Moral Values

Full Title

Moral Values are a high level set of metrics which can be used to evaluate results

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/12/30/the-invention-of-good-and-evil-hanno-sauer-book-review

• Perplexity.ai estimates that Friedman wrote “thousands of pages” of peer-reviewed text in his career, which is beyond impressive. Exactly how many of these pages were on corporate social responsibility? Zero.

Context

Ethics, morals and Social Responsibility all seem to be about what individuals do in relationship to other individuals.

Civic(qv): is the government imposed and protected space in which we live. It imposes duties as well as rights.

Ethics: These are rules or principles that govern conduct within a specific context, such as a profession or society. Ethics are often codified into formal systems or codes of conduct, like medical ethics or business ethics. They are external standards that are imposed by institutions, organizations, or society.

Morals: These are personal beliefs about right and wrong, which are shaped by individual experiences, culture, religion, and upbringing. Morals are internal and subjective, reflecting one's personal values and principles.

Social Responsibility: This refers to the obligation of individuals, organizations, and businesses to act in ways that benefit society as a whole. It involves making decisions and taking actions that contribute to the well-being of the community, environment, and society at large. Examples include corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, environmental sustainability efforts, and community engagement programs.

The problem with with different types of individuals.

1. Natural persons
2. Legal persons (technically this includes natural persons as well as state-chartered organizations)
3. Pro Bono Organizations (also known in the US as a public benefit corporation)
4. For Profit Organizations
5. Artificial Intelligence as agents for any of the above. (must include a delegation of authority)
6. Artificial Intelligence operating as individuals (where some sort of enduring identification exists)
7. Robots with Artificial Intelligence within themselves (ie where the Robot is not run remotely)

The challenges in any society in the future will be to determine which of these owes some responsibility for the proper functioning of society, and which will gain some rights granted by society, such as: freedom speech and right to own property.

Foundations

• Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated. For Kant it would be the Moral Imperative. See the wiki on Agent for more details.
• Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.
• Religion is considered by some to the basis for Moral Values. In some case one particular religion although Edmund Burke was willing to allow each country to select the religion as the basis for morals in that country.
• Human Evolution is considered by Kurt Gray to be the source of all the thoughts and feelings that drive use to create our Moral Values.

Random Comments

• See wiki Monetization of Networks for the antithesis of Moral Values.

Morality is just Social

A dialectical discussion

1. Wittgenstein vs. Kant — Head‑On

What morality *is*

1. 1. 1. **Kant**

Morality is a **system of rational obligations** grounded in reason itself.

• Moral laws are **universal**, **necessary**, and **binding on any rational agent as such**.
• Morality does *not* depend on culture, history, or social practices.
• The core question is:

   **“What must any rational will will?”**

Morality is **prior to society**. Society may help us *apply* morality, but it does not *constitute* it.

1. 1. 1. **Wittgenstein (later)**

Morality is **not a theory or system at all**.

• Moral language is part of **human practices**—embedded in forms of life.
• Words like *good*, *right*, *obligation*, *responsibility* get their sense from **how they are used**, not from abstract rational structure.
• There is no “moral law” standing behind practice.

The core question dissolves into:

• • “How do these words function in our lives?”**

Morality is **inseparable from social life**.

The role of reason

1. 1. 1. **Kant**

Reason is **legislative**.

• Pure practical reason **creates** moral law.
• Moral obligation is discoverable a priori.
• Feelings, traditions, and social norms are morally irrelevant unless ratified by reason.

If you are rational, you are already under moral law—even alone.

1. 1. 1. **Wittgenstein**

Reason is **descriptive and clarificatory**, not legislative.

• Reason does not generate norms from scratch.
• Norms arise from **rule‑governed practices**, which reason can describe but not ground.
• Asking reason to justify morality misunderstands how normativity works.

Reason can *explain* moral grammar, not *found* it.

Universality

1. 1. 1. **Kant**

Universality is **essential**.

• A maxim is moral **iff** it can be universalized without contradiction.
• Moral disagreement is, in principle, **error**.
• There is one correct moral law for all rational beings.

Universality comes **before** practice.

1. 1. 1. **Wittgenstein**

Universality is **local and practical**, not absolute.

• Moral agreement arises from shared forms of life.
• Where practices diverge deeply, moral disagreement may be **intractable**, not resolvable by reason.
• There is no external standpoint from which to declare one moral grammar “the” correct one.

Universality comes **from** shared life, not above it.

Intention and inner states

1. 1. 1. **Kant**

Intention is central.

• Moral worth depends on **the maxim of the will**.
• An action done “from duty” has moral value regardless of outcome.
• Inner rational commitment matters more than observable practice.

Morality is fundamentally **inner**.

1. 1. 1. **Wittgenstein**

Inner states cannot ground normativity.

• Private intention cannot fix meaning or correctness.
• Moral concepts require **public criteria** for application.
• Where “whatever seems right is right,” normativity collapses.

Morality is **publicly lived**, not privately legislated.

(This parallels his private‑language argument.)

Moral disagreement

1. 1. 1. **Kant**

Moral disagreement indicates:

• ignorance,
• irrationality,
• or failure of will.

In principle, disagreement can be resolved by correct reasoning.

1. 1. 1. **Wittgenstein**

Some moral disagreements are **not resolvable**.

• They reflect different forms of life, not errors.
• At a certain point, justification ends and one says:

   **“This is how we live.”**

This is not relativism; it’s **anti‑foundationalism**.

1. 1. 6. Can morality exist without society?

1. 1. 1. **Kant**

✅ **Yes, in principle.**

A solitary rational agent

• can recognize duties,
• can legislate moral law,
• can be morally bound.

Morality does not require belonging.

1. 1. 1. **Wittgenstein**

❌ **No, not in the full sense.**

Without:

• shared practices,
• mutual recognition,
• public criteria,

there is no morality—only preferences or resolutions.

Morality requires **a society one is answerable to**.

What each thinks the *other* is getting wrong

1. 1. 1. Wittgenstein’s diagnosis of Kant

> Kant is bewitched by the picture that normativity must rest on something *pure*, *inner*, and *ahistorical*.

Wittgenstein would say Kant mistakes:

• grammatical features of moral language
• for metaphysical structures of reason.

1. 1. 1. Kant’s diagnosis of Wittgenstein

> Wittgenstein confuses the *conditions of moral communication* with the *conditions of moral validity*.

Kant would say Wittgenstein reduces morality to sociology and cannot explain moral criticism of existing practices.

The irreducible fault line

| Question | Kant | Wittgenstein | | --------------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------- | | What grounds morality? | Reason | Practice | | Is morality universal? | Yes, absolutely | Only within forms of life | | Can morality exist alone? | Yes | No | | Is ethics theoretical? | Yes | No | | Is disagreement resolvable? | In principle | Sometimes not |

The deepest difference (one sentence each)

• **Kant:** *Morality is what reason demands, regardless of how humans live.*
• **Wittgenstein:** *Morality is how humans live, not something standing behind it.*

Why this matters now

This contrast directly bears on:

• **AI ethics** (rule‑based vs. practice‑embedded morality)
• **legal systems** (formal principles vs. lived norms)
• **post‑liberal politics** (universal reason vs. communal traditions)
• **questions about society and morality**

where **Hegel** tries to mediate Kant and Wittgenstein

Hegel sees two genuine insights that cannot stand alone: From Kant

Morality must be rational, not mere custom. Moral norms must be universal and binding, not local preferences. Freedom = self‑legislation by reason.

From what Wittgenstein will later emphasize

Norms are lived, not deduced. Meaning and obligation require social practices. Abstract rules without concrete use are empty.

Hegel’s project is to show that:

Rational universality and social embeddedness are not rivals but moments of one structure.

Hegel is the most powerful attempt to save Kantian universality without abandoning social life. He succeeds in showing that morality must be institutional and lived. He fails by turning those institutions into a metaphysical system whose rationality outruns actual practice. Wittgenstein accepts Hegel’s diagnosis of Kant but rejects Hegel’s cure.