That Bastard! (Understanding Morality)
Morality... oh, such a touchy subject are you, Morality. Lauded by some, rejected by others, and so frequently bastardized to suit purposes never intended for.
What is morality? Have you ever thought about that? What does it apply to? What doesn't it apply to? Is it objective? Subjective? Personal? Universal? Is it just an antiquated religious concept used to control people? So often referred to but so infrequently understood, the concept of morality is one of those things we use in every day speech but don't often take enough time to understand. But no matter what your current political position-whether Anarchist, Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, what have you-if we're serious about a just world (the reason most of us have a political position in the first place), or even simply a just existence, then it's essential to remove the shroud and take a good hard look at this thing called Morality.
The dictionary defines morality as: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." It lists synonyms such as ethics, rights and wrongs, and ethicality.
So the first thing we notice is that morality appears to be almost interchangeable with ethics. A quick look-up of ethics reveals confirmation of this: "moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior." Well now, isn't that something? I'm willing to wager that most of you who've never bothered to really delve into these two concepts knew that they are essentially the same thing, did you?
Both of them are concerned with right vs wrong behavior, or action. Morality is more concerned with the principle side of the concept where ethics is generally more about the application of those principles as a governing mechanism. But the distinction is immaterial from a practical perspective to what we're talking about here. What you need to know is that, contrary to the trend we see in modern culture for rejecting morality yet applying ethics, you can't have ethics without morality. Ethics is literally the application of morality. Now that I've got some of you squirming uncomfortably at the notion of being bound by that God-awful morality, let's dive in and see what it really is, shall we?
So morality is this concept of distinguishing between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. But that's still very ethereal and up in the clouds, right? It doesn't do much up there in a conceptual state, so let's bring it in for a closer look. Morals are defined as "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." Ok, that's a little more specific, and helps us extrapolate morality to an individual level. But all this talk of right and wrong, good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable-it doesn't really tell us much. So let's look at these dichotomies and see if we can nail them down a little better. What is right and good and acceptable? What do those things mean? We use them in so many different ways, so what is it getting at? Right is defined as "morally good, justified, acceptable." Hmmm. Good is a little more ambiguous but defined as "morally right, acceptable." Well, now. And acceptable is defined as "able to be tolerated or allowed."
So in a way, they're quite circular. But what do they boil down to? I would proffer, as the most clinical reduction: just. Just is defined as "having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason, reasonable (a just but not a generous decision); faithful to an original; conforming to a standard of correctness, proper (just proportions); acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good, righteous (a just war); being what is merited, deserved (a just punishment); legally correct, lawful (just title to an estate)." Given synonyms are things like upright, honest, just, conscientious, scrupulous, honorable. Aha! This is far more specific, far more concrete, far more mechanical--these are things we can work with. And are they not exactly what we all seek in our own way when we interact politically? Isn't this what we strive for? Isn't that what the law is at least intended to do, even if it fails miserably at it?
Morality is a means of distinguishing between just and unjust human action and interaction.
Now we're getting somewhere. Now we can start answering those questions about objectivity and subjectivity. We've already, by defining it, dispensed with the question of whether or not it's just an antiquated religious concept with a firm "no"-obviously it isn't. But we can also further recognize that it is possible to have morals derived from a religion. If morals are principles held by an individual, then they can hold any principles they choose, can they not? So now we've partially answered the objectivity/subjectivity or universal/personal question. Let's see if we can answer it all the way.
We know that the concept of morality is a means to distinguish between just and unjust human action and interaction. We know that morals themselves are principles based on this distinction. And we know that some morals are not universal but personal, are not objective but subjective. So now we must explore whether this is true of all morals or only some. We must ask "is there any moral which is universal and objective?" So is there? Is there any line in the sand regarding human action or interaction which is universal? Can there be? How would we determine that?
In order to answer this, we have to have a foundation from which to reason. We have to go back to first principles. So we start with the first principle of self-ownership:
(The cogito) x (in time) x (singular inhabitancy) = (self-ownership)
(My own philosophical equation for the sake of expediency; don't fret, separate post forthcoming). To own something is to have the right of use, possession, control, determination, to the exclusion of all others. You own yourself. I own myself. Everyone on earth owns themselves and is, in their natural state, equal in personhood or self-ownership. No one is born with inherent authority over anyone else. So bearing that in mind, is there any interaction or "type" of interaction which could be said to be unjust? Immediately, one comes to mind: to violate consent. If only you own you then only you may rightfully determine for yourself what you will or won't do, have or won't have, be or won't be, etc, yes? So no one else has the right to control you, to force their will on you, to force you to do something you don't want to do, something you haven't granted permission for. This power over self-determination in human interaction we call "consent". To violate consent is to lay claim to another, to usurp their self-ownership. But because the first principle of self-ownership is foundational, it cannot be legitimately usurped. It is logically irrefutable. In other words, usurpation of self-ownership is logically impossible to justify. So we can say with certainty that there is one universally applicable moral standard: that of consent.
Well... that's kind of a big deal, isn't it? When you've got some time, take a moment to ponder that. Consider the world around you and how often consent is violated, yours and others', and in what ways. It's pretty mind-boggling once you're looking through a clear lens.
So, what now? At least for initiatory human interaction, reason has shown us that there is a universal moral standard that applies to all of it, and its litmus test is consent. So what about after consent? What does that look like? I posit here that any further question of the morality of the interaction is personal and therefore subjective (perhaps relative). In other words, to violate consent is universally immoral. Once consent is reached (which necessarily implies that all parties to the interaction are capable of express, informed consent), any question of the morality of the interaction is subjective, varying from person to person. I'll give a few examples to help you get the idea:
Example 1: A wants some of B's money. If B consents to this and A takes some of B's money, it is not immoral. If B does not consent to this and A takes some of B's money, it is immoral. This is the difference between sharing and theft.
Example 2: A wants to fight B. If B consents to fighting A and they fight, it is not immoral. If B does not consent and A starts swinging anyway, it is immoral. This is the difference between a match (boxing, wrestling, what have you) and assault.
Example 3: A wants to have sexual intercourse with B. If B consents and sexual intercourse occurs between them, it is not immoral. If B does not consent and sexual intercourse occurs, it is immoral. This is the difference between sex/lovemaking and rape.
In example 1, I can hardly conceive of any question beyond consent as to its morality, save perhaps the intended use of the money being shared.
In example 2, a pacifist (let's call him C) would find all violence immoral, including defensive violence and consensual violence. So C's personal morality would dictate that this is immoral, even with consent. So the universal test is satisfied, but not the personal test of C. But it doesn't involve C, so it's irrelevant. C is free to try to convince others of his beliefs (consensual) but has no right to impose his belief on them (non-consensual). He does, however, have the right to live by his beliefs, and not engage in or approve of any violence.
In example 3, suppose that A and B are both men. Let's also suppose that C, the pacifist, is against homosexuality and holds the belief that it is immoral. So C would have a further test of morality to this interaction than just consent. For C, it would need to be consensual and opposite sex, and then it would satisfy the test of C's personal morality. So the test of universal morality is satisfied but not the test of C's personal morality. But it doesn't involve C and is therefore irrelevant. C has the right to try to convince others of his beliefs (consensual), but does not have the right to impose them on others (non-consensual). He does, however, have the right to live by his beliefs and not engage in or approve of sexual intercourse that fails his moral test.
Consent is the one moral test that all interaction must pass. Any test beyond it is personal-it varies from person to person-and therefore subjective. Failing the test of consent makes something universally immoral, regardless of whether or not the subjective questions as to morality are satisfied.
Make sense? I hope so. If you have any questions, please be sure to ask them in the comments section below and I'll do my best to answer them or aid you in arriving at your own answers.
You can follow me here, as well as on Facebook and Google+.
https://www.facebook.com/jess.bbg
https://www.facebook.com/JessicaSmithVoluntaryist/
https://plus.google.com/+JessicaSmithV
Good write up. I personally understand morality and ethics to be relative to the individual and/or the group. This is because it is a standard and standards are determined by the person(s). Thus it is, essentially, a human concept, or an 'intelligence-based' concept and therefore not universal as applying to existence as a whole.
In the 'non-intelligent' world, i.e the world not including humanity, there is no standard of behavior, no morals, ethics or justice. It simply is. In the world regardless of humanity, rape, murder, theft and others are perfectly 'acceptable' as survival of the individual and, thus, of the species, is king.
That being said, I do not pretend that morality, ethics and justice are not important or can be disergarded. With our ability to perceive beyond basic survival and to contemplate and empathize with the world around us, I firmly believe we have a responsibility(another concept limited only to 'intelligence') to act morally, ethically and justly. To limit our harm to others and the world around us and to make right the 'wrongs' we see.
So while, as far as existence is concerned, rape may be 'acceptable', at least for survival, in the world of humans(we very much create our own world through our perception, see quantum physics), while moral relativism may lead someone to feel that rape is 'moral', it is all too likely that the victim and those around will not. This is not because rape is 'inherently' immoral but because we, as individuals and as a group, have determined that the harm brought by rape does not reasonably 'justify' the 'gain'. That is to say, it is imbalanced and unnecessary and more harmful than not.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts. As I was reading your piece, I noted that everything you used to describe these concepts involved talking about standards and the like. And whether we like to face it or not, standards are open for negotiation. They can and will change as people and groups and times change.
I think the best way to view all of this is to use the taboo-mores scale, which is essentially what morals and ethics relate to and are derived from. That which is taboo is typically seen as immoral and so it would be unethical to engage in.
Keep putting the content out. Good stuff.
I get what you're saying, and to an extent, I can agree with a good bit of it. But I would interject that that's the difference between objective and subjective--not all standards are "norms". It's another word for measure. And that's what morality is and does. It's a measure of human action/interaction. But I also used the term distinction, and that's crucial to the concept being explored here. Regardless of the shifting nature of human conception and how we describe a thing, it remains the thing. The distance from a to b is constant, regardless of the subjective human description of that distance. In other words, the yardstick is not the distance. I invite you to refute the universal moral principle of consent-based initiatory human interaction. I'd be curious to see how you'd go about it. Thanks for your feedback!
Well, normally I wouldn't refute it because I firmly believe all interaction should be consensual.
But it's simple, really. Survival trumps morals and ethics. At least as a universal standard. Humans are the weird ones in existence because we often harm ourselves in order to abide by morals and standards. This includes seeking consent even to our own detriment.
I'd like to put a disclaimer here, what I am about to say is in no way 'moral' or 'acceptable' in my opinion and by my standard, but even consensual interaction is not universal.
Simply put, if I am in danger of harm or dying, even if it means harming another who has not wronged me, the universal standards of self-preservation and survival of the species technically takes precedent. If I am starving, then I find food, even if it means another goes without.
Morals, ethics, justice, these are things to aspire to to be sure. We should do all we can to live up to them. To stand on principle above all else. But, at the end of the day, they are not and can not be universal. Even voluntary interaction. There is ALWAYS an exception in this world because it is a world of duality.
In my opinion, however, this only makes principles, morals, ethics, justice all that much more precious and important. It also makes humanity the exception to the rules of survival. We are not bound by a universal standard of behavior. We are not bound to seek to survive and propogate the species even to the detriment of another. Unlike many animals, we are not compelled to procreate so much so that we will resort to rape. Nor do we have to thanks to our advances in technology. Unlike many animals, we are not limited in our ability to seek food to taking what we can find and get away with. We can communicate, we can ask and we can sacrifice. If you have food and I am starving, I don't have to choose whether or not to steal it from you and let you starve. We can communicate, discuss, negotiate and share so that, while we both may not be sated, we both will have enough to live to find more. We can choose whether or not to work together, whether or not to share, whether or not to sacrifice ourselves for another, even our 'competition' by universal standards.
So, no, consensual society is not a universal standard. It is the exception. And we should strive for it. As I said, we are not compelled to abide by principle but we should surely aspire to do so and there can be no higher principle than to live and let live. It is the oldest and most tested and proven standard. When we operate via consent, we can do so much more than when we give in to the natural standard of survival above all else.
In short, morals are not the rule but the exception. And we are the personification of that exception because, unlike all life that we know of, we can choose how we interact in this world. We can choose how much we sacrifice, how little, how much harm we do or don't do in pursuit of survival. We can choose not to survive.
Outstanding, @voluntaryelle.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on "implied consent" and "irrevocable consent", especially as they are applied by governments to justify so much fleecing of the blissfully ignorant sheep.
In a word? Horseshit.
Consent can be implied, but the implication must actually be given (even then, it would appear express and informed consent is the only form which can stand up to logical scrutiny and thereby carry liability/responsibility, and by which morality can be determined). The state simply presumes consent and in doing so violates it.
thanks for sharing this material. I like what you posted. Thank you so much
You're welcome, thanks for the feedback
Objective Morality = conclusions based only on objective premisses, ie, reason and science.
Precisely. :-)
you are an excellent writer.
Thank you! I'm humbled.
Thanks for a very interesting read!
I have been thinking about the same problem of how to define morality/ethics from first principles (see my first post on the matter: Ethics is an optimization problem – more to come). While your wording is a bit different than how I think about it, our reasoning and conclusions seem to be well aligned. I think we could both get something out of following each other's writing and keep in touch on the comment fields! :)