A thoughtful reader posed a series of questions and challenges to my article
The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality. I'm sure many folks will have similar questions so I am posting my answers here in their own thread (since they are quickly buried in the comment stream). I'm hoping more folks will challenge my theory so it's validity can be "tested in the fire" so please don't be shy!

Originally Posted by
Eleanor
Hi Richard.
I think theorising morality and setting out its principles is a great idea. Finding ways to discuss morals in way that abstracts them from a particular viewpoint and set of rules helps us in many ways from finding the truth about our own perspectives to living in an increasingly global society where we need to properly understand the true common moral ground and build on it in order to get along.
There’s some interesting points raised in the above comments that I would really like to discuss, but I’m going stick to the original topic, for now anyway. So here are some thoughts.
Hi Eleanor,
Welcome to our forum!
Thanks for taking time to share your views. I really appreciate your probing questions.

Originally Posted by
Eleanor

Originally Posted by
Richard Amiel McGough
Both principles are founded in the most basic and universal moral intuitions shared by all humanity.
I agree that the Golden Rule is generally common across humanity. However there are people who lack this moral intuition. For example, it is estimated that1% of the population are psychopathic. By psychopath I don’t mean people who are anti-social violent criminals (although a psychopath maybe) but the clinical definition - those who show a defined set of traits which include callousness, lack of empathy, lack of remorse, sexual promiscuity, conning and manipulative behaviour, persistent focus on gratifying their own needs at the expense of others. A psychopath’s brain means they are unable to feel in the same way another human being does. There appears to be a genetic basis for it. While a large proportion of violent crimes are committed by psychopaths, offenders are a small fraction of the psychopathic population, who otherwise seem to do alright for themselves. For example, studies suggest that about 4% of business leaders are psychopaths.
My understanding is that, from an evolutionary point of view, the capacity for love developed as it gave a survival advantage under the conditions that prevailed. So, while we (as loving caring humans beings) may class psychopaths as immoral (or amoral) from a strictly evolutionary point of view how can it be said that the way they behave is wrong as under current conditions they seem to be generally successful both in society and in getting their genes spread around?
The fact that some people lack moral intuitions says nothing about the reality of objective morality or the validity of my moral theory as far as I can tell. Does the fact that some people are color blind imply that there are no colors? Does the fact that some people can't do math imply that 1 + 2 does not equal 3? The purpose of my moral theory is to expose and explain the root of our moral intuitions.
The fact that there is an evolutionary basis for our moral intuitions does not imply that morality is to be identified with that which helps folks "get their genes around." That seems like a reductionist fallacy to me. For example, our ability to do advanced mathematics has an evolutionary basis, but the validity of abstract number theory (such as Wile's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem) does not have anything to do with helping folks "get their genes spread around" and that evolutionary concept tells us nothing about the validity of mathematics in general. I think the same goes for moral theory.

Originally Posted by
Eleanor

Originally Posted by
Richard Amiel McGough
All rational beings desire the best for themselves.
I struggle here with the word ‘best’ and what it really means. I assume ‘ultimate wellbeing’ is meant, as to desire anything else would be irrational, and that ‘wellbeing’ includes physical, emotional, intellectual and moral wellbeing. By this definition, what we desire is often not what is actually best for ourselves, whether knowingly (such as choosing to smoke) or unknowingly (for example, by not understanding ourselves, not thinking things through properly or having an imperfect sense of right and wrong). As an observation rather than a criticism, it seems like a moral minefield trying to treat somebody with respect to their ultimate wellbeing while taking into account what they think they want and respecting their right to make their own choices.
I agree that spelling out the details of what we mean by "best" could lead to many a philosophical sticky-wicket. We are complex beings with a variety of competing needs and desires. When we speak of our well-being, we are not talking only about our physical well-being. If that were the case, we would design our lives to minimize risk. There would be no sky-diving or even skateboarding. Few would think such a life is "best." These are pragmatic rather than theoretical concerns.
We must take care not to confuse ourselves with words which is so common in philosophy. We must establish our understanding on what is intuitively obvious; that which motivates this whole discussion in the first place. We have no other basis for philosophy. It all begins with something that we understand intuitively - primitive concepts that cannot be defined in terms of other concepts since that would lead to an infinite regress or a self-referential loop. I think the true foundation of morality is perfectly clear: it all comes down to love. If we have no love for others, we would have no moral intuitions that something is right or wrong. If we have no love of self, we cannot love others. When these intuitive facts are processed by our big brain, we see that any moral statement, to be objective, must be symmetric and invariant under an interchange of moral agents and we arrive at the Golden Rule. That is my moral theory in a nutshell.
Is it necessary that we be able to spell out all the details of what we mean by "best" in all practical situations before we can understand this theory or consider it valid? Of course not. We need only ask if there is something "best" (or even less restrictively, "better") in principle for the theory to work. The rest is moral pragmatics - the application of the theory - that always involves a lot that is beyond our ability to discern. For example, Quantum Physics is the best theory we have for understanding atoms but we cannot apply it directly to anything but a few of the simplest atoms. Everything else must be done with approximations and assumptions because the equations are too complex even for our best computers. Does this impugn the theory? Of course not.

Originally Posted by
Eleanor
If a person acts with altruism and this has a detrimental effect on them, would they be considered an irrational person?
Altruism has nothing to do with morality. If it did it would be logically incoherent because both persons would be morally compelled to sacrifice self for other. Then both die and neither would be altruistic.

Originally Posted by
Eleanor

Originally Posted by
Richard Amiel McGough
“Universal Love for all sentient beings. This is an objective standard because any rational observer could, in principle, discern between what is or is not more loving. To refute this argument, it would have to be shown that people cannot objectively determine what is more loving.”
What does ‘more loving’ mean? If we have love for another human being we desire their wellbeing and act accordingly. The most loving act possible in a particular circumstance will result in the greatest improvement to wellbeing. Therefore the lovingness of an act isn’t the act itself but the motive and the ultimate outcome. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
How is it possible to objectively judge the motive of an act? To an outside observer an act may seem loving. From the perspective of outcome, it may have been the most loving act possible. But what was the real motive? If you know somebody well, you might have a very good guess at their motives. But it’s still only a guess.
The purpose of my moral theory is to expose and explain the root of our moral intuitions. Do you think it succeeds? Do you have any moral intuition that contradicts love or is not founded in love? Do you have any moral intuition that is not explained by my theory? I would be very interested if you do since that would show a weakness in my theory that I must address.
You ask "How is it possible to objectively judge the motive of an act?". We can't, and I don't see how that question is relevant since no such judgement required by my theory and there is no moral theory that could enable us to make such judgments. The purpose of my moral theory is to explain the root of our moral intuitions.

Originally Posted by
Eleanor
I also struggle to see how a person can objectively judge the outcome of an act. The immediate effect of an act may be negative. For example disciplining a child may make them cry, but when the right disciplinary action is taken it is ultimately for their own good. So a longer view needs to be taken. Even, assuming in principle an observer could witness the experiences and behaviour of a child as they grew up, I don’t see how they would be able to disentangle the effect of a particular act of discipline by a parent, or even in every case be able to definitively say whether a person's behaviour is a result of their upbringing or their own free will.
Again, those are pragmatic questions that we would have to solve regardless of which moral theory we adhere to. They do not help us discern between competing theories of morality.

Originally Posted by
Eleanor
It seems possible for somebody with a heart full of love but lacking in wisdom to perform actions that cause harm (whether actual or relative). We learn wisdom as we mature but even with age make mistakes when we encounter new circumstances. An objective observer would need a vast store of wisdom to allow them objectively judge not just one human being’s lifetime of actions, but the myriad of actions across an infinite variety of personalities and circumstances.
Human society has often been faced with complex moral dilemmas where the wellbeing of large number of people is at stake, trade-offs between different groups of people are necessary or where the wellbeing of future, unborn generations of humanity may be affected. Accurately determining the consequences of a set of possible actions in order judge the lovingness of each one and select the best is mind boggling!
Personally, at this point I’m feeling like I need God to guide me in making decisions where my human capacity reaches it limits and to help make sure some good or that at least no harm comes to anyone due to my inadvertent mistakes. Thank the Lord I’m not a world leader!
The Golden Rule, good as it is, is only as good as human limits allow it to be. For those who believe in an all powerful, loving, wise, just God it would be unloving not to love him and do his will. Not simply because he says so, but because to not allow him to take care of the things we’re unable to and guide us to the right decisions in difficult circumstances is unloving towards ourselves and our fellow human beings. Without God I don’t see where the objective observer can come from, no human being has the capacities required.
I agree that making valid moral judgments can be quite challenging, but I have no idea why you would think God is any kind of guide. Is there any way for you to know God's specific will in any given situation? Will you not be subject to exactly the same human limitations that you listed?
Again, I want to thank you for your challenging and probing questions.
All the best,
Richard
vBulletin Message
The following errors occurred with your submission