New Epistemic Deal: Morality

Research and Sense-Making
, ,
1

I was going to write a point-by-point response to this: https://www.twophasecosmology.com/en/ecocivilisation-concepts/new-epistemic-deal But any given point looked pretty heavy on its own, so I decided to launch the threads one at time.

This one is on point 7: There can be no morality if we deny reality.

This strikes me as similar to Dostoevsky’s famous “If God does not exist, all things are permitted”. Of course, Enlightenment thought has tried for centuries to ground moral action without reference to a theological framework. The phase “objective reality” in NED is trying to do the same work that “God” was doing for Dostoevsky - to serve as a moral anchor.

If nothing is real, this discussion does not matter anyway, so let’s just assume reality coheres in one way or another. Then comes the question of how to discover such reality and how to manage our situation within that reality. The NED proposed a reality that is “objective”. From the dictionary:

“As an adjective, it describes something that is based on real, observable evidence rather than personal opinions, biases, or emotions.”

This suggests the foundations of morality will be found in outward-facing sensory observation. Likewise, there will be some kind of intersubjective process to correct against personal opinion, bias, and emotions. This strikes me as rather like Habermas’s discourse ethics, suitable for application in the public sphere. There is no argument from personal insight or authority here - or from pure reason, cultural preference, revealed religion, or esoteric realization. Every argument must point to some THING in the world that even the dullest interlocutors can inspect with their very own eyes. From the point of view of public sector pedagogy, there is much to recommend for such a process!

When I reflect on how I truly sort “right” from “wrong” on a personal level, however, the entire business seems far more inward-facing than outward-facing. Methods and models for that can be discussed elsewhere. Let’s just say for now “objective” is not the first word I would reach for when broaching the question of moral discernment.

2

There can be morality if we define it.

3

Define morality? Or reality? Or both?

My sense of how it all works is that practice tends to happen first, definitions a bit later …

4

i wasn’t referring to formalisation - just that one can have their own reality and morality - so objective reality is not the necessary condition.

I don’t think anyone rejects subjective reality

5

Here is the original NED analysis:

“If there actually is an objective reality, and we can actually know things about it, then if we start our moral reasoning with anything other than reality we are engaged in fake morality – we will be arguing about what would be morally right and wrong in some ideal reality rather than the real one that we have to figure out how to share. And if the people we are having moral disagreements with are actually dealing with reality, while we are not, then they are engaged with real morality and we are claiming moral high ground we have no right to claim.'”

The idea here (if I understand it correctly) is we can use scientific methods to determine what IS. (Objective reality). From what IS, we can discuss what OUGHT TO BE. But to opine on the “ought” without reflecting on the “is” is fake morality.

There are some valid insights here. Ungrounded opinions are cheap and easy. I’ve learned not to spend much bandwidth on them. Generally speaking, I agree there should be an intimate relationship between the ought and the is. Where I am not fully onboard with the statement above is “objective reality”. Reality, as such, has been philosophically analyzed for thousands of years. Quite a few of those analysts find value in the inner world. So do I. My professional life as been more than fully engaged with Wilberian “outer” quadrants, so I own no apologies on that score! But moral thinking tends to occur in quieter moments, away from the hurly-burly of urgent action in the world. Many people check their moral compass through meditative action centered within. Echos of external observations and actions certainly find their way into those inner chambers! Everyone will have to speak for their own experiences, but for me, my lifeworld very much finds its way into my dreams! Nevertheless, these personal moments - unconscious even - are not best described with the adjective “objective”. For me, its more like a stream or flux beyond or prior to the constellation of any particular objects.

6

Maybe slightly unrelated - but do you believe that it’s the moral compass that’s off or that some people are not good at reading it? For example, could it be that someone who’s not good at abstract reasoning is unable to attribute “badness” to an action or event because they don’t see the formal pattern that they can recognise as being bad?

7

There are many complex interrelated issues here, so let me just blast out a few quick ideas. Fuller discussion can follow later …

First of all, moral compass implies directionality. To get fully cosmic on this, we have to go all the way to teleology! Why are we even here and what is the point of any of it? Rather like Dostoevsky, I do tend to believe that “where God does not exist, all things are permitted”. True atheists may as well ax murder old ladies, because, why not? Back in my misspent youth, I did try such nihilism on for size for a short while, but I found it generally was a poor fit. That got me onto a quest to discover - what was that force in me or speaking to me that made me even care about anything? I’d have to say there is a nameless Telos that calls to us. Or as Shakespeare put it, "there is a tide … "

The second huge question is identity. Who is it that is doing the moral compassing? For morality to mean anything at all, we have to admit that actions have consequences. But the older I get, the clearer I get that most of the consequences of my actions have very little to do with my personal future. That future involves hospice care, followed by the grave. Rich, poor, loved, or hated - same sort of worms consuming the same sort of flesh. So who exactly is the subject in this moral sentence and what exactly are the objects of its verbs? If Saul of Tarsus had been a systems theorist, he might of said, “not me, but the strange attractor acting through me”.

So to sum up, I believe I’m a little ball energy the universe spat out for purposes the universe itself understands far better than I do. What I have learned is this body-mind feels 1000% more content when it attends to what the universe is saying and adjusts its actions accordingly. Lately, those actions connected to bigger pictures and systems that will persist far beyond personal lifespans are the ones that are speaking to me the most.