What makes a moral rule actually binding? - Discuss the ethics of ethics

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

If the cosmos wasn't at least just it would be pointless.

Sounds more like a preference than an explanation.
All you state by saying that is that you personally prefer a just universe.
Why would the cosmos have to be just in the first place, and how would that generate a binding rule for human action?

---

Morality is applied biology + communal religious reinforcement. Capacity and application. You have to have a belief there is something larger and grander than yourself to have a moral code. Otherwise all decisions are simple "does this action benefit me?" thinking. If the individual has neither the moral code isn't binding because there's nothing within the individual himself preventing amoral action.

Biological capacity can explain things like empathy and social instincts, and religion can reinforce certain norms within a community.
Which still leaves the same step open. If a rule is binding only for someone who already believes in the religious framework, then the rule depends on that prior belief. That explains why someone who already accepts the framework might follow that rule, but it leaves open what would make the rule morally binding in the first place.
Again, the question in the thread is what makes a rule morally binding in the first place, not where moral codes come from or why people follow them.

 

[quarter_grifter]

That doesn't actually solve the issue. If choosing an action creates the moral binding, then any action becomes binding simply because someone chose it. Choosing to help someone would make helping binding, but choosing to harm someone would also make harming binding. That collapses the concept of moral obligation into mere choice.

You are bound to the effects (consequences) of your choices. You are an autonomous moral agent, aka have free will. The question of whether a moral action is right or wrong prior to the action being taken is the realm of ethics, which I already mentioned, and as I said before, the answer to that is within Christianity as well. If you want a deep-dive into the morality of virtues and vices, Hinduism is actually pretty good for that, if you can stomach their proto-hippie bullshit. They have a sophisticated academic understanding of morality, but they also refuse to take an ethical stance on these concepts.

If you require an answer as to why Christianity's ethical stance on moral issues is "better than everyone else's" (because apparently I was raised that way therefore I must be condemned to always think that way), there's always going to be subjectivity around that due to our massive human imperfections as well as how those imperfections vary between individuals. But I challenge you to either study Christianity's ethical positions, or simply look at the ethical justifiability of Christian-based societies compared to non-Christian ones. I'm confident that they're the clear winner in both regards, but only you can make that decision for yourself (take a moral action).

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

Why would the cosmos have to be just in the first place, and how would that generate a binding rule for human action?

Intelligent design

 

[Chongqing]

Most, if not all, moral philosophies present their rules as binding that stronger categorical sense. When someone says "murder is wrong", they typically mean that a person ought not to murder.

Yes, because it's wrong. You are using circular logic here and blowing your own mind in the process. If you told me you were an LSD right now, this whole conversation would make sense.

When someone says murder is wrong, that's it. It's not specifically because it's a serious crime or carries the death penalty or other people hate it. Although, yes, if somebody was not religious, this is the only evidence they would ever have in their lifetime that murder is wrong. There is no other binding moral framework. It's only religious people trying to get to heaven who are bound by their belief in their own religion. These religious people created armed nation states where laws are upheld and enforced. So even someone who believes murder is morally correct to do could still face legal and social consequences of their actions. This is what binds them into being a law-abiding citizen.

The question I posed is what makes a rule normatively binding in the first place

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!

It's belief in God, and belief in the guns of god-worshipping people. Like, it's belief the guns will work. Either you believe that God can keep you out of heaven, you believe that it's possible for the government to arrest you, or you believe it's possible for people to get mad at you. Without belief in one of these three things, there is no reason for a person to be bound to any moral framework

It's the beliefs. It's not that complex. It's not that amazing. It's not even interesting on a base level. Religious people have created all moral frameworks and dragged everyone else along with it.

Just admit, your goal is prove to yourself that you're more intelligent than all of us, and that's why you're so impossible to discuss this with.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You are bound to the effects (consequences) of your choices.

That doesn't answer the question in the thread.
Consequences explain what happens after someone acts. They do not explain what makes an action morally right or wrong before it is taken.
Gravity also produces consequences, but nobody would say that jumping off a cliff is morally wrong because the person will be bound by the consequences of gravity.

Christianity's ethical stance on moral issues is "better than everyone else's"

That doesn't address the grounding step either. It simply asserts one particular ethical framework.
Again, the question remains unchanged: What makes those rules morally binding in the first place?

---

Intelligent design

Even if the cosmos were intelligently designed, that would not by itself create a moral rule.
Or would you say that, because a watch can be designed, that generates a moral obligation to wind it?
Either way, how would intelligent design generate a binding rule for human action?

---

It's the beliefs.

What you are describing are different kinds of expected consequences (religious belief -> divine consequences; legal belief -> state consequences; social belief -> retaliation). Consequences can explain why someone chooses to comply with a rule. They do not explain what would make the action morally wrong in the first place.
For example, if someone could murder without any divine punishment, legal punishment, or social retaliation, then that framework, there would be no reason not to do it.
And that is the distinction this thread is about. It's the difference between consequences that constrain behavior and a rule that would be morally binding regardless of those consequences.

---

On another brief meta note, I'm noticing a recurrent pattern. Several attempts to answer the question end up collapsing into some version of "morality = consequences"
I mean, it is a somewhat interesting convergence, because it shows how quickly everyday moral reasoning turns into prudence once the question of normativity is isolated.
It's like I'm watching the Hobbesian answer emerge organically from non-philosophers.
... Unless you actually are philosophers, in which case it really might be worth revisiting whatever material you studied.

 

[Nitro!]

Biological capacity can explain things like empathy and social instincts, and religion can reinforce certain norms within a community.
Which still leaves the same step open. If a rule is binding only for someone who already believes in the religious framework, then the rule depends on that prior belief. That explains why someone who already accepts the framework might follow that rule, but it leaves open what would make the rule morally binding in the first place.
Again, the question in the thread is what makes a rule morally binding in the first place, not where moral codes come from or why people follow them.

They're one and the same. Having and following a moral code is not passive, it is active. It is not just a modifier on every action, it is a reaction to adverse events that occur and refusing to do nothing in response. If one has a moral code, one acts by ways of that code. If one doesn't, one didn't.

Furthermore it's binding because of a positive feedback loop. Internally, you might feel good about something. Interpersonally, you might get a reward out of kindness. You might prevent harm to someone you love and see that in return. You might make your tribe stronger by creating trust and removing time-wasting barriers as a result. Again this is predicated on biology. If the individual can't or won't see these benefits in the long term a morality won't materialize, and it won't be effective if it collapses into "how does not stealing from my neighbor benefit me" (for example) exclusively. Again back to the belief in a higher power to keep this loop stable.

Externally, once it's recognized that these are things that make life easier, not harder, laws codify that morality. That's society in a nutshell.

The feedback loop requires the work of strong and intelligent men to start and further work establishing systems to reinforce it, with those establishments using force or negative reinforcement as the tools, downstream of the applied biology. When you're talking about something as fundamental as what the individual does in a vacuum (in effect) there aren't any more answers than that.

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

how would intelligent design generate a binding rule for human action?

The consequences of the rule are what make it binding.

 

[quarter_grifter]

Again, the question remains unchanged: What makes those rules morally binding in the first place?

You have the answer. It's been explained. It's God, or whatever you choose to substitute in His place.

Ultimately, your insistence upon restating the question and rejecting answers seems more like an unwillingness to accept responsibility for your own moral agency rather than a lack of sufficient explanation.

 

[Red Saltire]

Even if I grant that humans have a natural telos of flourishing, the claim that a person ought to pursue that flourishing is an additional step. And my question in this thread (what makes that goal itself binding?) is exactly that step

If you accept my premise, that “the good” is ontologically codependent on the fulfillment of the telos, then moral claims are granted truth value and obligation naturally follows. I understand if you’re not ready to accept this premise just yet, but the principle stands.

I should also mention that we as humans will never have perfect knowledge of this telos, and we can only use our discernment as best we can and we err all the time. But the truth of this principle remains agnostic to our notions.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

They're one and the same. Having and following a moral code is not passive, it is active. It is not just a modifier on every action, it is a reaction to adverse events that occur and refusing to do nothing in response. If one has a moral code, one acts by ways of that code. If one doesn't, one didn't.

Furthermore it's binding because of a positive feedback loop. Internally, you might feel good about something. Interpersonally, you might get a reward out of kindness. You might prevent harm to someone you love and see that in return. You might make your tribe stronger by creating trust and removing time-wasting barriers as a result. Again this is predicated on biology. If the individual can't or won't see these benefits in the long term a morality won't materialize, and it won't be effective if it collapses into "how does not stealing from my neighbor benefit me" (for example) exclusively. Again back to the belief in a higher power to keep this loop stable.

Externally, once it's recognized that these are things that make life easier, not harder, laws codify that morality. That's society in a nutshell.

It is a positive feedback loop that takes the spurring of strong and intelligence men to start, and systems set up to reinforce it, with force or with negative reinforcement. When you're talking about something as fundamental as what the individual does in a vacuum (in effect) there aren't any more answers than that.

What you're describing is a mechanism for how moral systems emerge and stabilize.
To the question why norms spread and become entrenched, a feedback loop between biological instincts, social rewards, trust within a group, and eventually legal codification is a perfectly coherent and sensible answer.
The question I'm concerned with is slightly earlier than that.
That is, while a feedback loop can explain why a behavior becomes advantageous or widely adopted, it does not yet explain why violating the rule would be morally wrong rather than simply disadvantageous.
For example, cooperation often creates trust and strengthens a group. That explains why cooperative norms spread. But if someone can benefit by defecting while avoiding retaliation, the feedback loop itself does not make that defection morally wrong. All it means is that the strategy is less likely to work if many people adopt it.
I consider the emergence and persistence of norms an answered question. The unanswered question is still the one from the opening post: what would make a rule morally binding rather than simply a strategy that tends to produce good outcomes?

---

The consequences of the rule are what make it binding.

As I have explained several times, that doesn't make it morally binding, it only makes it backed by consequences.
If consequences are the only thing doing the work, then the situation reduces to incentives (someone follows the rule because violating it would produce an outcome they dislike)
However, what if a person accepts the consequences and violates the rule anyway? Under that structure, the act is risky or costly, but not morally wrong in any categorical sense.
Consequences can explain compliance, but they don't explain what would make the rule morally binding in the first place.

---

You have the answer. It's been explained. It's God

And that is not an answer that resolves the question.
Again, there's two possibilities with that answer.
A: a rule is morally binding simply because God commands it. In that case, morality depends entirely on command. If the command changes, the rule would change.
B: a rule is morally binding because God's command reflects something that is already right independently of the command. In that case, the grounding is not in the command, but in that independent structure.
So what makes the rule morally binding in the first place? Is it the command itself? Or is it what makes the commandment correct?

---

If you accept my premise, that “the good” is ontologically codependent on the fulfillment of the telos, then moral claims are granted truth value and obligation naturally follows.

Emphasis on

obligation naturally follows

Even if I accept your premise that the good consists in fulfilling a thing's telos, what the premise does is identifying what counts as flourishing. What the premise doesn't do is explain why a person is obligated to pursue that flourishing.
What makes the fulfillment of a telos morally binding rather than simply a description of what flourishing would look like?
I'm not calling into question that teleology can explain functional evaluation, but functional evaluation does not automatically produce moral obligations.

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

not morally wrong

Self destruction?

 

[quarter_grifter]

And that is not an answer that resolves the question.
Again, there's two possibilities with that answer.
A: a rule is morally binding simply because God commands it. In that case, morality depends entirely on command. If the command changes, the rule would change.
B: a rule is morally binding because God's command reflects something that is already right independently of the command. In that case, the grounding is not in the command, but in that independent structure.
So what makes the rule morally binding in the first place? Is it the command itself? Or is it what makes the commandment correct?

Dude, you're literally asking what standard to blame to absolve yourself of the responsibility of making the decision yourself. You're asking for a rule or equation to point to that provides the answer.

The answer to that is 'god', and if you don't understand that, then I'm afraid I can't help you because I can't break it down any simpler. But if that is the case then it implies you're asking questions far above your intellectual capacity.

edit - Thanks for finally revealing the true goal. Troll achieved. Congratulations on your W.

 

[Tennessee Trash]

Gravity also produces consequences, but nobody would say that jumping off a cliff is morally wrong because the person will be bound by the consequences of gravity.

Gravity is a physical, mathematically demonstrable law, not a consequence. The consequence of gravity is falling itself. If you jump off a cliff, the law of gravity will cause you to certainly fall as a consequence. What enforces gravitational law is a universal constant woven into its very fabric. One cannot ignore gravity, but everyone exists in its framework whether you like it or not.

Similarly, morality exists, at the very least, as an idea, and many would say it exists as an objective reality, similar to the gravitational constant. But the difference is meaningless, because it just has to exist, even as an idea. That very existence is what makes it binding, because people will abide by it whether they like it or not. Even when making the choice to act amorally, that itself is an acknowledgement of a morality which to object to. What is different between morality and gravity, is that consequences of following morality may vary more widely in the short-term. But either way, you still exist within a universe where morality exists, like it or not, and it will affect you. What binds you to morality is not the consequences but its very existence, which will always result in a consequence, not the consequence itself.

 

[Nitro!]

What you're describing is a mechanism for how moral systems emerge and stabilize.
To the question why norms spread and become entrenched, a feedback loop between biological instincts, social rewards, trust within a group, and eventually legal codification is a perfectly coherent and sensible answer.
The question I'm concerned with is slightly earlier than that.
That is, while a feedback loop can explain why a behavior becomes advantageous or widely adopted, it does not yet explain why violating the rule would be morally wrong rather than simply disadvantageous.
For example, cooperation often creates trust and strengthens a group. That explains why cooperative norms spread. But if someone can benefit by defecting while avoiding retaliation, the feedback loop itself does not make that defection morally wrong. All it means is that the strategy is less likely to work if many people adopt it.
I consider the emergence and persistence of norms an answered question. The unanswered question is still the one from the opening post: what would make a rule morally binding rather than simply a strategy that tends to produce good outcomes?

You are answering your own question. Moral actions strengthen, anti-moral actions weaken.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Self destruction?

Look, you're replying in fragments, which makes it genuinely difficult to understand what you're actually claiming. Right now I'm charitable enough to put the effort into reverse-engineering what you might have meant.
If your point is that violating moral rules leads to self-destruction, that's still a description of consequences. Which is an explanation of incentives, and not an explanation of moral bindingness. Someone might accept the harm and do the action anyway, what then?
If you're making a stronger claim than that, then please spell it out clearly. I'm looking for what exactly is the rule that you think holds, and a description of what makes that rule binding.

---

Dude, you're literally asking what standard to blame to absolve yourself of the responsibility of making the decision yourself. You're asking for a rule or equation to point to that provides the answer.

The answer to that is 'god', and if you don't understand that, then I'm afraid I can't help you because I can't break it down any simpler. But if that is the case then it implies you're asking questions far above your intellectual capacity.

'it's God' does not answer the dilemma, because the same question still applies.
You keep stepping around the question of whether a rule is morally binding because God commands it or because the command reflects something that is already right independently of the command. Which one is it?

---

Gravity is a physical, mathematically demonstrable law, not a consequence. The consequence of gravity is falling itself. If you jump off a cliff, the law of gravity will cause you to certainly fall as a consequence. What enforces gravitational law is a universal constant woven into its very fabric. One cannot ignore gravity, but everyone exists in its framework whether you like it or not.

Similarly, morality exists, at the very least, as an idea, and many would say it exists as an objective reality, similar to the gravitational constant. But the difference is meaningless, because it just has to exist, even as an idea. That very existence is what makes it binding, because people will abide by it whether they like it or not. Even when making the choice to act amorally, that itself is an acknowledgement of a morality which to object to. What is different between morality and gravity, is that consequences of following morality may vary more widely in the short-term. But either way, you still exist within a universe where morality exists, like it or not, and it will affect you. What binds you to morality is not the consequences but its very existence, which will always result in a consequence, not the consequence itself.

Good, this is closer to the kind of structure I'm asking about. You're attempting to ground morality in the structure of reality, rather than in enforcement or incentives.
The difficulty is that existence by itself does not generate any moral obligation.
See, gravity exists, but that alone does not make jumping off a cliff morally wrong, all it means is that there will be physical consequences. That is, someone can still choose to jump.
The same issue appears in your analogy. Even if morality existed as an objective feature of reality, like a universal constant, that would still not explain why violating it would be morally wrong rather than simply harmful or imprudent.
In other words, existence explains that something is, and the step I'm asking about is what would make that fact generate an ought.

---

You are answering your own question. Moral actions strengthen, anti-moral actions weaken.

How do you get from "actions strengthen or weaken the group" to "therefore they are moral or anti-moral"?
That is, why would producing one outcome rather than the other generate a moral obligation?
That is the missing step.
For instance, an action could weaken a rival group while benefiting the person performing it. In that case, the descriptive fact about "strengthening or weakening" still does not tell us why the action would be morally wrong rather than simply strategically effective for that individual.
Why would the strengthening of the group create a moral obligation in the first place?

 

[quarter_grifter]

'it's God' does not answer the dilemma, because the same question still applies.
You keep stepping around the question of whether a rule is morally binding because God commands it or because the command reflects something that is already right independently of the command. Which one is it?

I'd have to be really stupid to fall for the troll at this point, wouldn't I? You already achieved your W, don't tarnish your legacy.

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

Someone might accept the harm and do the action anyway, what then?

Free agency dictates that people can actually accept the harm that is consequent of sin.

 

[Nitro!]

How do you get from "actions strengthen or weaken the group" to "therefore they are moral or anti-moral"?
That is, why would producing one outcome rather than the other generate a moral obligation?
That is the missing step.
For instance, an action could weaken a rival group while benefiting the person performing it. In that case, the descriptive fact about "strengthening or weakening" still does not tell us why the action would be morally wrong rather than simply strategically effective for that individual.
Why would the strengthening of the group create a moral obligation in the first place?

I explained this two posts ago and I'm not in the mood to keep this tedious conversation going. You got your answer, from several different posters, it's just not the one you want.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I'd have to be really stupid to fall for the troll at this point, wouldn't I? You already achieved your W, don't tarnish your legacy.

Trolling?
I asked a straightforward question, not just to you but also to others in the thread who invoked God as the source of moral obligation.
The dilemma I pointed out follows directly from that claim. Either a rule is morally binding because God commands it, or it's binding because the command reflects something that is already right independently of the command.
If you think there is a third option that I overlooked, feel free to explain it.

---

Free agency dictates that people can actually accept the harm that is consequent of sin.

If a person can knowingly accept the harm and do the action anyway, then the rule functions as a warning about outcomes. But that means the rule doesn't bind the action itself. The person is simply deciding whether they are willing to accept the consequences.

Like, you and some other people are basically articulating the same model from different angles.
sin -> consequence -> person may accept/avoid consequence
Once it's phrased that way, it is structurally identical to "touching fire -> burn -> person may accept/avoid burn"
What makes touching fire morally wrong rather than just imprudent?

---

I explained this two posts ago and I'm not in the mood to keep this tedious conversation going. You got your answer, from several different posters, it's just not the one you want.

The thing you explained earlier describes how norms emerge and why they can stabilize within a group. That does not explain why producing advantageous outcomes would generate a moral obligation rather than simply a strategic preference.
It's fine if you're not interested in continuing the conversation. The question I raised remains the same: what makes a rule morally binding in the first place?

 

[[VΩiD] SoKAftH]

What makes touching fire morally wrong rather than just imprudent?

What makes imprudence in sin not a sin?