Moral philosophy, like all philosophy, does nothing directly to illuminate the nature of reality. What it does is to illuminate the nature of confusion.
Moral philosophy does not illuminate the nature of confusion, it is the confusion. I am asking, what is missing and what confusion is left if you disregard moral philosophy and talk about right and wrong in terms of preferences?
I’m tempted to reply that what is missing is the ability to communicate with anyone who believes in virtue ethics or deontological ethics, and therefore doesn’t see how preferences are even involved. But maybe I am not understanding your point.
Perhaps an example would help. Suppose I say, “It is morally wrong for Alice to lie to Bob.” How would you analyze that moral intuition in terms of preferences. Whose preferences are we talking about here? Alice’s, Bob’s, mine, everybody else’s? For comparison purposes, also analyze the claim “It is morally wrong for Bob to strangle Alice.”
Due to your genetically hard-coded intuitions about appropriate behavior within groups of primates, your upbringing, cultural influences, rational knowledge about the virtues of truth-telling and preferences involving the well-being of other people, you feel obliged to influence the intercourse between Alice and Bob in a way that persuades Alice to do what you want, without feeling inappropriately influenced by you, by signaling your objection to certain behaviors as an appeal to the order of higher authority .
“It is morally wrong for Bob to strangle Alice.”
If you say, “I don’t want you to strangle Alice.”, Bob might reply, “I don’t care what you want!”.
If you say, “Strangling Alice might have detrimental effects on your other preferences.”, Bob might reply, “I assign infinite utility to the death of Alice!” (which might very well be the case for humans in a temporary rage).
But if you say, “It is morally wrong to strangle Alice.”, Bob might get confused and reply, “You are right, I don’t want to be immoral!”. Which is really a form of coercive persuasion. Since when you say, “It is morally wrong to strangle Alice.”, you actually signal, “If you strangle Alice you will feel guilty.”. It is a manipulative method that might make Bob say, “You are right, I don’t want to be immoral!”, when what he actually means is, “I don’t want to feel guilty!”.
Primates don’t like to be readily controled by other primates. To get them to do what you want you have to make them believe that, for some non-obvious reason, they actually want to do it themselves.
This sounds like you are trying to explain-away the phenomenon, rather than explain it. At the very least, I would think, such a theory of morality needs to make some predictions or explain some distinctions. For example, what is it about the situation that causes me to try to influence Alice and Bob using moral arguments in these cases, whereas I use other methods of influence in other cases?
For example, what is it about the situation that causes me to try to influence Alice and Bob using moral arguments in these cases, whereas I use other methods of influence in other cases?
Complex influences, like your culture and upbringing.That’s also why some people don’t say that it is morally wrong to burn a paperback book while others are outraged by the thought. And those differences and similarities can be studied, among other fields, in terms of cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology.
It needs a multidisciplinary approach to tackle such questions. But moral philosophy shouldn’t be part of the solution because it is largely mistaken about cause and effect. Morality is an effect of our societal and cultural evolution, shaped by our genetically predisposition as primates living in groups. In this sense moral philosophy is a meme that is part of a larger effect and therefore can’t be part of a reductionist explanation of itself. The underlying causes of cultural norms and our use of language can be explained by social and behavioural sciences, applied mathematics like game theory, computer science and linguistics.
But rationality shouldn’t be part of the solution because it is largely mistaken about cause and effect. Rationalitty is an effect of our societal and cultural evolution, shaped by our genetically predisposition as primates living in groups. In this sense rationality is a meme that is part of a larger effect and therefore can’t be part of a reductionist explanation of itself.
However, these claims are false, so you have to make a different argument.
I’ve seen this sort of substitution-argument a few times recently, so I’ll take this opportunity to point out that arguments have contexts, and if it seems that an argument does not contain all the information necessary to support its conclusions (because directly substituting in other words produces falsehood), this is because words have meanings, steps are elided, and there are things true and false in the world. This does not invalidate those arguments! These elisions are in fact necessary to prevent each argument from being a re-derivation of human society from mathematical axioms. Arguers should try to be sensitive to the way in which the context of an argument may or may not change how that argument applies to other subjects (A simple example: “You should not enter that tunnel because your truck is taller than the ceiling’s clearance” is a good argument only if the truck in question is actually taller than the ceiling’s clearance.). This especially applies when arguments are not meant to be formal, or in fact when they are not intended to be arguments.
These substitution arguments are quite a shortcut. The perpetrator doesn’t actually have to construct something that supports a specific point; instead, they can take an argument they disagree with, swap some words around, leave out any words that are inconvenient, post it, and if the result doesn’t make sense, the perpetrator wins!
Making a valid argument about why the substitution argument doesn’t make sense requires more effort than creating the substitution argument, so if we regard discussions here as a war of attrition, the perpetrator wins even if you create a well-reasoned reply to him.
Substitution arguments are garbage. I wish I knew a clean way to get rid of them. Thanks for identifying them as a thing to be confronted.
Cool, glad I’m not just imagining things! I think that sometimes this sort of argument can be valuable (“That person also has a subjective experience of divine inspiration, but came to a different conclusion”, frex), but I’ve become more suspicious of them recently—especially when I’m tempted to use one myself.
if it seems that an argument does not contain all the information necessary to support its conclusions (because directly substituting in other words produces falsehood), this is because words have meanings, steps are elided, and there are things true and false in the world. This does not invalidate those arguments!
Thing is, this is a general response to virtually any criticism whatsoever. And it’s often true! But it’s not always a terribly useful response. Sometimes it’s better to make explicit that bit of context, or that elided step.
Moreover it’s also a good thing to remember about the other guy’s argument next time you think his conclusions obviously do not follow from his (explicitly stated) premises—that is, next time you see what looks to you to be an invalid argument, it may not be even if strictly on a formal level it is, precisely because you are not necessarily seeing everything the other guy is seeing.
So, it’s not just about substitutions. It’s a general point.
Thing is, this is a general response to virtually any criticism whatsoever. And it’s often true! But it’s not always a terribly useful response. Sometimes it’s better to make explicit that bit of context, or that elided step.
True! This observation does not absolve us of our eternal vigilance.
Moreover it’s also a good thing to remember about the other guy’s argument next time you think his conclusions obviously do not follow from his (explicitly stated) premises—that is, next time you see what looks to you to be an invalid argument, it may not be even if strictly on a formal level it is, precisely because you are not necessarily seeing everything the other guy is seeing.
So, it’s not just about substitutions. It’s a general point.
For example, what is it about the situation that causes me to try to influence Alice and Bob using moral arguments in these cases, whereas I use other methods of influence in other cases?
Guilt works here, for example. (But XiXiDu covered that.) Social pressure also. Veiled threat and warning, too. Signaling your virtue to others as well. Moral arguments are so handy that they accomplish all of these in one blow.
ETA: I’m not suggesting that you in particular are trying to guilt trip people, pressure them, threaten them, or signal. I’m saying that those are all possible explanations as to why someone might prefer to couch their arguments in moral terms: it is more persuasive (as Dark Arts) in certain cases. Though I reject moralist language if we are trying to have a clear discussion and get at the truth, I am not against using Dark Arts to convince Bob not to strangle Alice.
Morality teaches you when to punish and reward (and when to expect punishment and reward). It is a second-order concept, and hence not directly tied to preferences.
Sometimes you’ll want to explain why your punishment of others is justified. If you don’t want to engage Perplexed’s “moral realism”, then either you don’t think there’s anything universal enough (for humans, or in general) in it to be of explanatory use in the judgments people actually make, or you don’t think it’s a productive system for manufacturing (disingenuous yet generally persuasive) explanations that will sometimes excuse you.
Assuming I haven’t totally lost track of context here, I think I am saying that moral language works for persuasion (partially as Dark Arts), but is not really suitable for intellectual discourse.
Okay. Whatever he hopes is real (but you think is only confused), will allow you to form persuasive arguments to similar people. So it’s still worth talking about.
Virtue ethicists and deontologists merely express a preference for certain codes of conduct because they believe adhering to these codes will maximize their utility, usually via the mechanism of lowering their time preference.
ETA: And also, as XiXiDu points out, to signal virtuosity.
Moral philosophy does not illuminate the nature of confusion, it is the confusion. I am asking, what is missing and what confusion is left if you disregard moral philosophy and talk about right and wrong in terms of preferences?
I’m tempted to reply that what is missing is the ability to communicate with anyone who believes in virtue ethics or deontological ethics, and therefore doesn’t see how preferences are even involved. But maybe I am not understanding your point.
Perhaps an example would help. Suppose I say, “It is morally wrong for Alice to lie to Bob.” How would you analyze that moral intuition in terms of preferences. Whose preferences are we talking about here? Alice’s, Bob’s, mine, everybody else’s? For comparison purposes, also analyze the claim “It is morally wrong for Bob to strangle Alice.”
Due to your genetically hard-coded intuitions about appropriate behavior within groups of primates, your upbringing, cultural influences, rational knowledge about the virtues of truth-telling and preferences involving the well-being of other people, you feel obliged to influence the intercourse between Alice and Bob in a way that persuades Alice to do what you want, without feeling inappropriately influenced by you, by signaling your objection to certain behaviors as an appeal to the order of higher authority .
If you say, “I don’t want you to strangle Alice.”, Bob might reply, “I don’t care what you want!”.
If you say, “Strangling Alice might have detrimental effects on your other preferences.”, Bob might reply, “I assign infinite utility to the death of Alice!” (which might very well be the case for humans in a temporary rage).
But if you say, “It is morally wrong to strangle Alice.”, Bob might get confused and reply, “You are right, I don’t want to be immoral!”. Which is really a form of coercive persuasion. Since when you say, “It is morally wrong to strangle Alice.”, you actually signal, “If you strangle Alice you will feel guilty.”. It is a manipulative method that might make Bob say, “You are right, I don’t want to be immoral!”, when what he actually means is, “I don’t want to feel guilty!”.
Primates don’t like to be readily controled by other primates. To get them to do what you want you have to make them believe that, for some non-obvious reason, they actually want to do it themselves.
This sounds like you are trying to explain-away the phenomenon, rather than explain it. At the very least, I would think, such a theory of morality needs to make some predictions or explain some distinctions. For example, what is it about the situation that causes me to try to influence Alice and Bob using moral arguments in these cases, whereas I use other methods of influence in other cases?
Complex influences, like your culture and upbringing.That’s also why some people don’t say that it is morally wrong to burn a paperback book while others are outraged by the thought. And those differences and similarities can be studied, among other fields, in terms of cultural anthropology and evolutionary psychology.
It needs a multidisciplinary approach to tackle such questions. But moral philosophy shouldn’t be part of the solution because it is largely mistaken about cause and effect. Morality is an effect of our societal and cultural evolution, shaped by our genetically predisposition as primates living in groups. In this sense moral philosophy is a meme that is part of a larger effect and therefore can’t be part of a reductionist explanation of itself. The underlying causes of cultural norms and our use of language can be explained by social and behavioural sciences, applied mathematics like game theory, computer science and linguistics.
But rationality shouldn’t be part of the solution because it is largely mistaken about cause and effect. Rationalitty is an effect of our societal and cultural evolution, shaped by our genetically predisposition as primates living in groups. In this sense rationality is a meme that is part of a larger effect and therefore can’t be part of a reductionist explanation of itself.
However, these claims are false, so you have to make a different argument.
I’ve seen this sort of substitution-argument a few times recently, so I’ll take this opportunity to point out that arguments have contexts, and if it seems that an argument does not contain all the information necessary to support its conclusions (because directly substituting in other words produces falsehood), this is because words have meanings, steps are elided, and there are things true and false in the world. This does not invalidate those arguments! These elisions are in fact necessary to prevent each argument from being a re-derivation of human society from mathematical axioms. Arguers should try to be sensitive to the way in which the context of an argument may or may not change how that argument applies to other subjects (A simple example: “You should not enter that tunnel because your truck is taller than the ceiling’s clearance” is a good argument only if the truck in question is actually taller than the ceiling’s clearance.). This especially applies when arguments are not meant to be formal, or in fact when they are not intended to be arguments.
These substitution arguments are quite a shortcut. The perpetrator doesn’t actually have to construct something that supports a specific point; instead, they can take an argument they disagree with, swap some words around, leave out any words that are inconvenient, post it, and if the result doesn’t make sense, the perpetrator wins!
Making a valid argument about why the substitution argument doesn’t make sense requires more effort than creating the substitution argument, so if we regard discussions here as a war of attrition, the perpetrator wins even if you create a well-reasoned reply to him.
Substitution arguments are garbage. I wish I knew a clean way to get rid of them. Thanks for identifying them as a thing to be confronted.
Cool, glad I’m not just imagining things! I think that sometimes this sort of argument can be valuable (“That person also has a subjective experience of divine inspiration, but came to a different conclusion”, frex), but I’ve become more suspicious of them recently—especially when I’m tempted to use one myself.
Thing is, this is a general response to virtually any criticism whatsoever. And it’s often true! But it’s not always a terribly useful response. Sometimes it’s better to make explicit that bit of context, or that elided step.
Moreover it’s also a good thing to remember about the other guy’s argument next time you think his conclusions obviously do not follow from his (explicitly stated) premises—that is, next time you see what looks to you to be an invalid argument, it may not be even if strictly on a formal level it is, precisely because you are not necessarily seeing everything the other guy is seeing.
So, it’s not just about substitutions. It’s a general point.
True! This observation does not absolve us of our eternal vigilance.
Emphatically agreed.
Guilt works here, for example. (But XiXiDu covered that.) Social pressure also. Veiled threat and warning, too. Signaling your virtue to others as well. Moral arguments are so handy that they accomplish all of these in one blow.
ETA: I’m not suggesting that you in particular are trying to guilt trip people, pressure them, threaten them, or signal. I’m saying that those are all possible explanations as to why someone might prefer to couch their arguments in moral terms: it is more persuasive (as Dark Arts) in certain cases. Though I reject moralist language if we are trying to have a clear discussion and get at the truth, I am not against using Dark Arts to convince Bob not to strangle Alice.
Perplexed wrote earlier:
Sometimes you’ll want to explain why your punishment of others is justified. If you don’t want to engage Perplexed’s “moral realism”, then either you don’t think there’s anything universal enough (for humans, or in general) in it to be of explanatory use in the judgments people actually make, or you don’t think it’s a productive system for manufacturing (disingenuous yet generally persuasive) explanations that will sometimes excuse you.
Assuming I haven’t totally lost track of context here, I think I am saying that moral language works for persuasion (partially as Dark Arts), but is not really suitable for intellectual discourse.
Okay. Whatever he hopes is real (but you think is only confused), will allow you to form persuasive arguments to similar people. So it’s still worth talking about.
Virtue ethicists and deontologists merely express a preference for certain codes of conduct because they believe adhering to these codes will maximize their utility, usually via the mechanism of lowering their time preference.
ETA: And also, as XiXiDu points out, to signal virtuosity.