About four years ago, I wrote a post discussing Habermas’s naturalized version of Kant’s deontological framework for ethics and morality. Habermas is ultimately interested in peace and tolerance, and what might be required to foster community and inclusion in pluralistic societies. Inspired by this, I went on to suggest that although our duty to others is an integral part of our lives, we must balance this duty with a duty to oneself. We are only in a position to take care of others once some of our basic needs are met, because otherwise, we risk harming both ourselves and others around us. The idea is similar to the recommendation of putting on your own oxygen mask before assisting someone else in putting on theirs, as without oxygen flowing to our own brains, we aren’t likely to be as helpful to others as we could be otherwise. Anyway, the reason I like this naturalized deontological moral framework because it takes into account our social nature as animals, provided there is an imperative to also look after own own needs, within reason.
Other moral frameworks, especially the ones which are popular today, do not appeal to me because they do not adequately address our fundamental needs as individuals living within a collective. Specifically, it seems that the two dominant moral theories within western countries are utilitarianism/consequentialism and subjective relativism. Arguably, they are poor moral theories because they either neglect the presence of contextual factors, or do not hold people accountable for their actions.
Utilitarianism’s focus on pain and pleasure is reductive, because pleasure can lead to destruction and pain can lead to growth. To equate ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to sensations of pain and pleasure ignores instances when the reverse may be true, such as a physical work out. “No pain, no gain” as they say. Moreover, I’m sure the effects of meth and heroin are extremely pleasurable, however, their chemical repercussions on the brain produce lasting changes which often lead to negative outcomes. Although utilitiarianism does account for other factors when making decisions, such as positive or negative outcomes in the future, the calculations one needs to make are not always apparent or fully understood. Utilitarianism, as a moral framework, is often associated with another theory called consequentialism, which comes with its own set of problems. Essentially, it states that “the ends justify the means” which can lead to human rights violations. In striving toward some goal, severe harms can introduced and justified for the sake of achieving a specific outcome. A battle might be won at the end of the day, but you might lose three-quarters of your army in securing a victory. As a result, the state’s military force becomes weaker and as such, it may lose the next battle or even the war itself. So just as there is wisdom in a tactical retreat, there is wisdom in suffering for a good cause. Both theories cannot fully account for contextual factors, and in this oversimplification, do not make for good moral theories as they can overlook or underplay significant variables. Moreover, they have a tendency to view individuals as nameless bodies in a crowd of people, or as a cog within a larger machine. They can’t take into consideration the needs and desires of a singular person, because the focus remains on the aggregate amount of pleasure/pain or their usefulness towards some end or goal.
Subjective relativism is a naive and permissive moral theory because it allows the individual to determine what is best based on their own beliefs, sensations, and motivations. It makes for a poor code of conduct because it doesn’t tell people why they should or shouldn’t do something. Anything can be justified by appealing to one’s own experiences or perspective, but to the outsider, their reasons for doing so may remain arbitrary, opaque, or unjustifiable. Though there might be agreement based on similar feelings, to those who disagree, the reasons for why someone thinks or feels a certain way might not make sense. Moral transgressions can be waved away by appealing to one’s own perspective or beliefs, and therefore, anything goes. Moreover, nothing exists independently of these personal views which can hold individuals accountable for their actions and inactions. If someone causes physical harm to another being, they may be able to justify this by appealing to norms, preferences, or beliefs. For example, the practice of genital mutilation, whether in infancy or childhood, is barbaric because it is physically painful, harmful, and unnecessary, yet it persists all around the world for religious and/or cultural reasons.
Given the apparent problems with utilitarianism, consequentialism, and subjective realism, an alternative moral theory is required. Not only should it be universally applicable, it must be flexible, accounting contextual factors or the presence of certain variables. Lately, I have been seeing and hearing more and more talk about “objective morality” and what it might involve. I would like to offer a suggestion based on an idea I mentioned in passing at the end of that blog post from 2022.
At a glance, objective morality prescribes us to strike a balance between a duty to oneself and a duty to others. How this is accomplished depends on the situation at hand, as well as the people involved. Given this situational flexibility, it doesn’t provide specific rules to be followed, but requires individuals to reason about the best course of action and why that is the case. One’s rationale for their decision will depend on a number of parameters or variables, and is easy to get wrong if one’s conscience is misaligned, but others will be able to follow whether some action or inaction is justifiable. Though there may be cases where articulating the reasons for one’s decision may be difficult or complex, in principle, they will not be arbitrary, provided one is truly interested in doing the right thing. We might disagree with their decision, but from their perspective, it might be understandable. If one’s intentions are truly rooted in a finding a middle-ground between taking care of their own needs and serving or working with others, then we are able to understand that a mistake occurred.
The reason this moral framework is objective is because at its foundation, it is interested in fostering cooperation, as articulated by the mathematics of game theory. Since the laws of mathematics exist independently from any civilization or living being, we can appeal to this universality for establishing an unshakable foundation for which we can build a moral theory. Game theory demonstrates how cooperation between two or more people or parties can lead to non-zero sum outcomes, such that advances, growth, or earnings can be created by working together. At a glance, it recommends that we ought to cooperate with one another, because that way, something more can emerge from our collective actions. It generates a gestalt, or an outcome that goes beyond the mere sum of parts, a fact that has enabled economic coordination since the dawn of mankind. That said, this kind of coordination is not unique to humans. We see cooperation and coordination in other species too because doing so provides an advantage in comparison to working alone. The reason we were able to domesticate animals and develop beneficial relationships with them is because of mutual gain. We love dogs for their companionship as well as their ability to guard, hunt, and herd, and they love us in return for our food, shelter, and affection. Dogs stick around because our relationship is mutually beneficial, transcending the fact that we are different species speaking different languages.
The truly difficult part of cooperation, however, is knowing which individuals or groups to cooperate with. Recall that the other part of game theory is cheating, because in these situations, you may still benefit, just not as much as you would if you cooperated. There remains an incentive to cheat if the individual(s) in question do not trust that the other party will not cheat, or are not truly interested in cooperating to begin with. Trust, therefore, is the most important aspect of objective morality, as it acts as the glue that brings people together to facilitate cooperation. If you do not trust someone, you might be setting yourself up to be taken advantage of, scammed, or worse.
A corollary to this is that we have a moral duty to act in ways which indicates trustworthiness. Being honest, sticking to one’s word, and acting with integrity is a moral good because it thickens the glue that binds us together. For those who have a conscience, simply following it will often do the trick for most day-to-day situations. When a transgression does occur, it is best to admit to it right away and offer some kind of corrective measure. Lying about it, covering it up, or downplaying it is the morally incorrect thing to do because these actions do not attempt to repair the ruptured trust. Now, I know we live in an age where psychopaths run the world, and in some groups or industries, many incentives exist for behaving immorally, evilly even, but have hope. As individuals and communities, if we can articulate exactly why certain intentions and behaviours are morally correct or incorrect, maybe we can turn things around.
Another spicy corollary exists in the fact that not everyone wants to cooperate, either at all or with certain groups or individuals. This is a fact of life we must accept and navigate. I think a big part of the problem we face today is this naive belief that we all want to be tolerant and live together in peace and harmony. I am a big fan of Habermas, but I wonder whether he really understands what diversity actually involves. It necessarily includes a subset of the population who are not tolerant and who will pretend to be despite acting otherwise. So what are we to do? Though there may be legal routes for addressing outcomes related to cheating or intolerance, these are inherently reactive rather than proactive. Proactivity can be established through a moral framework which recommends an analysis of trustworthiness in others. But just as we ought to be cautious about the intentions of others, we must remember to always act in a manner which inspires others to trust our words and actions. Trust can be established if others can see how our motivations and actions are truly cooperative. Overall, we must remain open and compassionate toward others while remembering that wolves can don a sheepskin if they so choose.
