The Metaphysics of Philosophy, Knowledge and Morality Chapter 21

Chapter 21

The basis of morality

All humans need a basis for morality. And that basis needs to be firm.

Some humans claim they don't need any basis for morality, but they are deluded. They take basic values from their parents without acknowledging it, then turn around and say they follow rules that don't come from anywhere. On closer inspection, all humans were brought up in some environment that taught them certain rules using emotions. This is commonly referred to as childhood education. Emotional education leaves you with internalised rules, whether you are aware of the source of your emotional responses or not.

Everyone's morality is based on the rules of an authority figure. It hardly matters if it's Julius Caesar, Napoléon, Stalin, Hitler, Jesus, Mohamed, God directly, or your mother / father / teacher. What matters is if it's firm enough to generate an emotional commitment that causes you to internalise and follow the rules of that authority figure.

In daily life, we seem to know what's right and what's wrong, based on how we were brought up. But when asked to explain why right is right and wrong is wrong, we don't do very well. How would you explain that stealing is wrong if the thief is starving? Then is it wrong to steal, after all? On closer examination, simple moral arguments don't hold up. You need more complex arguments with circumstances. 

Example: it's normally wrong to steal, except when you're stealing or oder not to starve. Can you then only steal food or anything you can turn into food? If you're caught, how can you prove that you're starving and you've honestly done your best not to starve? If you can't prove that you're starving and that you've honestly done your best not to starve, was it wrong for you to steal? You may know from the previous chapters that you can't prove anything to an Ultimate Perfectionist, and legal practitioners tend to be Ultimate Perfectionists, which means that it was wrong for you to steal by definition, regardless of the circumstances. But then this doesn't square with our intuitive sense of justice, does it? Which means we're pretty much stuck when it comes to arguing our intuitive sense of justice to the authorities or in court. It would be so convenient to have some hard-and-fast moral rules to back up our intuitive sense of justice.

What is the basis of morality?

Philosophers have searched and searched throughout history, but they haven't found. Plato suggested that ideas were more real than the physical world, so to him, morality was based on ideas. His student, Aristotle then found that ideas are really in our head, so they can neither be more real nor serve as a firm basis for morality. Lots of people intuited that God may be the source of morality, but none could supply plausible arguments. Kant postulated that a priori notions in our mind were categorical imperatives as to how we should act, but he could only convince himself. He added that all moral rules must be universally applicable, which would require all of us to perform millions of moral calculations per hour in order to be morally conscious, and importantly, none of us should lie. Ever. Which is clearly not the case, so Kant's concept of morality is out of this world. In response to Kant, Schopenhauer suggested (in an essay written for the Royal Danish Society of Philosophy competition) that comiseration could be used as a better basis for morality. No-one in his day approved of the idea (the Royal Danish Society was outraged in 1840 and did not give him the prize, though his was the only entry!), but it's quite popular today. On reflection, however, comiseration is a rather uncertain basis for morality. You can comiserate with a thief regardless of whether they stole in order not to starve or for purposes of unlawful enrichment. Comiseration doesn't square with our moral intuition.

On reflection, is there really a sound basis for morality?

I intuit that morality is based on deeply rooted feelings as a result of our upbringing. We bring our moral intuitions from childhood. Our parents and/or educations taught us a number of rules, with reference to some theoretical basis, but in practice, their morality was also based on childhood emotions. So the practical basis of morality stretches back over the generations and is emotional, rather than cognitive. Which is why we can't really back up our moral intuitions with plausible arguments. That's why some people with a cognitive focus claim they don't have any basis for their morality. They do have a basis, but searching for it in the cognitive domain, they can't find any.

Should there be a firm moral basis then for theoretical discussions?

I suggest the Ten Commandments and Jesus' "love your neighbour as you love yourself" rule. These rules in combination allow you to answer any moral question and argue any moral case. The "love your neighbour" rule includes comiseration, so Schopenhauer should be happy, but it is more constructive than mere comiseration, so positive thinkers should be happy. The "as you love yourself" part of the rule involves conscious analysis and universal applicability, so Kant should be happy too. This combined basis for morality is firm and consistent enough, this is my entry to the Royal Danish Society of Philosophy competition.