Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality

I was having a discussion in the Coffee House when anastasia and I started discussing a topic I think deserves it's own thread. We stopped talking about whether or not bestiality is okay, and started discussing whether or not personal freedom was "the greatest goal" of morality.I propose that morality is nothing more than a code of conduct for interaction between humans. And therefore, it's goal should be to protect as much freedom for all individuals as possible.From: Message 164I agree that complete freedom is not possible. But it does not follow that freedom cannot be the greatest goal of morality. Maximizing freedom is the greatest goal of morality. Since everyone's desires are subjective, the most rational choice is to treat them with equal value. Therefore:Everyone should be treated equally with respect to their freedom to pursue happiness.
Basically, "let's play fair".If a man chooses to rape a woman, and I choose to stop that man. I agree that I am restricting that man's freedom. However, I am still keeping "maximizing freedom" at the top of my priority list because I am stopping the man from restricting the woman's freedom. There is no regression, and no circle. There is a box, however, and that box is agreeing to maximize freedoms and to respect people's different desire's equally.That is, the only time someone's freedom should be restricted, is if that person is already engaged in actions that are restricting other people's freedom's. Regardless of anyone's personal desires on the subject.Example 1:
I personally hate rape.
A man raping a woman has decided to restrict that woman's freedom.
The man is forcing the woman to have sex.
Therefore it is okay to stop that man and restrict his freedom to rape the woman.Example 2:
I personally hate racing stripes.
A man painting racing stripes down his car does not restrict anyone's freedom.
Therefore it is wrong to stop that man and restrict his freedom to paint racing stripes down his car.
Even though racing stripes are weird and funny-looking.I haven't proposed a new topic in a while, tips or corrections are welcome.I think this should go into Social Issues and Creation/Evolution forum? Although it doesn't really touch on Creation/Evolution... maybe Coffee House? Or maybe I even jumped the gun and missed a topic where this is already covered.

Yes, I was worried about exactly this when I was putting the OP together. The gist is grounded... somewhere... I may have simply grounded it in the wrong place. However, I'm not fully convinced. I'll have a better post to reply to you and Archer Opterix in a while, things just got busy at work Hopefully I can re-word whatever I'm trying to say. Maybe I just mean exactly what you and Archer are saying, but I'm not even sure I'm clear on what I want to say yet. Which is why I'm going to enjoy this thread, it's going to be impossible for me to not learn something

Ah, yes. I agree. I'm not saying "freedom is where we get our ability for morality from." I'm saying that the goal of morality should be to protect as much personal freedom for every individual as possible.That is, I don't really care where morality comes from (for this discussion). Wherever we got the ability, it's still what we use to govern our interactions with other people. This I'm taking as fact, and can be discussed if there's a problem with that inference.From here, morality doesn't even need a seperate goal. Morality can just sit there and be "how we interact" with others.We can, however, put our own goals on it:
-always treat others as better than ourselves
-always treat others as worse than ourselves
-always treat tall people with respect, and shun short people
-be nice when I feel like it, and hate others as I see fitAll I'm saying is that morality's goal should be, in my personal view:"To protect as much individual freedom as possible". And this simply stems from a basic rational idea that we cannot know if any single person's thoughts are "better" or "worse" than anothers, so we are forced to treat them all fairly... equally. I'm also saying that I can't find a "better" goal. Better being... a goal that reduces pain-caused (physically or mentally) to other people as much as possible. ...I wouldn't be able to argue with this one way or another. But, we can objectively state that someone raping another is restricting that person's freedom. Therefore, if I consider people's freedom to be "the goal of morality", than I would want to stop rape from happening to protect the freedom of whoever's being forced into sex against their will.I admit I'm talking about something I haven't given a great deal of thought to before. So if I've completey missed your point, please help indicate to me where I should be focusing my attention.

Yes. I agree that I'm saying "I find being fair and equal is the most important ideal". Where someone could just as easily say "I find being selfish to be the most important ideal".I simply want to point out, that if one finds being fair and equal to be "the most important", then they'll agree with what I've said that we should respect everyone's right to pursue life and happiness equally. (If you don't think this follows, then I'm very interested in what my flaw is).I also want to point out that not agreeing with "freedom being the goal of morality" means you have another higher goal.. perhaps personal selfishness... perhaps "John Doe's" personal happiness...I agree there's no underlying list saying fairness is better than selfishness (or anything else), but there is still a difference, and we should admit to that difference if we're going to assume one over the other.I'm not too sure on this point, but would like to see where it goes... I'd like to say that "treating others fair" is rational while "being selfish" would be irrational. Again, not saying one is "better", just that one's classified under "rational" and the other is not. Based on this reasoning: since we don't know if any single person is better or worse than another... shouldn't the default be that we're all equal? I'm not sure if that's rational or not. I think it is, but I could be missing something.

I was a bit rushed putting together that OP. I hope I've been able to clarify in Message 21, where I replied to nemesis_juggernaut.

I'm not sure if we can say this. I think we can say "we choose this to be our 'perfection' that we're aiming our morality for." But I don't think we can simply say that morality is about, well.. anything imparticular. This is what I mean by my above paragraph. I will have a purpose for morality, you will have another, someone else will have a third...I do not, however, think this restricts us from finding the "most fair" or "most selfish" or "most personally responsible" one. My point is simply that if we adhere to one, we should remain consistant and admit when we fall away. I would simply say that "morality is our constuct on how to interact with each other."The "in such a way to avoid unsettling other people" and "to work with in agreed boundries" would be a nicer morality (in my view), but I still think morality in itself is simpler.

Yes, I agree. I was rushed for time and sometimes I can't get my highschool english teacher's voice out of my head "don't be weak in an essay! State your side as if it's the law!!" I sometime's fall back into that mode when trying to put something together quickly. I meant that as "my opinion" more than "the only possible choice".I think (hope?) that Message 21 clarifies this a great deal. Yes, I agree with what you say here. But if we decide that "the things that are good for humans" is equality and fairness... you end up with where I'm coming from.If you decide something else, than you'll disagree. I'm not saying there's anything fundamentally wrong with it. You just can't say "I think people should always be treated fairly" and then say "I think no one should be allowed to put racing stripes on their car" and not expect anyone to pick up on the inconsistancy. Simply note that you put your own selfish desires above being fair to everyone, and the inconsistancy disappears. "Freedom" isn't the qualifier. "Equality" or "being fair" is the qualifier. If we're stressing being equal and fair, then we certainly do have the right to pursue any old kind of happiness unless it starts restricting someone elses freedoms (since that's the "fair" part). Of course, if we're stressing someone's personal preferences over anothers... then it's obvious that only certain kinds of happiness are going to be allowed. I'm not saying this is any less valid, only less fair. The "validity" of being fair or selfish I leave up to each individual.I think I have a case for saying "being fair" is rational and "being selfish" is not. But I'm not sure about that one. It's up in Message 21 as well.

Yes, the too are similar, but not the same.The point of 'Why Is It Right To Do Good To Others' was to identify that it's possible to define "Good" and lay a basic foundation for morality without the use of God or any supernatural being.The point of this thread is to identify that different people have different goals for morality, what those different goals are, and hopefully identify that some goals are more based in rationallity than others.I don't remember stating a goal for morality in the other thread, I only remember stating what "good" was, and using that to explain why we should treat others equally.Both threads are very closely linked to the statement:All people should be treated equally with respect to their pusuit for life and happiness.The last thread was about how I came to this conclusion without God.This thread is about how this conclusion (if you agree with it) means we should stop those who want to rape, but not those who want to put racing stripes on their cars.

Must be done? Why? I'm not saying I'd choose for or against it, I can't really fathom being in the position of such a choice. But still, why must it be done? Are you saying it's impossible for anyone to place anything above the human civilization? Depends on how you define moral I define "moral" to be based on the reaction of the person acted upon. I can't think of a scenario where "the human race" would actually want to go extinct, but... that doesn't make such a seemingly-strange thing impossible. I'm not sure I would place "survival of the human species" above freedom. I suppose I'm thankful I don't, and likely won't ever, need to make such a decision.It certainly would give it a run for the money though... is existing most important? Is existing enough if it isn't free?Just questions, I don't really have a side, or an arguement for this line of thought.

I'm still not wording my thoughts correctly. I agree. And that's not what I'm trying to say.Morality: how we interact with our fellow humans.I agree that feedom is not an aspect, or an extension of that.But, what I'm trying to say is that we can personally take this aspect of our lives, and put a purpose to it. Or a "goal". That is, when I interact with other people, I can choose to try and be as nice as possible. I can try to be as evil as possible. I can try to be as fair as possible. I don't have to try to be anything. And I certainly can try to be many things at once.But I can also choose to focus my interactions with other people in a single direction. Which is what I'm talking about, I can choose to try to protect as many individual's freedom's as possible.I wonder if I'm even talking about morality? Maybe that's the confusion. Maybe this is more... social interaction? Although, that's pretty much what I think morality is... how we govern our interactions with others. Depends on how you see the two. What's the difference, according to you?

Yes, I like to strive for "perfection". But, when we don't know who's view is worth more... what is "perfection"?Is a world with no pain perfection? Or simply one that minimizes it?
If "no pain" is perfection... does that mean 'defeat' and therefore any sense of challenge is not a part of perfection?
If we're looking for a minimization, how much is enough?I would love to aim for perfection, if I knew what it was. Yes, I agree. Although I still search for a nice simple solution I just find it easier to argue one thought at a time. Agreeing? I doubt it. That's not what I'm here for, though. I'm here to learn. These threads force me to verbalize my thoughts, which only adds structure and clarity. Of course, I'm always open to having a flaw brought to my attention... that's where the greatest learning can be accomplished.

As molbiogirl is pointing out, maybe I'm not talking about morality at all, but more "social interaction".That is, I probably should have said something like:I think the purpose of our social interactions should be to maximize the most amount of freedom for every individual.That is, if we want to follow the ideal of:Every person should be treated equally with respect to their pursuit for life and happiness.

I agree, and it's a good thing that's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying our morals derive from anything.I'm saying that a certain moral derives from a certain assumption.Assumption: Being fair and equal is "the most important" ideal
Proves: We should respect everyone's right to pursue life and happiness equally.It's not circular, it's simply based on the assumption.Assumption: Being selfish is "the most important" ideal
Proves: I should be able to do what I want.That's all I'm saying, it's up to the individual which one's "better" or "worse", we should only be honest with which one we've chosen, that's all.I'm definitely not saying that "being fair and equal" is proven to be better than "being selfish". A great example.I want to have sex with whoever I want.
Some one doesn't want to be raped.
Therefore, if I treat all freedom's equally, we can both have our desires.The problem begins when we act on those desires.Someone not wanting to be raped... the action doesn't affect anyone elses freedoms. Therefore, it's fine.I want to have sex with anyone... the action affects anyone elses freedom who I try to have sex with. Therefore, I should only be allowed to have sex with anyone who agrees to have sex with me.Freedom is the qualifier, and tells us exactly where we can no longer manifest our desires. Specifically... when they restrict the freedom of others.Of course, all this depends on us accepting that fairness and equality is the most important ideal. It's also the only basis available, since we have no basis to say "this guy should be given priority over that guy". Being "righteous" doesn't enter into it.It springs from intelligence and the ability to reason. Don't know, ask molbiogirl, she seems to be very informed on the genetic evolution of man.Personally, if I knew any of this intrinsically, I'd hardly have to be here asking all these questions. Or at least wouldn't have had to re-word my opening post so many times

I suppose that would depend upon the interference now, wouldn't it?But yes, even under your definitions, I'm talking about freedom (exemption from external control) rather than free-will.As for your definition of morality, yes, that is the most general definition. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm more talking about "the system of the rules", without mention to conformity to them, or whether or not they are "right".Try those definitions, and re-read what I've said. I'm really not talking about genetics in any way.

Probably not. But that wasn't my point. I was saying that perhaps someone would. That is, sure, maybe survival is above freedom as far as you and I are concerned. That's my point, that such goals or purposes are chosen by the individual. Yes, I know what you're saying. What I'm saying is that someone might think they don't "hafta" do it. It's possible that someone may rather die than be enslaved. Because, if I could think of a scenario, then it would be moral to exterminate the species... in that scenario. Agreed. And if existance is guaranteed slavery, I'm not so sure that everyone would agree that living is better than non-existance.My point is that our goals are chosen, and if we choose certain goals, we should remain consistant with them.If you want me to agree that "surviving" is above "freedom" for me personally, then I agree. I had not thought about actually surviving, and had assumed that I wasn't going to get into a situation where I had to make the choice (which is most likely in our current society).But if you want me to agree that everyone puts "surviving" above "freedom", well, I won't agree to that. I wouldn't even agree that everyone puts 'anything specific' at the top. People are different, and I have yet to find anything that all people agree on.