The Morality Project

[Inverse]

Part the First
What moral code do you live by, and how strictly do you follow it? In what ways do you think your code is lacking, and in what ways do you fail to adhere to it? If you haven’t bothered to codify your morality, then how about you take the opportunity to do so now?

Part the Second
Having seen others’ moral codes, in what ways do you think they are lacking? Example situations are good, along the lines of “I don’t think your moral code covers this,” “I believe this to be morally neutral or even laudable, while your moral code would seem to consider it abhorrent,” and “I believe this to be abhorrent, while your moral code would seem to consider it morally neutral or even laudable.”

Example moral codes
Myself, Inverse (Negative Utilitarianism)
Maxine Hellenberger (Enlightened Hedonism)
mouse (Survival)
MysticWav (New Testament Christianity)
Packbat (Rule Utilitarianism)
RyukaTana (Misanthropy/Communal Anarchy)
snowyowl (No strict code)
sonofzeal (Virtue Ethics)

[Inverse]

I’ll go first: I try to follow a pretty straightforward implementation of negative utilitarianism. I hold that the most moral actions are those which most reduce present suffering and prevent future suffering. While present and future happiness are nice, I believe that the prevention of suffering is in general more important than the creation of happiness.

I distinguish between “pain” and “suffering”; while physical pain is certainly correlated with certain extreme, unpleasant qualia,, there are plenty of examples of one without the other. I consider human suffering to be of greater importance than animal suffering, though the second should be avoided whenever possible.

Negative utilitarianism’s flaws have been pointed out in many other places: the pinprick argument, fears of a future “artificial,” drug- and gene-enabled lack of suffering, etc. My personal emphasis on suffering rather than pain somewhat alleviates the first, and I actually don’t mind the second.

Finally, I admit to being a somewhat immoral person even by my own judgement. I eat meat (not a lot, but I do eat it) even though first-world meat production creates animal suffering on an industrial scale; behold the glutton. And while I do a decent job of not causing suffering with my actions, I don’t do a great deal—especially on a scale outside the immediate local—to reduce suffering.

[RyukaTana]

Honestly, I believe in a lot of Maxine's code, but I don't follow a lot of it because I separate the ideal from the practical. Practically, I believe humans and society are shit, and on such a wide-scale that I can't trust them not to act unethically. I believe that people with a clear, overall negative value simply don't deserve to live, and that death is by no means even remotely the worst thing I can do to someone.

It doesn't take a lot for someone to have a positive value in my eyes, but somehow people limbo way under that bar (or just actively dig the fuck under it) constantly.

So, my practical assessment of the world is, fuck it, I hope humans die out and I just want my loved ones and I to be as happy as possible until we're dead. I attempt not to negatively impact people who I have not observed negatively impacting others, but ultimately, if I have to sacrifice anyone I truly care about to prevent someone else's suffering, I won't do it unless the amount I ease the other person's suffering is much greater than the amount I lose out on.

[snowyowl]

If asked, I believe in the Golden Rule: "Treat others the way you'd want them to treat you if you were switched." I also think utilitarianism is pretty cool, and you shouldn't even try ethics without a solid grasp of probability theory.

But I do not have a strict ethical code, and I do not believe such a thing is possible. By instinct and by upbringing, we find certain actions laudable and certain actions abhorrent. Our animal instincts are way out of date; our culture is full of nonsensical traditions. If there is a coherent system that unifies them and extends them to cover every possible situation, it's only by pure chance. So in the situations where society and your conscience tell you what's ethical, act accordingly - and in every other case, figure it out on your own. But do try to be consistent.

Personal guidelines: Don't interfere with other people's bodies against their wants, but you can interfere with their wants using words. Swat mosquitoes if it amuses you, but the comfort of higher animals should factor into your ethics. Don't let your behaviour be guided by weird philosophy hypotheticals or far-future dystopias outside human experience. We're all human and all equally important.

[RyukaTana]

Actually, regarding Pascal's Wager, I do support the idea that one should believe something, because believing nothing has no consequences. However, I believe one should formulate their belief around their observations of the world, rather than formulate a belief and then make observations and conform them to one's belief.

EDIT: Also, I've recently considered writing a blog called 'Why I'm a Misanthrope', just because I get asked that way too much and don't have the time to devote to repeatedly arguing the same points. That Roko's Basilisk exists would definitely earn its place on that blog...

[snowyowl]

I'm fine with believing stuff, but I don't like the way both Pascal and Roko throw near-infinities into their equations just to take advantage of people who think that logic should overrule common sense.

(I think that logic should overrule common sense.)

[RyukaTana]

I'm fine with believing stuff, but I don't like the way both Pascal and Roko throw near-infinities into their equations just to take advantage of people who think that logic should overrule common sense.

(I think that logic should overrule common sense.)

I think common sense should be informed by logic, and honestly, is just another poorly applied label.

As for the other part, I agree, those two particular concepts in their totality are pretty awful. I just wanted to point out my feelings on the baser ideas within Pascal's Wager.

[mouse]

I suppose this is fitting for a first post here. Hi forum! I was a fan of 1/0 and have been following Leftover Soup for a long time ever since I found out Tailsteak (who I think would be a really cool guy to have a conversation with over a cup of chaga) had started a second work.

It turns out I've already written down my moral code formulaicly: http://www.deviantart.com/download/2715 ... 1398337789
But being that that's probably a bit hard to parse, I'll lay it out here more clearly.

-Sensory perceptions are less certain sources of knowledge than logic, and, emotions included, cannot be a source for morality. Any conflict between what one percieves and what one knows through logic must always cede to logic.

-Starting from a blank slate, there is no other conclusion but that value must exist. However, from a standpoint of logic alone there are multiple possible definitions of good.

As such, the system I believe can be described as value pluralist, the belief in multiple conflicting yet equally valid objective values. Similiar to Hinduism's four goals of Artha, Kama, Moksha, and Dharma. I believe that it is imperative for a person to choose a single goal lest their actions be equivalent to following none. They must be able to hold their actions accountable to one code because if you followed multiple you could pick and choose between elements of each and not achieve either.

I also believe that any possible valid definition of good can be worked down to a single concept. If you say 'death is bad except in the case of euthanasia' and cite that as an example that morality is context dependant, I say that that shows that that maxime is not the principle of good in itself, but a manifestation of a deeper concept, that good is a life without suffering perhaps, and that should any such goal or value be worked down to it's heart or defined in enough detail it must work down to a singular contiguous concept in order to be valid as a possible value.

I believe that all possible values have three qualities;
=It can be logically worked out from an absence of knowledge independent of emotion.
=It could be applied in perpetuity by all members of a society. (A society of thieves has no one to steal from.)
=It is self-reinforcing/It is not self-defeating. (If your goal is 'to build a bridge' then once you have built this bridge you no longer have a goal.)

I believe the Tao of Taoism and Nibbana of Buddhism both forfill these qualities and are possible noble goals to follow, as well as a variety of other values some of which have interesting similiarities to Artha and Kama of the purusharthas. I know of seven, but being that I already have worked out my own I don't tend to bother much with working out others since they're irrelevant to me. I'm sure there's more. My close friends follow a variety of them under this same meta-ethical system, and a couple follow the same noble goal as I do.

When describing individual moral systems I think it's best to describe them according to their aims, but for the sake of other people's comprehension of how it operates pragmatically perhaps I should try to describe my system based on restrictions. That seems to be how many modern day people understand morality, as systems for deciding when to restrict one's own actions.

Ok, now that the meta-ethics is out of the way, for my own moral system;

I'll call my goal Survival, for lack of other term. It means 'to be because if it weren't it wouldn't be'. Yes, it is recursive, but it is not circular. Compare to the anthropic principle or universal darwinism, except as applied to value and morality. This is the same principle by which all life falls and natural selection operates; those which fail to survive fail to continue their linneage. In terms of practical considerations this means I strive to live in such a manner that natural selection would still apply to me. I seek to reduce the size of the circle of things I depend upon for my own survival and to make as much as possible of it myself; food, clothing, heat, shelter. I do not take any medicines or medical treatment beyond those I can make myself even (and especially) if it would otherwise mean death. I do not raise any organisms which are dependant on me for their survival and could not survive on their own. My dogs each know how to hunt for themselves, my goats were fenceless and browsed their own food, I only keep wild caught cheese and yeast cultures, and half of my garden either reseeds itself or was planted from locally native seeds I collected in the wild. It is a work in progress, I am very clearly not there 100% otherwise I wouldn't be wearing boxers knit with acrylic yarn.

I believe the individual is meaningless in terms of morality, and that the level of applicability for ethics is the society. Society is a term I am using here to mean the minimum nessessary amount of organisms to survive indefinitely. And all organisms within such group, from humans to the deer they hunt to the lichen the deer eat to survive the winter, are to be considered on equal footing. And the individuals are all only important in the context of the survival of their society. Otherwise they are irrelevant, entirely amoral, including outsiders to this group.

I am not aware of any facet this code is lacking of, were I I would hope to figure out the error. However, being that I am not omniscent it is unquestionable there exist elements I'm unaware of.

[RyukaTana]

So, at it's core, your belief is that the meaning of life is existing? You survive for the sake of survival?

Also, you seem a bit torn on the value of society versus the value of being self-sufficient. If the society is necessary, why is self-sufficiency so important? One cannot maintain one's species without a social structure, so what good is working towards living without ties to the social structure, rather than working to better it from within to make survival a greater possibility? Also, how do you appropriate the use of technology into this behavior, given how many people keep your internet running, not to mention assembling at least the parts for the computer itself.

[snowyowl]

I find that a very interesting way to live. But your ethics are strange to me.

You deliberately make it a goal to live apart from society, to not be dependent on society for help - although you didn't mention it, I presume this should include less-savoury practices such as using weapons to drive away thieves instead of relying on the police. And if there's one bad winter that kills your crops and exhausts your reserves, you risk starvation.

You're using English words a little strangely. "Society" does means "a distinct self-perpetuating group of people", which implies families and friends within the society. Not a single person and the infrastructure to support them - that's a hermitage, which is the exact opposite of society. Similarly, describing your goal as "Survival" is strange when you'll turn down life-saving medicine out of principle. A survivor is someone who lives for longer than other people.

It seems a little like you're living in a past century. You're not using the benefits that modern life gives you - and there's nothing wrong with turning down an opportunity, but if your goal is to not be culled by natural selection, shouldn't you take every advantage you can get?