Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality

no this is not to smear or devalue Prof Pinker and his work but i was looking up our pal Steve , as i have not read his book , seems hes not loved in some quatershttp://www.homestead.com/flowstate/pinkersucks.html,and from Biology vs. the Blank Slatehe seems to be bit of a celebrity scientist ... so please do forgive if i question this as a sole pointer to reality ....

Houston, we have a problem. directly contradicts However. I am not going to address the Blank Slate any further in this thread. I merely brought it up in reference to morality. Should you have any further questions about the Blank Slate, I would be more than happy to propose a new topic.As for your "fear of nihilism" (as Steven so eloquently put it) ... ... morality is genetic. It is a part of us. Like two arms or language. Btw, humans aren't the only ones with a moral sense. There are many examples in our great ape brethren, as well as other species.Edited by molbiogirl, : typo

Stile, just for history's sake, do you see how this thread is not a new topic, but the same as 'Why Is It Right To Do Good To Others'?In both topics you state one 'goal' of morality, but the fact that you have two topics serves well to show that you have two goals, IOW, morality is not simply 'doing good' nor simply 'allowing freedom'. Those may boil down to the same thing in the end, {and I think molbiogirl touched on the sympathy/empathy part already} but it is very obvious to me that you can not see the morality forest for the moral trees. Everytime you shift the discussion, from bestiality, to homsexuality, to morality in general, to absolutes, etc., you have the same things to say, but you act as if the whole moral world should flip when we change subjects.I don't mean to be rude at all, but I noticed how you moved this topic, and I think it is just the same old same old. Not that I mind discussing it.

Ah, yes. I agree. I'm not saying "freedom is where we get our ability for morality from." I'm saying that the goal of morality should be to protect as much personal freedom for every individual as possible.That is, I don't really care where morality comes from (for this discussion). Wherever we got the ability, it's still what we use to govern our interactions with other people. This I'm taking as fact, and can be discussed if there's a problem with that inference.From here, morality doesn't even need a seperate goal. Morality can just sit there and be "how we interact" with others.We can, however, put our own goals on it:
-always treat others as better than ourselves
-always treat others as worse than ourselves
-always treat tall people with respect, and shun short people
-be nice when I feel like it, and hate others as I see fitAll I'm saying is that morality's goal should be, in my personal view:"To protect as much individual freedom as possible". And this simply stems from a basic rational idea that we cannot know if any single person's thoughts are "better" or "worse" than anothers, so we are forced to treat them all fairly... equally. I'm also saying that I can't find a "better" goal. Better being... a goal that reduces pain-caused (physically or mentally) to other people as much as possible. ...I wouldn't be able to argue with this one way or another. But, we can objectively state that someone raping another is restricting that person's freedom. Therefore, if I consider people's freedom to be "the goal of morality", than I would want to stop rape from happening to protect the freedom of whoever's being forced into sex against their will.I admit I'm talking about something I haven't given a great deal of thought to before. So if I've completey missed your point, please help indicate to me where I should be focusing my attention.

err no .. are you saying a new born is not exposed to history, culture and politics ..reguardless of blank state or not .. even if we agree that the degree in which those factors effect the person are small they are still there ...i agree blank state is not relavent to this thread ....please do not try to define my views , my "fear of nihilism" (as Steven so eloquently put it) ...is hmmm pretty low , near non exsistant .. you see i am able to resason ... )...by the way how could Seven make a coment on me with out meeting me .. or do he work evidence-Lite ...(yes ive been reading some of his stuff ) So , but that does not answer my question .. do you have a answer to the question ..."why be moral if it is merely a genetic disposition ?"people can live with out arms , so why not morality ?? as i said we change things give out by our genetics , i mean i shave each day , i see people with coloured hair .. well gosh .. he must be so bright .. and we are so dim
please ...this is s recycled junk
, and makes my point.. how can any fear or like be secular or religious UNLESS they effect us , oh but those are from nurture and so cant have an effect ...you cant have it both ways .. or is secular and religoin genetic.. gosh i did not know the brain was orgasnised to give rise to a sentiant being .. well call the president and tell him at once ....now if good old Stevey babys could tell us HOW it is organised ,
what turns a lump of "ordinary matter" in to me thinking , then may be he might be doing something ....you clearly think the Prof is right , fine if that works for you go for it ..me i stick with questions ...and so back to the OP ... if morality is as you say genetic then it has no final goal .. yes or no .....Edited by ikabod, : No reason given.

Yes. I agree that I'm saying "I find being fair and equal is the most important ideal". Where someone could just as easily say "I find being selfish to be the most important ideal".I simply want to point out, that if one finds being fair and equal to be "the most important", then they'll agree with what I've said that we should respect everyone's right to pursue life and happiness equally. (If you don't think this follows, then I'm very interested in what my flaw is).I also want to point out that not agreeing with "freedom being the goal of morality" means you have another higher goal.. perhaps personal selfishness... perhaps "John Doe's" personal happiness...I agree there's no underlying list saying fairness is better than selfishness (or anything else), but there is still a difference, and we should admit to that difference if we're going to assume one over the other.I'm not too sure on this point, but would like to see where it goes... I'd like to say that "treating others fair" is rational while "being selfish" would be irrational. Again, not saying one is "better", just that one's classified under "rational" and the other is not. Based on this reasoning: since we don't know if any single person is better or worse than another... shouldn't the default be that we're all equal? I'm not sure if that's rational or not. I think it is, but I could be missing something.

I was a bit rushed putting together that OP. I hope I've been able to clarify in Message 21, where I replied to nemesis_juggernaut.

I'm not sure if we can say this. I think we can say "we choose this to be our 'perfection' that we're aiming our morality for." But I don't think we can simply say that morality is about, well.. anything imparticular. This is what I mean by my above paragraph. I will have a purpose for morality, you will have another, someone else will have a third...I do not, however, think this restricts us from finding the "most fair" or "most selfish" or "most personally responsible" one. My point is simply that if we adhere to one, we should remain consistant and admit when we fall away. I would simply say that "morality is our constuct on how to interact with each other."The "in such a way to avoid unsettling other people" and "to work with in agreed boundries" would be a nicer morality (in my view), but I still think morality in itself is simpler.

Yes, I agree. I was rushed for time and sometimes I can't get my highschool english teacher's voice out of my head "don't be weak in an essay! State your side as if it's the law!!" I sometime's fall back into that mode when trying to put something together quickly. I meant that as "my opinion" more than "the only possible choice".I think (hope?) that Message 21 clarifies this a great deal. Yes, I agree with what you say here. But if we decide that "the things that are good for humans" is equality and fairness... you end up with where I'm coming from.If you decide something else, than you'll disagree. I'm not saying there's anything fundamentally wrong with it. You just can't say "I think people should always be treated fairly" and then say "I think no one should be allowed to put racing stripes on their car" and not expect anyone to pick up on the inconsistancy. Simply note that you put your own selfish desires above being fair to everyone, and the inconsistancy disappears. "Freedom" isn't the qualifier. "Equality" or "being fair" is the qualifier. If we're stressing being equal and fair, then we certainly do have the right to pursue any old kind of happiness unless it starts restricting someone elses freedoms (since that's the "fair" part). Of course, if we're stressing someone's personal preferences over anothers... then it's obvious that only certain kinds of happiness are going to be allowed. I'm not saying this is any less valid, only less fair. The "validity" of being fair or selfish I leave up to each individual.I think I have a case for saying "being fair" is rational and "being selfish" is not. But I'm not sure about that one. It's up in Message 21 as well.

Yes, the too are similar, but not the same.The point of 'Why Is It Right To Do Good To Others' was to identify that it's possible to define "Good" and lay a basic foundation for morality without the use of God or any supernatural being.The point of this thread is to identify that different people have different goals for morality, what those different goals are, and hopefully identify that some goals are more based in rationallity than others.I don't remember stating a goal for morality in the other thread, I only remember stating what "good" was, and using that to explain why we should treat others equally.Both threads are very closely linked to the statement:All people should be treated equally with respect to their pusuit for life and happiness.The last thread was about how I came to this conclusion without God.This thread is about how this conclusion (if you agree with it) means we should stop those who want to rape, but not those who want to put racing stripes on their cars.

Try this goal on for size:Morality's goal should be the survival of the human species.If restricting individual freedom is necessary for our survival as a species, then it must be done. Hypothetically, we could need to restrict individual freedom to ensure our survival, even if those freedoms do not immediately cause pain to or reduce the freedoms of another person.ABE:If protecting individual freedom was going to cause the end of our species (or maybe if it was just going to lower the chance of survival) then it wouldn't be the moral thing to do.There is a higher goal than freedom.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

I am going to try this one more time.
It's really very simple. With that, I turn to your poorly drawn analogy. Genetics determined that you were born with two arms. Genetics explains heredity, not accidents you might have during your lifetime.And, believe it or not, people can live without morals as a result of a genetic defect. They're called psychopaths. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Psychopathy Trait Dimensions in a Community Sample of Male Twins. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. The British Journal of Psychiatry A. Brazma, H. Parkinson, T. Schlitt, M. Shojatalab, European Bioinformatics Institue. ArrayExpress < EMBL-EBI October 2001There has even been work done on gene therapy for psychopathy.And these are but a few of over 4,000 articles documenting the link between psychopathy and its genetic origins.As a final note, I'd like to add that I am not denying free will. I am not a genetic determinist. But to deny that morality is a genetic behavior is to deny overwhelming genetic evidence.Any further discussion of this issue will come dangerously close to dragging stiles' thread off topic.

I don't mean to pick nits, but the "goal" of any gene is the survival and reproduction of its host so that the gene "survives". That's just basic Dawkins. Therefore, the goal of any genetic behavior (such as morality) is the "survival" of the gene or genes that determine that genetic behavior.And I don't think freedom is an aspect of morality. Or an extension of it.In addition, you seem to be arguing free will, not freedom.Would that be a fair assessment?

Eh, take your time. If things are hectic at work, by all means prioritize your time. Although being a major in philosophy is just about worthless in the real world, there is still much we can glean from it and apply it in our lives.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

if we chose to use a moral system should we not use the one that does align with a perfect ideal ? perfection should be our benchmark ..i agree that spotting and dealing with our falls from morality is a very vital part of operating the system .Im not sure that you can get to as simple a statement as you seek about morality , without the danger of missing part of its shape ..you risk cutting to much in your search for the simple ...are we getting any closer to agreeing a comman goal for morality ? ?Edited by ikabod, : missed