstraction like the state and religion. Have you ever seen a society, or heard one speak or felt its heart beat. No, because it's a mind created entity. No mind created abstraction has rights. Only people have rights. Therefore, there is no such thing as an obligation to society. If there is an obligation to save a child from harm it's self-imposed by other human beings.

Now, the Science of Morality shows how to determine which acts are immoral. If no human right was violated or denied then the act was not immoral. Moral acts are more or less self-evident, for which no rules are required.

The significance of being able to determine which acts are immoral is to point out that most acts of human behavior the state considers crimes are not immoral. The state says that things like gambling, drug use, prostitution, gun ownership and many others are crimes against society. But, we now know that no one has, or can have, an obligation to a mind created entity, like society, the state, religion, the Easter bunny, or Santa Claus.

Becoming aware of realties like this allows people to reach adulthood and prevents them from being duped and subjugated by external authorities. The solution to all problems lies within the mind of individuals.