Morality Part 4: Pain and pleasure

MAKING MORAL CHOICES

Humans, as rational creatures of action with free will, can both choose what to do and analyze what they are doing.

Morality, as defined earlier, is the assigning of values to our actions. A value of good is assigned to some actions, meaning that these actions are those that we should perform, and a value of bad is assigned to some other actions, meaning that these actions are those that we should not perform. We say that performing good actions is the right thing to do, and that performing bad actions is the wrong thing to do. But how can we tell the difference?

There is a number of possibilities for any given action. It can be good, it can be bad, or it can be indifferent. Since humans are animals, one thing we can say with certainty is that, like the dog in the parable of the pup, while the explanation for the difference between right and wrong may elude us, we are, as literal animals, aware of the difference between pain and pleasure. We can, at an elemental level, equate good with pleasure, bad with pain, and indifferent with neither. This is a good starting point for our analysis.

Moral is equated with pleasure
Immoral is equated with pain
Amoral is equated with indifference

Problem: If we look at actions only insofar as they relate to a single individual, we may not ever be in a realm of even remotely objective morality, at least if our test is going to be pleasure and pain. An individual in a box, able to perform either pleasurable or painful actions, could perform the former and forego the latter without ever venturing into what we would seriously consider as the moral sphere. If our test is going to be pleasure and pain we should look to a number of individuals, where the model is easier to analyze, and see how an action affects not just the performer but how it affects other individuals as well.

Morality measured by pleasure and pain, therefore, is morality analyzed across the members of a group, and not a single individual. Since humans are social animals, this method of analysis appears to be relevant. With luck, our study will also provide a measure for the morality of hermits. We shall see.

So we are dealing with how the actions of one individual affect not only that individual but also other individuals. All the individuals who are a party to the action on either end need to be considered. Taking either the actor or the acted-upon out of the equation makes it a partial equation of no value. We need to analyze how everyone is affected by the action.

Moral is equated with pleasure
Immoral is equated with pain
Amoral is equated with indifference

Question: Is it the action itself that is equated with pleasure or pain, or the result of the action? A painful action can lead to pleasurable results, and vice versa.

Answer: It cannot simply be the action itself that we must test. It must be the total sum of the pleasure and/or pain of both the action and its consequences. An action and its consequences, in this measurement, cannot be separated from one another, or more to the point, although they may be evaluated separately, it is the sum of the two that is the whole test of pleasure/pain.

Since humans are animals with comparable biology, it seems reasonable to assume that they have similar concepts of pain and pleasure. Perhaps a single individual might have switched circuits, but groups of individuals tend to agree. This does force us to consult the culture, unfortunately, but let us make the assumption that reasonable people will choose similarly: that test of a “reasonable person” is a traditional one in some legal circles, and it should be good enough for us.

So, we will test an action in its entirety on the group involved according to a generally accepted schema of pain/pleasure, to determine the morality of an action. If it causes a net increase in pleasure for the group, we will deem it a moral action. If it causes a net increase in pain for the group, we will call it an immoral action. And if it causes no effect, it is amoral.