Wednesday, September 18, 2024

Is "Morality" subjective

It is popular to contend that morality is subjective and that in an absolute sense that all moral-systems are equal. It is unpopular to argue that some moral-systems are inherently superior to others.

I guess today is the day I am meant to disappoint others and to be unpopular.

When morality does depend on circumstances

It is always possible to find extreme situations around the edges of the "map" where the margins read "Thar be Dragons".

For example, the Donner Party or UAF Flight 571 where survivors resorted to cannibalized deceased members of the party.

Finding an exception in Thar be Dragons does not invalidate a general statement.

The case that some moral systems are superior to others

Consider two moral systems that self-extinguished: Jim Jones's cult and the Shakers. Both are now extinct. Can anybody make a credible case that either of those cults are the equal of moral-codes that still exist? How can they be equal when they don't exist in any measurable way and can no longer provide guidance on day-to-day issues?

I suppose the contrary will argue that they were BETTER than existing moral-codes. An environmental zealot might make that argument, for instance. That is fine, but you just proved my point; that some moral-systems are "better" than others.

How to rank them?

In the dry language of engineers, "extinction" is a high entropy event. "Irreversibility" is another way to describe entropy. If you put an ice cube into a hot cup of coffee and stir it for five minutes it is almost impossible to recover the undiluted, hot coffee and the ice cube without increasing entropy (irreversibility or disorder) outside the system.

From a practical standpoint, systems that are pathologically high-entropy almost always lose wars when they wage them against systems that are significantly lower-entropy. That is due to lower-entropy systems generally having more population and higher technology.

Sparta, who murdered their weakest sons lost to Athens. The American-Indians who were bedeviled by enormous infant and child mortality lost to Europeans.

A moral system that encourage rape of the landscape is a high-entropy system. A moral system that fosters stewardship of the landscape is a low-entropy system.

As a side-note, here are two verses from Deut Chapter 20:

When you are at war with a city and have to lay siege to it for a long time before you capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down. Are the trees of the field human beings, that they should be included in your siege?

However, those trees which you know are not fruit trees you may destroy. You may cut them down to build siegeworks against the city that is waging war with you, until it falls.

Viewed through the lens of entropy, that language looks like a very strong commitment to stewardship and long-term viability for humans.

Did the spread of Islam create the Sahara Desert?

Some blamed the growth of the Sahara Desert on the growth of Islam. The contention was "The Arabs were not the sons of the desert, but the fathers of it."

The style of warfare preferred by Jihadist during its rapid assent favored open plains and was hampered by trees and cover. The argument is that Islam destroyed trees on principle.

Even though the Quran (Surah Hashr Ayat 5) has language prohibits the cutting of date-palms it has been accepted as "OK" during Jihad since Jihad is Allah's will. All other trees could be cut at at-will.

It seems doubtful that cutting all of those trees CAUSED the Sahara Desert but it probably accelerated its spread.

Also on the topic of stewardship

Communism is the abolition of private property. In general, most people take much better care of their own property than they do of "community" property.

"Beat it like a rented mule" is a saying that comes to mind.

"Tragedy of the Commons" is another saying that comes to mind.

Ipso facto, Communism is an inferior moral system than a system that favors private property.

For the same reasons, the hook-up culture is inferior to dating and marriage.

The idea of mixing

Entropy is often introduced as "mixing". A spoonful of sugar mixed with a glass of water cannot be recovered without applying outside energy to evaporate the water. One key point is high-entropy requiring outside resources to return to its starting state.

Consider a classroom with two pupils. John is a whiz at math and shop. Sebastian is a dreamy poet who likes to draw pictures.

A high-entropy system would demand equal outcomes and pour enormous amounts of energy teaching John to write poetry and to draw pictures as well as Sebastian while pouring equally large amounts of resources trying to pound math and shop into Sebastian's brain. Because outcomes are most important, John is starved for math and shop instruction and Sebastian is starved for poetry and art instruction.

A low-entropy system would give John MORE math and shop classes and fewer poetry and art classes while giving Sebastian MORE poetry and art classes and fewer math and shop. The NET learning would be much higher for the low-entropy system. If the concept was extended across the society, there would be higher net-carrying capacity and greater capacity to fight wars.

Suppose, on the other hand, a moral system randomly decided that half of the population could receive absolutely zero formal instruction. Random in the sense that it was totally disconnected from the (potential) student's ability to learn. That would be a failure of stewardship and is a special case of the high-entropy moral system. There are some moral systems in the world today that forbid educating women and "unbelievers".

IS THERE ANYBODY I HAVEN'T PISSED OFF TODAY. LEMME KNOW. I AM ON A ROLL!!!

20 comments:

  1. It only becomes subjective when the Bible and the link to God is eliminated. Like where we are now.

    But, in my mind it is not ever subjective.

    ReplyDelete
  2. …”I’m on a roll!” Whew, I thought you were done! Feel the dark side flow!!

    MF

    ReplyDelete
  3. What's wrong with me?
    I'm not pissed off at all.
    Should I be concerned?

    maxx

    ReplyDelete
  4. Morality can still be subjective while still creating outcomes that can be objectively measured.

    Compare it to something else that is subjective: whether or not a movie is "good". It's 'entirely subjective' but that doesn't mean that certain decisions won't lead to more ticket sales, which can be measured objectively. Or whether or not the film works well with a given crowd, or checks certain boxes. It's up to the person to decide what metrics they view as 'good', which is still subjective.

    I think it's clear that morality is subjective. That's not going to stop anyone, myself included, from saying that certain moral frameworks are 'better' - just like I'm going to keep saying certain films are 'better' than others, even though it's subjective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you dismiss the Jim Jones cult as morally neutral?

      Delete
    2. Keep riding the fence and you are gonna hurt yourself

      Delete
    3. @ERJ: No - I dismiss the notion that morality being subjective means we can't make judgements from a moral standpoint. Morality IS subjective, that doesn't mean I'm not going to judge the morals of people / societies. Like I mentioned, taste in movies are subjective but I'm still going to call certain movies good and certain movies bad. We shouldn't feel the need to define morality incorrectly in order to feel comfortable passing judgement on it.

      @Anonymous: Not sure why you said that, there's no fence-sitting here. There's an explicit stance being taken.

      Delete
    4. I am not poking at what you write to "win" an argument or to badger you. I simply cannot comprehend your not softening or modifying your originally stated premise.

      Moral codes are built over a foundation of the laws of thermodynamics and the biological-imperative. Moral codes are objectively "good" or "bad" to the degree that they are congruent or not-congruent with the three laws of thermodynamics and/or with the biological-imperative.

      At the individual level, the biological-imperative means that as a man, you will kill to protect your wife and children. You will kill unflinchingly and without hesitation even if your only weapon is a screwdriver. Any ethos that says otherwise is incongruent with the biological-imperative and objectively "bad" or "wrong".

      This may be one of those times when I have to shrug and think "Well, maybe he will change his mind after he has a few more miles on the odometer."

      Delete
    5. There's no need to soften the stance because it's definitional. The point you make about being congruent with objective things is *my* point. You can measure objective facts that result from decisions, but that doesn't make it "objectively" good or bad. "Objectively good" is an oxymoron.

      To be good or bad requires a sentient being to pass judgement and have a framework. If no life existed in the universe, 'good' and 'bad' would cease to exist. Even if you believe in a diety that would define what good and bad is, the definitions are still coming from a reference point and would be definitionally subjective.

      Notice how when you said 'Moral codes are objectively "good" or "bad" to the degree that they are congruent or not-congruent with the three laws of thermodynamics and/or with the biological-imperative' you had to qualify the statement with a condition - but there's nothing in reality that says moral codes must be congruent with laws of thermodynamics or biological-imperatives, you decided that was important.

      A moral framework can objectively result in certain outcomes like "more people living on average" or "more healthy lifestyles", that still wouldn't make it "objectively good", it just objectively results in things that most people would consider "good" subjectively.

      Ultimatley, it's a philosophical argument. Language is a complex subject. Also, it's perfectly fine to say "objectively bad" for emphasis or exaggeration, I do so all the time, but if we're going to have a discussion focused on subjectivity vs. objectivity I think we should be more strict with our use.

      Delete
  5. Good job ERJ, keep on keeping on!

    ReplyDelete
  6. ERJ - A slight historical quibble.

    While (at least in Plutarch) we read of the sacrifice of children physically deformed or otherwise deemed unworthy. Currently, the archaeology does not support, or at least not to date, in the manner noted in Plutarch. That said, infanticide was a factor not just in Sparta, but throughout Ancient and Medieval history (and sometimes, today).

    Population was a problem ultimately (you touch on this), but this decline was accelerated in the Classical Period by 1) The Earthquake of 464 B.C., when the deaths of a significant numbers of Spartans occurred (the written records say up to 20,000 but there is no hard proof of that); and 2) The Spartan Society had limited methods to bring in new citizens. To be a Spartan, one's parents had to be a Spartan. A single Spartan parentage would make one a mothax. This class could serve in the military but never be full Spartan. The other option would have been to incorporate the Helots, the slave farmers of Laconia, as Spartan citizens. This was almost never done except in times of dire need (like the Peloponnesian War). Thus, Sparta could neither replace its population by birth (due to death, war, and keeping the helots under control) or by creating new citizens (which Sparta refused to do).

    The other factor contributing to their fall in 371 B.C. at the Battle of Leuctra was the fact that they could not adapt to new tactics brought by the Theban troops. Their innate conservatism of how they fought prevented them from adapting on the fly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Don't forget time: the longer a situation, the more difficult morality becomes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4 minutes w out breathing.

      4 days w out water

      40 days w out food

      Time matters

      Delete
  8. The increase of the Sahara Desert was primarily caused by the expansion of goat herding according to theory presented in a biology course from back in the 1960’s. This could only apply to morality if the goat herders who were helping to feed their people knew it would damage the land!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Moral relativism on parade:

    You have 3yrs of food saved up

    3 months of food

    3 weeks of

    3 days

    You are out of food

    Now what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You ever see a man who’s kids haven’t eaten for 17 days and counting?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uASQgLwaIs

      !

      Delete
  10. Leaving morality aside for a moment I say we should encourage John and Sebastian to work together. John has an idea for the greatest Mole trap ever made. (Can you guess I'm having Mole problems right now?) He has Sebastian draw up some working plans for it and while he is out in the shop building it Sebastian is designing the ad campaign for the Mole Death 6000.
    Fast forward a couple of years and John has a manufacturing facility and Sebastian an ad agency.
    Oversimplified I know, I don't want to get too far out in the weeds with it.
    You can't piss me off ERJ. I stop by here and learn something every day. Can't say that about some of the places I visit.

    Neck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moles can be a symptom of a grub infestation. A grub-infested lawn is to a mole what an all-you-can-eat shrimp-bar is to a human.

      You might look into "Nematodes grub control" on your favorite search engine.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, will do. Can't do regular poison, too many friendlies running around on the yard.

      Neck

      Delete

Readers who are willing to comment make this a better blog. Civil dialog is a valuable thing.