Moral Realism

[Logan McNichiols]

What is there in the universe that we could call morality? Is it to be found in the material stuff of the universe? Are some arrangements of atoms more “moral” than others? It sounds rather absurd, doesn’t it? But at the level of experience I think the answer of where morality comes from is in such plain sight that it is hard for some of us to see. I believe that morality is fundamentally referring to our experiences of suffering and well-being.

What do I Mean by Morality?

Morality (or moralizing) was described by Leo as beliefs about the way the universe ought to be. This description of morality has some obvious problems, which Leo points out in his video “A Rant Against Morality”. In short, it makes no sense to talk about the way the universe ought to be, because the universe just is the way it is. The universe is the only way it could be. Plus, it is just kinda silly to complain about what the universe is doing. It’s not like the universe is going to be like “ahh, thank you, Bill, for your criticism.”

The thing I refer to when I speak of morality is our best effort to answer the question, “What should we do next?” And, based on my current philosophical views, this question is isomorphic to the question “what action(s) are most likely to promote well-being and reduce suffering”?

 

Objections

There are two reasons I can think of for why one might doubt this. One is that someone may think that in talking about suffering and well-being I am simply speaking of my ego’s preferences. This is then a classic mistake of trying to impose one’s preferences on the universe, and justifying doing so by saying it is a deep moral principle. But this is confusing the constructed ego with consciousness itself. If suffering was just the something the ego disliked rather than an experience, then if I was having a hellish experience, my ego (my thoughts) might be running wild with “oh god make it stop”, or “I hate this, I hate everything”, but my actual consciousness would be smooth sailing. I might appear like I was having a horrible time. I might even loudly profess that I was. But from the inside there wouldn’t be any problem. 

There is a related point that is interesting to think about which is that perhaps the ego is the sole cause of our suffering. Perhaps if I could just stop identifying with the thoughts saying “oh god make it stop” then consciousness really would be smooth sailing. I must say I am skeptical about this (I think if the Buddha was somehow brought to the present day and made to undergo the most advanced methods of torture he might not fair too well) but even if it were true, it would not reduce suffering to something the ego dislikes. It would merely be saying that the is a necessary condition for suffering to arise as a conscious experience. It would still make sense to think about what one could do to reduce suffering. Even if one was completely enlightened and was guaranteed to never suffer again, they still have to potential to cause other ego-bearing humans suffering.

The second thing that can sometimes come up is that a clever person will ask “why is suffering bad? Why is happiness or well-being good?” If you are concerned about the assertion that “suffering is bad”, because perhaps you think this is my ego distorting the truth for its own agenda, then by all means do away with the phrase. It is not necessary. We don’t have to refer to states of suffering, and acts which cause states of suffering, as “b-a-d” (although it can be a useful designation). My argument for moral realism does not rest on me being able to say therefore, because suffering is bad, we should mitigate suffering. Rather, I am confident that the direct experience of suffering does all this work for me. All that is required, I think, is for me to ask a thoughtful person to reflect on one of their worst experiences of suffering and one of their best experiences of well-being, and then suggest to them that perhaps, just maybe, this reflection answers the question of what, on a fundamental level, we should strive for.

[RendHeaven]

I don't question the idea that individually and collectively, it is most appropriate to ask the question “what action(s) are most likely to promote well-being and reduce suffering”?

This seems rather correct, given that most people prefer not to suffer 

What I do question, though, are the many assertions you make about the nature of Reality.

Specifically, the notions of "suffering," "experience/consciousness," and "I/me" seem underdeveloped.

38 minutes ago, Logan McNichiols said:

1) But this is confusing the constructed ego with consciousness itself. [...] there is a necessary condition for suffering to arise as a conscious experience.

1) You say this as if to say: "The ego identification is merely the one choosing to dislike the experience. The thing which actually does the suffering is the consciousness/experience! When suffering occurs, it is woven into the fabric of consciousness/experience."

Really? You don't know that. That is an unchecked assumption. It's good that you acknowledge the possibility that with the elimination of identification, perhaps suffering entirely vanishes.

If this possibility were True, that would mean that suffering is NOT woven into the fabric of consciousness/experience, for consciousness/experience is prior to identification.

This whole conversation - and your entire proposal for moral realism - hinges on how suffering comes to be.

Don't take your foot off this pedal. You must ask, "what IS suffering?"

Here's a hint: "an experience of discomfort or stress" - or anything along those lines - is NOT what suffering is existentially.

Such a definition describes suffering in terms of other words, which gets you no closer to its substance. All you have is alphabet soup.

Here's a good starting point: for suffering to occur, there must be identification.

No identification, no suffering. That is my claim.

Now, THIS goes beyond alphabet soup! Don't just believe me... check for yourself.

Of course, you must further ask, "what IS identification?" and then the hydra has suddenly grown another head.

But you see, that's exactly right... because this hydra has been here the whole time. You've simply been ignoring it

2 hours ago, Logan McNichiols said:

2) I think if the Buddha was somehow brought to the present day and made to undergo the most advanced methods of torture he might not fair too well.

2) Yeah no shit, PAIN still occurs! Enlightenment isn't a big Ibuprofen pill  Make sure you grasp that suffering and pain are not the same thing. They have many overlaps, but it IS possible to experience one without the other.

You can suffer without experiencing any pain. (Think: a breakup, the death of a loved one, or deep loss of any kind)

You can also experience pain and not suffer. (Think: working out hard and getting in that last rep while lactic acid eats your limbs - painful as SHIT, but feels good!)

If you were to torture the Buddha, he would scream in agony. But he would not suffer. Why? Because suffering is subjective. It is not etched in the bedrock of consciousness/experience. At least, that's my claim! Investigate this.

2 hours ago, Logan McNichiols said:

3) My argument for moral realism does not rest on me being able to say therefore, because suffering is bad, we should mitigate suffering. Rather, I am confident that the direct experience of suffering does all this work for me.

3) Here's the big-bad metaphysical slip!

You imagine that you are an "I," trapped within a human meat-bag, looking out into the "physical world" from somewhere within the skull.

You imagine that this "I" possesses an "experience" which can either be happiness-flavored, neutral-flavored, or suffering-flavored; and that's just the way Reality is designed.

Well, if this were the case, you could clearly assign the suffering to an individual such that if I were to ask "who suffers?" you could easily point to your skull and say "I!"

Totally not a projection or interpretation

However, IF what you fundamentally are on an existential level turns out NOT to be some form of "I," trapped within a human meat-bag, looking out into the "physical world" from somewhere within the skull, we run into a problem.

Who suffers?

Notice that you cannot quite say that YOU suffer unless you are crystal clear as to who you ARE.

Who even are you? "Body" is insufficient. "Brain" is insufficient. "Mind" is insufficient. "Soul" is insufficient. Even "Consciousness" and "Experience" are insufficient. These things are all alphabet soup.

Again, this whole conversation hinges on how suffering comes to be.

The problem is, we don't even know what suffering is. Furthermore, we don't even know who we are so we cannot say who suffers. To add insult to injury, what the hell is an experience anyway? You realize how much we take this thing for granted?

Why is there phenomena at all? Close your eyes. Now open them. Notice that you made everything go black for a second. Huh?

Don't explain this away by citing some theory about the optic nerve. All scientific theories are merely correlation. Correlation is not causation.

What is the cause for all these colors? Don't you ever wonder that? No, it's not pigments or light waves. There is no reason that a wavelength of 700 nm should equate to the experience of redness.

It would be a mistake to throw up your hands and just go with what APPEARS to be true.

You say that suffering = experience.

I say DIG DEEPER!

2 hours ago, Logan McNichiols said:

4) All that is required, I think, is for me to ask a thoughtful person to reflect on one of their worst experiences of suffering and one of their best experiences of well-being, and then suggest to them that perhaps, just maybe, this reflection answers the question of what, on a fundamental level, we should strive for.

4) If only it were that simple. Oftentimes suffering occurs in reaction to events that are out of our control.

Let's say your mother dies. So, you self reflect, and acknowledge that you suffered... and... well, you can't really resolve to not have your mom die again, can you?

So "morality," in this sense of "which action should one aspire toward," is more than strictly the manipulation of events. Counter-intuitively, by attempting to micromanage events in order to mitigate suffering, you will suffer more!

The battle to end suffering is largely done between you and yourself, alone, without anything to do.

Anyway, to wrap up.

Let's say I have a knife and I'm free to stab you. Should I do that? Probably not. Why? Because that would most likely cause unnecessary suffering. Why prevent suffering? Because I'm really not a fan.

I think this is a fair way to view morality. If I can prevent suffering, I will choose to do so precisely for the reason that I dislike suffering myself. That is my personal, subjective moral stance.

Is there any "realism" here? Any objectivity? Yes? No?

Actually, it doesn't matter.

Because whatever answer you give, there is still existential investigation to do!

[possibilities]

As far as I've reasoned to date, those humans that think of morality only think such because they have empathy.

ZERO other reason.

An anaconda doesn't contemplate the ramifications of its actions while chowing down a small mammal simply because it can't and even if it possessed great intelligence, if it possessed zero empathy it would probably only become a more prudent killer.

Humans have so many bullshit arguments, discussions, feelings, thoughts and so on regarding this subject simply because they do not understand why they even ponder the idea of morality.

Once you know the why though for things like this regarding human behaviour you get a small insight into the sheer nonsense humans come up with and spend time on; this places said individuals at a distinct advantage given how ignorant humans are with their actions even if they already comprehend this idea. Ideas are useless a lot of the time if they're not being used to radically alter ones behaviour.

To clarify though, morality is different to ethics, intelligence will always come up with ethics in this reality but its empathy that comes up with morality.