Morality is very simple at it's foundations. We've tried "our" best to make it seem convoluted. Perhaps to some success considering how many in the world still wrestle with the idea. And why would we intentionally add arbitrary complexities into a system?
- The complexities added suit an agenda and it's aims.
- If people can't understand something, they usually don't bother trying to.
- If complex enough, people will avoid the subject altogether.
These three factors are the foundation of a loop, really. Add complexities>people don't understand them>people avoid them>the manufacturer(s) of said complexities have less societal dissent>repeat. In other words, they can get away with a lot more crap. Take fractional banking for instance. The surface looks very complex and technical. That forces people away...until a few people point out it's simplicity. Then those that benefit from the workings of fractional banking (banks, other financial institutions, as well as colleges and universities that "teach" financial practice) need more scary things to turn people away again. So, they do just that by adding more requirements and rules and loopholes. But in the end, it's the same beast it was beforehand. But perhaps with some new stipulations that further benefit a select group here or there.
Well, the same goes for morality. Base morality doesn't pick favorites. It doesn't benefit one group and put another at a disadvantage. Society, as a whole, is subject to base morality. So, of course, that can't last (sarcasm...please notice it). So the arbitrary complexities start rolling out.
Base morality is constructive versus destructive. That's all. There is no good or evil. Now, that doesn't give sociopaths and in-general shitheads the world over an out. They're still destructive individuals that society could happily go without...but they do serve a purpose. These radical individuals show us the condition of our society. They, in a sense, are our "canary in the coal mine". Since these individuals are destructive by nature, they typically latch on to destructive ideas, philosophies, etc. Thanks to these destructive individuals, the rest of us know what to avoid in our species in order to thrive and progress.
The idea of good and evil may seem cut and dry. But in all actuality it is unnecessary complexity, and has harmed base morality. How? I'm glad I asked! Once the concepts of good and evil were introduced, it allowed for a subjective view of constructive and destructive behaviors. Example? Okay...
Religion.
How many things can you look at that religions around the world say are good, that are actually quite destructive? Exactly. Murder, torture, mutilation, oppression, suppression...religions are rife with self-justified destructive behavior. Self-justified I say? Yes. Religion isn't exclusive in this. Philosophies, political movements, governance systems, economic systems, and obviously societal systems themselves all have their own good and evil paradigms. Religions have taken it a step further, however. Many claiming that their respective deities are the source of morality. And there's your ultimate example of arbitrary complexity, and quite an effective stop-gap of questioning motive.
Even with that said, I can't say that these same things haven't embraced constructive behavior reinforcements. However, the volume of constructive reinforcement in comparison to the volume of destructive reinforcement is troubling.
"You said [insert religious ideology] is just making up that [insert deity] is the source of morality. If that isn't the case, smart guy, what is the source?!"
We are. The human species, that is. What we call morality is akin to a survival instinct. Thus why it is malleable...exploitable. As a species, we have observed what benefits and what hinders our progression and sustainability. These are the constructive and destructive behaviors I spoke of. However, due to the action/reaction nature of this "instinct", it can be manipulated. And the means to implement such manipulation is to convince an individual that their survival and/or well-being depends on whatever perversion of base morality it may be. Whether it is taking lives in the name of a deity or oppressing a society to serve a philosophical agenda (cough post-modernism).
So, morality isn't that complex. It boils down to constructive versus destructive behavior, in every argument. The behavior, idea, or action may have several layers, but you can cut right through them when you knock off good and evil subjective context. And you can better protect yourself from destructive influences when you can see them for what they are.
While I haven't figured out everything on morality, I do believe I am on the right track. I haven't really gone into how we determine what is constructive and what is destructive. I figure that is pretty obvious once the context is presented. But, if that is something people are curious about (at least what I've came to with it), or have their own idea on, feel free to voice it...or, uh...type it...
I have come to some of the same conclusions about good+evil, that is: the lack of these except as concepts created by us to serve a very useful purpose, to designate destructive behaviour as a thing, something we can name, recognise, rally against. I like the canary analogy.
I am confused. "constructive versus destructive behavior" is basically the same as "good versus evil behavior". Is is not?
Not necessarily. Albeit the two coincide at times. The issue with good/evil is that it can be used to champion destructive behavior just as easily as it can be used to condemn constructive behavior. Islam champions killing of non-believers and William Tyndale was executed for translating The Bible into English.
But aren't both a value judgments? Constructive behavior=good, destructive behavior=bad(evil). Right?
If there is no good/evil why is "Islam champions killing of non-believers" destructive? From the point of view of followers of Islam it can be viewed very much constructive. Can it be?
Because killing is a threat to the species' sustainability and progression, therefor destructive.
The phrase "point of view" exemplifies precisely the issue with good/evil. It's malleable to an agenda. The followers of such destructive teachings will of course justify their action as "good". However, the rest of the world, including droves of Muslims, condemn the teachings because they can see they are destructive, and serve no purpose to humanity or it's advancement.
"Because killing is a threat to the species' sustainability and progression, therefor destructive."
Threat to species, sustainability and progression are value judgments some with plus sign some with minus as in constructive/destructive or more traditionally good/evil.
What I don't get what makes destructive with a minus sign? Killing for food for example does not threaten the species sustainability and progression, Completely the opposite. The more cows we kill the more cows there are and the progress in feed tech and veterinary care keeps it sustainable.
You seem to have an agenda to advance humanity and call it constructive which is with plus sign. But why? Some argue humanity with it's greed and progress is the problem for sustainability of the planet. But it's still confusing. What makes unsustainable with a minus sign?
(I am trying hard to avoid agenda malleable good/evil issues )
I think what has thrown you off is the assumption that I am placing constructive and destructive completely apart from evaluation.
The simplest way I can explain this is good/evil is a subjective evaluation while constructive/destructive takes one's personal interests out of the evaluation process. It doesn't make (some) decisions any easier. But it does eliminate arbitrary elements from the process, which yields a much more beneficial result, even when the results are still not ideal.
"What I don't get what makes destructive with a minus sign? Killing for food for example does not threaten the species sustainability and progression, Completely the opposite. The more cows we kill the more cows there are and the progress in feed tech and veterinary care keeps it sustainable."
"Some argue humanity with it's greed and progress is the problem for sustainability of the planet"
I'm not sure where excess was marked as constructive, but I see what point you are wanting to make.
"The simplest way I can explain this is good/evil is a subjective evaluation while constructive/destructive takes one's personal interests out of the evaluation process."
I don't see how it does. If constructive/destructive takes one's personal interests out then whose interests does it takes upon? Plus it seems to me it is subjective.
" It doesn't make (some) decisions any easier. But it does eliminate arbitrary elements from the process, which yields a much more beneficial result, even when the results are still not ideal."
Again I don't see how it is less or even eliminates arbitrariness. As soon as elements like beneficial or ideal introduced they necessary lead to it.
"I'm not sure where excess was marked as constructive"
Right but that is the point at least for me. Why not? May be not for you but it can very well be constructive for the next guy.
I guess in my mind when we talk about morality it is unavoidable to appeal to some kind of standard or moral law. Otherwise it's just a bunch of arbitrary, subjective propositions without explanation why good is better then evil or constructive is better then destructive.
After all it all depends on point of view and yes constructive vs destructive is also depend on the point of view just as good and evil.
Any way thank you for the conversation.
Sayandude.
I quite like Roger Scruton on Moral Relativism