Evolutionary Morality vs Morality in the Aristotelian Tradition

[Mikee]

Morality, in the Aristotelian tradition is seen as the art of promoting, as well as the experience of, the health of the psyche. (And thus morality is fundamentally self-oriented.) Others, within different traditions define morality instead as the rules of social interaction and cooperation and will talk about evolved moral traditions. If morality is indeed a system of values, as opposed to rules (even though some moralities highlight rules at the expense of values.) what is the relationship between these two ideas? or in other worlds is morality multifaceted?

[StrictlyLogical]

No

 

Morality is a system of values whose sole beneficiary is the self.

 

The external sets of rules, norms, expectations, conventions, customs, traditions, voluntarily and somewhat arbitrarily adopted by groups or subpopulations within a wide geography, are nothing more than rules, norms, expectations, conventions etc.  If not adopted by the individual no interaction with morality is made.  IF however an individual contracts with another to adopt such rules, norms, etc. then the parts of morality which are relevant to the undertaking of the obligations under them becomes intertwined with them.  As such honesty, justice, etc. now must apply in the context of the agreement... until it is severed.

 

Additionally, the set of laws of a ruling government in a very real sense (threat of force) are rules of a society but they do not constitute morality as such, and as we have seen from countless regimes of the past (Nazi Germany, Absolute Monarchy...) those rules can be in accord or completely in discord with morality.

 

AS for the relationship, clearly the morality individual's hold implicitly or explicitly gives rise to the kinds of groups, societies, mobs etc. they form, and thus the kinds of rules, norms, expectations, conventions, etc.  So in a real sense morality (or immorality) proper, i.e. of the individual, gives rise to the social traditions.  The extent to which these are in accordance with morality is the extent to which the values of the individuals are moral -> i.e. whether the system of traditions leads to life and flourishing of the individuals or not is a result of the morality of the founders, keepers, or rulers of that society.   

 

 

So we can speak of a society or its rules as "being" moral (or not) but the usage here is one characterising society as being in accord or discord with morality. i.e. it does not in any way imply the rules of society "are morality".

 

In conclusion morality as such is not "multifaceted" in the sense of being for the benefit of the individual AND at the same time being for the benefit of a society or collective, Morality is adopted by and IS ONLY for the benefit of the individual. 

Edited September 17, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[merjet]

Morality is a system of values whose sole beneficiary is the self.

 

The Objectivism Research CD-ROM shows no instances of Ayn Rand saying that one's self must be sole beneficiary.

[Devil's Advocate]

Morality, in the Aristotelian tradition is seen as the art of promoting, as well as the experience of, the health of the psyche. (And thus morality is fundamentally self-oriented.) Others, within different traditions define morality instead as the rules of social interaction and cooperation and will talk about evolved moral traditions. If morality is indeed a system of values, as opposed to rules (even though some moralities highlight rules at the expense of values.) what is the relationship between these two ideas? or in other worlds is morality multifaceted?

I would say it's the interpretation and practice of morality* that's multifaceted.  The issue per se is fairly straightforward in the evaluation of choosing how to act; one is free to do as one pleases until another objects.  Ethics is inherent to choice in terms of expressing a preference; proper** choices produce ethical goods.  Since absolute life doesn't exist, the only moral absolute for volitional mortals is being at liberty to choose, i.e., self-determination is good, coercion is bad.  The relationship between rules and values is regulation, i.e., the legal attempts to regulate the moral by prohibiting transgression.

 

Being at liberty to pursue ones happiness, in a manner that doesn't injure others, is the ethical benchmark of justice, and the validation of actions proper to a moralem animalis.

-- 

*Google morality: noun; 1. principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

**Google proper: adjective; 1. truly what something is said or regarded to be; genuine; 2. of the required type; suitable or appropriate.

[Spiral Architect]

Rand, many times I might add, stated that the first question of ethics is "who is the beneficiary of morality, not "what is morality".  Her point being most ethic systems skip the first part and go straight to the rules, which is why they are contradictory and ultimately involve people sacrificing themselves to someone or something else.  This does not preclude making actions that will benefit others, and in fact should be done if that person is of high value to you, but it is not a primary.  Ultimately your values are always the primary. 

 

A cornerstone of Objectivist Ethics is that the purpose of ethics is your personal happiness.  In fact every field of Objectivism reduces to the individual as a selfish essential goal:

 

1. Metaphysics: Identification (For lack of a better word)
2. Epistemology: Certainty
3. Ethics: Happiness
4. Politics: Liberty
5. Art: Inspiration

[merjet]

Rand, many times I might add, stated that the first question of ethics is "who is the beneficiary of morality, not "what is morality".  Her point being most ethic systems skip the first part and go straight to the rules, which is why they are contradictory and ultimately involve people sacrificing themselves to someone or something else. 

 

This is closer to what Rand said about other ethical codes. Rand's first question is, What are values?

 

There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one "package-deal": (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance." (VoS, intro)

[Spiral Architect]

OK, the quote I'm think is the other way but that works too. 

 

Yes - Her critism of others was that they lumped it together.  What made her unique is that she seperated them and defined ethics as starting with the self.   The point still remains who will benifit as you have to ask that before you can decide on what principles support it. 

 

Once you know who will benifit from ethics then you can get on with the task of defining what ethics is.

[Mikee]

so the emphasis on evolved moral traditions or customs would fall under the interpretations and/or practise of morality.

[StrictlyLogical]

The Objectivism Research CD-ROM shows no instances of Ayn Rand saying that one's self must be sole beneficiary.

Sorry, the way I said it was not clear. 

 

I meant "proper".  The "proper" beneficiary is the self.

 

Beneficiary = party (one or many) who benefits.

 

i.e.

The proper "party who benefits" IS the self.

[Eiuol]

 

 

Morality is a system of values whose sole beneficiary is the self.

Well, rules of society are morality to the extent that it is a code to figure out what one ought to do. A proper morality is self-oriented. An improper morality is not self-oriented. Morality is both. In order to keep in mind that principles of morality are discovered, it's important to say that even wrong morality is morality, unless you want to claim almost all people in the world are immoral simply because they know less. Evasion is another story.

 

Evolutionary morality is really just a simplistic state of thinking about morality. Kids have to start somewhere. Unfortunately, some people claim that's all morality is.

[Reidy]

In the title essay for VoS Rand talks about the "beneficiary criterion" and says that who benefits? is the wrong question to ask in judging the soundness of an ethical theory.

[merjet]

In the title essay for VoS Rand talks about the "beneficiary criterion" and says that who benefits? is the wrong question to ask in judging the soundness of an ethical theory.

 

I don't think so. She holds it is not the primary question. Moreover, she does answer it, which is odd if she thought it was a wrong question.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The fact that we may intelligibly discuss the moral value of alternative ethics excludes their independent legitimacy.

When we call altruism "evil" that assumes another evaluative system, apart from and superior to altruism (evil- on which terms? Certainly not its own).

There can be only one code of ethics, if any sort of comparison is possible. Ego the others cannot actually be considered as different types of morality; they're something less.

This applies equally to deontological (duty-based) codes.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Eiuol: one cannot call a full fledged morality "wrong" at all, in the sense of ethically wrong. Misguided is possible but miss rand herself applied "evil" quite liberally (and rightly) to all sorts of ethical theories.

How can a system of evaluating good or evil be, itself, good or evil?

Isn't the Muslim morality (or any other variety of mysticism; take your pick) objectively evil?

Logically it cannot even qualify as morality.