A proponent of panpsychism argues moral truth is inherent in consciousness

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.

I agree. Yes, we absolutely don't know for certain. The viewpoint I described I consider a strong possibility when considered logically and intellectually, but it is probably not the best one from the standpoint of living one's life most comfortably and enjoyably. From a strictly pragmatic utilitarian standpoint it is a non-starter. Part of me however insists on intellectually considering what may be the absolute real truth of the matter.

[Laird]

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

[Note: I'm not claiming to be an expert or well-studied in this area; these are simply the thoughts of an interested layman. But that applies to most of my posts to this forum.]

Justice seems to be an abstract and broad concept, with different conceptions of what it means in practice.

One conception is that of retributive justice: that if a person deliberately causes harm or suffering to another person, then the perpetrator should be caused an equal or greater amount of harm or suffering in turn, as some sort of "balancing of the scales". I agree, though, with nbtruthman, that this sort of justice is not moral (i.e., a pain/pleasure grounding is justified in leaving it out). As for why, it can't be put any simpler and more clearly than that old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right". I think this adage applies whether it's an individual or the State committing the second wrong.

Another conception is that of deterrent justice: that if a person deliberately causes harm or suffering to another person, then the perpetrator should be punished in some way - generally by imprisoning them for a period - so as to deter not only him/her, but others, from committing such acts in the future. I think this is potentially compatible with a moral grounding based in pain/pleasure, in that it (ideally) minimises harm and suffering overall, but one has to ask whether there is a better (more moral, involving less suffering) way in at least some cases. It is a little too close to retributive justice for us (me at least) to comfortably and unconditionally declare it moral.

Another conception is (post factum) preventative justice: indefinitely locking up a person who has caused certain types of harm or suffering to another person to prevent the perpetrator from causing further harm of the same type to others, given that his or her disposition is such that such a thing is effectively inevitable (e.g., certain psychopaths, paedophiles, and other sex criminals). I think that this is compatible with a moral grounding based in pain/pleasure in that it ensures that the positive experiences of potential victims are not spoilt by the perpetrator, so long as reasonable care is taken not to cause undue suffering to those locked up, although obviously there is a significant amount of suffering inherent in being locked up at all. I think that presenting perpetrators with alternatives is also a moral approach - e.g., "As an alternative to us locking you up indefinitely to prevent you from committing harm, you may choose to be castrated and then freely go on your way, since that would equally remove the risk of harm to others."

Another conception is that of restorative justice: that if a person deliberately causes harm or suffering to another person, then the perpetrator should be held responsible for doing something positive and beneficial to make up for the harm or suffering caused. To me, this is a much more moral take on the idea of retributive justice, and I think it is moral in itself: it is based around creating positive experiences rather than negative ones. Depending on how effectively it is implemented, it may in some cases be an effective replacement for deterrent justice. For example, according to a documentary I watched a while back, a process involving the perpetrator being put into a formal but intimate situation in which the victim expresses to the perpetrator the impact the perpetrator's crime has had on him/her is often effective in "getting through" to the perpetrator and deterring him/her from committing the same act again, and may even inspire him/her to commit to being a force for good in the community.

In summary: a pain/pleasure grounding for morality legitimately leaves out some conceptions of justice, but is compatible - to a greater or lesser extent - with others.

In any case, that's probably a very incomplete list - please feel free to add to it - and hopefully there are even more conceptions of justice which are even more moral, but it's at least a start.

[Laird]

[Responding in a single reply to your two replies.]

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.

OK, but I don't think that morality is relative to an individual's perspective - there is ultimately an objective answer to the question as to whether or not an act is moral. So, either "the powers that be" are behaving morally (although how this could be the case is always left unspecified; an act of faith) or we humans are right to deem their (presumed) system immoral (an assessment for which there is ample evidence).

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.

Again, as covered in another thread, that the human self is the soul is true simply by definition; I can make no sense of your idea that the self and the soul are two separate conscious beings.

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.

I don't see a necessity to take that on faith. An alternative possibility is that we are being exploited by more powerful entities. Potentially, in that case, there are ways to "buck the system".

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.

Right, right, and I agree. I was over-simplifying with that phrase; a more accurate phrase would have been "enhance the soul's capacity for causing positive conscious experiences", which includes the possibility that some (many) of the positive experiences it causes are experienced not by the soul itself but by those whom it affects.

In any case, my point remains: it is not the learning that is the ultimate good, but the positive experiences that the learning facilitates.

OK, but I don't think that morality is relative to an individual's perspective - there is ultimately an objective answer to the question as to whether or not an act is moral. So, either "the powers that be" are behaving morally (although how this could be the case is always left unspecified; an act of faith) or we humans are right to deem their (presumed) system immoral (an assessment for which there is ample evidence).

If, as we conjecture, the moral ground of reality has been established by these very powers that be, then there is no way their choice of the present world reality scheme involving Earth as a school could be anything but moral in an ultimate sense - regardless of how much innocent suffering is involved. It would just not be moral as humans consider that term. 

Again, as covered in another thread, that the human self is the soul is true simply by definition; I can make no sense of your idea that the self and the soul are two separate conscious beings.

That may be the case based on dictionary entries. However, there are various evidences to the contrary of varied quality that there appear to be vast differences between the two. For instance, the consciousness of the soul evidently continues while at the same time the person is in body and the human self is in control of this physical body, at least as found in many accounts from psychic channelers and mediums. This soul self can apparently be communicated with while the person is conscious and present for the reading. And this soul self according to the communications has at its instant command a conscious awareness and memory of all its previous incarnations, and it possesses a wisdom and knowledge incomprehensible to the human "self". And the soul, since it encompasses all its previous incarnations, would have to have a very different personality than its present human self. And the soul apparently can "nudge" its human self in various beneficial directions via intuitions, signs, etc.

In any case, my point remains: it is not the learning that is the ultimate good, but the positive experiences that the learning facilitates.

I think the ultimate good is simply the carrying out of acts of selfless kindness, compassion and love for another. It's the action, not the receiving of it. For instance, giving a homeless person a couple of 20 dollar bills. This homeless person might use the money to buy some whiskey and enjoy it (a positive experience but not a moral good). Or the homeless person might just lose the money or have it stolen from them. Especially in the latter case there is no positive experience on the part of the recipient of the giving, but I think there is still moral good in the action of giving. 

[Note: I'm not claiming to be an expert or well-studied in this area; these are simply the thoughts of an interested layman. But that applies to most of my posts to this forum.]

Justice seems to be an abstract and broad concept, with different conceptions of what it means in practice.

One conception is that of retributive justice: that if a person deliberately causes harm or suffering to another person, then the perpetrator should be caused an equal or greater amount of harm or suffering in turn, as some sort of "balancing of the scales". I agree, though, with nbtruthman, that this sort of justice is not moral (i.e., a pain/pleasure grounding is justified in leaving it out). As for why, it can't be put any simpler and more clearly than that old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right". I think this adage applies whether it's an individual or the State committing the second wrong.

But why is the retributive justice *wrong*? I might agree with, say, physical harm being enacted in kind but what about simply denying someone freedom? Even if the person realizes they were wrong before their sentencing does that mean we should not give out jail time?

It just seems to me that there is something "meta" here, something more than consideration of pleasure/pain.

Admittedly after a point morality is a collection of feelings, but then so are those mathematical proofs one regards as true.

[Laird]

If, as we conjecture, the moral ground of reality has been established by these very powers that be, then there is no way their choice of the present world reality scheme involving Earth as a school could be anything but moral in an ultimate sense - regardless of how much innocent suffering is involved. It would just not be moral as humans consider that term.

[Edited to better reflect that your sentence is conjectural.]

So, what it would come down to on that conjecture then is that there is no (ultimate) objective grounding for morality: morality would be (ultimately) grounded in "whatever those guys up there say it is".

Right?

[T]here appear to be vast differences between [the human self and the soul]. For instance, the consciousness of the soul evidently continues while at the same time the person is in body and the human self is in control of this physical body, at least as found in many accounts from psychic channelers and mediums.

In that case, for you to say that a soul is "yours" is like saying that your husband or wife is "yours" - it merely indicates a relationship between two conscious beings, rather than one of selfhood. On the other hand, when I say that a soul is "yours" I mean that it is the core of your self. So, you are working with a different definition, and, apparently, by my definition, you do not believe that humans have a soul.

Right?

I think the ultimate good is simply the carrying out of acts of selfless kindness, compassion and love for another. It's the action, not the receiving of it. For instance, giving a homeless person a couple of 20 dollar bills. This homeless person might use the money to buy some whiskey and enjoy it (a positive experience but not a moral good). Or the homeless person might just stumble on a 20 dollar bill lying in the street (unlikely but possible) and buy some food with it. That would be a positive experience, but a moral good? I don't think so.

I think you're onto something here which needs a little clarification, so here goes in my own words:

I think we need to distinguish between (morally) good choices/acts and good outcomes (in a morally relevant sense). Here's my view on this distinction: positive experiences are always good outcomes in a morally relevant sense, even if they are not the result of morally good choices or acts (i.e., even if they are accidents like stumbling on a 20 dollar bill). Morally good choices or acts are those which are intended to cause good outcomes in a morally relevant sense (i.e., positive experiences) and can reasonably be expected to do so (even if they accidentally and unintentionally don't, such as when money given generously is used to buy whiskey).

So, when we talk about "the ultimate good", we can talk about ultimately good choices/acts, or ultimately good outcomes... or we can talk about both, in which case, we could suggest that, unqualified, "the ultimate good" is when an ultimately good choice or act leads to an ultimately good outcome. That is to say that it is ultimately "better" when the act of generosity of giving away money leads to the outcome of hunger satiation rather than inebriation.

Yes?

[Laird]

But why is the retributive justice *wrong*?

Because it is predicated on causing harm and suffering that isn't for the purpose of generating future positive experiences (other, perhaps, than the satisfaction of the feelings of vengeance of those who were originally wronged, which are anyway, I contend, "morally challenged" feelings, again because they are based on the seeking of harm rather than of well-being).

what about simply denying someone freedom? Even if the person realizes they were wrong before their sentencing does that mean we should not give out jail time?

We could on the basis of (what I've referred to as) deterrent or (post factum) preventative justice, but not on the basis of retributive justice.

It just seems to me that there is something "meta" here, something more than consideration of pleasure/pain.

Probably it's based on (or at least related to) the sense of "fairness" which seems to pervade life on this planet; that sense of "reasonable give and take".

I agree that this (fairness) is an additional consideration for morality over and above pleasure/pain in and of themselves: equally as important is how the pleasure and pain are distributed. One of the problems I have with utilitarian approaches to morality is that on a naive utilitarian approach, it can work out (supposedly) better (by the "sum up total pleasure and subtract total pain" calculus) for one person to suffer unimaginable pain with the rest of the world experiencing a significantly greater degree of pleasure than for all of the world to be experiencing only a moderate degree of pleasure. Plainly, though, the first situation is unfair.

[Laird]

Thanks, Sci, for helping me to clarify my basic objection to (at least naive) utilitarianism: it lacks a consideration of fairness in the distribution of pleasure and pain.

[Laird]

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.

I'm curious to know what you mean by this in a little more detail, Typoz.

Are you alluding, for instance, to the idea that we can either see the glass as half-empty or half-full, both of which are valid perspectives on a genuinely objective reality (a glass containing water up to the halfway mark)?

Or are you suggesting something more radical: that we can either see the glass as totally empty or totally full, both of which are valid subjective realities in a non-objective reality which simply conforms itself to our perceptions?

I'm curious to know what you mean by this in a little more detail, Typoz.

Are you alluding, for instance, to the idea that we can either see the glass as half-empty or half-full, both of which are valid perspectives on a genuinely objective reality (a glass containing water up to the halfway mark)?

Or are you suggesting something more radical: that we can either see the glass as totally empty or totally full, both of which are valid subjective realities in a non-objective reality which simply conforms itself to our perceptions?

Something more along the lines of we can see the glass as nearby or far away, or surrounded by other objects or in a clear space. That's an oversimplification of course, since I don't consider that there is only one glass, but I hope that gives some idea.

Maybe it's a bit like the person who asks for directions to somewhere, and is given a slightly quirky reply, "Well, the best way would not be to start from here". As I see it, we are all starting from different places and bringing different belongings along with us. That means the journey will be somewhat different for each person.

The idea of there being more than one glass may be important, in that our goal or chosen destination may be different for each person too.