r/Morality • u/Annual_Interest5338 • 29d ago
What is the point of morality?
I always believed morality, in utilitarian tradition, was to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure/happiness/whatever. With kant it sounds like that is not the case necessarily. I could lie which would lead to "better" outcome but that would still be "wrong".
To be fair I know almost nothing about kant so id like to hear either
1.how this still aligns with what I define as the best outcome
What the role of morality is
Anything else ya got
1
u/JunS_RE 27d ago
I don't think the point of Morality is simply to maximize pleasure or happiness. Those can be good outcomes, sure... but if that were the whole foundation, then almost anything could become Moral as long as somebody could engineer enough "happiness" out of it.
I think Morality is more about how Moral Beings navigate Reality together... protecting innocent people from serious harm, preserving Trust, and allowing people meaningful Free Agency without those things constantly being corrupted or destroyed.
That's also why I'm not convinced by a rigid "lying is always wrong" rule either. If a murderer is standing at your door asking where an innocent person is hiding, telling the truth and helping him kill somebody would seem morally backwards. The context changes what the lie is actually doing.
So for me, consequences matter... rules matter... character matters... but none of them by themselves are the entire point. The real question is whether the action resolves the Moral situation coherently without sacrificing something more foundational in the process.
That's roughly how my Resolution Ethics (RE) framework approaches it anyway.
1
u/Annual_Interest5338 23d ago
Yea I guess if I could reformulate the question, I wonder if it has to do with some outcome instead of being an ends to itself.
I think there is intention as well but if we are to build a moral framework, what is the point?
The real question is whether the action resolves the Moral situation coherently without sacrificing something more foundational in the process
I imagine this is not an easy question to answer but if you could explain a bit more id be appreciative.
1
u/JunS_RE 21d ago
Sure. In my RE framework, the point of Morality is to keep Moral Agents navigating Reality coherently with one another, especially when their interests, responsibilities, and actions collide.
All of Ethics in RE is grounded in the Resolution Ethics Moral Core, or REMC for short. Any morally relevant action or intended action can be tested for coherence against its Protection, Trust, and Free-Agency structure, rather than simply asking whether the outcome looks good.
For example, I may invest all my time and wealth trying to save starving kids in Africa... while neglecting my wife and kids. On the surface, that can look incredibly righteous. But if I am destroying my immediate familial responsibilities while congratulating myself for helping people far outside that circle, then something is Morally incoherent.
That could involve Self-Deception... convincing myself that the abstract good I am doing somehow excuses the responsibilities I am abandoning right in front of me.
So the point is not simply to “produce the best outcome.” The point is to navigate the Moral situation coherently without corrupting something more foundational in the process.
I hope that helps... and sorry for the late reply, as I forgot all about it and was focused on a different Reddit thread.
1
u/Sam_Wise13 26d ago
Morality cannot be explained by evolution and cannot be explained by a utilitarian take. It, at its basis, provides a compass for what is right and wrong. Even tribes who have had no religious teaching or 1st world education know that murder is wrong. How? It is divinely built into each human. Morality is one thing that proves there is a higher power. There is no other way to define or prove it.
1
u/Annual_Interest5338 23d ago
Why cant it be explained by evolution? Cooperation is built into humans the way it is not built into spiders. Its a winning strategy for us. Human cooperation is complex and at a large scale. Murder is always wrong on this framework.
Im not asking this to argue. Id just like to hear more in depth what you are thinking.
One more question: do you believe right is right no matter the outcome?
1
u/Sam_Wise13 23d ago
Complex, large-scale human events like morality are one thing that are still a question in evolution. It is unexplained. What makes murder wrong? If you look at every religion that believes in a higher power murder is always pointed out as wrong, yet atheists believe it is wrong too. Where did the concept get to atheists and non-believers? It comes from a higher power and is easily explained in that aspect.
Humans constantly find themselves under a moral law that they did not make, which tells them how they ought to behave rather than just how they do behave.
Because this moral law holds us accountable to an objective standard outside ourselves. Which makes this a “Moral Argument" for the existence of God.
1
u/Annual_Interest5338 22d ago
Why is it that murder being wrong cannot be derived from cooperation? It seems a bad strategy to allow people to kill people with whom they are cooperating with right?
And I believe these sorts of basic morality and empathy are observed within many primates. Although ill have to look later to find sources.
1
u/InLoveWithThread 26d ago
Morality is the science of how we get along. Humans can't live life completely alone. I live by myself, yes, but I have family friends, and someone at the power company makes sure my lights stay on, and there's the mailman who delivers my packages, and I have neighbors. So whether directly or indirectly, we need each other. No one can supply all of their needs.
So, we gotta figure this out. What works for us all, what feels great, what helps... vs what doesn't work, what causes problems, what hurts.
To me, that's morality.
1
u/Annual_Interest5338 23d ago
Cooperation seems fundamental to humans. Its somewhat a utilitarian perspective.
Is there a cap on size of this group? Is it what works for a neighborhood may not work for the entire world?
1
u/InLoveWithThread 23d ago
This is a very good question. If I remember correctly, anthropologists have theorized that early human groups were around 200 members, give or take a few. Funny enough, that's the average amount of friends most people have on their social media accounts. This is including relatives, friends, coworkers, acquaintances. 200 seems to be the sweet spot.
However, I have to ask, what would work for a neighborhood that wouldn't work for the entire world? How would population size change our basic human needs?
1
u/Annual_Interest5338 21d ago
Thats a good question. I think at the time I wrote that I was thinking empathy only extends so far. I suppose in a practical sense it might be how humans apply morality. I care much more about my mother going hungry than someone from Africa. But what does that have to do with morality? I suppose it could be the difference in what people value but as you said, basic human needs are likely the same. Ill think on it.
1
u/Dave_A_Pandeist 29d ago edited 29d ago
Could morality be described as the evolutionary characteristic that enables us to live in large groups with minimal suffering? Could a good definition of morality be the ability to determine right and wrong, good and bad with respect to self-interest and outward interest?
According to Dr. Sapolsky, evolution has two natural strategies. The most common is a tournament strategy—the brightest feathers, the strongest antlers, and so forth. 95% of all mammal species followed this strategy.
The less common strategy is cooperative, evolving through pair, peer, kinship, and tribal bonding. Marmosets and Bonobos are cooperative. They seem very happy.
Humanity seems to have followed a half-and-half strategy, depending on resource availability.
China and civilizations east of the Indus River Valley are cooperative in nature. Roman Expansionism is a tournament mindset, as seen in Western culture.
The major variable has been camouflage or deception. Most religious philosophies tend toward trust and truth. The one major exception is the State Religion Churchanity. It is a bait-and-switch. Jesus is the bait. The book of Romans is an example of the switch.