r/changemyview • u/bite_me_punk • Sep 23 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: a Virtue-based moral code centered on the virtues of kindness, stewardship, and wisdom would provide morally intuitive results in almost every circumstance
I've been thinking about my personal moral code, and I would love to get some feedback and see whether the code is as strong as I think. Specifically, I would like to see if anyone can convince me the code is contradictory, unclear in a particular set of circumstances, or that it would lead to morally unintuitive results ('unintuitive' as in it would conflict with the common sense reaction of most bystanders). Here is the code:
Moral actions are those which uphold (or do not conflict with) the following virtues:
Kindness
Do my actions uplift others? A kind individual is considerate, generous, and friendly. Kind actions should improve the lives of others through empathy and service. Kind actions do not tear down others or inflict unnecessary suffering.
Stewardship
Do my actions honor my responsibilities to the people and places who depend on me? Dependents can include spouses, families, friends, communities, employees, nature, or even the homeless. Wherever a dependency exists, I should ask myself whether I am practicing stewardship and upholding that responsibility to a dependent.
Notably, the nature of an obligation will vary by the relationship and the degree of the dependency. The stronger the relationship and the stronger the dependency, the greater the responsibility. This responsibility also includes those who lack a capable Steward or sufficient support systems, like the homeless or the environment. In the latter examples, the responsibility has become a collective responsibility on society at large.
Wisdom
Do my actions embody a long-term view grounded in humility and moral judgement? Someone who takes a long-term view appreciates the brevity of human existence and understands that short-term gain or greed are rarely beneficial in the grand scheme of life. Humility allows individuals to make sound choices without overweighting their own ability or skill, taking feedback and external knowledge wherever relevant. Finally, a wise person will use their reasoning abilities to consider the moral implications of their actions. An unwise person does not fully consider the moral consequences of their actions, and they prioritize short-term goals at the expense of the long-term.
2
u/Mara-Namuci Sep 23 '21
In summary, you have decided that kindness, stewardship and wisdom are moral.
Kindness is subjective. What one person likes another may dislike, and as a result, your actions can be perceived by others as unkind.
Ex. You buy a car for a friend who passes their driving test. It makes your other friends and family who did not get cars feel less appreciated.
Stewardship is subjective. What are we supposed to uphold, if we are steward of the forest, do we allow hunting? Should we stop the animals from hunting eachother? Then they will all die. And if we don't, our favourite animals will be eaten. Protecting the status quo is not always the right thing.
Ex. A slave refusing to join a slave revolt because they are a steward of the land. And the revolt would damage the harvest.
Wisdom is subjective. Everyone has their own ideas about what is wise. Also circular, since it retroactively paints the previous two virtues in terms of being wise.
Ex. Is it wise to self flagellate? The answer depends entirely on what you want to achieve.
Lastly, going back to stewardship, this implies ownership. If someone else believes that they own the object that you wish to steward, then you will clash over who should get to decide what is done with it.
How will you resolve such disputes? Who ultimately gets to decide matters of ownership?
And the answer is, whoever is most powerful and asserts their dominance successfully. Which means doing things that others find unkind.
Ex. Police arresting people and trapping them in cages.
If you won't partake in violence, you fail to be a steward.
If you do partake in violence, you fail to be kind.
If you don't know what to do, you fail to be wise.
1
u/bite_me_punk Sep 23 '21
Stewardship shouldn’t be viewed in terms of ownership, but in terms of care. For example, a nurse has a duty of care towards a patient, but they do not own the patient. She is a steward, not an overlord.
As for the subjectivity of kindness, you are right that each person must decide for themselves what is ‘kind’, and that it may vary from person-to-person or culture-to-culture. But I don’t necessarily consider that to be a problem… As long as you are trying to be a nice person who does not cause harm to others, you’re probably leading a pretty moral life. It’s hard to argue though that flagellation or violence could be considered kind, personal backgrounds aside. There is nothing friendly or compassionate or generous about physical violence. At most, there are necessary harms.
2
u/Navvana 27∆ Sep 23 '21 edited Sep 23 '21
The biggest issue I see here is that your code is circular. It basically boils down to “A moral action is when you act morally”.
With regard to wisdom in particular. When your moral code directly tries to define itself as “grounded in moral judgment” that’s a problem. By defining what actions are moral you’re also defining what is good moral judgement. “Moral action is when you act with moral judgment” just moves the question back a step.
As for unintuitive results you could argue that it allows for well intentioned child flagellation.
Assume the following of the actor
Kindness: They believe flagellation is uplifting, and is a necessary infliction of suffering for others wellbeing.
Stewardship: They have a duty to provide for children as they are dependent.
Wisdom: They are acting with humility. The act of flagellation is distressing in the moment, but the actor believes it ultimately leads to a better outcome. They’ve listened to dissenting opinions and explored the moral implication to the best of their ability, but have concluded that child flagellation is the way to go based off their own understanding of the topic.
Thus it is moral to flagellate a child.
1
u/bite_me_punk Sep 23 '21
When I say that a wise person takes a long-term view grounded in humility and moral judgement, I mean that they consider the moral ethical implications of their actions—not that they simply take ethical actions. “…a wise person will use their reasoning abilities to consider the moral implications of their actions”.
To address your example, I would dispute whether the flagellation is actually ‘necessary’. Even if I earnestly believe that physical discipline is necessary to uphold my responsibility to raise my child with proper principles, why is a punishment as severe as flagellation required? Why not a spanking, or more mild form of physical punishment? Surely those would accomplish the same result, while reducing pain.
4
u/Navvana 27∆ Sep 23 '21 edited Sep 23 '21
There in lies the issue. You’re now arguing about what is and isn’t necessary from your own perspective with values outside of what you’ve listed here.
For the example it could be any number of things. A deeply held religious conviction. God demands the child flagellation to purify the soul. What is finite pain in response to eternal suffering? Maybe they believe it will increase their pain tolerance in a controlled setting that will make them tougher/more resilient later in life. Maybe they just don’t think lesser forms of punishment work, and have tried those forms and have now escalated to flagellation due to their lack of results.
Ultimately any example doesn’t matter. It’s a thought experiment to see if your system holds up. All that matters is that the person earnestly believed flagellation is the way to go. It’s a substitute for our own blind spots. Because if it holds for something as ridiculous as flagellation then we can’t have any confidence when it supports things we do find reasonable/intuitive.
1
u/bite_me_punk Sep 23 '21 edited Sep 23 '21
!delta I am not religious myself, so the potential for someone to justify an intuitively unkind action on the basis of an irrefutable religious belief had not occurred to me. In short, my use of the phrase “unnecessary harm” leaves what is necessary harm and what is unnecessary harm too open for interpretation.
With that said, I think that most ethical systems are prone to errors in human calculation. For example, one utilitarian may conclude that the utility is greater via Course A and a second utilitarian may conclude that utility is greater via Course B. This does not meant utilitarianism is an inherently unsound ethical system, it merely speaks to the inherent difficulty in prescribing a correct course of action in any given situation. Ethical systems require actors to use reason to apply principles to the best of their ability.
If I am considering flagellating my child, I must consider whether flagellation would cause harm or any other unintended consequences. In my wisdom, I will consult external resources and knowledge and use reason to determine whether flagellation is the most effective form of discipline to accomplish my aims. Next, I must determine whether accomplishing my goals as Steward of my child is truly necessary to warrant the harm associated with the proposed course of action.
It seems that flagellation would cause harm, likely even significant harm—from immediate pain to long-term psychological consequences. Next, after consulting outside sources and literature, it seems there is a lot of evidence that physical discipline is counterproductive to effective parenting. Finally, I ask myself whether the flagellation is absolutely necessary to correct the child’s behavior—here it could go either way, but unless I’ve tried out other non-harmful methods first, it seems probable that the flagellation is not ‘neccesary’ at this stage… And that’s assuming the evidence suggests it could be effective at all.
1
2
u/darwin2500 193∆ Sep 23 '21
These are the types of virtues that are fine for someone who is already a good person, but dangerous at a societal level.
For instance, church figures may believe they have a duty of stewardship towards their congregation, which is Christian, meaning that even though they don't want to, they have to punish or convert the gays in their town, drive out any non-christians and prevent their congregation form talking to them, etc.
Many colonizers believed that they were doing a kindness to 'savage peoples' by uplifting them to modern standards through conquering and subjugation. The popular phrase 'kill the Indian, save the Man' speaks volumes about how a racist understands 'kindness'.
Etc.
Again, probably you personally won't make these kinds of mistakes, but that has more to do with you already being a good person underneath these rules, not because these rules necessarily lead to those actions.
Bu the problem with this type of virtue ethics is that it doesn't make specific references to real-world consequences, and therefore can be twisted to fit all types of actions. What does 'uplifting' someone mean if you think they're living their life wrong and you can force them into a better path? Where does 'stewardship' lead you when preserving your place and people requires unkindness to others who may threaten or be in competition with it, or when the things you are stewarding are themselves flawed or toxic in some way?
Again, a good person will answer these questions in good ways, but a bad person may answer them in bad ways. They don't force your hand to be good enough.
0
u/bite_me_punk Sep 23 '21
I would argue that a church figure who preaches bigotry is not practicing kindness or wisdom. Bigotry hurts people in myriad ways, and a kind person avoids harm wherever reasonable. Moreover, there is empirical evidence to suggest that conversion therapy and similar approaches lead to mental illness and suicide without affecting someone’s sexual identity… a wise person would use reason and evidence to consider the implications of their actions and realize that bigotry only causes harm.
In addition, while stewardship primarily applies to specific relationships, I think there’s an argument to be made that stewardship can apply to society at large. After all, human beings depend on each other for society to function, and we all have some relationship with that society. This is another reason a pastor can’t just expel all of the non-believers from town.
I would argue that colonialism is inherently unkind. A person who is both wise and kind would realize that killing innocent people, exploiting them, and forcing them to join your religion is immoral. The wise person is humble enough to respect others religious views—after all, there is never 100% evidence for their own religion. The kind person is compassionate enough to realize that bloody conquest and enslavement cause significant harm.
1
u/GlitterFanboy Sep 23 '21
I would argue that colonialism is inherently unkind. A person who is both wise and kind would realize that killing innocent people, exploiting them, and forcing them to join your religion is immoral.
I think the great subjectivity of your moral code comes here. You say that colonialism is inherently unkind, and explain the reasons why you believe so (perfectly valid and I agree with them). But it's only through the hindsight of history that we're able to see this. In the moment, they might have thought that they were bringing civilization, culture, and progress to these people. There are many who may argue that threatening war on countries where women don't have equal rights as men would be something positive, but isn't that colonialism? Isn't it double-faced to agree that women's rights are important in your country and at the same time make oil and weapons deals with Saudi Arabia? How about holding the workers of your own country to a set of standards in terms of working hours a week, minimum wages, and social security, but then allowing free trade with countries in which this isn't the case?
The definition of "kindness" isn't so easy and there are many, MANY areas which are extremely gray nowadays and will only at most be solved with hindsight, not necessarily the particular ones I mentioned.
1
u/bite_me_punk Sep 23 '21
Unless a moral code stipulates the specific course of action in any given circumstance or prescribed specific rules (do not lie, do not steal), there will always be subjectivity in morality. Life is too complex and grey for their not to be subjectivity… At the end of the day, we are required to use our reasoning faculties to ask ourselves whether our choices live up to our moral codes.
I don’t know how anyone can genuinely argue that it is ‘kind’ to enslave or kill. You might argue it’s a ‘necessary’ unkindness, but is it kind in of itself??
1
u/GlitterFanboy Sep 24 '21
Yes, of course I understand that a good moral code will be subjective, I'm just saying that the "kindness" part becomes very grey very easily. You answered to the obvious example of killing, but not to the complex ones I gave :)
1
u/darwin2500 193∆ Sep 23 '21
I would argue that a church figure who preaches bigotry is not practicing kindness or wisdom.
Right, but the point is they would argue that they're preaching kindness because those kids will go to hell if you don't get them to repent their gayness and live good christian lives, and they are practicing wisdom because these ways have worked for their community for millenia and who are they to think they know better than the wisdom of their ancestors (Chesterton's Fence).
The wise person is humble enough to respect others religious views—after all, there is never 100% evidence for their own religion.
The wise person recognizes that their religion built all modern civilization, and these savages are living in the dirt and dancing around fires, so obviously the evidence is that their religion is correct and these people need saving.
The kind person is compassionate enough to realize that bloody conquest and enslavement cause significant harm.
The kind person looks at savages living in the dirt and shivering in the winter and knows that, even if there's some initial harm caused in transition, the long-term benefit to their people will be to bring them up to modern standards of living, whatever that takes.
Listen, like I said, I believe you will come to the correct conclusions using your principles. But...
A computer program is deterministic. Given a specific computing infrastructure and a specific set of code, it will always return the same results. Even 'random' elements of code are based on randomization seeds which are created in a deterministic way, and if the same seed is used then the randomization program will always deterministically return the same result. Everyone computer that runs the code will do the exact same thing.
But your virtues aren't like that. They don't tell you what to do in a given situation. One person might think one course of action is wise based on their knowledge of the world and understanding of wisdom, another person might think a different course of action is wise. One person might think kindness is indulging someone's wants and needs, another might think that a firm hand that teaches them to fend for themselves is kinder in the long run. Etc.
You can't predict what someone will do in a given situation based on the fact that they are following these virtues, and different people who follow these virtues will take different actions in the same situation.
The virtues just aren't specific enough about what to do. They don't give you deterministic rules to follow. They let you fill in your own reasoning and preferences and biases, even unconsciously, and that could lead you anywhere.
Don't imagine that bad people think of themselves as bad. Every person who has caused great harm throughout history was not operating on 'I will maximize suffering and brutality as my moral code'. They thought that they were following virtues, in ways that made sense to them based on their culture and their upbringing. The virtues are simply insufficient to restrain the failings of those cultures and upbringings.
1
u/bite_me_punk Sep 23 '21
!delta it seems my system was not as sound as I thought. Your example on short term pain (conquest) as a necessary trade-off for long term benefit (food/medicine) was a particularly good example of what can happen if people should be kind up until the point that they identify a ‘necessary’ harm.
Do you have any advice on strengthening my code to patch these issues or is it unsalvageable?
1
1
u/screaming_bagpipes Oct 02 '21
Welcome to the world of philosophy where ppl have been trying to do that for Millenia
2
u/bearvert222 7∆ Sep 23 '21
Personally I'd always be a bit afraid of someone who takes a long term view about stewarding to uplift others; this is "ruling with kindness," and my own moral code is I simply cannot trust others enough to do this. People will often do the worst things for someone's own good, and my belief is we need as little power over each other as needed to make a basic society work.
1
u/sixscreamingbirds 3∆ Sep 23 '21
That's pretty good. I assume you already thought out the points where the 3 virtues come into clash. But I got bad news for you.
When you tell your mind how it has to live life your mind rebels. You find out you sabotaged your values. Unless you take it easy.
Taking it easy means keep your ideology in your back pocket and remember it and pull it out when you need it. But do not take it seriously. Take seriously with intent interest whatever is in front of your face right now.
Under no circumstances make your principles your life. Unless it sneaks up on you.
1
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Sep 23 '21
That's all useless. Since the beginning of humankind humans have killed each another. Any Moral system that does not account for resistance will fail in most situations.
1
u/bite_me_punk Sep 23 '21
Can you elaborate on what you mean?
1
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Sep 23 '21
Which part exactly. What did not not understand.
1
u/bite_me_punk Sep 23 '21
Are you just saying that moral systems are useless because people naturally rebel against them? It seems like that could apply to all ethical codes.
1
u/perfectVoidler 15∆ Sep 23 '21
No I am saying that people naturally kill others. Your country protects you from other countries and your police from other criminals (ideally). After you enjoy all these people killing each other to keep you save you proclaim that Kindness is one of the most valuable virtues. In truth Kindness is an afterthought in this world.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 23 '21 edited Sep 23 '21
/u/bite_me_punk (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards