A proponent of panpsychism argues moral truth is inherent in consciousness

[Laird]

Reality has no obligation to help us to understand anything, much less morality, or even to make there exist an explanation that is understandable to human beings.

Sure, but it just so happens that there is an explanation that is easily understandable to human beings.

Therefore the failure of one point of view to foster logically understanding morality (suggesting that it is "programmed in" to reality by higher powers) is no argument against this point of view.

But if a point of view can be logically disproven, then we have to abandon it, right? And this one can be. It falls foul of an unavoidable dilemma: either the higher powers "programmed in" morality according to a non-arbitrary understanding of what morality consists in, or their moral "programme" is arbitrary. In the first case, the "programmers" are referring back to an objective morality independent of themselves, and so we still have not explained what grounds objective morality. In the second, morality becomes subjective and not objective, which I think you will agree is plainly false (not to mention that it contradicts the fundamental aim of Philip's article: to explain why morality is objective - an aim which I share).

See below though for my more nuanced acceptance of how morality can be "programmed in" to reality.

Ultimately, a utilitarian approach saying that morality logically derives from and evolved from the basic nature of consciousness still ultimately appeals to whatever unknowable powers originated (human) consciousness itself and determined what properties it would have.

Just a couple of clarifications first:

1. I'm not a moral utilitarian, and I'm not proposing a utilitarian approach to morality. I think the utilitarian approach of, roughly stated, "Sum up all the pleasure, subtract all the suffering, and determine the final moral 'score' for each option, then compare scores to determine which option we should take" is naive, full of problems, and often leads to appalling outcomes/conclusions - for example, Peter Singer's one-time claim as a one-time utilitarian that it is morally acceptable to kill new-born babies whose birth defects would cause others a lot of financial cost and need to provide care.
   
   In the rest of my post, I'll assume that by "utilitarian approach" you mean "type of moral grounding being proposed by Laird".
   
   
2. The "evolution" of morality is not so relevant to my core point, which is how morality is grounded at a basic level.
   

Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. I have said similar things in the past: that the Higher Power(s) who created us could have to a large extent structured our consciousnesses/minds/bodies such that certain things are pleasurable and good for us, and certain things cause us suffering and are bad for us, and thus this/these Higher Power(s) could have had a huge hand in the specific nature of morality as it applies to the life on this planet, even though the broad strokes were already fixed by grounded definition (that which deliberately tends to cause suffering => morally bad; that which deliberately tends to cause pleasure (in the broadest sense, not necessarily mere hedonism) => morally good).

And the utilitarian approach doesn't explain the evolution of higher emotions such as compassion and kindness and love.

Nor is it intended to. I'm simply trying to explain the grounding of morality.

The utilitarian approach appears to suggest that morality evolved in human beings because it minimized suffering and maximized pleasure, and this approach suggests that the strong feeling that certain moral rules objectively exist and are very much the way things "ought" to be are part of this evolved complex. Unfortunately, this mindset doesn't encompass the whole realm of spirit. Assuming for the moment that all the manifold empirical evidences and philosophical arguments are valid for the existence of a spiritual realm and an afterlife to which human beings transition on physical death, it would make much more sense if moral rules such as the enjoinment to foster kindness, compassion and love originate in the basic nature of spirit. The source of this would probably be unknowable by man.

Again: the "evolution" of morality is not really relevant to my primary point. I'm primarily trying to explain the grounding of morality; how human moral codes developed (derive, to a meaningful extent) from that grounding is a secondary concern.

Re the bit I've emboldened: consistent with that which I wrote above, sure, the Higher Power(s) who created us could have created in us the capacity for kindness, compassion, and love too, which - here's the important bit - deliberately tend to cause pleasure (in the broadest sense, not necessarily mere hedonism), and thus are - i.e., this is why they are - morally good. They are not morally good because "God said so", or because "they are Platonic forms".

The grounding of morality is in this context a separate question from the question as to which tools (kindness, compassion, love, etc) humans have been given in their box to practice/promote moral goodness.

If man's consciousness originates in and returns to the realm of spirit and exists in that realm as the soul, then the utilitarian theory of morality would have us believe that the soul inherently had no compassion, kindness and love and had to learn these ways of thinking and feeling through Earth experience.

Again: I'm trying to explain what grounds morality; I'm not denying any moral traits, nor claiming that any particular traits had to "evolve".

[Laird]

No. I apologise for the ambiguity in my post. I hadn't intended to cause offence.

Actually I was considering my own thoughts as well as yours, any criticism was directed as much at myself as at anyone else. Again I can only apologise for that.

Ah, no problem. In turn, then, I apologise for the misreading and personalised interpretation.

Thanks for your reflections in the rest of your post; I don't think there's anything I can or ought to add in response - they seem to rest in a self-containment which it would be disrespectful to disturb.

...........................................
Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. I have said similar things in the past: that the Higher Power(s) who created us could have to a large extent structured our consciousnesses/minds/bodies such that certain things are pleasurable and good for us, and certain things cause us suffering and are bad for us, and thus this/these Higher Power(s) could have had a huge hand in the specific nature of morality as it applies to the life on this planet, even though the broad strokes were already fixed by grounded definition (that which deliberately tends to cause suffering => morally bad; that which deliberately tends to cause pleasure (in the broadest sense, not necessarily mere hedonism) => morally good).

Nor is it intended to. I'm simply trying to explain the grounding of morality.

Again: the "evolution" of morality is not really relevant to my primary point. I'm primarily trying to explain the grounding of morality; how human moral codes developed (derive, to a meaningful extent) from that grounding is a secondary concern.
...........................................

I would still contend that the definition and nature and "grounding" of moral evil and moral good is nuanced and complicated and must have been pre-established by "the powers that be", and that it is not as simple as what tends to deliberately cause suffering versus what tends to deliberately cause pleasure. That means it is probably irrelevant that there is ultimately no logical rational explanation that would satisfy our human minds, and that the grounding of the moral scheme must have been established by arbitrary (from our perspective) choice by spiritual forces vastly beyond our ken. Then so be it.

One reason for this is the way the "system" has apparently been set up with reincarnation. In this design, in the between lives period the soul will very often choose circumstances of an upcoming life that will almost inevitably lead to a life of suffering on the part of the new human self. But the teaching is that this is ultimately to the good (especially of the soul, not the human self) because of the necessary "soul growth" and learning of spiritual lessons that will occur because of the human self trying to deal with these challenges.

Thus what is ultimately morally good (spiritual learning by the soul) is achieved via suffering by the soul's human personality self (fundamentally morally bad in your estimation). In this scheme the soul deliberately causes future suffering by its upcoming incarnation; you call this fundamentally "morally bad" (presumably from the perspective of the human self), but it appears to be ultimately "morally good" from the perspective of the soul. The scheme certainly isn't grounded in your fixed definitions.

[Laird]

A couple of points in response:

1. You seem to be contending that the postulated system of incarnation-as-a-school as established by "the powers that be" is a moral one. I think instead that it's very much up for debate whether (1) such a system actually exists, and (2) whether, if it does, it is a moral one or something less wholesome. So, if I might ask: on what basis have you concluded that it is moral? If "there is ultimately no logical rational explanation that would satisfy our human minds", then how can/do you explain that/why/how the incarnation-as-a-school system is moral? Or do you simply assume it?
   
2. I'm not anyway advocating that only immediate suffering and pleasure be taken into moral consideration. That a person might freely choose to suffer temporarily for the later, greater, long-term pleasure of him/herself or others is compatible with moral behaviour.
   

[Laird]

One more point:

You suggest that moral grounding "is not as simple as what tends to deliberately cause suffering versus what tends to deliberately cause pleasure", but in backing up this suggestion, you cite the "ultimate" moral good as "spiritual learning by the soul". What, though, is the point of this spiritual learning if not to enhance the soul's capacity for positive conscious experiences - or, in other words, that which I have (somewhat crudely) been referring to as "pleasure"? [ETA2: And doesn't this rhetorical question suggest that spiritual learning is merely a proxy for the truly ultimate good of positive conscious experiences?]

[ETA] To emphasise the point: if the more a soul learnt spiritually, the more it suffered - with no corresponding increase in the positive conscious experiences of any other soul - would you still call its spiritual learning "the ultimate moral good"?

Doesn't a pain/pleasure Grounding leave out Justice?

This is my own issue as well, trying to ground morality in teleology of cosmic Love leaves out the idea of penalties for immoral acts. So even though I still believe this teleological moral direction is the proper starting point I have to acknowledge something is left out.

I do think there is value in contemplating morality, as a child I remember Richard Garriot's Ultima computer game series had me reflecting on ethics in elementary school...

A couple of points in response:

1. You seem to be contending that the postulated system of incarnation-as-a-school as established by "the powers that be" is a moral one. I think instead that it's very much up for debate whether (1) such a system actually exists, and (2) whether, if it does, it is a moral one or something less wholesome. So, if I might ask: on what basis have you concluded that it is moral? If "there is ultimately no logical rational explanation that would satisfy our human minds", then how can/do you explain that/why/how the incarnation-as-a-school system is moral? Or do you simply assume it?
   
2. I'm not anyway advocating that only immediate suffering and pleasure be taken into moral consideration. That a person might freely choose to suffer temporarily for the later, greater, long-term pleasure of him/herself or others is compatible with moral behaviour.
   

I agree with much of para. (1) above. I assume that the incarnation-as-a-school established by the "powers that be" (if it actually exists, as claimed by numerous psychic channelings and other lines of supposed evidence) is a moral one as defined by the powers-that-be. But we are not the powers-that-be. Since, along with fostering spiritual growth on the part of the soul, this stratagem of reality also fosters massive amounts of innocent suffering by the human selves of the souls, as far as I am concerned it isn't moral from the limited strictly human standpoint. 

Another point, in (2) above you simply assume that the human self literally is the soul (which is presumably growing spiritually from the Earth experience), and that therefore all this human suffering is worth it to the human self. I think this is questionable. The moral goodness of this scheme of reality simply has to be accepted a moral good by an act of faith contrary to the evidence of experience. We simply have to have faith that in some humanly incomprehensible way we as our human selves are benefitting from all the suffering in ways commensurate with the human badness of this innocent suffering. 

It is the plan of the powers-that-be and we must accept its goodness through faith. We are better off if we can somehow achieve this acceptance, since we can't alter the scheme. So be it.

One more point:

You suggest that moral grounding "is not as simple as what tends to deliberately cause suffering versus what tends to deliberately cause pleasure", but in backing up this suggestion, you cite the "ultimate" moral good as "spiritual learning by the soul". What, though, is the point of this spiritual learning if not to enhance the soul's capacity for positive conscious experiences - or, in other words, that which I have (somewhat crudely) been referring to as "pleasure"? [ETA2: And doesn't this rhetorical question suggest that spiritual learning is merely a proxy for the truly ultimate good of positive conscious experiences?]

[ETA] To emphasise the point: if the more a soul learnt spiritually, the more it suffered - with no corresponding increase in the positive conscious experiences of any other soul - would you still call its spiritual learning "the ultimate moral good"?

My point of view is that the scheme imposed upon us, whether we as humans like it or not, is that the ultimate moral good is spiritual learning by the soul to always, always follow the Golden Rule, to absolutely always in every possible way foster kindness, compassion and love to other sentient beings. Whether we like it or not from our strictly human standpoint, this ultimate moral good is not necessarily to "enhance the soul's capacity for positive conscious experiences". That it often does so is a good thing, but it isn't necessary to the scheme. In other words, there is such a thing as truly selfless kindness, compassion and love, altruism not motivated by expectation of a reward of pleasure either in this world or heaven. 

An example in human life perhaps might be Mother Teresa. To suppose that deep down her motivation for all her good works was simply to enhance her personal pleasure especially in Heaven - this view would be an extreme expression of cynical evolutionary psychology's position that there is no true altruism - it's all evolved behavior reinforced by evolved neural pathways creating pleasure from this particular behavior.  

Other subsidiary aspects of ultimate moral good could include to explore to all extents possible the appreciation of and creation of beauty over all the realms of existence.

Doesn't a pain/pleasure Grounding leave out Justice?

This is my own issue as well, trying to ground morality in teleology of cosmic Love leaves out the idea of penalties for immoral acts. So even though I still believe this teleological moral direction is the proper starting point I have to acknowledge something is left out.

I do think there is value in contemplating morality, as a child I remember Richard Garriot's Ultima computer game series had me reflecting on ethics in elementary school...

Not that I necessarily agree with it, but there is a pervasive New Age spiritual teaching derived from numerous psychic channelings, that there ultimately is no revengeful punishment for supposedly evil, for immoral acts of cruelty for instance. The teaching is that since this world's experience is always very temporary in the life of the soul, everything including evil acts of cruelty is a teaching experience. This means there is no what could be called human "Justice" - punishment for evil deeds - just at the most temporary banishment to lower regions of the afterlife to absorb the humanly terrible results and eventually learn from the last Earth experience. That there may be some suffering by the evildoer in this process is part of the learning experience. 

Of course, this sort of scheme violates some deep human instincts that call for some sort of balance in human life, and the utilitarian necessity for society to force evildoers to desist from their bad behavior in fear of its inevitable consequences in this life via the criminal justice system. As a practical matter our society couldn't work without this social mechanism.  

I just think that it may be questionable that Justice is a grounding ultimate moral principle, at least according to some spiritual teachings.

My point of view is that the scheme imposed upon us, whether we as humans like it or not, is that the ultimate moral good is spiritual learning by the soul to always, always follow the Golden Rule, to absolutely always in every possible way foster kindness, compassion and love to other sentient beings. Whether we like it or not from our strictly human standpoint, this ultimate moral good is not necessarily to "enhance the soul's capacity for positive conscious experiences". That it often does so is a good thing, but it isn't necessary to the scheme. In other words, there is such a thing as truly selfless kindness, compassion and love, altruism not motivated by expectation of a reward of pleasure either in this world or heaven. 

An example in human life perhaps might be Mother Teresa. To suppose that deep down her motivation for all her good works was simply to enhance her personal pleasure especially in Heaven - this view would be an extreme expression of cynical evolutionary psychology's position that there is no true altruism - it's all evolved behavior reinforced by evolved neural pathways creating pleasure from this particular behavior.  

Other subsidiary aspects of ultimate moral good could include to explore to all extents possible the appreciation of and creation of beauty over all the realms of existence.

I find this viewpoint unsatisfactory. My starting point is that we don't know for certain, there are lots of ideas out there, some of them contradicting others. Given this uncertainty, my proposition is that we each choose what we will believe. Given that (in my opinion) we have a choice, I would prefer not to select a line of reasoning which casts us in some sort of victim role, at the mercy of a force which is seemingly indifferent - at least to an extent.

My own preference is to choose a line where we are empowered, not victims of 'the system'. My reasoning is a very practical one. Some ways of viewing the world can cause mental distress and actually generate suffering. Therefore it makes sense to select a way of looking at the world which is less distressing. This is purely a pragmatic matter.

When I say it is pragmatic, I mean there isn't just one correct view and countless wrong ones. I consider we each have to find our own version of a truth, one which fits for us. But I highly recommend a direction which offers liberation rather than constraint.