Comment by rjprins | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rjprins | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The subject of what morality exactly is has not been discussed. To keep it short, I think morality is a set of rules to keep a society functional. Therefor "good" morality would let a society be more functional, have no unnecessary costs, no unnecessary losses and have optimal productivity and innovation.

Here is a list of taboos:

- Religious beliefs. Not believing in God is OK, but it should be possible to freely criticize other people's beliefs.

- Sexual taboos. Bisexuality, swinging, S&M are all considered improper for no apparent reason. I won't dare even to hint child sexuality here.

- Nationalism. It is still considered perfectly normal to prefer people from your 'own' 'country' over people of another country. Tribalism is a very natural moral for obvious reasons.

- Political systems. Democracy is everything but perfect, but suggesting other forms of rule has not even been considered. A benevolent dictator will certainly be a lot better than a different charming elitist every 4 years.

- Drug use. Pot enjoys the popular vote, but XTC and other hard drugs are still very much not done. There are drugs which are inherently bad, but even most hard drugs aren't. Abuse is a symptom.

- Abortion (or further). Why are you not allowed to kill your own new born?

- Any criminal activity. These are just morals put to paper.

Any moral is a balance between human needs/wants and some theory about how society functions best. What really works best no one knows. It also depends on the goals. What constitutes a good society? The most productive? The one with the most happy residents? Evolution would say the one that survives. The moral fashions in that sense would equal genetic mutations in order to find the most optimal set of rules.

One thing is certain though. There are no such things as right or wrong moralities, there is only effective and ineffective moralities.

>> Any moral is a balance between human needs/wants and some theory about how society functions best.

It was Nietzsche's great insight that internal considerations play a much larger role in constructing morality than external considerations. See, in particular, _On the Genealogy of Morals_ and _Beyond Good and Evil_. Nietzsche's first questions on encountering a morality were always: what "instincts" are active here? Does this ethic arise from a overwelling of strength and confidence, or from resentment, envy, and fear? Nietzsche called the former good and the latter bad. He despised the Political Correctness of his time. I've no doubt he would have attacked the PC beliefs of our era as well, seeing them the same way that pg does: as arising out of fear.

I don't care who said it (My apologies, I'm always a bit critical of throwing in famous names in a discussion, the arguments should count for themselves.). Internal considerations is really all there is.

If you'd take the extreme ego central perspective, you get the double moral: "I can do anything I want, you may only do things that are beneficial to me." Obviously this doesn't work in society, and even for the strongest individual this becomes: "You should do things that do not hurt me, and I will do everything so as to not make you hurt me."

This may be further fine-tuned in a closely knit society:"If society benefits, I benefit, therefor everybody should do what benefits society".

Basically collective morality comes forth from selfish morality. And when it does not, it is 'naturally selected', e.g. as the French royalty which was beheaded by the plebs or more commonly, the governmental policing of individuals.

I wouldn't say there is any inherent good or bad in acting on strength/confidence or fear/envy. And ethics that arise from those feelings are also neither good nor bad. Some rules are more capable of continuing than others.

e.g. The 'serial-killer'-morale has less chance than the 'pacifist'-morale. This makes pacifism 'better', but not something inherently 'good'.

>> I don't care who said it (My apologies, I'm always a bit critical of throwing in famous names in a discussion, the arguments should count for themselves.). Internal considerations is really all there is.

Agreed. I'm not citing authority, I'm giving credit where credit is due.

>> I wouldn't say there is any inherent good or bad in acting on strength/confidence or fear/envy. And ethics that arise from those feelings are also neither good nor bad.

Well, if we're going to hash out the basis of morality we're going to need a few more pixels. I'm not sure I agree with Nietzsche on this. I am certain that when people are scared, resentful, or envious, they can do a lot of damage. I'm also certain, based on 53 years of living, that people who are happy and confident tend to spread a lot more joy around than those who are resentful. Misery not only loves company, it creates and reinforces norms that spread misery.

>> Basically collective morality comes forth from selfish morality.

I'm not sure where you mean by this, but it's worth knowing that Hilter's National Socialist German Worker's Party stamped the slogan "The collective good over the individual good" on their coins. Want people to obey you, work for you, and die for you? Establish a morality that doing what you want instead of what the nation's leaders want (who naturally claim to represent the collective good) is bad. Or as our current Vice-President says, "unpatriotic".

" I'm also certain, based on 53 years of living, that people who are happy and confident tend to spread a lot more joy around than those who are resentful."

Maybe happy, confident people have more to be joyful about, and less to be resentful of, than people with less reason to be happy and confident? (That sounds like a tautology, which is kind of my point.)

If your world view is shaped growing up in the slums of Mumbai, vs. growing up in an upper middle class American and getting an Ivy League education, are you more or less likely to be happy, confident, and joyful, or full of resentment?

Nietzsche also hinted at the way moral rules get enforced: you aren't ashamed of your own thoughts, only of someone finding out about them. Basically, this is fear of being exposed.

In our (the Western) society, this is most true for sexual and/or violent thoughts, as well as anti-government or anti-religious thoughts. Particularly when it comes to sexual thoughts, I cannot find a reason for holding back any of them.

You are not only ashamed of getting caught. You INTERNALIZE the shame. You BELIEVE you are no good. I was just watching a youtube video that had a clip of a "youth minister" in a charismatic church getting a room full of what looked like 10-13 year olds in tears and on their knees talking about how they had disappointed jesus with their behavior, exhorting them that "YOU know what you must repent. Say it out loud."

If only we could keep the external external. If you have managed that you are way ahead. Don't miss what is happening with those who haven't managed.

"There are no such things as right or wrong moralities, there is only effective and ineffective moralities."

1. You started with this as a premise, and reached it as your conclusion.

2. Distinguish "right or wrong" and "effective and ineffective."

it's deontologists vs. utilitarians. good luck solving that debate on the internet!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com