Maximizing Freedom is the Goal of Morality

Like many people in Taiwan, I'm sympathetic to the idea of individual freedom as a goal for society.But I wonder if you aren't off to a bad start here. You don't say individual freedom should be a goal of society. You say it should be a goal of morality.But on what basis can you declare what morality itself 'should' do? The word implies that you are already using a system of moral belief as your frame of reference.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I saw after I posted, NJ, that you raised the same question.The excerpt shared by molbiogirl stands on firmer ground. Quite aside from the fact that the observation is plausible and thought-provoking, it reads like a genuine observation. The observer is interested in how morality works. The observer doesn't sabotage the effort by going off on how morality 'ought' to work.That would have made a strong OP. I'd be interested in any further reading she wants to recommend.
___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Thanks for posting all this, molbiogirl. Fascinating research on the psychopaths!I suspect that asking 'What is the goal of morality?' is like asking 'What is the goal of right handedness?'That makes asking 'What should be the goal of morality?' like asking 'What should be the goal of right handedness?'Interesting to be reading all this after a recent visit to the zoo. Our ape kindred are indeed alive and well... and forming cliques and having arguments and showing off and shaming each other and getting cuddly. So many things about us follow from the reality, accepted eons ago, that our chances of survival improve with social cooperation.____

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

OK. In that case the goal for both, ultimately, would be survival.The retina aids in survival because it does this or that thing that confers an advantage.Morality aids in survival because it confers what advantage? It appears we've addressed it. Morality enables group cooperation.If we're agreed on that much, we still have the question posed in the OP. We are asked what an evolutionary adaptation 'should' do.Most people would say, I think, that retinas 'should' do the things retinas have been doing--that is, function in ways that confer an advantage. If a particular retina does not do this we speak of its impairment. We say something is wrong with the retina.Morality, then, 'should' enable group cooperation for the purpose of survival. If it does not do this, we have impaired functioning. Something is wrong with the morality.Is that fair to say? Thoughts?____Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Not much freedom in this picture at all. To begin with, your own choices are ridiculously restricted in this hypothetical scenario. Even at that, you say you would choose to sentence the maximum possible number of innocent people to death without any of them having a say in the matter. That's not freedom for anybody. Yourself, maybe. A little. It's holocaust for everyone else.I'm interested in hearing you explain why you find it morally preferable to kill that same ten-year-old girl, along with a few billion other people.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

No need for the plural. One person posed the question and the same person answered it--in the same post. If you dislike such questions, and answers, please address your complaint to the appropriate individual.I am interested (as I see others are) in learning why the individual's choice would be as described. The information was volunteered--quite out of the blue, I assure you--for discussion. Yet the rationale given to support it was vague.My motive is curiosity. Why the odd answer? Why, for that matter, the odd question?True, the scenario hardly amounts to a real-life situation. But neither does anything on Star Trek. Whence comes the necessity of posing and deciding such--what did you call them--"bullshit questions"?___Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.