Whether morality is primarily about social/interpersonal stuff or about dealing with reality effectively

Topic Summary: Whether morality is primarily about social/interpersonal stuff.

Goal: Discuss the topic and try to reach tentative agreement with Max, who has a view on morality that I disagree with.

Why are you posting this in Unbounded? Unbounded seems like the appropriate place to have discussions about philosophy.

Do you want unbounded criticism? (A criticism is a reason that an idea decisively fails at a goal. Criticism can be about anything relevant to goal success, including methods, meta, context or tangents. If you think a line of discussion isnā€™t worth focusing attention on, that is a disagreement with the person who posted it, which can be discussed.) Yes.


Max wrote:

Morality is about interpersonal harm, and people are free to live their own lives (wrt themselves) how they wish.

I disagree (note I disagree with other stuff you wrote on the page that I linked, but Iā€™m trying to keep the discussion really focused to start). I agree with Randā€™s view on this matter, which she indicates in this quote:

You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert islandā€”it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed todayā€”and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

-Galtā€™s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 127

@Max, what do you think?

šŸ“ Aside: conversation practice

Iā€™d like to use this as conversation practice. Some things Iā€™m going to try to do (and keep doing consistently) is to write a focused reply to one thing. Iā€™ll also keep questions focused and to a minimum so we can go deep rather than going wide. I might note other topics/things as we go so that we can come back to them later. IDK if itā€™s possible to have like a wiki-post where we could both keep conversation-tree type metadata. I guess youā€™re a mod so I can make a reply mb and we can both edit that post as required? Iā€™ll do that after this reply so we can use it if we want. We could also keep separate ones.

How do you see the AR quote as related to mine? Itā€™s not obvious to me what youā€™re trying to point out. I have some ideas, but theyā€™re guesses.

My main guess is that you think thereā€™s a conflict between ā€œsocialā€ and ā€œinterpersonalā€ ā€“ is that right?

I thought itā€™d be good to try to interpret the Galt quote.

The title and ~subtitle of this section of FTNI is:

ā€œTHIS IS JOHN GALT SPEAKINGā€

This is the philosophy of Objectivism.

A few paragraphs before the main quote, Galt says (this seems notable):

ā€œA rational process is a moral process. [ā€¦]

Hereā€™s the main quote, with some paragraphs from above/below the main paragraph too. (I havenā€™t read AS or FTNI, so it was useful for me to get some context.)

It seems like the connection between rationality and morality (and the choice to pursue reason/truth) is the main topic of these paragraphs.

For the original AR quote, hereā€™s my take on it:

  1. Galt is addressing listeners/readers who think that both:
    1. morality is social
      • My guess is that this is directly related to ARā€™s criticisms of ideas like man has an obligation to live for others, rather than himself
        • ā€œmorality is socialā€ is referring to these ideas (which AR/objectivism disagrees with)
    2. a person[1], in isolation / a vacuum, has no need of morality
      • a desert island is often a metaphor for extreme isolation, or a situation where thereā€™s no connection to civilization / other people. Thatā€™s how it reads to me atm.
  2. Galt is saying that this is a time where morality is exceptionally important
    • this meaning being on a desert island (in isolation / a vacuum)
      • i.e., thereā€™s no social factors ā€“ but morality is still important
  3. the next sentence (which is the rest of the para) answers the question why is morality important in this case?
    • my outline of the answer: [if he claims] ([without society/victims to make the claims true]) [ā€¦examples of irrational claimsā€¦] [then heā€™ll die] [because thinking/rationality is necessary to live and stay living].
      • I agree with this (both in isolation, and in answer to the above question)
      • Iā€™d still agree with this without the ā€œwhen there are no victims to pay for itā€ bit.
        • I read it as like a necessary parenthetical, but WRT Galtā€™s ideas themselves, I think the conclusion still makes sense without it.

Do you see any problems with my understanding of the quote? Itā€™s not obvious to me that thereā€™s a conflict between my take and my quote.

Note for future

One thing I did notice, a few paragraphs earlier Galt says:

[ā€¦] but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.

I think itā€™s implied that Galt thinks ā€œdevotion to truth is the hallmark of moralityā€. Itā€™s not obvious that thereā€™s convergence between this idea and my quote, so maybe thereā€™s a conflict.


Mb useful questions for context / bg

Some closed question that might be useful for us to both answer upfront (to figure out points that we might disagree on).
Note: Iā€™m conscious this is going broad (in some sense) early in the conversation. I donā€™t think itā€™d be good to focus on any disagreements that come up with these right now (not without good reason), but they might be good context for us re: each-otherā€™s ideas. Also, to avoid going deep, theyā€™re all closed (yes/no) questions.

  • Do you think your future self is a different person to your current self? (my answer: yes)
    • If so, does ā€œinterpersonal harmā€ include harm to your future self? (my answer: yes)

WRT my quote:

Morality is about interpersonal harm, and people are free to live their own lives (wrt themselves) how they wish.

  • If ā€œinterpersonalā€ was removed, would you still disagree with that?

    • (my answer: yes; i.e. I agree with ā€œMorality is about harmā€)
  • Do you agree with the second clause: ā€œā€¦ people are free to live their own lives (wrt themselves) how they wish.ā€?

    • (my answer: yes)

  1. I read the way Galt says ā€œmanā€ as collectively referring to ~civilization, but the example (on a desert island) seems to be talking about a single person ā€“ thatā€™s why I say ā€œa personā€ specifically. If there were more than 1 person, then there would be some social/interpersonal stuff, which would defeat the purpose of the example. ā†©ļøŽ

  • J - 1 disagrees w/ Mā€™s quote
    • M - q: about Jā€™s disagreement (conflict between ā€˜socialā€™ and ā€˜interpersonalā€™?) 2
      • J - Not a conflict
        • M - ack mistake
        • M - clarification: conflict between quotes b/c of similar meanings of social and interpersonal
      • J - ā€œā€¦ the connection between ā€œinterpersonalā€ and ā€œsocialā€ is that theyā€™re indicating the same basic idea about morality (which you advocate, and which Rand criticizes).ā€
      • J - Mā€™s next clause (ā€œand people are free to live their own lives (wrt themselves) how they wish.ā€) says if youā€™re not harming others => you can do whatever => thatā€™s compat with morality
    • M - interpretation of Galtā€™s quote 2
      • M - q: any problems with the interpretation?
        • J - q: whatā€™s the role of morality in Galt quote? specifically: finding food. how does morality apply to those actions?
    • M - (for later) note about an earlier quote that seems to conflict more obviously. ā€œI think itā€™s implied that Galt thinks ā€œdevotion to truth is the hallmark of moralityā€. Itā€™s not obvious that thereā€™s convergence between this idea and my quote, so maybe thereā€™s a conflict.ā€
      • J - if morality is about avoiding i11n (interpersonal) harm then thereā€™s objective truth of that matter => truth still relevant.
        • M - agree about objective truth of the matter
        • M - not always about avoiding harm, tho
        • M - doesnā€™t know of a moral topic that explicitly has nothing to do with harm
    • M - 2 some closed questions that mb provide some context
      • M - 2 q re morality is about harm
        • J - ā€œI would still disagree. I donā€™t think morality is about harm but about how to live well.ā€
          • M - agrees w/ morality being about how to live and isnā€™t about multiple things
            • M - thereā€™s an intersection between things like morality is about harm and morality is about living well that covers all the important bits
            • J - ā€œdo you now reject ā€œMorality is about interpersonal harmā€ or ā€œMorality is about harmā€?ā€
              • M - ā€œNo ā€“ I think itā€™s part of the intersectionā€
                • J - confused (NB: M reads this as roughly saying ā€˜this doesnā€™t make senseā€™)
                • J - ā€œCan you define/sum up morality in a way that you think covers the intersection?ā€, ā€œdo you think the harm stuff is like a subpoint or subtopic of morality but not the main theme?ā€
                  • M - ā€œharm stuff is deeply/foundationally connected to moralityā€
                    • M - ā€œthe choice to use the word ā€œinterpersonalā€ was a bad oneā€
                • J [via meta post/reply] - ā€œI think you have the idea that morality can always be connected to harm in some way?ā€ (also car/driving example)
                  • M - Yes
      • M - 2 q re future self vs current self and whether theyā€™re diff ppl
        • J - sometimes yes, sometimes no
        • J - ā€œwe can discuss more if you think itā€™s fruitfulā€
          • M - not atm
        • I - ā€œThis view doesnā€™t actually match what you said in your blog postā€
        • I - ā€œHow would it even be possible for a project/decision to only impact a single person if you are defining your future self and your current self as different people?ā€
          • M - short time period + trivial stuff
            • M - not so sure about this now, tho
            • J - point about ā€˜current selfā€™ not really meaning anything; seems like Mā€™s idea about ā€˜future selfā€™ is more specific than literally all future moments
              • M - explanation about decision having impact and scope, and that being the dimension of the important breakpoint(s) WRT current/future self 33
        • I - ā€œit seems like you are saying that decisions that only impact a single person are probably amoralā€
      • M - q re ppl free to live their lives how they wish
        • J - ā€œAs a standalone statement of fact Iā€™d agree with it. In context I disagree with it cuz I think itā€™s suggesting whim-worship.ā€
          • (M note: unfamiliar w/ whim-worship (by that name at least))

Iā€™m gonna reply to your post as I go along rather than do a mega reply.

I donā€™t think thereā€™s a conflict between ā€œsocialā€ and ā€œinterpersonalā€. I read your use of ā€œinterpersonalā€ as indicating that you think morality is about other people and specifically about doing harm to other people. I read Randā€™s use of ā€œsocialā€ in context as describing the idea that morality is about other people, which she criticizes. So the connection between ā€œinterpersonalā€ and ā€œsocialā€ is that theyā€™re indicating the same basic idea about morality (which you advocate, and which Rand criticizes).

Your next clause, IMHO, clarifies your meaning: ā€œand people are free to live their own lives (wrt themselves) how they wish.ā€ So youā€™re basically emphasizing that if youā€™re not harming other people, you can do whatever and thatā€™s compatible with morality. I disagree emphatically (as does Rand).

tangent but at least audiobook AS and other Rand stuff when you get the chance IMHO (assuming thatā€™s a format that works for you). Donā€™t ā€œwaitā€ for a careful readthrough if thatā€™s not gonna actually gonna happen anytime soon. Even hitting the highlights will make it easier to have conversations about this stuff.

That seems reasonable. I put more effort in to my original reply (i.e., wrote more) than I mb should have. I thought itā€™d be useful to do at the start of the discussion tho.

itā€™s fine to do high effort if you want to. i find that going bit by bit actually gets me writing more stuff and also prevents me from forgetting points as much

Ahh, yeah. I realize I should have said that differently. I should have said something like those two things mean similar things, so thereā€™s a conflict between my quote and Galtā€™s quote.

Let me answer your question with a question: since you say you agree with Galt, in your own words, what role is morality playing in the desert island case? Like take one case, finding food. Super concretely, whatā€™s the role of morality in finding food on a desert island? How does morality come into play in the decision to find coconuts or fish or whatever, or in performing those activities?

numbering in short quote preview is wonky :\

Well if morality was about interpersonal harm (specifically, avoiding interpersonal harm - so not like Sith morality where youā€™re trying to maximize interpersonal harm or something lol) then there would be a truth of the matter about what does and doesnā€™t cause interpersonal harm. So truth would still be relevant I think.

[META]

Iā€™m okay discussing this, but had something else written responding to 372/4 (particularly your last para)

Iā€™ve got it saved so we can come back to it, but I wanted to mention b/c it feels like the discussion could get out of hand a bit.

Yes, I would still disagree. I donā€™t think morality is about harm but about how to live well.

I also think morality is about how to live (moral things being those that are compatible with / part of living well ā€“ thereā€™s mb a bit more to it, too). How to live is about choices and actions (thinking is an action).

I donā€™t think morality is about multiple things ā€“ like thereā€™s a substantial intersection that covers all the important stuff.

To a certain extent yes and to a certain extent no? Like it depends on the context you have in mind. E.g. if I commit a crime and get locked up, I canā€™t get out of jail on the next day on the theory that theyā€™ve got the wrong guy. (:upside_down_face:) Anyways I donā€™t see the immediate relevance to resolving the disagreement but we can discuss more if you think itā€™s fruitful.

Ok well if you think

  1. Morality is about how to live
  2. Morality isnā€™t about multiple things

then do you now reject ā€œMorality is about interpersonal harmā€ or ā€œMorality is about harmā€?

to be clear Iā€™m not saying morality doesnā€™t speak to the issue of harming other people (or yourself). I just donā€™t think itā€™s primarily about harm, in essence, as the primary topic of morality.

I donā€™t think itā€™s really necessary at this point. (also, Iā€™m going to update the convo tree now)

No ā€“ I think itā€™s part of the intersection I mention:

As a standalone statement of fact Iā€™d agree with it. In context I disagree with it cuz I think itā€™s suggesting whim-worship.

Ok Iā€™m a bit confused then.

Can you define/sum up morality in a way that you think covers the intersection? And do you think the harm stuff is like a subpoint or subtopic of morality but not the main theme?