Response to Peter's Comment

... My computer was not letting me leave a comment on the last post, so I just decided to response this way. Peter's comment was:


Tom,

This sounds similar to virtue ethics, where morality is seen as dispositions to virtuous actions... except your belief is much ramped up. I liked the inclusion of Chinese.

I am in agreement that morality involves the cultivation of positive dispositions and involves developing harmony among at least humans.

But there still are definitely some questions left for you to look into:

1.) Do you think morality is about "ought" statements? What would "ought" mean? In what sense can you say I ought to have dispositions to growth, and not dispositions to destruction?

2.) Do you think morality can be used to guide individual actions? Would it be moral to rob a store? Would it be moral to have an abortion? (I'm sure it varies from situation to situation.)

3.) Should we help grow others if it comes at a cost of stunting our own growth?

4.) Does your morality say anything about interactions with nonhumans, like (nonhuman) animals? What do you think of moral vegetarianism? If not, why would you exclude these animals? (I'm not yet convinced that good moral systems require the inclusion animals.)

RESPONSE

Peter,

  Thank you for bring the field of virtue ethics to my attention. I spent some time looking into it, and you are right it is what I am advocating. Ironically, though I am very interested in morality, Western moral philosophy is a sub-field I have little to no experience in. One of the books I am currently reading is called "Elements of Moral Philosophy" I hope it begins to supplement this deficit.

 @1.) I do think morality is about "ought" statements. The book I am currently reading states that the accepted basis for moral theory in the West is that morality "is at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason- That is, to do what there are the best reason to do while giving equal weight to the interests of each individual who will be affected by what one does."

  You ask in what sense you should have a disposition to growth rather than decay. Well, perhaps you, as an individual, should not always have a disposition to growth. But morality is a collective enterprise. It deals with what is best for humans as a group/species, not individuals.

    Can you honestly say that there is a question as a species as to whether or not we should try to stop our annihilation? Decay is only considered negative because it makes a structure more susceptible to destruction. Destruction is the end of a system.

  I am sure your postulate about "ought" was to target more finite moral details like abortion. However, from my perspective, such details are arbitrary. Abortion is or is not moral depending on the context you are harmonizing within. Beyond this, I believe the base value (such as valuing the preservation of human existence) we can take as teleology. Despite the multitude of cultural variation, every culture protects and promotes the grow of children. There are exceptions to this rule within cultures (where children are discarded), but we cannot forget that these are the exceptions, not the rule. No people completely disregards their children, because without children their culture would not continue. Just as while their are exceptions that call for the destruction/sacrifice of life, the overarching rule, is that human life is valued and cherished.

  My argument is as follows:

   1.)valuing human existence is teleological. 

   2.) Because humanity is defined by a specific structure, there is a specific set of objects and actions that promote its growth. (For example, we haven't created an underwater civilization yet, because despite all popular fiction and mythology, the human structure is not designed to live in the water.)

   3.) The human structure is fundamentally a social one. It is through relations with other humans that we truly actualize our potential to grow (really don't see how you could argue against this

   4.) The duration of coexistence is dependent on a solidarity,a mutual feeling of connectedness by all the consenting parts; or in other words, a harmony.

 Thus, As humans we fundamentally value human life, valuing human life we want to promote its growth, the growth of humanity is partially (not solely) dependent on harmony (solidarity).

 *There are other components, I will discuss them soon.

 2.) Yes, I am saying that morality is essential taking a specefic orientation of action, so of course it could guide human action. The example you have given moves beyond the broad scale of this argument and requires much more contextual information to give an answer. The answer is subjective; however, in general stealing probably contradicts greater harmonization, and thus should be discouraged.

 3.)No, this will be part of the next essay on morality I will write. This essay is just to introduce the general idea, but in reality there are a couple huge parts I am leaving out. But to give you a quick answer, no, because of my social self theory.

 4.) yes it does, this is yet another essay that I plan to write. To summarize the idea quickly, human survival in addition to depending on human collectivity, depends on the preservation of the environment we have adapted to. It does not matter how well we harmonize if we destroy the context that allows our unique structure to thrive. (i.e a clean water, flora and fauna filled biome). We need plants and animals, and clean water. Extending this logic, the survival of "plants" and species of animals depends on their diversity, so that they too can adjust to environmental shifts. The more we deplete the diversity of our biosphere, the more fragile it becomes; the more fragile it becomes the more likely it will break; If it breaks, the more likely we (human species) will break. Thus, in valuing our own survival, we must value the survival of our environment.   

 Does that make sense?     

Understanding Morality through Pokemon

I would like to thank Hanyun Cai for her contribution to the development of this thought.


   In the last year the concept of Morality has become a central framework in the architecture of my thoughts and actions. As a result I have become increasingly aware of the ambiguity of the term, and the heavy connotations it carries in the English language. I have joked to myself that in the game of communication morality is a "broken" symbol, and have start several essays advocating that for this very reason it should be removed from communication altogether. However, I have yet to finish any of those essays. Because despite the dangers I see in the ambiguity and potency of the term, I still feel strongly connected to it, and believe that a conception of morality is pivotal to my cultivation, pivotal to the cultivation of humanity. SoI cannot let it go. Once again I must thank Hanyun. In a conversation with her about my perception of morality she brilliantly discerned the core of what I was saying. After talking to her, it seems so simple to divulge the underlying principle of my morals, something that I was previously finding to be a daunting task. Thank you again Hanyun! Also thanks to all my friends, those met in person, and those met in text, who have helped me get to this point.

                 MORALITY and the V-O Construction.

        To understand my conception of morality it is essential to understand that I classify morality not as noun, or a verb, or object, but as a Object-Verb. The Object-Verb (O-V) is, to the best of my knowledge, a categorical construction that does not exist in the English language (Please correct me on this if I am wrong).  An O-V describes an object in a particular state of transformation. For example:

       In Chinese the word 吃饭 [chīfàn] means "to have a meal" and is colloquially used to mean "to eat" or "eating." 吃饭 [chīfàn] is a O-V.   吃 [chī] is a verb that describes the act of consuming/taking in something. To novice Chinese speakers this most commonly relates to consuming food and is translated as "eat." But 吃 does not really mean eat. 吃 is also used to describe a person experiencing difference emotions, situations, and even physical contact. To be "jealous" in Chinese is 吃醋 [chīcù], which can be deconstructed into: the verb to take in (吃), and the noun vinegar (醋). Vinegar is sour. Jealous in Chinese is " for a person to take in/consume a sourness."

     To live off of welfare:  吃劳保 [chīláobǎo]  -Take in aid
     Exhausting/ strenuous: 吃力[chīlì] - Take in  (on) a force
     To lose out: 吃亏 [chīkuī]. Take in a loss

    In each of these examples, and many more, 吃 does not mean "eat." You do not "eat force" or "eat lose." You take on a force, you take in a loss. "To eat" implies not only the act of consumption, but willful consumption of a very specific set of tangible objects by a very specific object. If it is not willful, you are not eating, you are being fed. if it is not tangible objects that nourish the human body, than you are not eating you are just consuming/taking in. If it is not a human or some other animal with a mouth apparatus, than it is not eating. Plants nourish themselves with sunlight, but this is not seen as eating because plants are not human-like. They do not prepare their food before they ingest it, and they do not willfully chose what and when they eat, they do not ingest it through a mouth. Acid is described as eating through things, but this is an analogy. People do not really think acid eats and for the the same reasons plants don't eat. Eating describes a specific type of relationship between two specific objects, a mouth bearing object and an object that nourishes the mouth bearing object. Because different objects derive nourishment from different things. To change the eater is to change what can be eaten. From this I suggest:

                - Actions (verbs) are defined by the structures (objects) that are able to carry them out.
                - Actions (verbs) are defined by the relationship between structures (objects).

      Only things with mouths and autonomously choose what and when they. Only things that are nourishing can be eaten. These are distinctions that are muddled by the prevalence of analogy in society. Acid appears to consume what it burns through so we say it eats away at it, but acid does not have a mouth, it is not autonomous, and it does not derive nourishment from the things it burns. Contrary to popular believe acid does not eat anything.
       So far I have been focusing on the verb aspect of the O-V across different objects. However, the object also exists across multiple verbs. Not only do you 吃饭 [chīfàn] you can also 喷饭 [pēnfàn] (spit up food from laughing so hard),  做饭 [zuòfàn] ( cook, make food), or 要饭 [yàofàn] (be a beggar, beg for anything). The verbs that are used in O-V relationships define the dispositions of a structure (object). 


               Dispositions of Growth, Decay, and Destruction

     All objects exist in relations that are based on actions. The actions a structure can take represent the flexibility of the structure. The actions a structure take do work on the structure, and thus transform it.  I argue that the effects of actions on a structure (object) work to either impede or progress the growth, decay, or destruction of the strucutre. Therefore all actions can be thought of as dispositions of growth, decay, or destruction. It is possible for an object to activate any of these dispositions; however, I argue that it is for the benefit of any object to progress growth, limit decay, and avoid destruction.

           When I say growth I do not mean increase in size, but the continual adaption of the structure to the environment  it is in relation with (to evolve in a sense). Environments are dynamic. If structures do not move to adapt to them, they will eventually find themselves working against the system they exist within. To be at odds with one's environment is what is called a state of decay.  Because enviroments are dynamic, if structures are not dynamic as well they are continually creeping towards a state of decay. The act of inaction therefore can be seen as progressing decay. Another way of progressing decay is the act of improper action.
      Humans are equipped with a wide variety of actions at their disposal. Each action can be situationally used to promote growth or situationally used to promote decay and destruction. What promotes growth is proper, what promotes decay and destruction is improper. When a person consumes nourishing food 吃饭 [chīfàn] they are implementing a disposition in their structure to grow, and thus are acting properly. When they spit up nourishing food they are delaying their growth, and potentially progressing decay (Depending on how recently they have eaten), thus acting improperly. When a person consumes something toxic the proper action is to spit it up. To eat something toxic is to put your internal organs at risk, promote decay, and is thus improper. To summarize:

        -All structure (objects) exist in relations with other structures (objects)
       - All structures (objects) contain dispositions for action (compatible verbs).
        - All structures (objects) that interact do so through the mediation of action (verb). 
        - All structures (objects) contain dispositions for growth, decay, and destruction.
        - When structures (objects) interact there is a proper way to act that promotes growth, limits decay, and avoids destruction. 

    Earlier I defined O-V as objects in a particular state of transformation. Another way to say this is that O-V represent the dispositions of objects. The grammatical structure is called an O-V, but based on the nature of dispositions I have explanaed, it should really be called an  O-V-O (object-verb-object) construction.

   Now, we are ready to begin discussing morality.  

                 Morality as a Disposition of Growth 
  By stating I view morality as an O-V, I am asserting that morality is a disposition, meaning that it is a state of transformation that emerges from a specific O-V-O relationship. Because of this, it is fallacious to attempt to explain or discuss morality in abstract terms of goodness, justice, or equality. Morality cannot be discussed without first identifying: what structures are in relation when one speaks of morality, and what is the action (verb) that defines their relationship? 
           As to the first question, personally,  I believe that morality is a disposition that emerges from a relationship between humans. Before I continue let me say that this position is a Confucian one,  heavily influenced by my religious beliefs.  A Buddhist would see morality as a disposition that emerges from a relationship between existence. A Native American shaman would see morality as a disposition between living things. A nationalist would see morality as a disposition between countrymen. The broadness of categorization is dependent on the values of a persons. You will notice however that there is a common pattern across all these examples. Though the category size changes all the examples I have listed define morality as existing between two similar structures. Existence to Existence, Living to Living, Human to Human, Countrymen to Countrymen. Because of this, I argue that regardless of subjective values, morality is a disposition that emerges between two objects of a similar structure. If we accept that assertion, then all that remains is to all identify what action mediates a moral relationship?

       Though I said this would be an explanation of my conception of morality I realize I am writing this in the style of a persuasive rather than descriptive essay. I apologize for that. I have been saying "I argue" building up arguments, when I should be saying "I believe" and just telling you what I believe. That is what I will do from this point on.

   I believe the verb that defines morality is "harmony." Morality is attempting to develop harmonious relations between an other that you regard as similar. For me that is humans. Therefore morality is me, working to be more harmonious with other humans. I conceive a harmony as the union of seperate entities into a collective will, body, force. If I am with another person there are many ways I can act towards them. I can try to dominate them, to serve them, to persuade them, to move them, to avoid them, to flatter them, to ignore them, to hurt them, and I can try to harmonize with them. I do not veiw this as trying to become the person. When notes harmonize it is not that an A note becomes a B or a C, but that they all synthesize into something greater than their collective parts. There are emergent properties to harmony.

     I believe that haromonizing with other people develops a person's knowledge, happiness, and work. I view developing knowledge, implementing that knowledge into work, and being happy with one's life as EXTREMELY benefical to both indivdiual and collective survival. Therefore, from my perspective, working towards morality activates a disposition of growth within the human structure. Morality is how we evolve. I could into further detail how harmonizing with others develops knowledge, hapiness, and work; and I probably will at a later date, but not right now.
  
   I need to finish this thing, so I will move to the last section!

                          POKEMON!!!!
              I bet you were wondering where charizard was. Sorry it took so long. Initially I planned to put him in a lot earlier, but it took alot more to preface it than I thought. Pokemon is just the inital analogy that I thought of to describe morality as a disposition rather than a state. Hopefully all that stuff above this has sorted out what I mean by disposition. Basically, what I am saying is that a disposition is the potential to implement a strucutre in a specific way (In the case of morality, the structure is the human body, the choosen activity is harmonzing with other humans). Because dispositions have the potential to progress growth, they essential transform the structure.

    In Pokemon, the acitivty of battling (with other pokemon) will eventually cause pokemon to evolve. Charizard started off as charmander, than through battle became charmelon, and then more battle evolved him into Charizard! For Pokemon, battling leads to a disposition of growth. If Charmander had chozen a different action to run his body, then he potentially would never have evolved into Charizard. This is important because it shows that dispositions transform structures. Morality is not just a state of action, it will actually trasnform a human, if given enough time (enough xp in the Pokemon world). 
   Where the analogy fails is that I do not see specific stages or plateus of morality. In the Pokemon world Charizard can only progress so much. However, I would argue that in the real world there is no limits to how much we can progress. Even if I somehow manage to truly harmonize with my community; there is still the rest of my society; even if I still somehow manage to harmonize with the rest of my society, there is still the rest of humanity; even if I somehow manage to harmonize with the rest of humanity, there is still the rest of existence. It is not that I disagree with the Buddhist perspective, I just believe in setting incremental goals. How could I every hope to harmonize with existence if I cannot even harmonize with the few people I see on a daily basis? Things have their proper order. Trees have their roots and their branches. To attempt to grow branches before you have roots is foolish, is it not?

 This is why I believe that for the me that exists right now, morality is an actio between humans. The me I am now will not exist in 10 years. Just as after 10 years of battle charmader is no longer charmander, he is charmelon. "Leveling up" slowly shifts the constituion of your structure, and eventually will shif the potential actions at your disposal. This is what it means to evolve.

             One Final Word on Humaneness
           This essay is one of many. Humans interact with many objects and thus have the potential for many actions. I believe morality in a person puts them in a state of growth, but this growth is only in one sphere. There are many other ways to grow. What I would call "humaneness, or the humane person" is someone who is implementing multiple dispositions of growth. This essay covers one dispostion of growth, "morality." There are others. I will write more about the others later.

 Peace Space Cowboy! Happy Trails