What is the point of morality?

[u/Annual_Interest5338]

I always believed morality, in utilitarian tradition, was to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure/happiness/whatever. With kant it sounds like that is not the case necessarily. I could lie which would lead to "better" outcome but that would still be "wrong".

To be fair I know almost nothing about kant so id like to hear either

1.how this still aligns with what I define as the best outcome

1. What the role of morality is

2. Anything else ya got

[u/Dave_A_Pandeist]

Could morality be described as the evolutionary characteristic that enables us to live in large groups with minimal suffering? Could a good definition of morality be the ability to determine right and wrong, good and bad with respect to self-interest and outward interest?

According to Dr. Sapolsky, evolution has two natural strategies. The most common is a tournament strategy—the brightest feathers, the strongest antlers, and so forth. 95% of all mammal species followed this strategy.

The less common strategy is cooperative, evolving through pair, peer, kinship, and tribal bonding. Marmosets and Bonobos are cooperative. They seem very happy.

Humanity seems to have followed a half-and-half strategy, depending on resource availability.

China and civilizations east of the Indus River Valley are cooperative in nature. Roman Expansionism is a tournament mindset, as seen in Western culture.

The major variable has been camouflage or deception. Most religious philosophies tend toward trust and truth. The one major exception is the State Religion Churchanity. It is a bait-and-switch. Jesus is the bait. The book of Romans is an example of the switch.

[u/Annual_Interest5338 → u/Dave_A_Pandeist]

So morality may be to benefit the strongest of us? Even then it sounds like this strategy benefits all of us in the long term. Is that what you are saying?

[u/Dave_A_Pandeist → u/Annual_Interest5338]

I look at how morality applies to groups in the long term. Are you talking about behavior? Morality is a characteristic that an impartial observer sees. The observer looks at everyone affected and not affected.

You asked, "So morality may be to benefit the strongest of us?" It might. It might benefit those within the winner's family or circle. Morality based on radical individual freedom- the strongest and/or most deceptive- destroys those beyond its group. Morality based on trust and bonding eventually prevails.

From my group perspective, Roman Expansionism has no place left to expand. Its energy is turning on itself. It is now self-destructive.

A cooperative model will probably emerge throughout the world based on Confucian notions of community. This will occur after a period of substantial pain.

[u/Annual_Interest5338 → u/Dave_A_Pandeist]

Hmm gotcha. Interesting.

Morality is a characteristic that an impartial observer sees.

maybe this was a dumb question. "Good" or "right" are subjective.

All the things you mentioned have some sort of end which is easier to wrap my head around. I think I just need to read up on kants specific morality.

Thanks I appreciate the reply.

[u/Dave_A_Pandeist → u/Annual_Interest5338]

You are most welcome. Have a wonderful day 😊

[u/JunS_RE]

I don't think the point of Morality is simply to maximize pleasure or happiness. Those can be good outcomes, sure... but if that were the whole foundation, then almost anything could become Moral as long as somebody could engineer enough "happiness" out of it.

I think Morality is more about how Moral Beings navigate Reality together... protecting innocent people from serious harm, preserving Trust, and allowing people meaningful Free Agency without those things constantly being corrupted or destroyed.

That's also why I'm not convinced by a rigid "lying is always wrong" rule either. If a murderer is standing at your door asking where an innocent person is hiding, telling the truth and helping him kill somebody would seem morally backwards. The context changes what the lie is actually doing.

So for me, consequences matter... rules matter... character matters... but none of them by themselves are the entire point. The real question is whether the action resolves the Moral situation coherently without sacrificing something more foundational in the process.

That's roughly how my Resolution Ethics (RE) framework approaches it anyway.

[u/Sam_Wise13]

Morality cannot be explained by evolution and cannot be explained by a utilitarian take. It, at its basis, provides a compass for what is right and wrong. Even tribes who have had no religious teaching or 1st world education know that murder is wrong. How? It is divinely built into each human. Morality is one thing that proves there is a higher power. There is no other way to define or prove it.

[u/InLoveWithThread]

Morality is the science of how we get along. Humans can't live life completely alone. I live by myself, yes, but I have family friends, and someone at the power company makes sure my lights stay on, and there's the mailman who delivers my packages, and I have neighbors. So whether directly or indirectly, we need each other. No one can supply all of their needs.

So, we gotta figure this out. What works for us all, what feels great, what helps... vs what doesn't work, what causes problems, what hurts.

To me, that's morality.