If I may input on all of this… Anyone stepping foot to work on one of my ships is made fully aware that they’re going to be in a combat unit with very little chance for survival should things go wrong. They get in anyway.
Any ship captain entering my territory is, through unspoken but omnipresent rules, fully aware that they will be shot and killed on sight.
When we enter enemy territory, we are also entering with a thorough understanding of those unspoken rules, that we will be shot on sight.
Now, with that in mind, anyone in my crew being aware of the risks, anyone engaging with us being aware of the risks, and being aware of the risks when we engage anyone, which I’ve passed down to the crew… Where is it I’m supposed to be the omnicidal maniac? I’m not exactly shooting to kill the people inside the ship, I’m shooting to kill the ship. If you’re flying in here not understanding that you’re tresspassing, and didn’t tell your men about it either, why should it be such a problem? I’ve got bigger fish to fry than worry about the people who asked for the danger pay. If they didn’t want it, they’d be working the Fort.
I feel compelled to ask if this assumes an absolutism in morality between any involved parties. What one considers magnanimity, another might consider weakness, which to another is indulgence, et cetera…
Unless there’s some way of measuring such (admittedly, my philosophy is mostly self-generated, and could do with more hard reading), isn’t the difference between someone’s word and an outside point of view just a matter of perspective if the parties actions don’t egregiously violate that word?
For example: There’s no need for any absolutism in morality between involved party to understand that morals which are adhered to only when you feel secure are conveniences and luxuries, not really ‘morals’. Beyond that… there’s no requirement of any interaction or exchange on the matter of morality between involved parties.
Either you treat your morals as serious, and so adhere to them when you are not safe or secure (In this example: choose, without input from the other party, to give them the chance to prove their intentions), or you only adhere to them when you feel secure, and when you don’t, you instead alter your base assumptions (and thus, assume hostility)?
I’ll try and clarify, but let’s not get stuck dissecting single words.
“This” refers to your entire argument, which posits that for a moral conviction to exist, it must dictate action in all circumstances, else it isn’t morality, but rather something else, dictated by circumstance. My question is, pared down to a short form, “Can an outside observer actually make a claim on someone else’s morality, in an absolute sense, without any but their own scale to judge by, when there is no such common scale that’s universally accepted beyond cultural norms that themselves are inconsistent? Or is it just contrary opinions on the matter?”
I’m honestly just curious, at this point. Minds are fun things to look into for me.
Would you accept that this addendum to the definition of “morals” deviates significantly from what most people mean by the word?
I think most people would say that morals are, necessarily due to the human condition, things we aspire to but never perfectly achieve. You can have the conviction of being charitable and sometimes be greedy, of being kind and sometimes being rude, even of the sanctity of human life and sometimes cheapen it through your actions.
If, in order to claim a principle as your moral belief, you must never fail to uphold it there must not be very many moral people at all. Maybe not even one.
-High Chancellor of Handsome Ibrahim
Nope, it’s just not the same. I need to buy some titles off a diploma mill on the Galnet or something.
EDIT: To be more clear, I am even including “modern” morals of generosity, non-combativeness, trust of strangers, etc. which are almost impossible to imagine as ever existing without the physical security and wealth afforded by civilization, progress, and the existence of governments underwriting the peace. There are many moral behaviors that we seem to all recognize that also become unthinkable in conditions where we do not “feel secure”.
Not exactly. Rather, for a moral conviction to exist, it must be a factor in the choice of action in all circumstances where it is applicable. For example, if I have a moral opposition to theft, that moral opposition to theft need not ‘dictate action in all circumstances’. Whether or not I choose brown shoes or grey has nothing to do with it. And while I recognize that any reasonable person would understand that, at the same time, the very thrust of your question is exactly the kind of dissection of terminology and turn of phrase that you expressed a desire to avoid.
Something for you to consider, there.
Now, on to your pared down question (and really, I’d say don’t pare it down, but express it in the full complexity of the though. The original question I had in response, after all, was a result of you paring it down to use a pronoun the first time, rather then being specific.):
Ok, that was totally not fair of me, I completely admit. While ‘Yes’ is, in fact, a technically viable answer, it’s an incredibly incomplete one and just doesn’t actually give you a window into my thoughts at all.
It was kinda funny though, at least from where I’m sitting.
To further expand on my glib initial answer: of course an outside observer can make that claim. Anyone can make any claim they want at any time. It’s a claim. That doesn’t make it an absolute statement of fact… just a claim. But I sense your actual question goes a little deeper than that, so if you’ll indulge me, I’ll dive into what I think you’re getting at.
First, let me outline what I think you’re actually asking. If I’m wrong on this, after all, it’ll skew the whole thing off into ‘that’s nice, but I really wanted to know about the apple pie’ territory. SO!
Question: Can an outside observer make any reasonably authoritative statement regarding the validity of someone else’s morality in an absolute sense, relying only on their own personal criteria, given that no universal, objective criteria exist outside of cultural norms and mores, and given that such norms and mores are often inconsistent within a single culture, let alone when they exist within a complex patchwork of multiple interacting societies which themselves are already multicultural organisms comprised of many different and often conflicting cultural traditions?
Before we go any further: is this a fair (if somewhat verbose for the sake of clear accurate and thorough communication) representation of your question? (Edit cut holy carp, ‘clear’ is NOT the right word there!)
Actually, I chuckled at the one word answer. Figured I’d give it a minute, and see what followed, to which I can say; That’s about what I was driving at, so, on with the show!
I would stipulate that there is a massive difference between the meanings of the noun ‘moral’ (and its plural ‘morals’) and the adjective ‘moral’ (ie: a moral human being). A moral (as opposed to amoral), is an absolute. It is ‘this is right, to do otherwise is wrong’. That’s the difference between a moral and an ethic. An ethic is ‘this is good, and should be your guidepost to strive for’, where a moral is a more fundamental, elemental thing. It’s a fine distinction, I know, but I feel it’s an important one.
If, in order to claim a principle is a moral belief, I wouldn’t say you must never fail to uphold it… but you must never accept failure to uphold it. Let’s take a simple one: homicide.
‘Homicide should be avoided’ is an ethic.
‘Homicide must never be done’ is a moral. (It could be expressed more simply, like ‘Homicide is wrong’, but I’m trying to draw the distinction clearly between something that is absolutely not allowed, and something where it’s preferred you don’t do it.)
So, if you have the moral belief that Homicide is evil and wrong, does that mean you never kill anyone? Well, it certainly means you try to never kill someone. But so would that ethical position, wouldn’t it? Of course. The difference comes in approach to failure.
Let’s say you have that belief. And you see a man about to murder someone else. Allowing that innocent to be murdered is clearly wrong, so you stop it. Unfortunately, in the process, the would-be murderer is killed. Maybe it’s an accident. Maybe you tried all the other options and it was the only way. Maybe there wasn’t enough time to be as careful as you would have liked, or to disable without killing. Whatever the reason, he’s dead, and you did it. Now what?
The ethical position is ‘I didn’t want to, but [I had no choice / it was an accident / etc ]’. Justifications—many of them perfectly valid, and completely reasonable (they’d have to be, they’re reasons)—exist. The ethical individual can comfort themselves and assuage their guilt with such circumstantial situational (because ‘circumstantial’ is often taken to mean ‘ephemeral’, where in this case, I really did mean ‘applicable to those circumstances’) considerations.
To the moral individual, however, such distinctions are meaningless. Yes, it’s not as bad as if he’d committed cold-blooded murder. Yes, there were mitigating factors that made it necessary. It was still wrong, and they did wrong in doing it, no matter how well-intentioned they were. That wrong may be used as a motivation to do better in the future, but it will never become ‘right’ to have done that. Only necessary.
Does that make sense, High Chancellor of Intelligent and Penetrating Questions Ibrahim the Inquisitive? (How’s that?)
Awesome. Ok. So let’s break it down a bit. First, let’s simplify the end of that question:
We live in such a complex patchwork. As previously established, no large population in New Eden exists in a monoculture (except maybe Sansha’s Nation, but even there there are cultural variations between True Citizens and Slaves, as I understand it). And all of the four great empires are made up of complex networks of these non-monocultures. So before we get to international affairs, we’re already dealing with incredibly complex networks of traditions and cultures.
So, let’s take that as a given, and officially say that that whole ending of the question can be rephrased in a functionally accurate way as ‘within New Eden.’
Awesome. We’ve now replaced 23 words with 3, and made the question less of a pain in the butt to read.
See? Getting better already.
The next condition of the question is this:
It comes in two parts. First: there no universal, objective criteria exists [regarding the validity of morality] outside of cultural norms and mores. Second, that cultural norms and mores are often inconsistent within a single culture, let alone New Eden’s complexity. Part II first, it’s much, much easier to deal with.
Answer/Evaluation of Part II: Totally agree. The most consistent thing about cultural norms in New Eden is their inconsistency. So, great, that’s agreed on.
Part I: Does a universal, objective criteria exist regarding the validity of morality outside of cultural norms and mores?
Kinda? I mean, it’s impossible to say for certain about ‘universal’, considering that we don’t have access to the whole thing to look it all over, you know? But within the smaller set of ‘known populations of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in New Eden’… It would be tempting to say yes. It really would. Bob knows[1] we’ve tried. I mean, on some level, that’s what CONCORD’s all about: establishing a universal set of ‘this is right, this is wrong’ that everyone agrees to abide by. To create a single society out of the patchwork quilt of humanity.
I mean, all of the empires abide by CONCORD’s distinctions. Even the null capsuleers do (not necessarily voluntarily, but they do): we can’t shoot baseliner traffic that isn’t specifically tagged as a valid target through CONCORD’s systems (like mission targets). We can’t go bombing population centers, even if aiming a Lance of Bosonic Doomsday at a planet should totally work (my snarky response to Aria aside. She’s totally right. We can’t do that). We can’t sell things the SCC doesn’t let us sell, even in null. We have to abide by the rules of the road. Society Hath Said So™.
But, you know… not everyone says so. Look at the Blood Raiders, the Serpentis, the Guristas… would they agree with a statement that what they do is morally wrong? Probably not. And while it’d be tempting to say ‘yeah, but screw those maniacs’, if we’re going to honestly answer the core question… we have to acknowledge that, and what it means. And what is means is this:
No, no universal criteria for determining the validity of an individual’s morality exists at this time.
OK.
So, we’ve established that much. With those things confirmed, we can sum that section up as: ‘given the lack of universal criteria for this task’.
Our question is now:
Hot damn, it’s almost down to a reasonable mouthful. So… can they?
Yes and no.
First, you have to acknowledge that the entire second part of the question is ultimately irrelevant: No matter the existence of a universal criteria, the observer is going to use their own personal criteria in any personal evaluation they make. They may choose to use a universal criteria if they’re trying to determine what ‘everyone’ would think. However, that means intentionally putting that additional layer of thought into it.
If they’re not doing that, if they’re not stopping to say ‘is this my evaluation, or am I evaluating this on the universal standard?’ then they’re just using their own personal criteria. Those criteria may line up more or less with the universal standards. In a vast plurality of human beings in New Eden, I’d expect them to. Not perfectly, mind you, because we’re all dumbasses like that, but they’ll more or less align, especially on the big-ticket items like murder, theft, rape, pineapple on pizza[2]… you know.
So realistically speaking, even as we consider whether or not someone can make an authoritative statemend on the validity of someone else’s morality based on personal criteria alone… we should acknowledge: they’re gonna.
But will that statement be reasonably authoritative? Well, here’s where it gets fun. Because of course, the answer is ‘Maybe?’
We’re all creatures of habit and routine. The human brain developed over who-knows-how-many-minutes as a pattern-matching engine. From what we can see of less complex creatures, that’s basically the job of any brain, ganglia, or thickened bunch of nerves that might become a ganglia in a few million generations: find and identify patterns in what’s going on around you, and react in the way that most successfully will result in the long-term continued replication of a particular set of DNA molecules[3].
So no matter what we want to be, or what we try to be, or what we believe we’re meant to be… what we are is pattern-matching machines. We look for patterns in all things, and it’s a pretty universal aphorism that if you look for evidence of something (rather than simply looking to see what you’ll find evidence of), you’ll find it. Even if it’s not there. It’s not simply ‘confirmation bias’, though of course that plays into it, but rather expectational bias. We’re all predisposed to accept things that make it easier for us, and predisposed to oppose things that challenge us. That’s true of things that present a direct challenge, like something being in our way, and things that present more of an abstract challenge, like making us rethink our positions on things[4].
But how does this impact our question?
It impacts our question because just as there’s no objective criteria for making the evaluation, there’s no objective criteria for what’s reasonably authoritative. Can someone make a statement? As we’ve discussed, the answer is ‘duh’. But will that statement be authoritative, and if so, by what reasonable standard can it be judged to be so?
I submit that the question of ‘can the statement be authoritative’ is entirely subjective. If the observer in our question (who is making the statement) is someone the listener (who is receiving the statement, and may or may not be involved in the discussion in any other capacity) feels has exhibited sufficient trustworthiness and rigor in their thought processes and evaluations in the past, then the statement will be considered both reasonable and authoritative. If, on the other hand, the observer is someone whom the listener feels is more inclined to indulge their biases and not critically examine their own thought processes, then the statement will not be taken as authoritative, no matter how much evidence or supporting theory is provided.
So the answer remains ‘yes’, but at the same time, that’s true only if ‘you’ (the listener in the context of this statement) accept it to be so. As with most questions of philosophy, ultimately, the truth is only ever ‘it’s up to you’.
[1] Yes, total shout out to my friends in J-Space.
[2] I’m kidding. Not only is this not a big-ticket item, if it were, I swear, the balance of power in New Eden would realign so fast CONCORD would instantly explode with a massive cry of ‘Not With The Anchovieeeeeees!’
[3] Let’s face it, that’s what it’s all about. Survival is about your DNA continuing to replicate. Reproduction is about your DNA continuing to replicate. Everything else we do is basically passing the time while our DNA gets annoyed at us for not breeding and making more DNA replication engines to host it. SUCK IT UP, DEOXYRIBONUCLEIC ACID, I’M NOT DOING IT! YOU GOTTA BE CONTENT WITH JUST ME, I’M NOT PASSING A DAMNED WATERMELON OUT MY CROTCH!
[4] This is true of things that aren’t even core beliefs, too. It doesn’t matter how much you rely on a thing to be true to shape your sense of yourself, it’s the challenge to your rightness that causes the reaction. In many ways, it’s like pain: a real pain, like from a deep cut in your skin, is often easier to ignore than something like a paper-cut, where the damage is negligible, and the pain is less a deep, throbbing, persistent sign of damage, and more a stinging scream of severed nerve endings. Similarly, the most ephemeral things, things that don’t actually affect our lives, are often the things that we react to being challenged on the most.
(We’re getting there. A professional consult from Lord Vaari of Oh So Much Pomp and Circumstance and I’ll be well on the way to my ego being back at the ideal pressure of 50% above the manufacturer’s recommendation.)
My first read through struck me as your position being almost too nuanced (I had one or two flashbacks to my undergraduate years where sometimes it seemed like nuance was being used to obfuscate and confuse rather than really tease out a subtle truth).
However, after really thinking it over, your position probably approximates how most modern people function as moral actors, though they certainly haven’t thought about it enough to articulate the particulars as you have, and that I might not adopt the same terminology regarding the ethic/moral distinction (though I think I see where you are coming from with ethics usually being societal, top down rules which are recognized to not truly be universally applicable and morals being more personal and foundational) but I do think that I have, upon deeper examination, the same beliefs as you.
A hypothetical modern person put into an extreme situation that pressured them to compromise moral action for survival would probably rationalize their actions as necessary but still feel bad about what they did which is basically a state of doublethink that, if they thought hard and chipped through the rational layer to understand the emotion of guilt, masks a true self-assessment like yours. “I have reasons I did what I did but I still feel bad about doing them because I know that even justified immoral action is still wrong.”
Incidentally, this is the only thing required by the Communications Relay Committee to allow a Capsuleer to post on the IGS.
People are generally given to operating at a superficial layer of self-examination. One of the things I’ve found to be necessary, in my life’s journeys, is to always turn a critical eye to my own beliefs and preconceptions. It has, as you might imagine, made it interesting to deal with those who lob accusations at me without ever questioning their own.
