Philosophical Vegan Forum

Hi everybody,

Lately I have become interested in moral philosophy. I have read animal liberation, practical ethics and I'd like to start reading Reasons and Person by Derek Parfit to get a more comprehensive look on the topic.

However, while debating veganism, I have noticed that most of the times people don't argue against the validity of tricky moral decisions. The questions that are more likely to be brought up are the ones on very basic moral assumptions, such as ' isn't morality a relative concept?'.

It's a question that Singer tries to answer in the first pages of practical ethics. Nevertheless, his reasoning is not completely satisfactory. In short, he argues that if you believe in relative morality, that is, for exaple, the notion that different cultures are entitled to different concepts of morality then you are not evaluating a certain moral stance, you are just describing a situation. ' Worse still, the relativist cannot satisfactorily account for the non-conformist. If ‘slavery is wrong’ means ‘my society disapproves of slavery’, then someone who lives in a society that does not disapprove of slavery is, in claiming that slavery is wrong, making a simple factual error'.

So, I'd like to read your answers to these basic moral questions:

0 What is morality? Can people decide what's moral and what's not?
1 Why should we be moral?
2 Isn't morality subjective/relative? Is it wrong to criticize, for example, a country that has different politics on, say, what women have to wear? Are there moral objectives?
3 How can a moral system be better than another?
4 What role have emotions in moral reasoning? Is a question like ' would you do the same thing against your sister..?' legit?
5 and the last one, since I guess that most of you are utilitarians ' What if a person's desire to harm someone else is greater than the desire of this person not to be harmed?'

Thanks

In response to you questions:
0. As an atheist it is clear that in way people decide what is and isn't moral, but in a way they also do not. Do not worry I will elaborate later.
1. People should be moral because society functions much better when we are moral. For example if no one followed basic laws (do not kill and steal) society wouldn't be able to function.
2. I would argue that morality among social creatures like humans is absolute. I take directly from Sam Harris who I encourage you to look up. Morality is based minimization of the suffering of sentient beings. This means that if an action were to cause suffering on another sentient being it would be imoral; reversely if an action were to minimize the suffering of a sentient being it would be moral, lastly anything that is neutral would be exactly that. The basis for think this is the morality that many already base their life on is empathy, nearly all humans have empathy and unless we are indoctronated into ignoring it over empathy will extend to all animals. In sumation, no morality is not subjective, it is absolute and based around empathy.
3. Because morality is absolute and based on empathy, then moral th moral systems that minimize suffering the most are superior.
4. Emotions play a large role in morality. Empathy should be the basis for all moral choices. On top of that we should practice extending our empathy to all sentient life. We need to practice experiencing empathy as more than emotion, we need to practice mixing rational thought in with our empathy, so we can better employ it.
5 desire has no role morality. Empathy can be the only objective arbiter of morality. Only by putting ourselves into the "shoes" of the one who owed actions will effect can we possibly have a solid foundation for moral thought and decision making.

As an end not I would like to add that, as I had said before we need to minimize the suffering of sentient beings. I add this because it is too easy to fall into an extremist pacifist view. For example one might think that shooing a terrorist is wrong because they are a sentient being, but when we take into account all the lives that terrorist would take, all the suffering they would cause, the ending of one life becomes a sad necessity . I used a terrorist as an example but any human that unnecessarily poses a real threatens the lives of others can fit that same scenario.

^Morality shouldn't be based on empathy: https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2028

Empathy is an emotion that can motivate us to do the right thing, but it itself isn't relevant as to whether or not something is moral.

DarlBundren wrote: 0 What is morality?

Consideration for the interests of others (others that have interests, e.g. sentient beings, to the degree they have those interests and are sentient).

DarlBundren wrote: Can people decide what's moral and what's not?

No. Others decide how you should treat them, not you.

DarlBundren wrote: 1 Why should we be moral?

This is a longer answer, see this post: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... 932#p19543

DarlBundren wrote:2 Isn't morality subjective/relative?

No. Not any more than mathematics is.

DarlBundren wrote:Is it wrong to criticize, for example, a country that has different politics on, say, what women have to wear? Are there moral objectives?

Morality is context dependent. It may be appropriate to cover up more if you're surrounded by rapists, whereas in a more lawful society, this may be less necessary. Just like it may be appropriate to wear a winter coat in a cold climate.

If there's no reason for it, then the question is how much harm the rule does to others.

DarlBundren wrote:3 How can a moral system be better than another?

By having better consequences.

You may want to watch/read Sam Harris on the Moral landscape, as he does a pretty good job at comparing social systems.

DarlBundren wrote:4 What role have emotions in moral reasoning? Is a question like ' would you do the same thing against your sister..?' legit?

Emotions are as unnecessary for moral reasoning as they are for math. However, emotion may compel us to ask the question in the first place, and provide the motivation to answer it and act upon that answer.

Relating a question to a loved one is a common tactic to get a emotional response which can overcome cognitive barriers. If somebody is rational, this tends to be unnecessary.

The fact of morality is about reason.
But acting on morality is motivated by emotion of various kinds (ALL of our deliberate actions are motivated by emotion).

DarlBundren wrote:5 and the last one, since I guess that most of you are utilitarians ' What if a person's desire to harm someone else is greater than the desire of this person not to be harmed?'

I think most of us are altruists.
To the question: that would be morally wrong still. It doesn't matter how much you want to rape somebody, the question is the harm or good you do to others, not to yourself (your own interests are not part of the moral equation with respect to your actions).

Personal factors (particularly like survival) can apply to justification, but that just makes something a justified wrong, and that's a much more complicated topic and relates to how we judge each other. Look into modern law, which has pretty well established these concepts in criminal justice.

EquALLity wrote:^Morality shouldn't be based on empathy: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =17&t=2028

Empathy is an emotion that can motivate us to do the right thing, but it itself isn't relevant as to whether or not something is moral.

We should use empathy to guide our moral descisions. Because by using our empathy we can better understand how the other wants us to treat them. Under an empathetic moral system people will do no wrong, unless under extreme circumstances.

Got55555 wrote:

EquALLity wrote:^Morality shouldn't be based on empathy: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =17&t=2028

Empathy is an emotion that can motivate us to do the right thing, but it itself isn't relevant as to whether or not something is moral.

We should use empathy to guide our moral descisions. Because by using our empathy we can better understand how the other wants us to treat them. Under an empathetic moral system people will do no wrong, unless under extreme circumstances.

Did you read the topic?

Empathy doesn't always lead to the right decision, so it's not the basis of morality.

EquALLity wrote:: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =17&t=2028

Empathy doesn't always lead to the right decision, so it's not the basis of morality.

Empathy can only lead us to the right decision. If it can lead us to the wrong decision give one example of when it would.

Got55555 wrote:Empathy can only lead us to the right decision. If it can lead us to the wrong decision give one example of when it would.

Empathy mostly promotes ineffective altruism, but it can also lead us to do the wrong thing.

Consider this example: A wealthy man who was poor as a child empathizes with a homeless man on the street. As a result, he gives the man twenty dollars worth of food and supplies and wished him the best of luck. All the while, a natural disaster has struck elsewhere and thousands of people are left without basic sustenance. The wealthy man knows of this tragedy, but does not contribute to the cause because he cannot empathize with a group of people.

Also consider this example: A juror empathizes with a terrified accused who has been proved to have killed her husband. Despite convincing evidence suggesting the guilt of the accused, the juror decides against convicting her because he can empathize with her (especially because she is pretty and white). The accused is deemed not guilty, and is let go.

This is a longer answer, see this post

So, should we say that the reason for being moral/altruistic is that it is better for you?

No. Others decide how you should treat them, not you.

I'm not sure if I can reconcile this idea with your belief that morality is objective. Do you mean that the system is objective but it works on people's own preferences?

No. Not any more than mathematics is.

Care to elaborate? Do you mean that once we have established a moral system it is just a matter of finding the right answer within that system?

Personal factors (particularly like survival) can apply to justification, but that just makes something a justified wrong

So, for example, if somebody were to ask you 'If you think that killing a person is better than killing 100, would sacrifice your sister's life in order to save the lives of this group of people?'. You would reply that you think that it is the right thing to do, but, nevertheless, you are not going to do it. Correct?

Got55555 wrote: society functions much better when we are moral.

But this impies that we all care about society. I know many people that would simply reply ' Fuck society, I only care about myself'. What I meant with that questiona was: Why should you be moral instead of being amoral?

I take directly from Sam Harris who I encourage you to look up.

You may want to watch/read Sam Harris on the Moral landscape,

I will.


Thank you all for your answers.

Got55555 wrote:

EquALLity wrote:: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... =17&t=2028

Empathy doesn't always lead to the right decision, so it's not the basis of morality.

Empathy can only lead us to the right decision. If it can lead us to the wrong decision give one example of when it would.

Please read the topic, maybe respond to something I/Brimstone/Cirion said there. Let this topic be about Darl's questions.